BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

1 THE INTERNET IS A FREE DOMAIN AND CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Given that the Internet is used as an international[1] and public space[2], the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country " how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a "nanny state"[3], demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites. [1] Babel, "Towards communicating on the Internet in any language", http://alis.isoc.org... [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, "The virtual sphere", New Media & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002, http://nms.sagepub.com... on 09/09/11 [3] BBC. "A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state". Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from http://www.bbc.co.uk... on 09/09/11. 2 .PEOPLE OFTEN REACT POORLY TO BEING CENSORED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT. In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government"s constant censorship has led to public outrage[1], and political satire which heavily criticises the government[2]. Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices. [1] Bennett, Isabella, "Media Censorship in China", Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011, http://www.cfr.org... on 09/09/11 [2] Bennett, Isabella, "Media Censorship in China", Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011, http://www.cfr.org... on 09/09/11. 3 CENSORSHIP IS FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NOTION OF FREE SPEECH. Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it.It is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.
Planned Parenthood

Of course, my choice of song. I choose... America, by Simon and Garfunkel Let us be lovers, We'll marry our fortunes together. I've got some real estate Here in my bag. So we bought a pack of cigarettes, And Mrs. Wagner's pies, And walked off To look for America. "Kathy", I said, As we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh, Michigan seems like a dream to me now. It took me four days To hitch-hike from Saginaw. "I've come to look for America." Laughing on the bus, Playing games with the faces, She said the man in the gabardine suit Was a spy. I said, "Be careful, His bow tie is really a camera." "Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat." We smoked the last one An hour ago. So I looked at the scenery, She read her magazine; And the moon rose over an open field. "Kathy, I'm lost", I said, Though I know she was sleeping. "I'm empty and aching and I don't know why." Counting the cars On the New Jersey Turnpike The've all come To look for America, All come to look for America, All come to look for America.
Planned Parenthood

Unfortunately once again they forfeited, but do not worry, I will still use a song for this round. My choice is... Rooster, by Alice in Chains Ain't found a way to kill me yet Eyes burn with stinging sweat Seems every path leads me to nowhere Wife and kids household pet Army green was no safe bet The bullets scream to me from somewhere Here they come to snuff the rooster Yeah here come the rooster, yeah Yeah here come the rooster, yeah You know he ain't gonna die No, no, no, ya know he ain't gonna die Walkin' tall machine gun man They spit on me in my home land Gloria sent me pictures of my boy Got my pills 'gainst mosquito death My buddy's breathin' his dyin' breath Oh god please won't you help me make it through Here they come to snuff the rooster Yeah here come the rooster, yeah You know he ain't gonna die No, no, no ya know he ain't gonna die
Planned Parenthood

Well no need for me to provide a new argument since she did not, however I will of course provide my song for this round. I have chosen "London Calling" by the Clash. London calling to the faraway towns Now war is declared and battle come down London calling to the underworld Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls London calling, now don't look to us Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust London calling, see we ain't got no swing 'Cept for the ring of that truncheon thing The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in Meltdown expected, the wheat is growin' thin Engines stop running, but I have no fear 'Cause London is drowning, and I, I live by the river London calling to the imitation zone Forget it, brother, you can go it alone London calling to the zombies of death Quit holding out and draw another breath London calling and I don't want to shout But when we were talking I saw you nodding out London calling, see we ain't got no high Except for that one with the yellowy eye The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in Engines stop running, the wheat is growin' thin A nuclear era, but I have no fear 'Cause London is drowning, and I, I live by the river The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in Engines stop running, the wheat is growin' thin A nuclear era, but I have no fear London is drowning, and I, I live by the river Now get this London calling, yes, I was there, too An' you know what they said? Well, some of it was true! London calling at the top of the dial And after all this, won't you give me a smile? I never felt so much a' like a'like a'like
Planned Parenthood

So first I would like to point out my disappointment, I requested that you post the lyrics to a song at the end of your argument provided you had room, and you clearly had room. Voters, this should give me the conduct point by default. Second I would like to point out I know very little of Planned Parenthood coming in, but I know this. If you are going to make claims like, "the condom of pill is defective, the girl comes right back in to get an abortion." You need a credible source. You posted no sources, so I have no reason to try to refute this. Until you provide a credible source, this means nothing. Alright moving on, lets first know, how much exactly the government funds Planned Parenthood each year. In the span of July 1st 2013-June 30 2014, the government gave Planned Parenthood... 528 million dollars. You know what that is to the government... chump change. Literally defunding of Planned Parenthood would do almost nothing, but Planned Parenthood does do some nice things. I say its chump change because total U.S spending in the year 2016 was, three trillion 900 billion dollars. Does it really seem like they are getting funded that much now? I don't think so. Do not fear I remembered to put a source:https://www.conservativereview.com... Okay moving on, so does Planned Parenthood help people, yes it does. So we all know they provide abortions, to me that is a good thing, but keep in mind that is only 3% of their services. They also: provided 4.5 million tests and treatments for STD's provided 3.6 million contraception related services provided 935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services I don't know this just seems like a good thing to me My source: http://www.factcheck.org... Unlike my opponent I shall have manners and provide a new song for this round: My choice is "God" by the late John Lennon made in 1970. God is a Concept by which we measure our pain I'll say it again God is a Concept by which we measure our pain I don't believe in magic I don't believe in I-ching I don't believe in Bible I don't believe in Tarot I don't believe in Hitler I don't believe in Jesus I don't believe in Kennedy I don't believe in Buddha I don't believe in Mantra I don't believe in Gita I don't believe in Yoga I don't believe in Kings I don't believe in Elvis I don't believe in Zimmerman I don't believe in Beatles I just believe in me, Yoko and me, and that's reality The dream is over What can I say? The dream is over Yesterday I was the dreamweaver But now I'm reborn I was the walrus But now I'm John And so, dear friends, You'll just have to carry on The dream is over
Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is an organization who's main concern is not always the woman. I was reading an article today about a Planned Parenthood facility who called women in for abortion 'procedures' when the woman was not even pregnant. If a pregnancy test came out positive, PP employees are told to say "Do not worry, if you have the money, we can take care of this today. No one has to know." If the pregnancy test comes out negative, the PP employee will say "sometimes these tests cannot detect early pregnancies. We need to run more tests" which means more money. Also, PP is known for buying and selling cheaply made forms of birth control. The condom of pill is defective, the girl comes right back in to get an abortion. Interesting business plan, huh? How do you justify this organization manipulating young girls to earn monetary gain?
Planned Parenthood

I'll debate with you. I prefer that you finish all your rounds with the lyrics to a nice song. I'll pick "Jesus Christ Pose" by Soundgarden for my first round. And you stare at me In your Jesus Christ pose Arms held out Like you've been carrying a load And you swear to me You don't want to be my slave But you're staring at me Like I need to be saved In your Jesus Christ pose Arms held out In your Jesus Christ pose Thorns and shroud Like it's the coming of the Lord And I swear to you That I would never feed you pain But you're staring at me Like I'm driving the nails In your Jesus Christ pose And you stare at me In your Jesus Christ pose Arms held out like it's The coming of the Lord And would it pay you more to walk on water Than to wear a crown of thorns It wouldn't pain me more to bury you rich Than to bury you poor In your Jesus Christ pose
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

Pro's position is based upon faulty reasoning. The suggestion that the unlimited is not limited by logic is a perfectly reasonable one, and there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. This is an argument from ignorance, and quite plainly fallacious. What reason does Pro have to think that the illogical is impossible? No concerns are brought up. The resolution has not been proven true, and I have raised legitimate points that refute my opponent's attempts to do so. Has the unlimited been proven a false idea? No, as there has been no input to suggest that the unlimited is limited by logic. If the floor follows the debate with any attentiveness, they will see that I have proved the resolution false. Please vote accordingly.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

"The only criticism one could make about such an answer would be that it defies logic, but that is the point I am trying to make. " all we have to measure concepts by is logic. if we assume ilogic is possible, then perhaps con's points could make sense. but given we have no basis to accept that illogic is possible, we can't accept con's points. also, con was starting to talk about "God" and this debate has nothing to do with God per se. it's an ancilliary argument.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

Given the lack of arguments on my opponent's part, I will proceed with my own contentions. The unlimited paradox has existed for a very long time, and there has been some development in the ideas associated with it. The omnipotent and the unlimited are identical ideas, and so I'm sure that Stanford's research on omnipotence will be very relevant: http://plato.stanford.edu... There are two types of omnipotent; those bound, and and those unbound logic. It goes without saying that the "unlimited" would be the latter. If that is the case, then I'm afraid that Pro's case is false by definition. My opponent's case rests upon the conclusion that one can prove a god that is unbound by logic, logically impossible. This is plainly absurd. My opponent asks, "Can the unlimited limit them self?" And the answer is yes. The only criticism one could make about such an answer would be that it defies logic, but that is the point I am trying to make. To say that the impossible is impossible is fallacious. To say that the unlimited is limited by truisms is likewise fallacious. There is a shared burden of proof in this debate. I must prove that the unlimited is possible, and Pro must prove that it is not. I hope that I have fulfilled my burden, as it is fairly easy to do so. Pro's burden is much larger, as she must prove that a being that can defy truisms is bound by them. Unto you, Pro.
abortion

ok i just disagree totally with your views. What if a woman is raped. A practice of which a man "forcibly" sexually penetrates a woman without consent. what if that woman becomes pregnant and when that child is born every time she sees that child she is reminded of the trauma she suffered. Also i believe that abortion is a human right as if a person is not mentally/financially prepared then that child will not have a proper upbringing in that family. the child may become malnourished/abandoned/poorly educated. ABORTION IS RIGHT!!!
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

You have asked to debate this first, so I am sending you the challenge directly. My last opponent on this subject forfeited, so I want to try this resolution again. Full Resolution: Mankind is the main cause of global warming. I, as con, will argue that it is of natural causes, not mankind. We will NOT be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does. Only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. Definitions: Mankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1] Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2] Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3] Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, lawyering, or trolling. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can not be negotiated or changed in the middle of the debate. 5. In the case of the breaking of any of these rules, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro). Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments). Round 4: Defending you original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments). Sources: [1]:http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]:http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]:http://dictionary.reference.com... [4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

Immanuel Kant says that you should do what others would do unto you. So, if u were in a situation where other ppl saw u, wouldn't u want them to help you? If you want help from others than u should return the favor. the word culpable means: responsible. So, inaction in the face of injustice makes you partly responsible. If you have the ability to help, than you should b/c u never really know what could happen. Maybe you would change the whole injustice and make everything a-ok. if u decide not to help, than there's always that "what if...". i'm not really making sense. maybe if you easily understand stuff u'll get that. i can be a bit "out-there" sometimes, sorry, i'm not high or anything i swear. Injustice is obviously a bad thing, because it's unfair. There's not reason for people to be treat unfair because afterall people are all just people. If you're able to do something then why not do it? You can always help a little.
inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

I have a few points: 1. Inaction in the face of injustice SOMETIMES makes an individual morally culpable, but not always. In addition, some people argue that morality benefits society and not the individual... but I digress, seeing as that is not the actual topic of debate. 2. You noted laziness as 'the reason' why people choose not to help others, when in fact there are a number of reasons why people may choose to not interfere. Their reasoning on why they choose to not help may be of substantial merit. I can go into more detail, but I'll wait for your rebuttal before getting to the meat of my argument. 3. It is not always clear what is just and what is unjust. For example, some claim that we are responsible for protecting the lives of the unborn; to ignore the reality of abortion may be considered a great injustice. However other people feel that the appropriate response to abortion is just that - inaction - because to speak or act against it would interfere with the rights of the parents/mother/etc. Now I'm neither arguing for nor against abortion, but rather I'm just citing an example of conflicting opinions affecting whether or not someone considers it "worth it" to interfere or not.
Gary Johnson should be the next president

Former govenor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson should be the next president because America is tired of the government interfering with people's lives, spying on their own people, starting uneccesary wars, and America is ready for some real change. His veiws are consistent with liberty and fredom. After two bad authoritarian presidents from both parties it is time for a president that will get the government out of people's lives and get rid of policies that defy common snese. A summary of Gary John's politcal veiws are as followed Supports the lagalization of Marijuana Supports Gay Marriage and Civil UnionsSupports cutting taxes and regulationsAgainst corporate welfareSupports gun rightsAgainst ObamacareAgainst the patriot Act and the NSASupports cutting Military spendingSupports Free TradeAgainst foreign aid http://www.ontheissues.org...
Gary Johnson should be the next president

didn't realize he was flogging the fairtax, i yield that one to you however the government has no business "granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage "contract"." the whole concept needs to be tossed. in taking that as some sort of given you're just making the system worse in allowing gay marriage. I suggest you look into ron paul, i beleive he's one of gary's idols? he's got it straight, with nearly identical political positions, he's just got marriage right.
Gary Johnson should be the next president

Gary Johnson does not support the income tax. He is not only in favor of abolishing the Income Tax but with the whole IRS and rplacing it with his Fair Tax System. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com... When it comes to gey marriage he actually agrees with you. In a speech Gary Johnson gave in 2011 he stated “As a believer in individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives, I simply cannot find a legitimate justification for federal laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, which ‘define’ marriage. That definition should be left to religions and individuals – not government. Government’s role when it comes to marriage is one of granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage ‘contract’. As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights, it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. "
Life in jail should mean Life in the U.K

i understand what you mean but lets get thinking here. you say we shouldnt be allowed to " take away the jewel of life " from the person convicted of murder. well i ask you why not ? this person has took away somebodys elses jewel , sometimes they have pretty much mugged them for it and killed them in the most horrible way possible. What i mean by life in jail is that now by doing that , the prinsoner has no rights , he has nothing yet he is still living , and must live everyday like that forever , a lesson to would be murders and little kids with knifes ? i think so. and fianlly like i said the deaht penalty is not right . what happens if this person is innocent ? if hes in jail for years he has along time to prove his innocence , but what dead man could prove his innconce ? even if soembody else proved it for him , who cares hes dead ... i dont think this country can jusify killing the innocent.
Life in jail should mean Life in the U.K

Many people agree that life is the most precious gift to obtain. Now while people would see that making people suffer the longest possible term would be the best decision to make, this can actually be a little better for the prisoner. If we take away there life, or there precious jewel, we would take away the greatest thing that they have. Now as my opponent did point out places like Australia do keep there prisoners in jail for life with little pay, but its because the prisoners get what they call Pro Bono Assistance in which the prisoners do not pay the lawyer for help but rather if they are convicted help pay for themselves in jail. So if we could convince our lawyers to just work and not get paid for there job then we maybe could do this. But since it is a long shot to consider this then the most harshest way possible would be to take there on life. Now we are not the first people do put this into action. In fact not even close. Back when the first known civilization to exist was still around they had this little saying. "An eye for an eye, a leg for a leg." Now we see this as they take our stuff we send them to jail. No they saw this as they take your couch you take their couch. So therefore whenever somebody killed somebody the murderer was killed himself. Therefore looking back I do believe that the death penalty should be used to punish murderers. It would benefit us greatly.