BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gary Johnson should be in the debates

Gary Johnson and candidates other than the Republican and Democrat parties should be allowed in the presidential (and other office) debates. It is simply undemocratic to keep voices off the debate stage simply because the commission designed to oversee the debates are funded by the GOP and the Democratic National Party. Johnson and others deserve to have their voice heard. If a candidate are on the ballot in all 50 states, it is the responsibility of the debate organizers to allow the voice to be heard. Johnson has more actual governing experience (two terms as Governor, as does his running mate, Bill Weld) than the two "major" party candidates combined. People keep asking for change. These two parties have held on to its power through money, and that money has bought favors and influence which has had a negative impavt on the middle and lower classes of the country. Gary Johnson deserves to have his message heard and ler the people decide. The only people who think otherwise are against true democracy, where the voters should have the final say. The Dems and Republicans have muted the voice of the other parties to maintain power, and they continually give us terrible options and do things that do not help the average American. Give someone else the opportunity to speak. It's the right thing to do.
James Charles is right to say that fans should not come to house.

I submit that the argument in question can be interpreted as whether fans should/shouldn't visit vbloggers houses "Fans should not show up at vloggers houses, Unless the vloggers want them to" There is the title of the debate "James Charles is right to say that fans should not come to house. " Which could be interpreted as the debate being specifically about James Charles, But as I do not feel this was specifically addressed in your argument, I feel free to use my first interpretation about fans coming to visit a vlogger at their house. Such a debate is not about whether rude people should not come visit a vlogger "This means he has not solicited that information to his fans. Also, That you bring up they could peacefully be asking for autographs, Saying hello, Etc. , Apparently this wouldn't be the case if he were addressing it in this manner. People are harassing him at his home. " Because rude people should clearly not visit. Polite people, I still argue, Perhaps. I do think it might be a bit odd in this day and age. But it does not seem terribly rude (To me). Depends upon culture perhaps. If a vlogger should ask people not to visit, Then they should not visit. But can one really count on a video online to inform all? Best you can do is a sign for no solicitors or uncalled ahead visitors. Unless you were extraordinarily famous in your aversion for unexpected visitors. I do not find it terribly stalkish to look up where a person lives if you plan on visiting them. People have long had their residences locations in the open, Rather than living in secluded grottos or secretive abodes. It's a bit odd, But it does not seem behavior non grata to me.
James Charles is right to say that fans should not come to house.

I agree that simply coming to once house and saying "Hi! " isn't harassment. But the problem with your argument is that James Charles never solicited that information to his fans. He never told them where he lived. After watching all the video's of the Snapchat story, This is the one part that gets over looked. This what James Charles said, In his own words: "For some reason, You know, Or have found out, Or have done research on where me and my little brother live, Do NOT come here. " This means he has not solicited that information to his fans. Also, That you bring up they could peacefully be asking for autographs, Saying hello, Etc. , Apparently this wouldn't be the case if he were addressing it in this manner. People are harassing him at his home.
James Charles is right to say that fans should not come to house.

Now I'll agree that ringing a doorbell for 3 minutes is rude. Agree that hiding behind a persons trashcan is rude. Agree that looking up a persons private information and entire history a 'bit creepy. But I'll make an argument for it being normal to come to a persons house. One only has to look to older days before we had phones, The internet, And all our modern communications. Most polite might be to send a letter, But it was hardly unusual or unsavory think I, To check politely at a persons abode and inquire if one might make their acquaintance. Ah Leaning but we 'do now have phones and internet, Why bother a person at their house? But I say an email is hardly different than the mail. More so mail would still be more polite than a phone call. But even mail I argue is not a must have for a polite attempt to contact a stranger. So long as you are 'not crouching behind garbage cans, Flooding their home with crowds, Or incessantly ringing their bell. A polite visitation is not 'rude. Unless Of course they have a policy of clear cut privacy. A person who went to the home of this James Charles after hearing their preference would clearly 'be 'rude. My point being in all this, That a home visit itself is not so terribly a rudeness as you insist. More so rude is the accompanying behaviors and action you have mentioned. Celebrities 'should have a right to privacy. Should not have to wall their property to get it. But should a person well known not expect that others might 'try to make their acquaintance? Celebrities are famous. People often desire to know their past. And near everyone once was in the phone book.
James Charles is right to say that fans should not come to house.

Privacy is a basic human right. To say that vloggers don't deserve it because they already put their life on video is BS. Vloggers have family, Friends outside of the people they work with on vlogs, And a life outside of vlogs. They want to be alone and away from the limelight for a little bit. It's COMPLETELY NORMAL! For once, They can be who they are around their friends outside of vlogs. Now, On the issue of people coming to vloggers houses, Invasion of Privacy is a law. And coming up to famous people's houses, Ringing the doorbell for 3 minutes, And hiding behind trash cans when they come to door is harassment. It's illegal and annoying. Just leave them be! And to the argument that this should be expected: Finding people's private twitter posts, Addresses, College degree, Etc. On the Internet is NOT NORMAL! IT'S STALKING/HARASSMENT!
James Charles is right to say that fans should not come to house.

First off, I'm not a James Charles fan. I don't watch a lot of his videos. But when I heard about this, I wanted to give my opinion, Because this kind of became a big debate. Fans should not show up at vloggers houses, Unless the vloggers want them to. It is invasion of privacy, Creepy, And it irritates neighbors and the people near his house.
The Westboro Baptist Church should not have a right to free speech

My opponent brings up some very interesting points. However, let's see if a careful analysis of these points will prove valid. My opponent believes that just because the Westboro Church is a small group of less than 60 individuals, they are insignificant in the overall scheme of things and that their impact on society is "tiny" in a nation of 320 million people. I bet they probably thought the same of another small and insignificant group in1918. Anton Drexler and his Committee of Independent workmen (a tiny political group) had many harsh, hateful and controversial ideas. Did they fail? Did they go into extinction? Did the vast market of progressive ideas stop them? NO. They became the precursor of NAZISM (McNabe, Chris (2011) Hitler's Master Plan p22 - 23). Here, Drexler and his small insignificant group, were proponents of an Aryan master race and that the Jews were responsible for evil Capitalism and proclaimed the denouncement of the Jews (. http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu...). Obviously, they were on their way to extinction. Interestingly, If the Jews did not like this negative speech against them, and they felt that their name was being unfairly used, why not simply sue for slander (as my opponent would say)? Not as easy as it seems. However, my opponent is correct; the views of the Nazi's ultimately met failure (however, not before over 6 million Jews were slaughtered . http://www.history.com...). What would have happened if his hateful speech was stopped? Remember, it's only speech right? And how harmful can speech be? In conclusion, I would like to remind the voters that the premise of this debate is not that we need the government to do something; rather we want the government not to do something - Like protecting speech whose proponents have no other intent, but to harm the harmonious environment that citizens need for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Westboro may be one small group. However, there are many "Westboros" in this country. Let the hate stop now.
The Westboro Baptist Church should not have a right to free speech

I'll just be doing some simple quote and respond bits here."However, I would like to point out that according to the Supreme Court's decision regarding the freedom of speech, we realize that all speech is constitutionally protected, regardless how dangerous or hateful it may be, as long as it is truthful."This summarizes the main point my opponent made in his reply. He concedes that all speech is protected, no matter how dangerous or hateful it may be, as long as it isn't a lie. If it is a lie, it is defined as slander[1], which I will get to in a minute. First though, I'd like to ask, do we know that the Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in saying that god hates gay people? Ordinarily, this would open up a huge and unpleasant tangent on what we can and cannot know about god. Thankfully, my opponent agrees with me when he says, "There is no authority to officially discredit Westboro's hateful ideas. The hated speech is protected because it is "just speech"." We stand in agreement then on the fact that one cannot prove whether a presumed existing deity supports what the Westboro Church claims. This said, their speech does not qualify as slander, and therefore cannot be infringed upon, as my opponent says.Assuming it could be proved to be a lie that god hates gay people, slander is a legal matter, not a government one. If someone slanders you, you can sue them for damages[1]. If somebody wants to take the Westboro Church to court for slandering them, and can somehow prove what they said was definitively untrue, then that'd be that."My opponent states that society's distain for this type of speech is their way of handily dealing with them. I disagree. I say that no group who survives for twenty years is handily dealt with."Well they never had more than 60 members, and they've lost a third of that in 10 years. If voters dispute my use of the word handily, that's fine, it's just there for the sake of being there. The fact remains however: they're an already tiny group which is shrinking to even tinier proportions. They exist in a society that is becoming increasingly unhospitable to their views, something which should only hasten their fall. They are constantly being counter-protested--prevented from delivering their hateful messages to their targets. They're tiny. They're insignificant. They're dying.I would ask the voters, do they think we really need to grant the government further powers and risk a slippery slope when the problem is already on its way to extinction? Think about the tiny impact a group of 40 and shrinking (one that is censored by the free market of ideas) has on a nation of 320 million[2]. Now think about the effect an overly powerful government could have on a nation of 320 million, or more, presuming the consequences come some time in the future. There is so much more to lose than gain. Why risk it when it's not necessary?Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.thebloggersbulletin.com...[2] http://factfinder2.census.gov...
The Westboro Baptist Church should not have a right to free speech

In America, freedom of speech is protected by the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution. Thus, ones speech may be unpopular, it may be hurtful or clearly misunderstood. It may even be unpatriotic; however, the U.S. Constitution supports their right to make these statements. It is my opinion that the Westboro Baptist Church is a mean cult which only exists to make the lives of ordinary citizens miserable. They protest military funerals, they hailed the mass killing of children as God's will. They hold up derogatory signs which proclaim that "God Hates F***s". Their actions promote anger and discomfort within a civilized society. Their "holier than thou" attitude has sparked counter demonstrations which have the potential for violence. Because of the specific intent of this group to spread a speech of hate, and to degrade our military personnel and other citizens of our society, they should not have a constitutional protection which allows them to hurt people. CON may want to argue that the Constitution is what it is whether we like it or not. Therefore we have to respect the protections that it offers even if people are hurt. CON may argue that, if it is constitutionally permissible to burn the flag (a form of free speech), no one should argue about a group's expression of their ideology. If my opponent believes that it is right for the Constitution to protect hateful ideology, let the debate begin.
Do police bring justice? And capitalism.

What can i say? Police...well...its their job to do what they do. They get money for it exactly the same way everyone else do. But...then why are they treated differently? Having the advantage of using batons, guns, tranquilizers that should normally be illegal to people because they are dangerous. Is it because they need to deal with people who break the law or do something wrong? It is not just them! People die everyday, what are police doing to do take the person to court? And then what? Prison? A person would not commit a crime without a reason. Even if they do not have a reason means that they need help. Does putting people in prison help them? No, it does not. Prison is like locking a person away from society, no actually let me rephrase myself, prison IS locking a person away from society. People will always suffer, its laws of nature it cant be stopped. It can be for whatever reason; murder, someones death, something or someones existence. Even people such as police who try to protects others bring misery. Police are not heroes neither are soldiers. They are people like you and me and being a police or a soldier is just people's career. They chose it. But i guess since no ones perfect, it does not matter what you are; police, soldier, government, president, king or queen. We are all human nothing special. We are all born, we all live and w all die.
Do police bring justice? And capitalism.

Police are punishing those who would punish the innocent far worse and kill the police if they weren't armed and ready to attack. I shall now rebut Con: "Police...well...its their job to do what they do." Their job is to administer disciplinary justice. They do this indeed. "They get money for it exactly the same way everyone else do." Yes, they do. " But...then why are they treated differently?" They are not. " Having the advantage of using batons, guns, tranquilizers that should normally be illegal to people because they are dangerous." This is to counter the advantages that armed criminals have over unarmed and untrained citizens. "Is it because they need to deal with people who break the law or do something wrong?" They are not breaking the law, they are simply given less restrictions on their ability to carry weapons. "It is not just them!" It actually is them. "People die everyday, what are police doing to do take the person to court? And then what? Prison?" No, they are going to take them to jail. The rest is dealt with by the staff there. "A person would not commit a crime without a reason." I'm sure that if someone raped your wife they'd have good reason. Right? "Does putting people in prison help them? No, it does not." It's not supposed to help them, it's supposed to protect the citizens outside of it. "Prison is like locking a person away from society, no actually let me rephrase myself, prison IS locking a person away from society." Congratulations; you have made the discovery of the century! "People will always suffer, its laws of nature it cant be stopped." People will always have orgasms and other pleasurable experiences too, that's also a law of nature. "Police are not heroes neither are soldiers." Many people's lives have been saved by them. I'm pretty sure that's how we define a hero. "They are people like you and me and being a police or a soldier is just people's career." Correct! "They chose it." Defending free will, are you? Risky business!
The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

You make a few fundamental errors with your stance. First, most of what you stated about the villains isn't in the movies but rather from Comic book information. Two, I am not sure if you actually watched the newest superman movie but Zod, in point of fact, did do what the was created to do. That was a major part of the film. Zod's genetic engineering lead him to be a soldier and do what he felt he was created to do. Third, you are only addressing the surface of the characters while I am addressing the deeper core of the characters. Finally, Nolan clearly stated that he wanted the final movie to go in a different direction. That Scarecrow had cameos didn't change the direction of the film in any way shape or form. Adding a new major villain, which is where I believe your stance is, would have influenced the direction of the film. The fact is simple, Nolan knew that on film, among fans that aren't comic book wise, Riddler and Joker are very similar. The average movie goer wouldn't have seen the differences unless Nolan completely overhauled the character. And to a greater degree Nolan knew that the average fan wouldn't have cared about the differences because Riddler would have been seen as a weaker less interesting caricature of the Joker.
The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

I was not misinterpreting your stance. I was showing how Nolan could have realized that Joker and Riddler are different, thus allowing him to put Riddler in a movie. Nolan's characters are not very much alike. These are Nolan's Batman villains: Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Bane, and some consider Talia al Ghul as a villain. Ra's believed he was doing the right thing by lowering the population (I said this already!) by trying to destroy Gotham City. Scarecrow just wants others to fear him because he's a psycho. Joker just wants to cause chaos and make Gotham City his own. Two-Face wanted to balance between goodness, justice, corruption, and evil. Bane, like Ra's, wanted to destroy Gotham City. As you can see Nolan's villains were not so much alike. They are not doing what they feel they were created to do. When Zod was born, he was just an alien baby. He had normal parents, and a pretty normal life (I think). As he grew up, he got more violent in his ways and started killing people off. He doesn't feel he was created to do it, he is just doing it because he wants to. Then, when Krypton explodes, he seeks to make Earth a new Krypton by destroying everything and raising Krypton up. He believes he is doing the right thing, thus being what they call an Anti-Villain or a Well-Intentioned Extremist. Joker does not either. He is doing what he feels like he should/wants to do. Refer to The Killing Joke. Even though Joker's origin was not described in The Dark Knight, The Killing Joke shows it. It shows that Joker thinks he was "created" to make people laugh. He turned to crime after nobody laughed at his jokes. I can bring up Luthor, because we are just discussing villains in movies. And ugh! How many times do I have to bring this up? Ra's WANTED to kill all those people and destroy Gotham City. Zod DID kill thousands of people and did not TRY to destroy Earth, he just tried to turn it into Krypton. How does that quote have anything to do with Riddler and Joker? That was just Nolan's thought. If he had put in more consideration and listen to his fans, he definitely could've pullen off the Riddler. I know that is what you said. You said this, "Given that the Warner Bros. executives were all looking toward Leonardo DiCaprio coming on board to play The Riddler in the final installment of the trilogy it would, in my opinion, have been a train wreck." And that is exactly what I was referring to when I asked why it would be a train wreck. But, why would it be a train wreck? Also, Riddler didn't HAVE to be DiCaprio. Geez. They obviosuly are different franchises. I find it funny that you tell me not to compare the two while YOU have this whole debate. Lol. If Nolan's characters are too similar and he "wanted to go in a different direction" so much, why did he add cameos of Scarecrow in both the second and the third film?
The Riddler should have been in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

First, you made some gross misrepresentations of my stance. I didn't say that the Riddler and the Joker were alike I said they would be because Nolan does create characters that are very much alike. Zod and the Joker are a good set of villains to look at. Zod's psychology and Jokers psychology are are very much alike. They both feel they are doing what they were created to do. They both feed off the reluctance of the heroes to be heroes. Also it would be a red herring to bring up Lex Luthor because Nolan didn't present that villain to moviegoers. However, even Al Ghoul is similar to Zod-- reshaping the world to fit his own utopia. Simply put the psychology and pathology of Nolan's villains and his heroes is such that these characters would be to much alike. How do I know this? Because Nolan said so himself. In interview about the third film he said that the final film needed to "go in another direction," implying he felt that the Riddler character was too close to the Joker character. While I accept that the Joker and the Riddler are to completely different characters in the comic books on film Nolan clearly thought they were alike. Also I didn't say that the creation of a new Riddler would have been a train wreck I said that DiCaprio playing a character with the depth of Riddler would have been a train wreck. And once again, there would have been an overwhelming and inevitable comparison between the character Ledger portrayed and the remade Riddler. You cannot compare Ledger's Joker with Zod because they are two different franchises-- Batman and Superman. However, you can compare the characters psychology and pathology which are very much alike. In fact most of Nolan's characters are alike in the DC comic movies. Nolan's DC movies are very much alike on a deeper level. Nolan himself wanted to insure that the final film went in a different direction dismissing the Riddler character by saying the film would go in a different direction than the second film. He wanted it to go in such a different direction that he didn't even reference the Joker in the final film. And any effort he would have put into recreating the Riddler would have lead to the inevitable conclusion that his Riddler was just an understudy of Ledger's Joker.