BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations

How do cameras stop American's from experiencing freedom? Freedom to commit a crime without being caught? Cameras merely observe; they do not stop you from doing what you want to do, but if that happens to be a crime, you will be seen doing it and appropriate action taken. Not sure what you mean by keeping the population down. "If all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?" -- Cameras will not stop crime altogether, but it will help to bring people to justice and reduce crime. Some people do not care about consequences, so I know that there will still be crime in the world. When the bad things happen, we will deal with it by watching the recorded evidence and arresting the suspects. Simple really.
CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations

I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.
Molesting handicapped orphans is cool

Sir, you continue to avoid the key issues at hand. I already stated that I agree with your definition of molestation "Dictionary.com defines molesting as subjecting another individual to unwanted or improper sexual activity" However, a more clear picture is now in order. I will now officially define it for use in this debate as subjecting another individual to unwanted sexual activity. You took it a step further and offered this irrelavant example. "how about "child molestation" between a 17 year old and 21 year old? In addition to being considered statuatory rape, this situation also calls for MOLESTATION charges should legal authorities get involved." Your example brings up a completely different issue. Allow me to first state that I'm not in the least bit concerned with the legality of specific sexual situations(at least not for this debate). What the United States considers statuatory rape and molestation has no relevance to your claims that molesting blind orphans is cool(and I do mean blind, not visually impaired as in your example). To elaborate, rape is often defined as the following: -any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.(Dictionary.com) While statuatory rape qualifies as: -Sexual relations with a person who has not reached the statutory age of consent. (Dictionary.com) These are two very different situations. I participate in the latter fairly frequently. It does not mean I have raped or molested anyone. Thus, your example is unavailing. "I am trying to clarify the debate topic at hand, not my position." As was I, when I clarified the handicap as blindness and your definition of molesting as correct. "Not all molestations are good, obviously, especially the ones that are unwelcomed." All molestations are unwelcome(unwanted); this is supported by your definition. And to clarify further, your burden of proof now is to prove that subjecting a blind orphan to unwanted sexual activity is cool. Also, let me clarify cool as socially admissable or respectable.
Molesting handicapped orphans is cool

My opponent has wrongfully suggested, "Your attempts to carefully define each word of the resolution show me that you are unsure of your position." No, the purpose of properly defining each word should instead show you that I am trying to clarify the debate topic at hand, not my position. I maintain that the word molestation is sometimes subjective. If the definition of "improper" doesn't work for you, how about "child molestation" between a 17 year old and 21 year old? In addition to being considered statuatory rape, this situation also calls for MOLESTATION charges should legal authorities get involved. In that case, I propose an example in which a 17 year old male engages in sexual activity with his 21 year old female teacher. This male student wears eye glasses (therefore he is visually HANDICAPPED) and technically an ORPHAN since both of his parents have passed away. In this situation, many of this guy's peers and other individuals who learn of the occurence may consider him "cool" in the socially adept sense, hence my promise of providing an example. Thus, this situation calls for the MOLESTATION of a HANDICAPPED ORPHAN, and the outcome was pretty "cool" or socially acceptable. To some it is even favorable. Unfortunately for you, your statement, "If you want me to clear things up, lets say the orphan is blind. Also, by orphan I did mean a child who has lost both parents like Oliver Twist. But even so, does age really matter? Your still forcing innapropriate sexual acts on a blind orphan" is totally irrelevant in terms of this debate. Here's why: Since I assume the position of Pro, the burden of proof is on me to prove that the molestation of a handicapped orphan is cool. I have done this with the example that I have provided. My position in this debate is not to prove that EVERY example given regarding molestations, handicapped people or orphans is cool. Not all molestations are good, obviously, especially the ones that are unwelcomed. However, simply because this debate that was obviously created in jest does not give you the ability to change the rules of debate. That is to say that if you wanted me to prove that the unwanted sexual exploitation of a blind child was cool, you should have said so in the resolution.
Molesting handicapped orphans is cool

Don't feel bad for me, TheLwerd. You're the one who is arguing that it is cool to molest handicapped orphans. Your child-molesting beliefs are troubling to say the least. Your attempts to carefully define each word of the resolution show me that you are unsure of your position. You offer that the word "molestation" is subjective. This is clearly not the case as your definition shows. You rambled on about what might be considered "improper sexual activity", but said nothing of unwanted sexual activity, which in fact is at the core of the issue. Next, you tried to obscure the meaning of handicapped. Whether I meant severely handicapped or not has no bearing. I used this adjective to add a greater sense of vulnerability in the victim. If you want me to clear things up, lets say the orphan is blind. Also, by orphan I did mean a child who has lost both parents like Oliver Twist. But even so, does age really matter? Your still forcing innapropriate sexual acts on a blind orphan. "By that regard, does one who have no affiliation with their parents - even an adult - lack the capacity or right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they choose?" No, but you have strayed too far. Consentual sex between adults is a far cry from thinking molesting blind orphans is cool. "Ignoring the fact that the word "cool" literally means moderately cold, I can offer specific scenarios where even the "socially adept" definition of cool applies to the Pro position". Please do.
Molesting handicapped orphans is cool

To clarify, I was compltely out of my mind when I chose to accept this challenge. However I will attempt to debate it anyway. Damn. Well okay, here we go. I ask that readers/voters judge as closely to the resolution as possible. Thanks :) A few things I would like to mention include the fact that in some situations, the word molestation is subjective. Dictionary.com defines molesting as subjecting another individual to unwanted or improper sexual activity. However, who is to determine what sexual activity is deemed 'improper'? Many people feel as though homosexuality is improper -- does that make all gay people molesters? Second, just because someone is handicapped does not mean that they lack the physical or mental capacity to make their own decisions or defend themselves from harm. For instance, dyslexia - just one of many examples - is considered a handicap (probably mental). Does that mean that a dyslectic person is unable to make decisions about their sex lives? Third, I ask that readers refrain from thinking of orphans as being limited to children. In fact, an orphan refers to a person or thing that is without protective affiliation, sponsorship, etc, or anyone bereft of parents (Source: Dictionary.com). By that regard, does one who have no affiliation with their parents - even an adult - lack the capacity or right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they choose? Ignoring the fact that the word "cool" literally means moderately cold, I can offer specific scenarios where even the "socially adept" definition of cool applies to the Pro position. But for now I will let Con take the reigns, as his opening argument has absolutely nothing to do with said resolution and therefore I feel a little bad for him. Good luck, oh Strange One!
If President Obama is a Good President or Not

In terms of tax reduction you would prefer reducing the taxes of the top 1%? How would that improve the economic state of the country? It wouldn't. Also, Obama could not reduce taxes on the bottom 2 quintiles because that would not have been permitted by Congress. He barely got the stimulus package passed. And that did help the workers much more than doing nothing.In terms of being black his mere existence in the White House has provoked an immense amount of racism and fear throughout the white community. The fact that he has withstood rude attacks that would never have happened had he been white is truly impressive. And in spite of that, the country is in better shape than it was in 2008.How do you manage to absolve Bush from any complicity in the Great Recession? Don't ignore the 2 unpaid for wars. Don't ignore Medicare Part D? Don't ignore his ignoring the deregulation of the financial industry. You mention the loss of wealth that led to spending cutbacks. How did that wealth loss occur? Who caused it? Bush and his lackeys. You list stats for jobs loss but you do not give the cause. Do you want to look at the repeal of Glass - Steagle? Do you want to cite the securitzation of the mortgage industry under Bush and the evisceration of the financial regulators to oversee what was happening with the derivatives? You gloss over these very important occurrences to indict Obama. That won't wash.You say a bubble burst. What bubble was that? The housing bubble? Tell us more about that.Now in terms of the stimulus package. You are right Obama and his people went out on a limb and made a bold projection. Foolish. He should have stayed mum and waited. It is now just above 6%. The stimulus turned the economy around and maybe have gotten unemployment down to 8% if he had made the stimulus 3 billion instead of under 1 billion. But Congress would never have permitted a 3 billion dollar stimulus. The deficits did rise considerably the first 2 years but how the deficit is declining. They rose becuse it tookat least 2 years for the economy to improve and government spending was used to stimulate the economy ala Keynesian Economic theory.So far you haven't given me some valid criticisms of Obama. I await them.
If President Obama is a Good President or Not

Be more explicit. What tax plans? And do you think they were socialistic? Are you talking about the bailout? I do not deem credible any politician or person who opposes new policies or economic plans as socialistic. And you are now saying that Obama caused the Great Recession in 2007 and 2008? That Bush and his 2 unpaid wars and Medicare part D drug plan for seniors had nothing to do with the recession? Or Bush's deregulation and laissez-faire approach to the mortgage securitization scandal ? And you have no idea how Putin sees Obama or anyone. And polls have shown that the US has climbed in international esteem greatly as compared to the last few years under Bush. I can easily list some of Obama's true failings. Can you?
If President Obama is a Good President or Not

First off, there is a Such thing called commas. To rebuttal your statement "turned the economy around from a contracted one,"Back in 2008, Democratic President hopeful Barack Obama fielded criticisms for the tax plans he proposed for the American people if he got elected. They were deemed "socialist" by his Republican rivals. Today, President Obama faces stark criticism of the very same tax policies from not only his political rivals but also from various other sections of the society. In fact, America"s first black President has been given the dubious honor of deliberately orchestrating what may well be a second Great Depression, matching the devastating downturn of 1929. Th seats have been an all time low in Obama's "reign." Even the Russian leader Putin believes he is a weak leader."I"m very worried that Putin, who can read a calendar just as well as the rest of us can, sees that Obama has two more years in office, and he will redouble his efforts during that period to get what he wants from Ukraine and other former republics of the Soviet Union, and other [former Soviet satellite nations]
If President Obama is a Good President or Not

Obama has exceeded expectations as the first African-amrican president in our history. Aside from walking a narrow line and not giving the appearance of favoring blacks he has maintained his composure in spite of great hostility. Policy wise he has created the Ledbetter Act. Promoted new regulations on the financial indistry. Began the work of remedying a new health care system. Reinvigorated foreign policy with new found respect. Established new environmental laws. Enforced civil rights laws and has fought voter suppression. Turned the economy around from a severely contracted one. Placed 2 women on the Supreme Court.
Snopes.com is a liberal agenda machine.

Con: "I've read through the page about ten times, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't say what it says it says." Con is speaking in riddles and may think of himself as some type of sphynx rather than a human in a debate. Con: "Then, who cares about what the person did before coming to snopes.com. Many people have different internet personalities." Because liberal or conservative bias doesn't just magically disappear. Con: "Finally, this is quite exhausting defending every single point you make. It takes little time to copy and paste a few links, and a lot of time and energy to verify them. Quite fraknly this is not any fun for me." This is proof that I made good points and presented tough arguments. If it didn't exhaust Con, then we might could say that I did not present a powerful defense of my argument, but nevertheless, Con is exhausted and feels defeated because...he is. Con knows I am right. Con knows they are a liberal propoganda machine. It was not fun for Con because Con is a liberal. Vote Pro. http://www.bjj.org...
Snopes.com is a liberal agenda machine.

First, the pictures of the ring versus the spelling of Allah are vastly different. All your websites seem to lack credibility. "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out" [2] shows the obvious bias of the frontpagemag website. All these weird websites nobody has ever heard of. I've read through the page about ten times, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't say what it says it says. Okay, so Sadri was released, but I don't see the website linking Obama with Sabri's release. In fact, it took me about ten times reading the arcticle through to even realize that Sadri was released because the article was so badly written. Then, who cares about what the person did before coming to snopes.com. Many people have different internet personalities. Finally, this is quite exhausting defending every single point you make. It takes little time to copy and paste a few links, and a lot of time and energy to verify them. Quite fraknly this is not any fun for me. Thanks for the debate.2. http://www.frontpagemag.com...
Snopes.com is a liberal agenda machine.

The Obama's ring doesn't seem obvious to me. Most of the images you show are blurry or side images. They might not even be Obama's hand. The only clear image shows a completely different symbol. You rely upon your own personal anecdotal evidence, which could easily been made up. Not only that but you put the facts together afterwards, admitting that at first you thought nothing of it. You simply could have remembered incorrectly. Eye witness accounts are notorious for being inaccurate in a court of law. That's why DNA evidence is so much more potent. Even if you are correct in that Snopes.com got it wrong, all this proves is they are fallible. There is a large difference between telling a falsehood and lying. "So they are using semantics to "prove" it is not a Shahada ring and not actual EVIDENCE in this quote." BrontoraptorThe evidence is in the photos. The most clear photo shows an abstract pattern. As seen below. Compare that to the distant photo below: s://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com...; alt="Obama Ring No God But Allah" width="350" height="453" />Finally, the photo that might not even be Obama. Anyone could be wearing this ring. s://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com...; alt="" width="300" height="300" />1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The age of the earth is accurately represented by Christian Scripture (approximately 6000 years).

This debate is a continuation of the following : http://www.debate.org... the purpose of this debate is to argue the age of the earth, and specifically to contest that the age of the Earth is as asserted by Christan Scripture which is approximately 6000 years old[1], compared to the current accepted emperical result of approximately 4.5 billion years[2]. This topic is obviously linked to the ongoing debate of special creation vs evolution as if the earth is only approximately 6000 years old then by our current understanding of evolutionary theory, there is far too much diversity to have formed from a common ancestor in just a few thousand years. Thus if it can be asserted and supported that the Earth is only a few thousand years old it would falsify much of what is empirically understood concerning the diversity and origion of life and it would point to special creation - something has created highly advanced life forms without any precursor forms. The only rule for this debate would be to please respect the format of the debate and not spam verbatim arguments from creationist websites, and otherwise engaging in the "gish gallop" technique of simply making some many unfounded assertions it is impossible to discuss them all in a confined comment space. [1] http://www.albatrus.org... [2] http://pubs.usgs.gov...
america should have free health care

OK, lets get started. First off, I cannot see your first link, maybe it is broken? Secondly, the environment has nothing to do to it. People will get sick. What do we want to give them when they do? OK, so the French have a lot of hospitals. And this would work in America because... You are saying that we would save money by not having to pay for healthcare. How are you getting at that? Where do you propose the money comes from? Taxes? Nope, then it wouldn't be free. I do not understand your next point. Maybe you could split it up more clearly in your next post? You did not attack the rest of my arguments. If you would, please do this also in your next post. I would like to leave the voters with one final thought: Free healthcare is impossible to achieve. Who pays for it? If not the people using it, then who will? Someone needs to pay, else it would not exist. A practice as expensive as being a doctor cannot be had when it is not funded. Since it needs to be funded, it cannot and will not ever be free.
america should have free health care

Ok I thank you for providing such great info in your rebuttal. Alright I'm going to address the Canadian hospitality first. Well In my own words I say that what if this long patent waiting does not have anything to do about health care, I myself would blame this problem on there environment, as says http://www.nowpublic.com... So many people get sick because of there filthy environment. Secondly why people would have to wait so long is their lack of hospitals, for an ex look at France no problems there are hospitals all over in France, http://www.francehospital.com... says that "French hospitals are easily accessible." Now on to the cons of having free health care. First we would save a lot of money, and going back to the Canadian health, with out free health care we are just like them, only we don't wait we have to pay because a company would not pay it for them, now they don't have money they lose there job, and their house, then soon after their life. Living with free health care would help us, http://abcnews.go.com... , this site tells you that people have lost jobs, just because they wouldn't pay for someone's health, those people die, the worker then blames their selfs, so not only does non free health care kill others, it also places some in a maniac depression. That is my rebuttal thank you for reading what I had to say.
Humans are meant to attempt answering the questions of life

Let's save my elaboration about creators and such for another time. I would say that it deserves its own debate. You keep reiterating things about "natural processes." By nature, *meant* to occur. My contention was not that being alive gives people meaning. Human purpose is endowed upon them by a culmination of things that they do. Not only in life. Unless you're saying that humans are not meant to die... Kinesis said that "we are utterly meaningless within the context of the universe." This is disproved in that the human-dwelling planet of Earth is a part of the universe. The universe would unarguably be changed in some way in the absence of humanity. I never introduced the concept of afterlives. They have nothing to do with my arguments. *You, yourself were meant to attempt answering the questions of life. You proposed these questions: "Pro contends that LIFE gives people meaning. But why? What special, intrinsic value is there in being alive that endows meaning?" *You are meant to try finding some answer to them, because you are here: Smile, you're on debate.org. In conclusion, and as my main point: Events conspire as they do because they were meant to occur in that way. If they were not meant to be, they would not happen. Whether it is our DNA and environment compelling us to be curious beings, or a rock killing a poor little rabbit. "It is simply the way things are," isn't it?