BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obsecnity Laws are against the US Consitution

Forgive my lack of proper structure...this is my first debate too! But I'd like to first start by properly defining obscenity vs. indeceny Indeceny, by common definition, is anything that is offensive to public moral values. Although Indecency is frowned upon by those in society, it IS protected under the first amendment, which allows for freedom of speech. Obscenity, however, is not protected, as it it seen as a level of indeceny that goes beyond common acceptance. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: 1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts). (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law. (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography. Because the supreme court, which represents the US constitution as a living document, outlaws obscenity, obscenity laws cannot be seen as agains the US constitution. Pro needs to disprove this fact.
The anti-Voter ID stance by the (D) party shows clearly the THEY are the party of FRAUD and DECEIT!

Looks like this kid took a hike any other of you dems want to argue AGAINST ID when voting To me it is a loser of an argument and not defensible, unless you want illegal voting to go on from dead people illegal aliens fraudulent people multiple votes homeless, mentally deranged and felons etc. Of course you dems know you NEED these votes so Im sure you will forward on some of the typical ACLU type arguments against the obvious lets hope this election aint close so the dems cant cheat and get it they sure came close in '00
The anti-Voter ID stance by the (D) party shows clearly the THEY are the party of FRAUD and DECEIT!

All the excuses and lies that the democrat liars put forth are just that Oh gee! the poor! the elderly! the stupid! the ingnorant! the dead! the retarted! the ineligible! the illegal aliens! Really the LAST one is what it is all about the democrats are wrong on everything and need new voters, as people who are educated would NEVER vote for them thus, they have always relied on FRAUD , and CHEATING to win elections sometimes (like last time with Kerry) they just lose so bad they cant bring out the lawyers to try and steal the election By OPPOSING the basic concept of VOTER ID (nearly everyone who is legitimate has a drivers license or passport) , they clearly show that they want (1) multiple votes (2) illegal aliens (3) dead people and other FRAUD and ILLEGAL VOTES Their claims that it would make life difficult for legitimate voters are simply false there are provisions made to deal with the poor and elderly in every VOTER ID bill , to ensure that ANYONE who wants to vote can have the opportunity Blanket Voter ID http://www.ncsl.org... Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo (Table 1). In no state is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls—all states have some sort of recourse for voters without identification to cast a vote. However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted. For specifics on what forms of identification are acceptable and the options available to voters who cannot present identification, see Table 2. With the new FRAUD called Motor Voter, the democrats have enabled millions of illegals to vote- as well as other ineligible cases, such as multiple and false names and dead people the mail votes also tend to be ripe with fraud In addition, despite their high minded talk, the democrats are constantly trying to DISENFRANSCHISE republican votes, such as the military who vote from overseas and vote like 80% republican The fact that NO republican opposes this measure and ALL democrats do makes it clear who is the party of fraud and deceit. In addtion, there are NO PENALTIES for committing vote fraud NONE Thus, this is what I propose (1) Valid Photo ID to vote (2) penalties (jail time and fines) for voter fraud (3) PERMANENT LOSS of vote to individuals convicted of fraud (4) Loss of voting priveledge for anyone on welfare SOLARMAN
The anti-Voter ID stance by the (D) party shows clearly the THEY are the party of FRAUD and DECEIT!

While I am not a "lib/dem/progressive", or even a member of the Democratic party, I do happen to oppose photo ID requirements for voting. As such, I'll take the "Against" position. Personally, I feel that it is important to ensure that all legitimate voters are not disenfranchised. That includes people who might or might not find it convenient to hold photo identification (for example, the elderly who are unable to drive). I also believe that we should do all in our power to increase voter participation--a goal that is not aided by adopting draconian restrictions on voter identification.
The anti-Voter ID stance by the (D) party shows clearly the THEY are the party of FRAUD and DECEIT!

Please, one of you libs/dems/progressives out there PLEASE explain how you could be OPPOSED to having a valid state photo identification in order to vote. Please explain why YOUR PARTY compltely opposes this while the republicans and conservatives are 100% FOR it. the democrat party has only survived with ouright fraud and deceipt for years. the state of Illinois passed a voted ID law and the ACLU sued today, as they have every time. to see my reasoning for the prosecution of the ACLU, under RICO statutes, please see my other debate SOLARMAN
Character max

=============== Not Enough Space =============== Now excuse my forthcoming brevity, but since I feel like we are now stepping on well-worn ground, I think my case can be wrapped up concisely. It has become abundantly clear that my opponent is not quite sure what my analogy was for. It was not to show that he is against limits in general, but that his criticism against character limits is inherently unreasonable. If the limit on characters is too small, it does not stand to reason that character limits should be entirely eliminated. Instead there should be a reasonable increase in the maximum characters allotted to allow for the natural progression of wholesome debate. =============== Limits Creativity =============== My opponent has offered no real rebuttal to my claim that brevity fosters creativity. Instead he believes that creativity is contingent upon the length of one's argument – this is balderdash! Arguments need not be long in order to be creative. =============== No Good Reasons =============== 1. Loss of readers Since I'm sure people desire that their work actually be read (and honestly critiqued) it is a particularly pertinent fact that longer debates are verifiably less read. 2. Loss of genuine votes My opponent's examples are irrelevant as they do not fit the criteria specified. Long debates receive less genuine votes. Now imagine a debate with 5 rounds of 30,000 characters each! Heated? Probably. Popular? Hardly. 3. Unfair Tactic I'll let this point stand as it is. I do not believe my opponent's response is either good or convincing. Thank You, InquireTruth
Character max

This debate is referring to whether or not there should be a max character limit, or not. I will be standing in opposition to this. I believe there should not be a character debate for the following reasons (more may be brought up later in the debate). 1. Not enough argumentation space 2. It limits the flow of creativity for debaters 3. There is no good reason for there to be a character max. NOT ENOUGH SPACE I don't know about the rest of the DDO community, but I personally have had problems in this area. Have you ever been in a heated debate, and when trying to refute all of your opponents points, you realize you are out of characters? Some of your opponents points when refuting may take quite a bit of space for argumentation, while others may take very little. But the problem is with the character max, is that the individual may not always be able to hit all of his opponents points because of the absurd limit. What's debate if we can't even argue all the points that have been brought up? LIMITS CREATIVITY Some issues for people, may be alot heavier for some then they are for others. By having a character limit, we dis-able the opportunity for the individuals to express there whole outlook on the situation, if it goes beyond 8000 characters. By having to wait to bring up some points in the next round, or having to share little light on other points, so as to make room for others, we are taking away the full advantage of the very purpose of debate! NO GOOD REASON There really is no good reason for their to be a character limit. I can think of no way that it could be harmful. Yes, the debate may or may not go on a little longer, but that should be a good thing. If the individual taking up the debate, is not able to respond to long arguments because of other things, they should try to take up debates when they know they can get to them. Making a character limit, is just restricting debaters from their full debating potential, and thus, should not be enabled. thankyou -philosophical
children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.
children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link "cell phone use with any adverse health problems" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...
children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........
children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit "radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that "radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells" and has not been found to "cause cancer in animals" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...
children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........
children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

I'd like to welcome my opponent and extend my hope for a great debate! The Merriam-Webster Dictionary vaguely defines 'child' as "a young person" or "a person not yet of age" [1]. In the United States, 'of age' generally refers to age 18, so my opponent is arguing against anyone younger than 18 having a cell phone. It is his burden of proof to provide a specific age for usage. He claims that phones cause radiation leading to cancer. However, as the National Cancer Institute reports, "studies...have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves" and more [2]. Thus my opponent's claim is false. Cell phone use connects children to their friends and families. They are sources of communication and entertainment and, in this technological era, are essential. Thus I must urge you to vote CON in this debate! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.cancer.gov...
Resolved: Macs are superior than Dell computers.

Unfortunately, you're argument is completely arbitrary since the specific hardware conditions have not been stated. Despite that, I will continue on with empirical evidence. As a benchmark, I will examine the performance of the software package: Autodesk Maya 2012 64 Bit and Autodesk Maya for Mac OS. The software details will be found here: http://usa.autodesk.com... I have used similar devices proposed in your opening arguments, and the PC performs much better by a landslide. The Macbook has trouble navigating through the interface and struggles to maintain an effective work experience. This is due to the limitations of the OS and its optimized performance. In any case, if performance and durability are the conditions for your argument, the Dell would be the optimum choice.
Resolved: Macs are superior than Dell computers.

Resolution says it all. 8,000 characters, 3 days to argue. 1st round is acceptance and beginning arguments, opponent starts. Burden of proof is upon opponent. Definitions: mac: A Macbook pro 13" laptop running OS X Lion, mid 2011 model. Dell: A dell 14" laptop running Windows 7. superior: better than all other specs are assumed to be the same. remember: opponent starts, opponent has burden of proof
Resolved: Macs are superior than Dell computers.

My opponent tries to employ the old ad hominem fallacy here by questioning my knowledge, as opposed to attacking my arguments in and of themselves. BtW, just to prove I'm not an idiotRAM- Random Access memoryCPU- Central processing unitGPU- Graphics processing unitSo, does that make me, in your eyes, someone who is "qualified" for this debate?Macs perform below average because they aren't designed for heavy duty performance.Define "Heavy Duty Performance" Upgrade costs are higher for Macs if you need a technician, otherwise they are about the same if you do it yourself. I agree, but since you provided no actual numbers.... Unlike me, who showed that software upgrades are iNCREDIBLY cheaper on the mac. On top of that, parts for pcs are much cheaper and newer upgrades are available faster.Numbers please. And upgrades are available faster is quite irrelevant, as an upgrade in RAM and other components (which is what i assume you're talking about) come out AT THE SAME TIME, because these things are simply PC-related things. You have clearly made your argument based on your own preferences as opposed to performance. Seeing as I never said performance specifically in the parameters for the debate... This is merely a small part. And anyways, performance is based upon processor speed, among other factors, and seeing as I said that all specs are the same.... you need a benchmark.This is a debate on the direct comparison of Macs to dells. NOT which one does better when running a program I have no access to the full version of. BTW: arguments my opponent dropped-Malware-Upgrade costs (software)- Hardware
Resolved: Macs are superior than Dell computers.

You have clearly made your argument based on your own preferences as opposed to performance. And to tell you the truth your understanding of hardware performance is quite limited. You don't understand how performance on computers are evaluated, you need a benchmark. Autodesk Maya is a great benchmark because it requires heavy usage of RAM,CPU, and GPU. Do you know what that means? I can explain to you further if you would like? Anyways, Macs perform below average because they aren't designed for heavy duty performance. If you're an everyday computer user(emails, Facebook, surfing) Macs are perfect for you. On top of that, parts for pcs are much cheaper and newer upgrades are available faster. Upgrade costs are higher for Macs if you need a technician, otherwise they are about the same if you do it yourself. Though you have to make sure that the mac is is compatible with the hardware.
Resolved: Macs are superior than Dell computers.

Unfortunately, you're argument is completely arbitrary since the specific hardware conditions have not been stated. I actually did state them. look right below the definitions Despite that, I will continue on with empirical evidence. As a benchmark, I will examine the performance of the software package: Autodesk Maya 2012 64 Bit and Autodesk Maya for Mac OS. The software details will be found here: http://usa.autodesk.com...... I thought it was obvious that the debate was about dell with windows vs. Mac with Lion. I have never used autodesk, obviously giving you an unfair advantage. I have used similar devices proposed in your opening arguments, and the PC performs much better by a landslide. The Macbook has trouble navigating through the interface and struggles to maintain an effective work experience. This is due to the limitations of the OS and its optimized performance. This is all relating to his autodesk takeover, so I will say this is a bit irrelevent. However, I will change the debate (if my opponent accepts) to make the burden of proof shared. On to my contentions!------------------------------------- Malware: this is an argument that comes up in every mac vs. pc debate I have read, so this is nothing knew. However, I would like to state that there are very few viruses out there for the mac. My opponent will say that there are still some, but a quick google search will allowed me to find out the new virus that 6 months. Note that I am not saying that macs don't get viruses, I'm simply stating that they are few and far between, making macs obviously superior in this regard. However, since there are fewer viruses for the mac, macs are obviously superior in this regard Hardware: if you have a dell laptop in front of you right now, give it a little (not major!) back and forth shake. likely, your screen is shaking back and forth a large amount. Macs don't do that, as it is part of the unibody enclosure. There is a large difference in the screen as well. Macs have a glass screen cover, while dells have plastic. Macs are made of strong metal, dells are plastic. Macs have a 5" trackpad with multitouch, dells have a 3.5". Macs are obviously superior in this regard Cost: now, it is true that a mac i more expensive, at first glance, than a dell. But lets take a look at what extra you're paying for when you get a mac: Metal unibody enclosure Glass screen Superior operating system (more on that later) Less expensive upgrades OS upgrade: simple comparison here. Mac OS Lion costs $30 PER APPLE ACCOUNT (if you have two, even a hundred macs, it still costs $30) [2]. Macs are obviously superior in this regard Official office costs: Mac office costs $60 per apple account [2]. This includes a word processor, a spreadsheet tool, and a slideshow maker. Microsoft office costs $120 FOR ONE COMPUTER [1]. Macs are obviously superior in this regard. I await my opponents arguments
paying to go to college freash out of school

"you cannot get a scholership for the colleges down here." Why not. I sent you the link. You can get a scholarship almost anywhere. You have to put effort into it. "and as for funding well the goverment can pay for childeren to go to school so why can't they pay for say 16-19 for a free college course then?" I can imagine that the UK funds to help children go to school so people can have a basic knowledge. Higher education should not be included. If the government does include higher education the funds would have to come from somewhere. Where do they get it? Tax more? Really, do you guys really need to be taxed more than you are now? Take away from the children? Really, do not let 5-year-old Timmy goes to schools so 18 year old you can. "these teenagers cannot apply for these sort of things trust me i have tried." Try harder! "and you want reason why they should be entilted to a free college course? 1) becuase it gives them a chance at what they want to do without worrying about the cost" What about students that have to pay for it b/c their family makes more. Now you are unloading a ton of people into a work field b/c the government picks up the tab. Now the family's that cannot get into the government program have to struggle for their kids to go to college. "2)becuase half of them do not have money" So is it fair for the half that does? "3)besucase its just not right that you should have to pay for it all" Why not? "4)not only do you have to pay for the fees you have to pay fopr trips theres 4 off the top of my head" Oh not, you have to pay for services! What? It is not all free in this world! Look I know it is hard but hey that is the cost of higher education. I have given you some ways to do it. You have to put the effort into it. As of now you have not shown me that you have tried hard. VOTE PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRO