BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal art should be made accesible

In retort to your question ï¿½€˜How are you going to make it accessible? ï¿½€™ I envision through both as you said, physical galleries and online museums. ï¿½€˜What sort of art do you think should be accessible, art like Bill Hensonï¿½€™s child photography/pornography? ï¿½€™ As for the question of sexual content, In Hensonï¿½€™s work, it has been argued that the human figure regardless of age, form, stance or intent has a sexual element to it as a representation of a sexual being. We humans are sexual beings and that is one the attributes of the human form. That does not make the portrayal human figure vulgar or pornographic regardless of age from an artistic point of view. It is implored that common sense be used in the Henson case. People would not take nude photographs or make nude images of the neighbor kid or family friend, with permission of the parents and expect we could publish those images. You know that if you live in the civilized world that if you did that the authorities would be knocking on the door, eventually. It is just plain common sense that should stop you, you should know better if you are a fifty something year old mature established artist. Not in the case of Bill Henson. I can say with certainty that the general public knows better and certainly anyone with pedophilic intention knows better. ï¿½€˜Doesn't it just spit in the face of the offline codes of legal and moral practice that protect artist's rights to show and profit from their own work? ï¿½€™ Yes it may well however it must be made clear that creativity and innovation always builds on the past. Walt Disney stole the original idea of Mickey Mouse from a writer and now stifles any attempt for this character to be represented without permission. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it, Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past, Ours is less and less a free society. Never has creativity been more controlled. Take the addition, the changes, the copyrights turn, take the changes to copyrights scope, put it against the background of an extraordinarily concentrated structure of media, and you produce the fact that never in our history have fewer people controlled more of the evolution of our culture. Think of the consequences of this. Look at Google for example they have a monopoly over the online publishing industry and payed peanuts for it ($125M). What gives them the right to control culture? I think you are correct when you say ï¿½€œAllot of material could fall in the category of "banned" or "illegal"ï¿½€ï¿½. And this is the very point. A lot of work is being controlled thank you for making that clear. Culture production is being stifled through creative repression and copyright. In 1774, free culture was born in a case called Donaldson v. Beckett in the House of Lords in England; free culture was made because copyright was stopped. Donï¿½€™t let 2009 be the end. Have a look at this video. .. . http://www.youtube.com... References . http://randomfoo.net... Open Letter from Ms Alison Croggon, Writer, Melbourne, Australia Ibid . http://www.petitiononline.com...
Illegal art should be made accesible

By saying that illegal art should be accessible you are just encouraging people to loosen the definition of what constitutes art to cover a lot of inappropriate or obscene material. How are you going to make it accessible? By having special, physical galleries for housing this banned art? or opening special forums on the internet, what sort of art do you think should be accessible, art like Bill Hensen's child photography/pornography? There is illegal art that violates copyright laws that are set up to protect intellectual property, is this the sort of art that you think should be accessible and if you do make this accessible, doesn't it just spit in the face of the offline codes of legal and moral practice that protect artist's rights to show and profit from their own work? You need to define what exactly the illegal art that you are trying to popularise is because alot of material could fall in the category of "banned" or "illegal" art and alot of this material is banned for good reason, child pornography is banned and one of the materials completely banned under internet censorship even, so if someone takes your argument and calls it art, does that mean we should throw it on a website or in a gallery and let people be educated by it? Publishing and popularising material like this is not justified by suggesting it stimulates debate and discussion, the debate and discussion can occur without some of these offensive "art" pieces being legitimized by being displayed and accessible, as is evident by this debate itself. Limiting access to obscene or offensive material is hard enough to regulate without the ability to just limit people's access to physical property today considering the digitisation of almost everything on the internet, encouraging access to something so loosely defined as "art" or "illegal art" will be problematic and give an opportunity for people to abuse the system.
New Age Electronic Government

"Who-has-the-time"? Everyone has the time to, or should make the time to, participate in our democracy. Why? Because of the almost 20% and rising unemployment rate. Some of these people sit at home with nothing to do all day and have no desire to self educate. Not just politically, but generally. I think what I was trying to get at here is we need an educational revolution in our country starting with the youngest generation. "Education is teaching our children to desire the right things." R13; Plato
New Age Electronic Government

As a millennial, am I the only one noticing we haven't been using modern technology (supercomputers, smartphones, and other devices that connect everyone and everything in it) to our advantage? With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. taking up everyones time I think we have been overlooking the potential political advantage these devices could provide for our generation. As a backdrop for my argument I think I can assume WE all believe congress and government in general is becoming more and more corrupt with every election (based off record low approval ratings). However, We The People still continue to vote into office the same people we are unhappy with. Why? Maybe because we feel hopeless, misinformed, and minute compared to these career politicians that continually propagate corruption. I would like to suggest a futuristic and corruption free government with the help and use of atomic supercomputers. Picture logging onto a website so secure it would take a technical complex larger that google to hack (making voters feel more secure). You have the options of opening a local, state, or federal topic form with issues that relate to your local, state, or federal laws and bills. Here you can get consolidated and factual information from private companies that have no reason to be biased for or against an issue. You then have one vote on the issues related to you which will be viewed by a single president and his cabinet that YOU THE VOTER bring into office. He will log onto this website as well and be able to see directly (without interference from hackers because of the supercomputers) what major issues We The People see that needs to be fixed based on an interactive and integrated map of the responses from the participants. To incentivize this website we would give (lets say 1%) tax cuts to those who participate. This would eliminate the need for congress, which might seem extreme to most, but think about it. Getting rid of the two party, corrupt, old, and deadlocked congress we have right now and opening up this office basically to everyone for a vote on every MAJOR issue would end corruption, gridlock, and the two party system. Also, making the voter feel more hopeful, informed, and important in each issue.
New Age Electronic Government

1. 15% of Americans do not use the Internet (that is 1 for every 7) [1]. So your policy automatically disenfranchises about 36 million adults from participating freely in the democratic process[2]. 2. Unemployment rate has not gone over 10% in the past 10 years, currently it is at 6.6% [3] 3. An "education revolution" would imply, and necessitate, having the government be less involved with education - electronic or otherwise. 4. Education, Unemployment, time, Direct Democracy[4] via the internet, etc.. your argument is all over the place and somewhat incoherent at this point. Ironically, your viewpoint is more in line with Anarchists and Communists [5] [1] http://www.foxnews.com... [2] http://quickfacts.census.gov... [3] http://data.bls.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
ereaders replacing books

That argument has no basis- and honestly is a bit close-minded. Books are a normal part of life- we have them in school, libraries, homes, etc. We need to keep books for many reasons. For one, according to CBS News, "Several small studies suggest that reading on paper instead of an electronic screen is better for memory retention and focus." If we use eReaders in our schools, students may have a harder time retaining information. Also, technology is expensive, and it's hard for schools to raise enough money to supply all students with the necessary technology. On the sentimental side, books are passed down through families, and the magic can be lost if they can simply be emailed a copy. Libraries may also go out of business if we revert to eReaders.
Being innovative is more important than being right

Thanks for a Great Constructive Maestro! For clarity; I will be using 'ingenuity' as a synonym for 'the trait of being innovative'. The Con's argument will be based on two logical premises; First; being right is a necessary precedent to innovation- Simply having an idea of a way to change the status quo is not sufficient to bring about true innovation; if that were the case then we would have flying cars, a cure to aids and world peace. Surely there have been people who have dreamt of solving these problems and have even taken innovative action against them -- and yet they still persist. The reason for this, is that while those who have tackled these problems have had good intentions, they didn't know what the right thing to do was; they didn't know the right science, the right equation, the right structure -- they don't know how to do it correctly. In 1903 the wright brothers created the world's first airplane[1], but not before first finding the lift equation[2] and learning through observation how birds fly through the warping of their wings. They wouldn't have had success even despite their innovation if they hadn't known the right formula for how things fly in the first place. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.grc.nasa.gov... Meanwhile we see that even with innovation and improvement in the field of aerodynamics, many airplanes have still failed[3] due to poor design. The designers had good intentions and meant only to innovate the field of aerodynamics, but they still failed because it wasn't right. [3] http://www.wwiaviation.com... There are certain natural laws pertaining to physics that must be adhered regardless of the level of one's ingenuity; so then being right about those laws is more important than being innovative. It doesn't matter how much we want cars to run without any kind of energy or maintenance, that kind of innovation won't happen without the right science to spur it on. According to Newton's Third Law of Physics[4], "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." [4] http://www.physicsclassroom.com... Second; Being right and being innovative aren't in conflict Now let me clarify before getting into the bulk of this argument. Since it is my burden to prove that being right is more important than being innovative I do not intend to argue balance here (saying both are equal), but that one will never be put in a one-or-the-other situation when dealing with innovation and rightness. To extend upon my previous point dealing with the laws of physics, you cannot hope to have ingenuity unless you've gotten the physics behind the innovative process right. As much as we would like to have the innovation energy-free cars, our steps to achieving this must be in line with the laws of physics; unless they are right in this regard innovation cannot happen. So then the logical conclusion is that since science that is right is required for innovation, being right is indeed more important than innovation. Back to you Pro!
Being innovative is more important than being right

Hello con and spectators. Before con and I jump into this debate, I will state the outline, rules and definitions for this debate. Round outline:Round 1) Definitions, greetings/acceptance, rules and outline of debate. Round 2) Opening statement; no rebuttals may be presented in this roundRound 3) RebuttalsRound 4) Rebuttals Round 5) Summaries and conclusion. No new arguments may be presented in this round. Definitions:To be innovative is to be use or show new methods, ideas, etc. -<. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;To be right is to be "in accordance with what is just, good, or proper. "-<. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;To be important is to be "marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence : valuable in content or relationship. "-<. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;Rules:1) No arguments outside of the definitions provided (no sematics).2) Try to deviate from any and all logical fallacies.3) Have fun. Fun is important. Voters:Give an unbiased vote. Votes should only be on the quality of each debator's performance and arguments. ======================================================= I will, of course, argue that being innovative is more important to society than being right. My opponent will argue that being right is more important to society than being innovative.
This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

I will be attempting to show that the statement, "Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures."", contained in medic0506's forum signature is factually incorrect. As he has refused to admit to this in the forums. Well either he can refuse this debate, admiting that he keeps that there knowing it is not the truth, or he can debate me on it. Well medic? I'v been on this site for a couple weeks now, after spending a bit of time in the forum I'v seen alot of people say you won't defend most of what you say. Is it true or will you defend your claims?
This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi

I don't see what the big issue is with my sig but apparently it's been bothering him alot, for the past couple weeks, so I'll accept UnitedAndy's challenge. For the record I would ask that Pro refrain from making any other personal comments, such as implying that I won't defend my claims, and that others think that too.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Round 3RebuttalsMy opponent asserts: 'Only 247 of 3,000? You should question the validity of the data especially considering:http://liespotting.com......:http://www.newsweek.com......'Here, my opponent suggests that 247 of 3,000 people may be too small a sample to be representative. However, it is a large enough sample to be representative, if it were a sample closer to 30 or 40 then I might be hesitant to suggest that it's representative. However it's not, thus it is representative and some of the most insightful experiments ever have had incredibly small samples ([1]Sperry's experiment into split-brain patients had only 11 people)As to my opponents suggestion that the sample of 247 people were all lying, whilst it is possible that some of them were lying, it is incredibly unlikely that all of them were lying. My opponent asserts: 'Romans chapter 13, verses 1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com......) states our need to be under the authority of our government as long as they do not ask us to violate God’s laws. Therefore, getting married by a justice of the peace would be fine."'Yes, getting married by a justice of the peace would be fine. However, it is made quite clear in the bible that homosexual relationships are violations of God's law:[2] 'Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.'It is clear from this that the bible lays out homosexuality as being against God's law.Thus, gay marriage is not ok with the bible. Thus forcing Christian institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is ethically wrong as it is against their beliefs. My argument thus holds.Simply saying 'there is no need for that' does not rebut my argument. Another option, such as I suggested, would mean that religious institutions would not be forced to carry out ceremonies that are against their beliefs, and religious people would still have a way of declaring their love for each other and gain state benefits the same as a married heterosexual couple would. Sources:[1]http://www.nobelprize.org...[2]http://www.openbible.info...
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

"[..]sent questionnaires to 3,000 18-39 year olds, 247 of whom had grown up with parents in a same-sex relationship. Personally, I would question the validity of some of these results as it is more than likely that some of the people who filled in the questionnaires were out to represent homosexual parents in a disfavourable light and, therefore, lied about having parents who were in homosexual relationships." Only 247 of 3,000? You should question the validity of the data especially considering:http://liespotting.com...:http://www.newsweek.com... The chance that those 247 who were surveyed actually were from a gay family and knew about welfare, unemployment, and any other economic points you bring up, is very low. "[...] much the same as marrying a homosexual couple would not be in the interest of promoting the various values and beliefs that a Christian church may wish to promote."http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com... "A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God. God accepts the law of the land in which we live. Romans chapter 13, verses 1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com...) states our need to be under the authority of our government as long as they do not ask us to violate God’s laws. Therefore, getting married by a justice of the peace would be fine."Is the Church now not promoting the Bible? It is my understanding that the Christian Church must allow gay marriage if it is legalized; which it is in 33 states (http://www.freedomtomarry.org...). Thus, it is OK for the Church to promote same sex marriage because it is OK with the Bible. And I believe that counters your other point:"Instead, a different option should be put in place which is similar to marriage, in that it allows two people to declare their love for each other, but avoids religious connotations."There would be no need for that.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

The argument in which you find "irrelevant" is besides the point.I provided it to compare states that have same-sex marriage legalized and sates that don't, to show the logical complications and why same-sex marriage should be leagized in the remainding states. You have not managed to provide a valid point into why same-sex marriage shouldn't be leaglized in the remainding states. Thus, I my argument stands. "My opponent's second argument is thus:"I don't think you finished this...Anyways, in my previous argument I provided the following: "Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise.The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?So you agree with me: A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable. Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.Am I right?Thank You.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Round 5My opponent and I reach the final round and he has decided to focus upon only two aspects of the argument. The first is the practical aspect: 'I have already mentioned twice, same-sex marriage is already legal in 33 states. It has already "been approached".I am simply providing a senerio of what will happen if you attempt to illeagalize same-sex marriage in those 33 states, and the logical complications. Or in other words, I am comparing the 33 states that support same-sex marriage with the other states that don't.Why would 33 states accept same-sex marriage and the other 17 not?'This argument is, as I mentioned earlier, irrelevant. We are not arguing about how the illegalization of same-sex marriage should be practically brought about in America (which is, by the way, only a single part of the world, whereas this argument is on a global scale), but whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal at all.My opponent's second argument is thus:
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

"My opponent suggests that there are practical problems in the banning of same-sex marriage. However, we are not discussing how a ban on same-sex marriage could or should be practically approached, we are discussing whether it needs to be approached in the first place."I have already mentioned twice, same-sex marriage is already legal in 33 states. It has already "been approached". I am simply providing a senerio of what will happen if you attempt to illeagalize same-sex marriage in those 33 states, and the logical complications. Or in other words, I am comparing the 33 states that support same-sex marriage with the other states that don't.Why would 33 states accept same-sex marriage and the other 17 not?"Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise.The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?So you agree with me: A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable. Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.