BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

Everyone is biased. Everything people say is biased (and I don't have a problem with that). That's how we were created: we have our own beliefs and opinions. When it comes to news network, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be unbiased. I hope you can understand that. There is no way a news network can be right down the middle on every single issue and topic that is discussed. Most news corporations "try" to bring an "unbiased" opinion to reporting, but to think that there isn't bias is just naive. I will concede the point that Fox News is biased to the right-wing. But that doesnt mean they cant be fair and balanced. Fair doesnt mean unbiased. Fair is offering both sides of the argument with equal representation (aka balance). The greatest example of this is Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity, a conservative, and Alan Colmes, a liberal, on the same show! WOW! Who could imagine? And every time they have a panel, there is always equal representation (trust me on this. I havent missed a show in 4 or 5 months). Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Dan Schoen, Lanny Davis, and a few other names I cant remember off the top of my head are almost daily contributors to the program and all of them are liberals. This is the norm on other shows with Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Sustren, etc. I'm 100% sure Fox News doesn't tell viewers their news is (as you put it) "totally fair." (And to be frank, I dont think anything at any point in time is every totally fair.) The ratings speak for themselves. Fox News must be doing something....fair.
Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

deceitful: having a tendency or disposition to deceive: a: not honest, b: deceptive, misleading (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I hope that whoever accepts this debate will accept the fact that Fox News is bias to the right-wing. This debate is not about MSNBC, CNN, ABC, ect. Fox is the network on trial here, and I wish to refrain from bringing in other networks to this discussion. This debate is only seeking an answer to the question "Is Fox News a deceitful source for 'news'?" To start off, I will assume my opponent recognizes that Fox news is in fact bias, so my first example of deceit will be the very slogan of Fox News itself: Fair and Balanced. How can a bias news network actually tell their viewers that their news is totally fair. Balanced? Fox News gives both sides to every issue; George Bushs' and Dick Cheneys'. You can fair and biased at the same time. Imagine if Air Americas slogan was: Non partisan Talk and Both-Sided Hosts.
Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

"Fox News tells veiwers that the network does indeed have a hard right-wing bias." You can't put words into the mouth of Fox News. Do you really think that hosts and anchors on the network would say such a thing? I can say with 99% certainty that Fox News does (and has never) tell/told their viewers that its network has a "hard right-wing bias." "Now, telling people they are getting the fair story and yet providing biased "news" than that is lieing, deceitful." I would argue the news is fair, and the commentary is balanced because they actually bring in both sides of the argument. There is always going to be bias. You need to get your mind around that. Obviously there is a slight bias towards the right-wing of politics, but IT IS INEVITABLE. "Well, it does matter that Sean gets more tv and radio time, because he is the main conservative on Fox, the talking head of the Network. He represents only a one sided veiwpoint and he gets more media than Alan. If Fox was really balanced why not give Alan the same treatment? (Now would be a good time to use the word "deceitful...)" Well a) Alan Colmes works for Air America and b) he wouldn't get any ratings on Fox. It's not the fact that Fox is giving Sean better treatment than Alan Colmes, the bottom line is that ratings are everything when it comes to TV. TV is a popularity contest. When your show is popular, you get more TV time. It's media 101. Just like when sex sells, ratings do the same thing. "Unbiased means balanced. Thats why it is deceitful. People feel like they are getting the whole story, but there is a clear bias!" First off, it is a stretch to equate "unbias" to balance. Secondly, if people felt like they weren't getting the whole story and that there was so much right wing bias, they would change the channel and watch another news network. I think the ratings speak for themselves. "The REAL bottom line. I would have no problem if Fox News "came out of the closet" and admitted they were bias. That would not botther me. However, it is deceitful to profess to be Fair and yet be bias. Balanced and biased doesn't work either." You fundamentally just do not understand the bias that is naturally always there. I'll give you a perfect example of "fair and balanced": THIS DEBATE. I think I have been completely fair and balanced in this debate, but there is an obvious bias on my side. This is exactly what I'm trying to get through to you. Though there is always bias, whether blatant or slight, you can still be fair and balanced. This is why I feel Fox News is not deceitful.
Theoretically, one would rather end up in heaven than hell.

That is really ridiculous. What bliss is there if one can't orgasm or produce adrenalin?In all seriousness, there is no such thing as metaphysical bliss as even something as basic as happiness is a hormonal process so please provide your explanation of the bliss-zone or admit that heaven is just a boring place for the holy to rot and those in hell to laugh at.
Theoretically, one would rather end up in heaven than hell.

I don't care if there are 1 trillion virgins, you can't expect a non-physical soul to have sex in a heaven of a religion that prohibits lust as one of the seven deadliest sins.It's clearly not to procreate as that is the entire aim of christian sex so really you can't say that the virgins matter.What on Earth was the rest of your argument leading to?
Theoretically, one would rather end up in heaven than hell.

No bible verses, no quoting other philosophers, just pure reasoning and debate.I define heaven as a place where everyone gets what they want when they want but there is no lust, no violence, no envy, no money, no objective, no hierarchy, all are equal and that is that.I define hell as a place where everyone is in utter agony most of the time but if they go through agony long enough, they move up ranks and can abuse the lower ranks as they wish. Lower ranks, if they are kinky, can request to indulge a higher rank in an extreme fetish of some kind. This will help them be promoted. If souls are not abusive enough, they get demoted. Unless they are abusive to self (masochists) who force lower ranks to abuse them to their heart's content.All animals go to heaven so no bestiality unfortunately.
High School Musical

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that said, I ask that you (as the voters) vote on who presented the better arguments rather than what you are inclined to believe in accordance to your personal opinion. Thank you. Now let us proceed. For those who do not understand, it is the job of the Pro (my job) to show that High School Musical doesn't suffer from the problems which my opponent has implied in round 1. He says he will elaborate in round 2, but if his arguments do not link with the arguments he made in round 1, I see no reason to not justify dismissal. My opponent insinuates that this movie suffers because it applauds the "popular kids" whereas it gives no spotlight to the nerds/geeks. Here, he commits the fallacy of false dichotomy as the female protagonist (Gabriella Montez) is actually the "nerd" character for this film. In other words, she puts intellectual/scholastic activities above the activities which are commonly deemed suitable for the "popular kids." Another problem with my opponent's rendering of what makes a "quality film" in this genre is that the "loser/nerd/geek goes out of his way to popular girl" trend is all too common in high school films. It also gives the audience a message which can be viewed negatively. As in, the nerd has to prove himself/herself worthy in order to get who she/he wants. Why should the nerd have to do that? Why should the nerd have to do all the work? Why not have it to where the popular guy (or girl) realizes the flaw within his (or her) own standards and works to prove himself (or herself) worthy in the eyes of the nerd/geek/loser? This film accomplishes just that; the jock (Troy Bolton) realizes the flaw in his standards (with the theme of music being tied in of course =D ) and works to prove himself worthy in the eyes of the nerd (Gabriella Montez) (who turns out to have a blessed singing voice by the way). I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.
High School Musical

High School Musical. The classic tale of the guy overcoming all obstacles to get the girl. I look at the summary of a movie like this and become disgusted; the movie is already focused on the most popular guy in the school, the BMOC, the superjock. Why raise the person that everyone in the school aspires to be? Why can't movies like these be focused on the little guys, the nerds, the geeks? Why can't an unknown, put-down, teased kid come out with the blessed singing voice and get the girl? These questions are shoved away from the public, replaced with catchy, bubblegum songs that makes everyone feel good about themselves. I'll elaborate on this topic later, and await the rebuttal of whoever accepts my challenge.
Distributive justice is a just economic system.

"I would like to point out that my opponent has not empirically proved that Nozick does indeed believe what he says he does." I would hope that if he says he believes it, we can take his word for it. "Individual property rights are absolute. They have always been. And despite any future despotic attempts to violate them, they will always be." This is really the only part I need to address. He clearly makes a warrant-less claim here. I've given you reasons why property rights are in no way "absolute", rather synthetic temporal ideas. For example, native Americans thought they had rights to there own property, Germany thought they had a right to Poland, Russia thinks they have the right to own the entire world, etc. "Individual property rights have their basis in the foundational concept of individual human freedom. And thus, if every individual has a inherent and inalienable right to his own liberty (which I think is fairly obvious), then, by extension, every individual also has an inherent and inalienable right to his own property." He makes assumptions further, that somehow the leap from liberty to property is obvious, but obviously just because they're next to each other in the declaration of independence doesn't make them synonymous. Moreover the right to liberty is also not a universal declaration, but once again an idea that has merit only to the few that believe it to be true in one particular place at one particular time. For example, the Mayan's assumed violating liberty and the like for sacrifice was justified. This is the main voter in the round. The fact that property rights aren't inherent for every human being implies that in a system of distributive justice there is no "theft occurring" rather a collective proletariat bargain for some net benefit. Also he quotes Nozick, however the system in which we're discussing doesn't presuppose that owning property in someone else is "unjust". The system doesn't force you to continue your participation. Assuming your emancipation of this new communist/socialist system is homogenized across the zeitgeist of the populace then there is no justice being violated. Moreover this same concept described by Nozick isn't in anyway original. Marx was the first one to use critical rhetoric like this to describe the dangers of capitalism. In the same way the government has "forced" your proletariat struggle so to have you been forced by unregulated capitalism to find a job and be ruthlessly molested by your employer (figuratively). The only difference here is that you capitalism has no moral compass and is strictly motivated by profit margins and the like, while government is motivated by prerogative of its constituency.
Distributive justice is a just economic system.

It seems that my opponent completely ignored the top of the 1st post where I stated that the framework of my side of the debate is not going to be the formal Lincoln Douglas debate he presupposed it would be. Therefore the fact he's trying to garner some offense by the lack of implicit attention to every detail in his text is completely ridiculous. The debate comes to an axiom of standards that would quench some interpretation of justice, which is the framework under which I'm colloquially arguing. Now onto the actual issue of distributive justice. My opponent has misunderstood the link between the process for property ownership and the justification for distributive justice. The way he describes distributive justice alludes heavily to communism, "The process, inherent in the distributive justice system, which is euphemistically referred to as "redistribution," actually consists of seizing property (usually money) from its rightful owner, completely contrary to his will, and then giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." I'm actually going to concede that the two are relatively synonymous and will probably exercise the vernacular accordingly. Property rights are extremely relative when talking about economic systems. The assumption that people can own property in the first place is one that I would like to call into question. The fact that somehow I am able to stake a claim on a piece of land because some synthetic system has been established that grants pieces of paper the right to exclude disenfranchised party members of the agreement from ever garnering any sort of survival from the tangible noumenal world, is always going to be unjust. Unfortunately you have no real concept of how distributive justice would work. Your not growing crops just to have them "stolen" from you, rather the object is the fact that you have tools to farm, e.g. tractor requires you to have a system in which the person that manufactured the steel, the rubber for tires, pumped the gasoline all get some net benefit from you growing your crops. Therefore the notion of "property" is not private but public, and no theft is actually taking place. Whether or not you agree with this system has nothing to do with how "just" the system is (As long as everyone gets whats do to them).
Distributive justice is a just economic system.

I hope it's okay if my framework is much more casual, and less Lincoln Douglass-e Your notion of property rights, require a deliberate subtraction of rights from other people that want to own the same property, and although it is true Nozick has a notion of legitimate workmanship that requires a return for your physical or cognitive labor, he also thinks that its only "just" if the physical process doesn't injure the situation of others. Therefore, by your dialectical justification your required to prove that your laissez faire system isn't inimical to other people. So take another Nozick example, a man finds a piece of land that isn't owned by anyone else and decides to seed it, plant it, and farm it, the natural assumption would be that this sort of thing is okay. But what arbitrary process makes it appropriate for the first person with the capacity to discover this land, the owner of it? There is no natural universal declaration on the subject. Therefore it would unjust for the assumption to be made, for example, that I somehow am granted immediate ownership of the entire planet of mars just because I was the first one on the planet. Moreover, distributive justice is an artificial system that is required to avoid extinction. The system of events in a world without regulation would allow for a number of different process' that hinder the health of the general constituency. For example, Global climate change has been brought on by collective use of fossil fuels and the like, which in your own economically deregulated system would be irreversible, and perpetual.
Distributive justice is a just economic system.

"I have proven before, the actual reason Liberty and property are linked is because I have conclusively proved it with unrequited philosophical analysis. As if that were not enough, my opponent then goes on to claim that universal human freedom does not exist. We are limited to 8,000 characters in this debate. Whole books have been written on the foundations of Liberty. My opponent cannot simply drop the comment, "oh, by the way, liberty doesn't exist," and expect me to lay out a detailed, 1,000-page philosophical analysis about the existence of liberty. To do this is incredibly abusive. For our purposed here, and indeed for our purposes throughout our entire lives, it is sufficient for Liberty to be presupposed. After all, we are imperfect humans; we can't even validly do math without axioms, so how can we be expected to deal with deep, complex concepts like morality without them?" If you've read this than it's clear I have won this debate. He says that since 1000 page books have been written on the subject that he can't possible be expected to argue for it. But this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my entire life. (1) It shouldn't be hard to find a passage in the 1000 page book that would be suitable for our purposes here. (2)But more over what he's doing is much more abusive than me making an argument that he didn't expect. If he doesn't have to warrant any of his claims because it is too difficult than I should be able to make any warrant less claim and it should be accepted as fact. (3) If he is not willing to debate subjects like liberty than why is he here in the first place? Therefore extend the claim that liberty and property is not some kind of force that flows through everyone in the universe, and extend the claim that distributive justice is therefore justified under not only a consenting population, but even one with reluctance and hatred for the government. Because no one is being stolen from ect. ect. "If I am the holder of a thing, then anyone who touches it without my consent (for example, wrests an apple from my hand) affects and diminishes that which is internally mine, my freedom. Consequently, the maxim of his action stands in direct contradiction with the axiom of justice." Furthermore he dropped the Nozick card in his last speech, the only thing he has left is his Kant analysis which assumes that Kant is a property owner in the first place and, as I have said before there isn't any real concrete analysis that says anyone can own anything, and finally Kant has no intrinsic warrant on justice, just a large assumption that says the apple is mine and anyone that takes it is unjust, this is just an attractive, sophisticated, but baseless anecdote on the subject. Even if you don't buy any of that I'm still winning on the argument that liberty, property, and morality are just temporal assertions in one particular time and place and have no legitimate grounds in terms of a real phenomenological argument. extend the Mayan, German, Native American analysis, which my opponent simply claims as a mistake on there part.
Math Homework Should Be Illegal

"Math is a very important subject and it is one of the most commonly used subject in further carrers."I agree; but I also agree that math homework should be illegal. I reiterate: Math homework is unnecessary and causes brain damage, so it should therefore be made illegal.I would like to extend my arguments into the final round.I would also like to solidify my position with this evidence: "Using newly developed technological and statistical tools, sleep scientists have recently been able to isolate and measure the impact of this single lost hour. Because children’s brains are a work-in-progress until the age of 21, and because much of that work is done while a child is asleep, this lost hour appears to have an exponential impact on children that it simply doesn’t have on adults. The surprise is how much sleep affects academic performance and emotional stability, as well as phenomena that we assumed to be entirely unrelated, such as the international obesity epidemic and the rise of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. A few scientists theorize that sleep problems during formative years can cause permanent changes in a child’s brain structure: damage that one can’t sleep off like a hangover. It’s even possible that many of the hallmark characteristics of being a tweener and teen–moodiness, depression, and even binge eating–are actually symptoms of chronic sleep deprivation."[9] Homework is damaging, therefore math homework must also be damaging, so math homework should be made illegal.[9] - http://blog.sfgate.com...
One.

Numbering systems are what numbering systems do and I am not embarrassed to admit that Con has a the better level of mathematical knowledge than myself. Nonetheless, numbers are representative of reality, reality is not representative of numbers. That is to say, numbers and numbering systems are human constructs. In all systems though, 1 is 1. How we represent multiples of 1 thereafter is not relevant to my opening proposition and question. I simply use 1 to represent everything, and 0 to represent nothing. 1 particle, 1 atom, 1 element, 1 molecule etc. All matter is made of individual units of 1. 0 or no particles, no atoms , no elements, no molecules etc. No matter, nothing. But is it possible to achieve 0? If what we perceive is truth, we can only perceive something (1 or multiples of 1 equalling 1). We can only imagine nothing (0). We can perceive emptiness, but emptiness is relative to scale and not the perception of nothing. As I suggested previously, in order to achieve 0 we can attempt to break down 1 into smaller parts or fractional parts, but just as matter breaks down into smaller and smaller single components, numbers will do exactly the same, 1/2 is simply 2 x 1 relative to scale. Scale = the ability to perceive, but not necessarily or exclusively the human ability to perceive. It's the ultimate perplexing problem, whether it be real, numerical or philosophical . In reality, is it possible to break down matter to such a point or scale at which it no longer exists? Numerically, there can be infinite multiples of 1. suggesting that it is impossible to achieve 0. Is there a point at which numbers cease to be representative of reality, does mathematics eventually become irrelevant. Philosophy is imagination and I personally cannot imagine nothing without simultaneously imagining something. With regard to this debate I would suggest that Con's introduction of alternative numbering systems, simply rests in their ability to do so and does not actually answer or address the simplicity of the proposition. Disregarding the possibilities, probabilities or realities of time and space Does Con. think that it is possible for there to be nothing.