BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Adopt the Right to be Forgotten

Hi Forever23, I am Kasmic. Good luck to you! My opponent is attempting to affirm that “that The United States of America should adopt the right to be forgotten.” I would like to note that I accept the definitions provided by pro. Pro’s Case: Pro offers two basic arguments 1. ”Internet companies have an intimidating amount of unauthorized data and influence over the citizenry.” Pro argues this is significant in a bad way as it gives companies a large amount of power. I’m not seeing it, perhaps pro could explain why a corporation having my information gives those companies power that results in a net negative. Furthermore, pro concedes that currently companies get this information when people post personal data on networking sites. Thus, people are already equipped with a way to reasonably prevent businesses from getting their data. Of course that is by not posting their information online. No one is forced to put such information on the internet. This solution turns out to be more effective than what pro is suggesting. Ultimately it is up to people as individuals to protect their own information. We do not need a nanny state to do something for us reasonably easy to do. 2. “the social impact of having people base their impressions of others solely off what they see online on social networking sites.” Again this issue already has a simple solution. Safe guard your own information and be careful what you post online. Ironically, pro’s example of Paul Nemitz demonstrates why we don’t want the government in a position to protect our personal information. “the political dangers of a world in which information about everyone is available on the Web, and hence available to the government, which can use it to monitor and control the public.” Thus we see that pro’s argument is self-defeating. She is simultaneously suggesting that we trust the government to protect its citizens by protecting their data and then uses the Government as the example of who privacy needs to be protected from. Both suppossed harms propossed by Pro are better solved by people taking ownership of their own information. This plan is better for many reasons. Two main ones being that it prevents more effectively data breaches then the government ever could, and it would no doubt be cheaper than paying government to protect data. There is no need for a right to be forgotten when you already have the right to protect and secure your information. Again, no one is forced to post their personal information on social media websites.Thus far, pro has failed to demonstrate a need for this right, or any harm that is prevented or addressed by doing so. Consider the resolution unsupported.
We Should Adopt the Right to be Forgotten

Hello, my name is Forever23 and I am the first speaker on the proposition team in this debate. I am here to bring forth my premise that The United States of America should adopt the right to be forgotten. My ensuing roadmap will include defining this debate then framing it and then divulging 2 of my own points into the debate. Should - used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Adopt- take up or start to use or follow Right to be Forgotten- an amorphous privilege that would allow individuals more control over their personal information, particularly that information collected and connected with new technology. Allow me to now frame this debate. I would like to frame the debate to irrelevant information or information that is not true. My first assertion is that Internet companies have an intimidating amount of unauthorized data and influence over the citizenry.With people effortlessly and frequently posting personal data on social networking sites and articles popping up with people"s names that are very easy to find, the internet has become an ever-expanding database. This leads to major companies behind websites to have a large amount of power. The Daily Beast stated that "With the Internet, our identities have metastasized. This situation is intensified by the fact that services like Google and Facebook have an incentive to intrude on as much personal information as they can. The right to be forgotten restores some of the privacy individuals have lost against the companies already dominating the Internet." This is significant because profit seeking corporations should not be allowed to use unauthorized data that they have about people at their own discretion or all citizens could suffer due to their leaked data being in the wrong hands.By adopting a right to be forgotten, we can place a check on the power of these companies and limit their influence using government authority. My second assertion is regarding the social impact of having people base their impressions of others solely off what they see online on social networking sites. If internet users are unable to filter some of the information about them that is online, then people will undoubtedly hold bias against them. `Such was the case with Mario Gonzalez and will be for anyone who has harmful data about them posted on websites. The Director of Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Paul Nemitz "emphasized the political dangers of a world in which information about everyone is available on the Web, and hence available to the government, which can use it to monitor and control the public. He emphasized the personal costs in a world in which one"s identity is defined by search results that reflect a slip-up from decades ago."Paying the price for a blunder you may have made in your adolescent years is simply unjustified. By extending the right to be forgotten on the internet, we ensure that people have the ability to remove malicious data so that the internet may not be used to facilitate falsehoods about people and hence result in defamation. Thank you, please vote proposition.
porn to be made illegal

Yes, porn is a huge part of society however Porn should be made illegal as it causes many issues. Firstly; young people are exposed to it as it is just a few clicks away, it can be accessed from mobile devices, tablets, computers, and also even on TV. Young people think that it is normal to watch it as their friends or older siblings have, but it isn't cool at all. It can cause all sorts of long term issues. Porn stars are fake, they have implants and cosmetic surgery to get behind the camera and onto screens. These fakes become fantasies, young people get brainwashed by them and then when it comes to reality become very disappointed. Porn makes it hard for people to approach the opposite sex as they aren't necessarily attracted to them as they look nothing like the porn stars. This makes finding a relationship very hard. As many boys/men enjoy watching porn and get erected from what they see, when they actually go to do anything with a real woman they find that erections can be hard to get. Porn gives people a false sense of what real women and sex is like. Not many women have the same sort of body or look like these porn stars so when a man who watches porn gets with a normal girl arousal is messed up. Porn often takes away motivation to go out and enjoy yourself, as you porn and masturbation can get in the way, people tend to stay in so that they can watch porn which can make them lazy and weak. Porn can cause self esteem issues as the fantasies override reality. Many women feel insure about their partners watching porn as they feel like their body or their sexual acts aren't enough for their partner, many women don't have the breasts or bottom or vagina that the porn stars have, this can make them very insecure and lower self esteem. Men can also be made to feel as when they see these porn stars penis' they often compare the size, as these porn stars have quite large ones they believe that that is the normal size and begin to feel that theirs is inadequate. Porn can ruin relationships, either due to making the partner feel very insure or stopping arousal. If porn was made illegal underaged young people won't be able to access it. People will become more motivated and go out and meet real people. People will start to expect reality and erectile dysfunction & arousal issues will be solved. People will begin to feel that they are good enough once again and self esteem will be raised in many people. People will find relationships and sexual acts will become meaningful, within these relationships porn won't be able to ruin it. Everyone can get pleasure if they seek it In the right way. Porn isn't the answer.
Lower the drinking age

Exactly, we can not stop underage drinking, but we can stop these kids from going into hiding and drinking, where as if it were legal, they would be in public where others could even teach them modification. http://www.cbsnews.com... Over 200 college professors signed a petition in favor of lowering the drinking age. We cant stop underage drinking, lowering the age would make younger drinkers more aware of what they were doing, since they wouldn't be hiding it. Mark Becker a chief of police officer in Colorado says they are trying to enforce a law that is unenforceable. He believes instead of them cracking down on kids for a violation they should be on the roads stopping drunk drivers. That is where the focus should be, not on kids having a party. This debate is about lowering the drinking age, not how binge drinking happens with all adult and underage drinkers in the country. You are giving me information without relating it.
Lower the drinking age

What good will it do? Underage drinking we can't stop. So whats the point? This is worthless. Its fine where its at. ------------ It is possible for someone to sit down and only have one or two drinks. Not everyone drinks to get drunk or to do harm to their body ---------------- It is. But what about those you can't just drink two?Thats a large number of people. http://www.cdc.gov... Approximately 92% of U.S. adults who drink excessively report binge drinking in the past 30 days.2 Although college students commonly binge drink, 70% of binge drinking episodes involve adults age 26 years and older.3 The prevalence of binge drinking among men is higher than the prevalence among women.4 Binge drinkers are 14 times more likely to report alcohol-impaired driving than non-binge drinkers.3 About 90% of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.5 About 75% of the alcohol consumed by adults in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.5 The proportion of current drinkers that binge is highest in the 18- to 20-year-old group (51%).3
Lower the drinking age

Yes, these are all reasons some people drink, but this does not apply to all people. Who says drinking is not a social escape. It is possible for someone to sit down and only have one or two drinks. Not everyone drinks to get drunk or to do harm to their body. Underage drinking happens all the time and lowering the drinking age would stop those people from hiding it. It would make them and people around them become more aware if the drinking became a problem. Lowering the drinking age can do no harm. It will stop the underage people from hiding and may even stop those people from drinking. Underage kids like the thrill of doing something their not suppose to be doing. Lowering the drinking age could make that thrill go away. The drinking age was eighteen once before and there is no reason it can not be eighteen once again.
Lower the drinking age

Ah yes the common "Its just not fair" argument The use of alcohol as a way to forget problems or to "mellow out" A conscious effort to seek out more drinking opportunities Boasting and a "big shot" complex Drinking is not social but a psychological escape from stress and problems Lack of recognition by the person that he or she is in the early stages of a progressive illness Increasing tolerance Gross Drinking Behavior - more frequent drinking of greater amounts An ability to drink great amounts of alcohol without any apparent impairment Why would a college student need this?
Lower the drinking age

The drinking age should be lowered. If at eighteen a kid becomes an adult, than why are they not allowed to have a drink? I see where people have the concern of college kids drinking, but at eighteen a person is an adult and should be allowed to make their own decisions. In the past the drinking age has been changed many times, so there is a chance it may be changed again. An eighteen year old should be allowed to have a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a wedding. It is not fair that people considered adults can't do something so much of as having a drink. The drinking age should be lowered to eighteen that way the whole adult population is legally allowed to consume and buy alcohol. The government does not mind sending eighteen year olds to war, but when it comes down to someone their age wanted to casually have a drink, it is illegal. It is not fair and the drinking age should be lowered.
America is not free.

Thank you for your feedback. I must remind Pro that my facts are not based on some “philosophical in nature,” but documented in the US Constitutional agreement between the people and government about the enforcement of the individual's Unalienable Rights. Please read the US Constitution!I understand, with Pro's statistics, one could make a misinformed conclusion about freedom in America. It would seem Pro's argument is on the prison population. Pro must realize, one who becomes incarcerated within any social system, implies an immoral event that went against the laws of that system. My recommendation for Pro is to read the following scholar about the Rule of Law: http://ebookbrowsee.net...
America is not free.

Nothing my opponent wrote has any basis in facts. It is merely philosophical in nature. The numbers speak for themselves. All the philosophy in the world does not trump what is actually occurring in America. The following are just a few statistics I can list. I have literally over 20 more, but do not want to overwhelm the reader: With only 5% of the world"s population, the U.S. has 25% of the world"s prison population "" that makes the United States the world"s largest jailer. https://www.aclu.org... Since 1970, our prison population has risen"700%. https://www.aclu.org... One in 99"adults are living behind bars in the U.S. This marks the highest rate of imprisonment in American history and surpasses Stalin under the Gulag system. https://www.aclu.org... One in 31"adults are under some form of correctional control: prison, jail, parole, or probation. https://www.aclu.org... As of August 2013, approximately 2.7 million children under the age of 18 have a parent in prison or jail. According to sociologists Bruce Western and Becky Petit, this means that one in 28 kids in the United States has a mother or father, or both, in lockup - a dramatic change from the one in 125 rate a quarter of a century ago. http://www.jimmylarche.com... The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and within the United States, the top 7 states with the highest incarceration rates are all Southern bible belt states (Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina). https://www.schr.org... Federal, state, and local expenditures on corrections exceed $82 billion dollars annually and $250 billion dollars within the entirety of the justice system. (MIT research project -- please go to MIT website to view) Bottom line is that America is a police state and it is going to get much worse.
America is not free.

America has less than 5% of the world's population but over 25% of the world's prisoners. When you add in detainees, that balloons to a third of the world's prisoners and when you look at those on parole and probation it balloons to over half of all the world's prisoners. Out of all the places in the world, the state of Georgia has the worst incarceration rate. In Georgia, 1 out of every 13 people are in prison, on parole, or on probation. Out of the entire world, the American south profits the most off of incarceration. With the advent of drones, things will be getting much worse. I submit to you that America is not free and for those of you that have ever read the book 1984 -- our country has the greatest chance of being like the country in the book.
Gun Control

Gun control laws do not provide for a safer society. This is shown through multiple ways, either with honest comparables looking at violent crime and homicide rate, or crime trends before and after enacted laws. When compared with other countries using actual comparable populations, you find the United States is roughly in the middle of all developed nations for gun violence, or homicide rate. You can also see how violent crime has risen in areas where gun control has been enacted throughout the world. The simple fact that there has been a near 50% increase in guns owned in the United States since 1993, and an over 50% decrease in gun homicides shows that it is not the guns being the problem. You are safer with a gun than without one. In fact as most studies have shown you are 43 to 260 times more likely to defend yourself with a gun than be killed by one. Taking the gun out of your hand won’t take the gun out of the criminal’s hand. I have shown how the vast majority of criminals obtain their guns illegally, and most stated that they could have obtained an illegal gun if they were unable to purchase one legally. Disarming everyone else in an attempt to disarm the criminal is backward logic. This is also evidenced by countries that have a higher gun ownership have lower violent crime. Mass killings won’t be hindered by gun control. Just turn on the news and you will see that places all over the world, even places where gun control has become gun bans, are having mass killings. Saying these ideological murderers will be stopped by laziness (not being able to buy a gun) is a lazy argument. You might not be able to prevent a radical from acting out radical ideas, but you can arm more citizens to stop them. Our founding fathers made clear the purpose of our 2nd amendment. We must protect our freedoms from anyone who would try and take them, including foreign powers, or domestic tyranny. An armed population is what prevents governmental powers from pushing their ideological pursuits on it’s own people. To drastically reduce what the people can arm themselves with, compared to what the government has at its disposal, is directly contradictory to the 2nd amendment. How does this keep us safe? God forbid we become disarmed, and God forbid the government starts to push it’s agenda, and all who oppose become enemies of the state, and God forbid they make the punishment for non-allegiance to their ideology anything up to and including death. But since history is replete with this exact system of take over, our founding fathers put a check and balance in the face of such unrestrained power, a gun in the hand of the citizen. The left will constantly pick numbers that show biased views, compare apples and oranges in terms of ratios or trends, or flat stats that are sampled from a small population with conclusions inarrivabile from their premises. The truth is, guns are tools. They can be used for good or bad, moral or immoral ends. Gun control is actually an obstruction to the safety of society.
Gun Control

I accept and look forward to a meaningful debate. Personal beliefs on gun control: I think it is unacceptable that criminals, terrorists, mentally ill, etc. are able to legally and easily access the guns they use for their crimes. I think firearms and the right to bear arms have enjoyed an undue immunity from any sort of regulation and this refusal to give any ground is costing lives. I do believe there are "common sense" gun control measures that will protect responsible gun owners' rights while preventing firearms from getting into the wrong hands. In the wake of acts of terror, natural disasters, and epidemics the U.S. takes drastic response measures, it is time we treat gun violence the same way by enacting gun control legislation.
Gun Control

This debate is for arguing if gun control is a benefit to the safety of society. Gun control is a hot political topic as of late, and hashing it out should be enlightening. Rules: Round 1 is for acceptance, and you can state your personal belief on the matter without jumping into arguments. Rounds 2, and 3 are for arguments and rebuttals. Round 4 is for rebutting and strengthening arguments. No new arguments are allowed in round 4. Round 5 closing argument. 3 days for each argument is allotted. I am a conservative, meaning I am pro second amendment in regards to this topic, and against what most from the left would propose as "common sense" gun legislation. I will be arguing two points primarily, unless Pro brings up other lines of argumentation. 1. ) Gun control as proposed by the left doesn't work. 2. ) Our second amendment is written to keep us safe and so should not be infringed. Arguments get heated, so please don't take anything I say as personal.
You choose the topic

Voters: 1. No Evidence for Dependency Aff has no evidence linked to show that sugar dependency is real. Without providing any form of evidence for dependency, one must immediately drop that argument. 2. MSNBC Evidence Is Non-Topical Aff's MSNBC evidence is a critique on Coca-Cola and soda (if you don't believe me, read it). This is non-topical to a debate on coffee. 3. Harvard Evidence Has No Author Aff's evidence has no author. In order to determine evidence reliability, Aff needs to provide an author so that the opposition has the opportunity to research the author to determine whether the author has perverse incentives, lack of expertise or any other indicator of a lack of reliability. Just as Aff was able to criticize the Perlmutter evidence on the basis that Perlmutter is not reliable, Neg must be given the opportunity to look at the author of Aff's evidence. Aff's failure to provide the author is a reason to drop the evidence. 4. Neg's Polls Stand Neg gave two different polls showing that people prefer coffee when the bitter taste is suppressed with either sugar, cream or artificial sweeteners. In a binary world without cream or artificial sweeteners, those people who wish to suppress coffee's bitter taste (which is a majority of 65-70%) will turn to sugar. People prefer the taste of sweeter coffee to more bitter coffee. Aff never criticizes the Statbrain poll (thus it stands). 5. Neg's Science Card (Knapton) Stands Neg showed under science that people prefer the taste of coffee with sugar to coffee without. Whether it is because they inherently dislike the taste of coffee is irrelevant. The fact remains that they prefer coffee with sugar than coffee without. 6. Perlmutter Evidence Stands Neg's Perlmutter evidence still stands as while Aff criticizes the secondary source (by Perlmutter), he/she never criticizes the primary source (http://www.drperlmutter.com...), which was provided. The author's of the primary source are Sabrina Schilling, MSc; Christophe Tzourio, MD, PhD; Carole Dufouil, PhD; Yicheng Zhu, MD, PhD; Claudine Berr, MD, PhD; Annick Alp"rovitch, MD, MSc; Fabrice Crivello, PhD; Bernard Mazoyer, MD, PhD; St"phanie Debette, MD, PhD. Summary: Aff fails to provide evidence for dependency, his/her MSNBC evidence is non-topical, and fails to provide an author for the Harvard card. This means that both his/her contentions should be dropped (as the evidence is either non-topical, has no author, or doesn't exit). Thus, Aff no longer has any offense and loses the debate. Neg still maintains offense due to Taste (especially the Science Card) and Health (as the Aff never criticizes the primary source/original research that was provided).