BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Freedom of speech - should the law be stricter

We started a new debate about the same subject as our last debate, we did this because we need to gather different comments and opinions about the same subject. We are a group of 3 students, we have an assignment for social studies where we have to set up a debate online. we hope that you will react on our debate seriously because it will be graded. Our debate is about freedom of speech. We think freedom of speech is a right we should preserve but we think the law should be adjusted because some people misuse their right to say whatever they want and insult people. This has already gone so far that there is a politician in the Netherlands who is banned from England because of the discriminating things he has said. We think that he crossed the line but he is not the only one who insults people without being punished because he has the right of freedom of speech and at the moment the law is not very strict. We think the law should be stricter, limiting the people in what they have to say and stopping them from insulting and discriminating other people. What do you think about this subject? tell us what you think and why. Thank you :)
Debate.org does not have some sinister commercial purpose

Pro agrees with points 1-4. Pro also acknowledges the following paradox: why would a for-profit company choose to spend $160,000 on a site that does not help the company make any money? Point 5 resolves this paradox: the only way to make money off of an unprofitable acquisition is by selling it or making it profitable. As for "why anyone would want to pay a lot of money for it," although the site itself may not be particularly valuable, the community and data stored on it has value. Indeed, regardless of whether or not Juggle sells the site, at some point, it is expected that the owner of debate.org will want to make money off of the site. For example, Juggle's plan might be to increase the number of users using debate.org before introducing targeted ads. Giving away users' profiles and debates to advertisers is commercial and sinister. Another possibility might involve selling user information to companies doing a background check on potential employees. Although these scenarios might seem unlikely, there is an easy way to prove that debate.org does have a sinister commercial purpose. Hypothetically, if ads on the site would make Juggle one hundred thousand dollars a year, do you believe that Juggle (or whoever owns the site) would put ads on debate.org? Bear in mind that some nonprofit sites such as Wikipedia refuse to implement ads, regardless of the large amount of money that ads would bring in. If you do believe that Juggle is willing to sell user information to advertisers or others as soon as the opportunity to make a significant amount of money (and not 5 dollars a day) presents itself, vote Con.
Debate.org does not have some sinister commercial purpose

Thank you for your careful response, 00. I agree that it’s unusual for a for-profit company to acquire an expensive asset with ongoing running costs for no obvious reason. Why might they have done it? You put forward two theories, both unsatisfactory: "Juggle hopes to improve debate.org before selling it...to another company." But the mystery remains why anyone would want to pay a lot of money for it. Anyway, this is ordinary commercial activity and hardly sinister. "Making a profit by using the intellectual property of [site users] in ways...they did not intend." I agree that this would indeed be sinister. However, I can’t believe it’s true. As darkkermit pointed out (1), a lot of debate material is plagiarized. The company could never be certain that they do in fact hold copyright…or could they? I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that they couldn’t. For a while I toyed with the idea that they might challenge certain debaters on behalf of clients to get an opinion, but…nah, I’m not convinced. It’s not as if experts anywhere are shy about mouthing off. There’s Wikipedia and all kinds of resources online. It’s too cloak-and-dagger to be believable. No, for me it’s the “content moderation” that’s the most compelling. You can imagine, say, cigarette companies paying to have ‘free choice’ advocated in discussion forums at a time when restrictions on advertising are being discussed. Or cosmetic companies could pay to have “feminists” argue that wearing lipstick at work is empowering. This technique is the commercial form of grey or covert propaganda, which has been around for a long time (2). Using discussion forums is newish, though. I think there would be a lot of money in it if you could do it well. If debate.org were part of this grey propaganda machinery, it would indeed be sinister. But what would its role be exactly? A training ground for sinister operatives? A platform to show off the techniques to clients? A testing site for new strategies before they’re unleashed for real? None of these seem likely. Perhaps debate.org is a text resource so that Juggle employees can analyze appropriately casual language, grammar and etiquette, so that when they fake it up on client sites they’re not obvious. But why would they need their own site for this? Text examples are all over the Internet. No. Like you, I think it’s mysterious, but without a workable theory of what’s happening, we can’t claim it’s sinister. Sinister (adjective): giving the impression that something harmful or evil is happening or will happen (3) I don’t get the impression that something harmful or evil is going to happen, do you? On the contrary, on debate.org I get the impression of a wonderful site where you can debate anything with anybody. Yes it’s mysterious. So is your profile. But is it or you sinister? No. http://www.debate.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate.org does not have some sinister commercial purpose

1. Juggle is a for-profit company (http://www.juggle.com...). 2. Juggle (and not Stephanie Leffler) bought debate.org. Debate.org is not a nonprofit (there is no donation option). 3. The goal of a for-profit company is to make a profit. One way to make a profit is to introduce advertising. However, according to Pro's own source (http://www.debate.org...), introducing advertising is expected to yield only about $5 a day, an insignificant amount (it would take over 54 years of advertising to make up the money spent in buying debate.org). 4. This presents a paradox - why would a for-profit company choose to spend $160,000 on "expensive", "useless" "art" that does not help the company make any money? Art is for individuals, not for-profit companies. 5. One possible explanation is that Juggle hopes to improve debate.org before selling it (along with all the debates and user information) to another company. Indeed, like Philip Ferreira, it is expected that Juggle would be willing to sell debate.org for a reasonable large bid (over $160,000). 6. CEO Stephanie Leffler supports this interpretation: "intelligent, well researched content has value far beyond its potential advertising revenue" suggests that Leffler foresees her company using the content on debate.org for commercial purposes and not mere advertisements. 7. Juggle not only intends to make money off of debate.org, but also intends to do so by putting the "intelligent, well researched content" to sinister, commercial uses. Making a profit by using the intellectual property of others (the users of the site) in ways that the creators of the intellectual property did not intend is quite sinister. 8. Thus the resolution is negated. ~~~Pro's arguments~~~ "When she says "value" she doesn't mean actual value" Typically, when someone uses the word "value" they actually mean "value." "She's talking about "intangibles" such as "credibility" and "relevance"." Credibility and relevance do not provide enough value to offset spending $160,000 on the site. "One of the Juggle companies, CrowdSource, offers a service called "content moderation"." Note that this service generates a profit for Juggle. Juggle, being a for-profit, wants to make money off its services, including debate.org. "Another of Juggle's companies, write.com, employs over 26,000 online writers to do short assignments." Again, this company also has a commercial purpose - it contributes to Juggle's net revenue.
Debate.org does not have some sinister commercial purpose

Two years ago, Juggle acquired debate.org for over $160,000. They have not put advertising on the site. http://www.debate.org...CEO Stephanie Leffler wrote that"intelligent, well researched content has value far beyond its potential advertising revenue"When she says "value" she doesn't mean actual value. She's talking about "intangibles" such as "credibility" and "relevance". There is nothing strange or sinister about that. I like to think of debate.org as a work of Art. Art is expensive. As Oscar Wilde famously said, "All art is quite useless." We still love it, though.One of the Juggle companies, CrowdSource, offers a service called "content moderation". The description says, "From product reviews and forum posts to profile photos and more, CrowdSource workers can moderate all types of user-generated content." It sounds like "moderation" means faking posts online in discussion forums. But this has nothing to do with debate.org. It's a separate company.Another of Juggle's companies, write.com, employs over 26,000 online writers to do short assignments. They have almost completed half a million assignments! Congratulations, write.com.To join write.com, you need to do an assessment where you answer multiple-choice questions about grammar and style. Here's one of the questionsChoose the example that is NOT a word and phrase preference (in accordance with the style guide). Do not split infinitive phrases by adding adjectives or adverbs in between the “to” and the verb. In professional writing, it is appropriate to end sentences with prepositions. Always follow an organization’s conventions for how it spells, capitalizes and punctuates its name. Do not include any contractions in professional writing. Exceptions would be forum posts and debate arguments. Note at the end of the question how it says "forum posts and debate arguments". I don't take this to mean that they regularly pay writers to write stuff for forum posts and debate arguments, and even if it does mean that, I don't see what it has to do with debate.org.
On the legislation of marriage

Thanks, Tucktovich, for instigating this debate. I accept your format and look forward to a fun and educational exchange of ideas. I accept the definitions of legal entity and contract law, but request a redefinition of marriage. Marriage: a personal, monogamous union between two consenting individuals. Clarifying the debate question for the voters: my argument is structured with the understanding that there are no sufficient reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Tucktovich has graciously accepted the BoP in his argument, stating that "marriage" should cease to be recognized/sanctioned/etc. as an independent legal entity outside of contract law. Therefore, he must prove why marriage should cease to exist, whereas all I must do is counter his arguments. If this needs further clarification, I suggest we do so in the comments section to preserve characters for the next rounds. Besides that, LET"S KEEP THIS CIVIL, BUT IMPASSIONED!
On the legislation of marriage

As we'd talked about in the comments of your debate. I would like to argue that "marriage" should cease to be recognized/sanctioned/etc. as an independent legal entity outside of contract law. While typically, the "Pro" side has BoP, as I am arguing in favour of a change to the status quo, I accept the BoP for this debate. I propose the following format: First round for acceptance/definitions/clarification of the debate question Second round for introductory arguments Third round rebuttal Fourth round counter-rebuttal and conclusion I propose the following definitions: Marriage: a personal union between consenting individuals. Legal entity: a "being" (person/corporation/social construct) recognized and defined by legislation. Contract law: a body of law adjudicating contracts between legal entities, and a separate body of law from existing family law.
On the legislation of marriage

My opponent has made several very interesting arguments in his round 2 rebuttal. I too will avoid addressing my opponent’s arguments this round and, instead, will insert my final arguments. My opponent is in favor of de-legalizing marriage so that anyone can form personal unions without society’s blessing/mandate. Firstly, this denies anyone in American society the benefits of marriage. Secondly, this allows opportunity for open bigamy (if not polygamy). It may also lead to unwarranted marriages between elders and adults. Essentially society’s authorization of a marriage is to avoid harmful situations such as polygamy and incestuous relations. If we are too de-legalize marriage, the uncontrolled unions that would emerge from lack of proper mandating would unhinge society. Secondly, I would like to argue that without the legitimacy of a marriage license, how would society confirm a person’s supposed union to another person. If my opponent is asking for complete lack of government intervention, then there would be no way for a government to know if Jane Doe was in a union with John Doe. This can be dangerous in regards to medical and legal outcomes from the de-legalization of marriage. Overall, my opponent continues to thrust his reasoning for his arguments, but still fails at proving why this should be the case. Having the burden of proof, my opponent should not only express why the de-legalization would be a good idea, but why it would benefit society more than the current legalization of marriage. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals in the final round!
On the legislation of marriage

First, I will be refraining from responding to Herman's rebuttal this round, and will place my counter-rebuttals in the next round with the conclusion. Herman has contended that marriage has existed for long enough that government should not eliminate it. The premise for this argument is rooted in a logical fallacy - the Appeal to Tradition [1]. While Herman is fundamentally correct - governments have been sanctioning personal unions from time immemorial - that doesn't make it a good idea, and it doesn't make it moral. It simply means that people do it. While the key thrust of Herman's argument is rooted in an appeal to tradition, he also references the recent Supreme Court ruling that marriage is a Constitutional Right - and I completely agree. However based on the definition of marriage agreed to, the de-legalization of marriage would not infringe on that right, as there would be no proscriptions on individuals forming personal unions (provided that consent was given), and therefore the lack of social legitimization of that personal union is not infringing on the right to form one. Rather, it is providing greater protection for the equality of that right by ensuring that a) it is freely accessible to all without the requirement of purchasing a license, and b) it cannot be arbitrarily denied anyone on the basis of demographic. Lastly, while I will be refraining from a counter-rebuttal until the next round, I will address one point of language. Pro has called my argument in favour of the illegalization of marriage rather than the de-legalization of marriage. While we agreed on the definitions, it's important to draw a distinction between the two. To illegalize marriage would be to ban people from forming personal unions. To de-legalize marriage would be to allow people to form personal unions with neither interference from nor the blessing/mandate of society whatsoever. I am arguing in favour of de-legalization. Looking forward to the last round! [1] http://www.nizkor.org...
On the legislation of marriage

Thank you, Tucktovich and apologies for taking so long to post my first argument. It will be interesting argue such a unique debate topic. Firstly, my opening argument pertains to the idea that marriage has been an institutional union that’s ben in existence far beyond the age of our great nation. Thereby, our great nation should not have the liberty to demolish such a union. It goes without saying that, for many Americans, marriage is all part of the dream. Marriage is the unofficial first step of settling down. With the recent ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized that marriage is a constitutional right afforded to evert citizen in this country. It would be defamatory to infringe on such a right. So, simply put, my argument against my opponent is that marriage has been in existence far too long for ANY government to think they can overturn it. Now, to look closer into my opponent’s arguments: “The net impact of the legalization of marriage (as a separate entity than the realm of contract law) is the legitimization/de-legitimization of individual consent to a personal union at the whim of society for profit (through the sale of marriage licenses), or for a sense of moral superiority (through the denial of legitimization to people on the basis that they are an un-favored demographic).” While both of these arguments are, in a miniscule way, true, Con fails to address why these issues warrant the illegalization of marriage. Instead of providing further logic on his opinions, he refers to a quote “Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.” stating that two very simple facts of marriage label the government messing with things it shouldn’t be messing with. If this statement is true, then there are far more unions and mandates more tyrannical than the institution of marriage. With these upheld beliefs everything from the education system to the parks and recreations departments can be labeled as un-mandated intervention. I could go further, but for the theatrical sake of tension, I’ll pause my rebuttals here and await my opponents next arguments.
President Trump's decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

I support the decision because it is not somebody's job to fund someone else's reproductive health. Every service PP provides can be found elsewhere (birth control can be found at a pharmacy; sex ed can be taught in schools; STD tests, cancer screenings, and vaccines can come from a primary care provider, I'm pretty sure). Funding PP with tax dollars is basically putting a gun to someone's head and saying "pay for this woman's health."
President Trump's decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

I am against this decision to defund Planned Parenthood for many reason's. Planned Parenthood offers affordable contraceptive choice which prevents conception and abortion, and consensual sterilixstion referals. If my doctor would have said no, I would have gotten my tubes removed from one of their doctors and saved money in the long rub. Also, safe sex education, std testing and treatment, the hpv vaccine, cancer screenings for men and women, advocacy, and more. Abortion is only 3% of their services, and which the other services offered, abortion rates are much lower for now. Think about it.
Public Schools and how teachers get paid to stand and do nothing.

In over the 10 years that I have been in public schools, I have seen so many disturbing things and how little teachers have very small interest in their students. They practically babble about an off topic subject not even relating to what the class is actually suppose to be learning, then when it comes to the end for the students to test and see how well they learned over the years many students fail the test. I am in homeschooling and our school district shows statistically that reading/writing 100% students pass and math 97%.
Catknox

I cordially thank Nur-Ab-Sal for his magnificent arguments in favor of Catknox.As we have now established Catknox, the next task is to prove that Catknox is the greatest, which my opponent has already touched upon in his Thomistic Argument for Catknox. This segways wonderfully into my first argument:Contention Eight: The Argument from my Opponent's Arguments (Take Two)My opponent's fourth contention proves a perfect Amish being, Catknox. A perfect being is the greatest. Therefore, my opponent's fourth contention proves Catknox is the greatest.Contention Nine: The Argument from BabblingsCow flying pineapple clock shoe sun verily backwards gardener cosmic fireplace.Catknox can make sense of this completely incoherent gibberish. Therefore, he must be pretty great. I am almost as great as can be, and I can't make any sense of it. To make sense of it, Catknox must be greater than I, and since I'm almost as great as can be, Catknox must be the greatest to be greater than me. Ergo, Catknox is the greatest.Contention Ten: The Argument from Insurmountable ArgumentsNo one could overcome Catknox in a forum argument [1]. The greatest debaters ever are on this site. If the greatest debaters couldn't overcome Catknox, it must be because he's the greatest debater. Only the greatest being could be the greatest debater, so Catknox is the greatest being.Contention Eleven: The Argument from ComfortIt makes me feel good to think that Catknox is the greatest. Therefore, Catknox must be the greatest.Contention Twelve: The Argument from ThreatsIf you don't think Catknox is the greatest, I'll find your house and burn it down.Contention Thirteen: The Argument from Indefensible PresuppositionsPremise One: There is one being greater than all othersPremise Two: That one being is CatknoxPremise Three: That being is the greatest beingConclusion: Catknox is the greatest beingContention Fourteen: The Argument from MeI wouldn't have spent all this time writing arguments if I didn't truly know Catknox was the greatest being, because it tires my fingers and uses up my valuable, valuable time. Therefore, Catknox must be the greatest being.Conclusion:Catknox is the greatest being.Sources:1. https://debate.org...;
Catknox

As a fellow believer, I will introduce more arguments for Catknox. Contention One: The Argument from Fancy LogicP1. ∀(x) Dx -> CxP2. DkC. :. Ck (MP,1,2)Premise 1 is a universally quantified implication, for a "Dog" cannot exist if there is not a "Cat" to fundamentally oppose it. Premise 2 affirms the Dog exists in the form of a "Knox. " Therefore, I conclude through modus ponens that a Cat also exists in the form of a "Knox. " Hence, Catknox. Contention Two: The Argument from Opposing TheologiansAs we all know here on the Religion forum of DDO, Dogknox is unmatched in his knowledge of Catholic doctrine. [1] Even my opponent agrees to this, often referencing the skills of Dogknox. [2] However, before Catknox, there were no grand theologians for Amishmen. Hence, Catknox. [3]Contention Three: The Argument from Knoxnews. comThe news source for Knoxville, knoxnews. com, has a user registered name Catknox. [4] Hence, Catknox. Contention Four: The Thomistic Argument for CatknoxHundreds of years ago, the great theologian St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his Five Ways of proving God's existence. I'm here to tell you that St. Thomas Aquinas had no idea he actually presented an excellent argument for Catknox as well.1. There are different degrees of Amishness in different things. 2. There are different degrees of being in different things—the more being, the more Amishness. 3. For there to be degrees of being at all, there must be something which has being in the highest Amishness. 4. Therefore, a Being in the Highest Amish Degree or Perfect Amish Being exists.5. Hence, Catknox. Contention Five: The Argument from ConsciousnessI have thoughts about Catknox. [5] Hence, Catknox. Contention Six: The Argument from EmotionWhat the hell would we do without Catknox? Think of the starving children! Hence, Catknox. Contention Seven: The Argument from my Opponent's ArgumentsMy opponent's arguments for Catknox are highly convincing. Hence, Catknox. Sources1. . http://goo.gl...;2. . http://www.debate.org...;3. . https://debate.org...;4. . http://www.knoxnews.com...;5. I really do. Trust me.