BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wikileaks

Contention- Wikileaks should be shut down because it is a terrorist organization with only one goal in mind and that is to destroy the United States of America.The latest breed of anarchist is not a protester who takes to the streets, Molotov cocktail in hand. His weapon of choice is the laptop and his battleground the Internet, which he uses to steal information or to disrupt life in the digital age. The personification of these Internet intifadists is Julian Assange of WikiLeaks infamy.Retaliating for his arrest on rape charges and his pariah status in Internet commerce, a band of hackers known as Anonymous used denial-of-services attacks to crash the websites of Visa, MasterCard and other corporations that refused to have anything more to do with Assange.Surely enough, Anonymous got the world's attention. But the scary fact is that group is just a visible example of growing cyberwarfare.A concentrated attack via the Web could disrupt any facet of American life, from banking to medicine to transportation - and with the same murderous effect as a conventional act of terror.Make no mistake: America's enemies will work that game if they can.Already, Web-savvy jihadists are scouring the WikiLeaks documents for signs of American vulnerability. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, "a member of the jihadi forum the Shumukh Al-Islam initiated a 'workshop' aiming to collect, categorize and pinpoint all U.S. interests worldwide mentioned in documents released by WikiLeaks." That information will without question be transmitted - digitally, most likely - to those most willing and able to harm the United States.America must block such a catastrophe from happening by mounting a massive and ever-evolving cybersecurity drive.Someone recently demonstrated how effective an attack can be by, for the first known time, successfully wielding a cyberweapon against a real-world target. A virus called Stuxnet infiltrated Iran's nuclear program and damaged its processing equipment.The end was fantastic; the means were terrifying. Suppose the tables were turned on the U.S.?Assange has been arrested on rape charges unrelated to his cyberanarchy. The government appears to be moving to indict him under the Espionage Act. It's a pleasing prospect but would no more prevent cyberattacks than sending Osama Bin Laden to the nuse would quell Islamic terror. President Obama called cyberwarfare "one of the most serious economic and national security threats our nation faces." But America's response has fallen far short of the mark. The government must devote the research and money necessary to exponentially increase cybersecurity. Former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke proposed creation of a Cyber Defense Administration. This new defense system will ban wikileaks as well as current military television and internet shows.
Wikileaks

There's been a lot of controversy over Wikileaks: an international media non-profit organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and leaks [1]. Recently Wikileaks has come under fire for releasing controversial material, such as classified videos and documents from the U.S. military, and evidence of politicians acting less than scrupulous, even to the point of having enough evidence to possibly warrant resignation for wrong-doing [2]. Everyone from Barack Obama to Glenn Beck has been condemning this website (hey they agree on something!). Even the politicians are finally coming together on one issue; Senator Joe Lieberman's introduced bipartisan legislation to amend the Espionage Act and criminalize Wikileaks that way [3]. Newt Gingrich quipped, "Information warfare is warfare, and Julian Assange is engaged in warfare... Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant. Wikileaks should be closed down permanently and decisively" [4]. Former presidential candidate and popular Fox News journalist Mike Huckabee proclaimed the appropriate punishment for Wikileaks founder and contributor Julian Assange is execution [5]. Of course I completely disagree; I think Assange should be praised as one of the best journalists in the world and believe receiving a Nobel Peace Prize is more appropriate than the death penalty. However I know there are a lot of "intelligent conservatives" here and regardless this is a bipartisan issue that has upset people on both sides of the aisle and all over the world. As such, I would like to debate the merits of Wikileaks with someone who believes Wikileaks and/or Assange should be terminated. While the law will most certainly be pertinent to our discussion, saying "it's against the law" is not a sufficient argument and in fact an appeal to authority when determining the merits of what should be. Nevertheless I don't mind what contentions my opponent uses. The first round will be for accepting this debate, and Con can post any comments or questions he or she wishes for the Pro though I accept full responsibility to make the first argument (unless my opponent wants to). I will also accept the burden of proving Wikileaks should continue to exist and be available to the public. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://lieberman.senate.gov... [4] http://www.politico.com... [5] http://www.politico.com...
All Ginger Kids/Adults should be killed.

Without further ado, let us begin: In today's case, it is my obligation as the contender to demonstrate the notion that all individuals with pale skin, freckles and (most importantly) Red (or Orange) hair should be killed (keep in mind that this is exactly how my opponent claimed the topic was meant to be understood). In spite of what many believe, demonstrating this notion as being one which should be upheld is rather simple. To do so, I would like to remind the audience of the fact that our planet is well overpopulated with humans. This is bad because overpopulation could lead to the death of us all, given that the planet simply does not have enough resources for more people than it can contain. In relation to this topic, all individuals with pale skin, freckles and (more importantly) Red (orange) hair should be killed. Fortunately, no specific date is listed as to when these killings should end or begin. Thus, I uphold the notion that we should simply not allow the world to run it's course. Everyone dies eventually, whether it be by malicious or by natural causes. In addition, when taking into consideration the fact that everyone is indeed killed (remember, killing is only the act of depriving one of their life; everyone is "killed" eventually as everyone has their life deprived either by natural forces or by each other), it is pretty clear that the resolution is already being upheld and effectively at that. Just like any other kind of individual, individuals with pale skin, freckles and red (or orange) hair should be killed in order to preserve our species. I shall possibly provide different arguments that provide different paradigms of this debate in the next round. Later. :D
All Ginger Kids/Adults should be killed.

Hello my name is Keenan Harris, and yes I am a Ginger. I know that this topic may sound insane, that no one could possibly justify the killing of these people, but there are those who would see it happen, and those are the people whom I would like to accept this debate. Just today, someone walked up to me and started repeating over and over "Kill the Gingers". Undoubtedly this bought of bigotry was caused by the show South Park's influence, but aside from repeating the same thing, said person failed to give any reasoning for why the gingers must be killed. That reasoning is what I ask from you. If you, like this person, have been swayed to think that Gingers are evil, that they have no souls, I urge you to take this debate and argue for your belief, no matter how bigoted it may be. For the benefit of this debate, and to prevent confusion, a Ginger Kid or a Ginger Adult is someone with pale skin, freckles, and (most importantly) Red (or Orange) hair. That was just my introduction, I will let my opponent make the first speech.
governments should negotiate with terrorists

I'm not sure why supers forfeited this round, Whether due to time constraints or the inability to rebut my points, But I'll take this opportunity to reiterate mine and rebut some of his earlier points which I did not rebut in the previous round, And hopefully Supers will respond in the last round. I do not think terrorists commit acts of terror because they want something from the government. They're a bunch of brainwashed extremists that think their twisted version of Islam is the only acceptable way and everyone else must convert or die. Somehow they believe they'll go to heaven because they blew themselves up in a market. They do not purposely commit acts of terror to negotiate with governments, Or else they would have made it more obvious. Since that's the case, If a government were to negotiate with terrorists it won't be giving them what they want, It'll be the government trying to find the best way to avoid another terror attack. Only if this becomes the norm, Will terrorists start launching attacks to get governments to negotiate with them for their own benefit. However, If this is done only once in a blue moon, It could still give the government a shot at solving the terror crisis while not giving in to the terrorists' objective. And, If negotiations seem to be leading to a bigger terror threat in the future, I'm pretty sure the government would not proceed and just give them what they want (it's negotiation, Not Christmas). One might say, How dare you negotiate with terrorists, They're so evil they're barely human. Yes they may be inhuman, But if negotiating with them will help improve safety, Then it should be done. As such, I believe negotiation with terrorists should be done because it may help improve security, And executed properly, Will not result in terror attacks occurring for the sake of negotiation. If this is the case, What can the proposition say to make government negotiation with terrorists look like something with severe repercussions that are simply not worth it? I look forward to the last round of this debate.
governments should negotiate with terrorists

so your points are that terrorists should not be given what they want and make it look like terror is a legitimate political tool, And that negotiation is useless anyway, Right? I thank pro for the detailed example given and the respect shown to we, The con side, As such respect is not present much on this site nowadays. Now, Getting onto my point, I personally find it ok to negotiate with terrorists, But definitely not every time they commit an atrocity. That will be too obvious an endorsement that violence is a legitimate tool to gain the government's attention dn negotiate for certain things. However, In some extreme cases, I think negotiation should occur to prevent further tragedies. A rigid policy of non-negotiation and police aggression is potentially dangerous. Police tactical assaults raise the risk of casualties and lose opportunities for peaceful resolution. Terrorist groups can use casualty counts for propaganda. In contrast, Negotiation has in the past secured the release of some hostages who would otherwise have been placed at risk during a tactical assault. It also allows time for detailed assessment of the situation, Which helps with planning and allows time to accumulate appropriate resources for a tactical assault. As such, Negotiation in hostage situations may appear to be the best possible approach, And if we can also debate on this point admitting that negotiation should take place under some circumstances would mean that negotiation with terrorists could actually work (if the terrorists holding hostages are targeting the government). on the other hand, Just one example should not deter future efforts for negotiation. If mass casualties occur and negotiation may be necessary to avoid more consequences, I believe it should be done. Of course, As said earlier, This should only happen once in a while and negotiation should NOT become the norm. Thank you
governments should negotiate with terrorists

Good point. However, Actually, There are a lot of times when the government negotiated and it did not do any thing. For example, The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2, 996 people, Injured over 6, 000 others, And caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. Additional people died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks. So, The government negotiate with the terrorists. However, 7 days later, There was a terror using anthrax also known as Amerithrax from its FBI case name, Occurred within the United States over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001, One week after the September 11 attacks. Letters were mailed containing anthrax spores to several news media offices and to Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, Killing 5 people and infecting 17 others. A copycat hoax letter containing harmless white powder was opened by reporter Judith Miller in The New York Times newsroom. According to the FBI, The ensuing investigation became "one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement". now, Back to my speech, There were no examples about governments negotiating with terrorists and actually worked out given by the honorable member of the con side. I would like them to give us some examples so we, The pro side can know some examples. Back to my reasons, Starting off with a question, Why do you think that terrorists are terrorizing the city? I think it is because they want something from the government. So, If we negotiate with the terrorists, It will mean that we are forgiving what they did and give they something they wanted. And, What they wanted from governments could lead to a bigger terrorism for the country.
The general thrust of Mangani's statement is accurate.

Wow, this is tough issue to defend. If it is alright with you Tatarize, I will only defend the idea that the Bible does not contradict science, which you probably will agree with me on. If you would like me to defend the other parts of the initial argument, I will do my best, but, from the way the debate is set-up, it appeared like one might be able to pick and choose which issue was even plausibly defensible. To state that the Bible contradicts science is a common misnomer. However, although the methods (or the lack thereof) that the ancients used to discern and describe the natural phenomena around them were crude, they still attempted to answer basic questions such as 1) The position and shape of the Earth 2) The age of the Earth 3) The cause of misfortunes, and various other questions that piqued their curiosities. To make the debate simpler, I will focus on the first claim, that the Earth is flat and is in the center of the solar system or the ancient equivalent. Upon initial observation from a first person perspective, it appears as if the Earth is indeed flat. Further, since the stars appear to be above us, and the sun and moon move across the sky, it is easy to understand how someone could mistakenly think that the Earth was the center of all of this celestial activity. Now, the claim is that these hypotheses contradict modern science. Although it is true that the findings of the ancients are false, and are different from the findings of modern science, it does not mean that the Bible contradicts science quay science. Obviously, it cannot both be true that the earth is flat and round, but the issue is not whether the hypotheses of the Bible are correct, rather, the issue is whether or not the it is incoherent to both understand the Bible and science simultaneously. If one were to claim that the Bible and science are contradictory, it would be like claiming that each time a scientist comes up with a false hypothesis, he has contradicted science. Therefore, the Bible may very well be a very large collection of false hypotheses, but that does not mean that it contradicts science quay science. (side note to Tataris: I know this is probably not what you were hoping to debate, and if you want to drop the debate, I would understand. I in no way want to defend Mangani's position because it seems, at least from your breakdown, to be indefensible. It could and probably is true that 'religion' stood in for 'science' as we understand it, but that in no way leads one to conclude that there is any scientific truth buried in the Bible. There might be, and are facts, such as "the world appears to be flat," but, as you well know, this fact is in no way leads one to conclude that the Earth, is indeed, flat.
The general thrust of Mangani's statement is accurate.

In the comments to my last debate, Mangani made a number claims. I contend that the general thrust of Mangani's statement is wrong. Statement as follows. ------------------------- "Irony is evolution in the bible: Genesis 3:6-7: Man did not know he was naked and became aware after eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil= Homo Erectus/Habilis, etc. evolves into Homo Sapiens. Both tell of how man "did not know" or "was not aware", and later became or "evolved" into "awareness" or knowledge. His brain grew. Genesis 3:14: The serpend is cursed and forced to crawl on it's belly= snakelike lizards with legs evolved into serpents- without arms and legs. Genesis also describes how man became a hunter/gatherer, and then a farmer (Cain). It even goes on to explain how man evolved from organizing in small family units, to tribes, and eventually into kingdoms. All this is compatible (if looked at from the scientific perspective of a non-scientific community explaining the as-of-yet understable and compare it to what we now believe to be true) with science and evolutionary theory. The bible does not contradict science, and to believe so is to believe the Earth is flat. To interpret the bible as literal from a religious perspective is to undo it's value as a source of wisdom. To interpret the bible as literal from a scientific perspective is to ignore that science first sprung from logical inquiry by the religious. Religion, in times past, was synonymous with science, and learning should not separate the two- especially if we believe in evolution." ------------------------- Mangani does not seem inclined to defend the comments so I've opened it up to others. Does anybody wish to defend his implication that Genesis is simply figurative language describing great scientific understandings? That religion in other times was synonymous with science? That the Bible does not contradict science? That to read the Bible literally destroys its wisdom? Or anything within the general opinion that the Bible is figuratively true or buried within it are nuggets of the profound. This should be a debate on general liberal Christian apologetics.
The US should invade North Korea

The US should not invade North Korea under any circumstances. To defend this, I will open with 2 points. Point 1: This will start a world war. What do you think will happen when the US invades North Korea? Undoubtedly, the US will defeat North Korea in the initial invasion. After this, which countries do you expect to react to this? The US making an unprovoked attack on another country is a big thing, and other countries will inevitably be involved. What would happen when China, Russia, and US allies such as the UK get involved? There have been similar situations in the past, some of them ended up starting world wars. All of a sudden, countries from all over the world will begin choosing sides and fighting each other. This is not something that anyone would want. Point 2: There is absolutely no reason for the US to invade North Korea. It is a fact that North Korea has threatened the US, has launched nuclear missile test flights, and have violated UN rules, but so have other countries, and this is no different. There is no threat of the nuclear missile projects in North Korea and there will never be one. With their technology, it is impossible to send missiles over the Pacific Ocean and hit the US. Other countries have also had nuclear missile test flights, and are capable of building them, but they are no threat to the US right now. It is plain silly to invade a country because of threats in the distant future. The US has a very strong army, and even if one day nuclear missiles were to be launched at the US, there would be no problem in using anti-missile defenses to shoot the nuclear missiles out of the sky.
The death penalty should be give to murders, rapists, etc. regardless of mental conditions

Thanks for your opinion in this matter, yet due to the fact that the law says simply, the death penalty is to only be given to those who know what they are doing, know that it is wrong and can't be helped. But you would have me believe that if your grandma came in to your room and molested you, then you later find out that she has a mental condition called alzheimer's and you want her given the death penalty then you tell that you arn't feeling, even in the slightest, morally wrong. Then you and Hitler should meet up in hell.
The death penalty should be give to murders, rapists, etc. regardless of mental conditions

Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.
The death penalty should be give to murders, rapists, etc. regardless of mental conditions

Your opinion has no say in this, a mentally ill person will be sent to an asylum, where they can receive help and care, regardless of their wrong doings. they would never be given the death penalty unless they where 100% aware of what they were doing. And do to your argument of its still a crime regardless, your right it is a crime, and their punishment is to be sent to an asylum, the death penalty is too extreme and, it is not worth the hundreds of dollars spent to kill them. Mind you yes it costs more to keep mentally impaired people alive, the reason to do it out weighs the costs of money, the reason being moral value, to take a life is wrong, so I guess it could be said that your committing a crime by allowing the death penalty to be done.
The death penalty should be give to murders, rapists, etc. regardless of mental conditions

The 50% that are diagnosed (just as a BTW it is diagnosed, not diongnized, that's not even a word you degenerate), half of them are treated which means the other half of the total half are being neglected. And it doesn't give them a reason to commit a crime, but they do it, without any control and without any conscious and or self moral to control them. So to say exactly what you just said, is a silly, illiterate statement. And on top of that has NOTHING to back it up.