BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal

I would like to take a moment to thank Kinger for issuing this challenge, which I gladly accept. I, too, have been struck by these hard financial times. It can be very expensive to buy music, especially if you, like me, prefer to have a hard copy of the album rather than buying digitally from sites such as iTunes. If you pay full price for a CD, you can pay upwards of $17, or more for boxed sets or other special packaging. It can be expensive. However, just like with any other medium, you must ask yourself: Which is the proper way to go about it in these hard times, abstaining from purchasing as much music as you’d like or outright stealing it? As it is wrong to steal food or clothes when you’re hit financially, it is just as wrong to steal music. I will take Pro’s own definition of copyright: “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)” (emphases mine). The answer is found within the definition itself. The two words I would like to bring to your attention are reproduce and distribute. While it is perfectly legal for you to rip music to your computer’s hard drive or burn CD’s to archive in case the original is damaged or destroyed, it is not legal for you to reproduce it or distribute it. This includes giving it to your friends for free or using them on file sharing sites. Additionally, it is also legal to give a CD you own to another friend, provided you don’t retain any other copies of that music (such as a burnt CD or ripped to your hard drive). Just like in the analogy of the car, that CD is yours to do with as you please. However, you cannot copy any of the music from that CD if you intend to get rid of it. Internet piracy also reduces album sales [1]. This is why Napster was taken to court in 2003. By sharing files that were meant to be purchased, you are essentially stealing product. Again, I thank Pro for the debate opportunity and look forward to his response. [1] http://www.serci.org...
The act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal

For this debate, I would like to take the argument that pirating copyrighted materials (music, movies, software, etc.) online should be legal in the U.S., and that the act of pirating materials should not lead to any form of legal punishment. For reference let us define the following: Pirating - to reproduce without authorization especially in infringement of copyright [1] Copyright - the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work) [2]. When a person purchases a product, such as a car, or a computer, that person has the right to do what they want with that product - it is theirs to own. If the owner wishes, they may paint their car, or upgrade their computer. And if they are generous, the owner may also share their car with a friend, or share their computer with others. The owner that purchased the object may share it with those who did not purchase it. The same idea should apply to pirating copyrighted software. If, for example, a person purchases a CD, they have the right to share it with friends; they can lend it to their parents, or even give it as a gift to a spouse. They purchased the CD, and have the right to do what they want with it, it is theirs. Therefore, because it is their property, it should be legal for the owner of the CD to share it online with others by whatever means they choose (i.e.. torrenting). This is called pirating because they are reproducing the CD. This act is currently illegal, and can lead to jail time, and or fines from organizations such as the RIAA. However, because the CD was purchased by the owner, they should have the right to share it with peers online, just like they share it with peers in real-life. The owner can take that same CD, put it on iTunes, and burn another copy, with no legal repercussions. In conclusion, the act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal because the product belongs to the owner, and the owner may share the product freely with those in real life, and therefore should be able to do the same online, so long as that the owner does not make a profit off of the sharing of the product. I look forward to this debate. Thank you. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal

Seeing as though this is our last round, I will not present any new evidence since the Instigator will not be able to respond. I will simply rebut a few of his points here. "...I would not say pirating music is like saying I should rob a bank..." I didn't say it's as if you should, I was comparing the two. Saying pirating music is acceptable because now artists and everyone involved makes more money due to an additional medium to purchase music is like saying it should be acceptable to rob banks because they make more money than gas stations. "So pirating the music is like a preview of what I get." An illegal preview. If an artist previews their music on MySpace or another site, that's fine. Preview it. However, pirating music is illegal and if the artist doesn't want you to preview the music before you buy it, you have no right to. After all, that's what singles on the radio are for, to give you a taste of what's actually on the album. "While my specif [sic] analogies of the American Revolution and slavery may not have been acceptable in the eyes of my opponent, the idea still stands..." It's not just unacceptable in my eyes, it's unacceptable, period. Stealing (pirating) is not a human right. Living free is. That's what the end of slavery and the American Revolution were about. "These non-pirateable materials will always be a source of revenue for bands as they can not be pirated." Oh no? People sneak into concerts. That has the same effect as pirating music. T-shirts and other memorabilia can be stolen. That has the same effect as pirating music. "I would like to make the argument once more that piracy is not equivalent to theft." I have already shown that it is. "Prices of general goods are inflated because of shoplifting for example, because the producer has to reproduce what was taken so it can be resold." Yet the Instigator did not provide a link to back this up. I don't think this is true. Prices rise due to inflation because of supply and demand. I've never known any prices to inflate due to theft. Again, I thank the Instigator for this argument, and you, the reader, for carefully considering the evidence and logic supplied here. I don't have to tell you how to vote.
The act of pirating copyrighted materials online should be legal

I would like to first point out that I would not say pirating music is like saying I should rob a bank; when you rob a bank you are putting people in danger, and usually more often than not, making people fear for their lives, while in pirating you are doing no such thing. On the argument of pirating on raising and lowering sales, I would like to share one quote: There's no such thing as bad publicity. If I pirate the music of an artist, and I like them, the chances rise of me seeing them in concert or purchasing apparel (two things that can NOT be pirated). Now If I pirate the music of an artist and I do not like them, then I will surely feel satisfied that I did not waste my money, and can spend it elsewhere, perhaps on another artist. So pirating the music is like a preview of what I get. If the preview goes well, I get the actual thing. If it doesn't go well, I move on. While my specif anologies of the American Revolution and slavery may have not been acceptable in the eyes of my opponent, the idea still stands; just because it's illegal does not make it wrong. Laws are meant to be challanged to be changed. Now as my opponent stated, some bands give away their music free, and usually this can cause a generous amount of good publicity for them, and lead to an increase in profit in non-piratable materials and services (shirts, concerts, posters, etc. ). These non-pirateable materials will always be a source of revenue for bands as they can not be pirated. Now, if the band does not give away their music, they will still make money in the sales of the previous things mentioned. I would like to make the argument once more that piracy is not equivalent to theft. If I steal something, again, the value is lost, and the producer has to make another copy as the product can not be returned; however when you make a copy of something no direct value is lost. The producer doesn't have to make more of the product to replace what is stolen. Prices of general goods are inflated because of shoplifting for example, because the producer has to reproduce what was taken so it can be resold. However, you do not see song prices on the inter (such as on iTunes) rising because there is no real physical product being stolen; only something being copied.
Androids are better than IPhones.

As stated above, my argument will focus on three points: accessibility, ease of use, and reliability, as follows. ACCESSIBILITY Although I agree that Androids provide more control and customization than the comparable iPhone, my argument hinges on the everyday use by the average user. I contend that the vast majority of cellphone users don't have the knowledge or understanding to use the core accessibility, and many of those that do don't frequently use it. By complicating the phone, I would argue that the android system has actually made itself a worse phone for most users. Interestingly, the thing Apple is most criticized for - it's iron hand over every component of the iPhone experience, is also what has led to its benefit; by limiting the ability of users and companies to modify or layer the OS, Apple has ensured that the user experience is consistent, predictable, and relatively simple. Android, by running an open source OS, has suffered from the consequences; each smartphone manufacturer has created it's own layer on top of the Android experience, which almost universally affected the interface. More on this below. EASE OF USE Apple is constantly and consistently lauded for its user interface, reviews regularly commending Apple on just getting the finish right. Only with the most recent OS releases (iOS8 and Lollipop) is the Android platform being recognized for its UI. But this is because it has essentially copied the UI from the Apple platform, right down to how the features are accessed, Android has tried to leverage its own form of the Apple mantra. [1] Apple, although commandeering in its control over the iOS platform, has ensured that every iPhone customer gets the same consistent and (relatively) easy user interface. This extends to app developers as well - an app that will work on an iPhone 5 will work on every iPhone 5. Despite the higher barrier for App Store approval, developing for an iPhone has been recognized as easier (due to the ease of the XCode interface), and more profitable than developing for Android [2]. Of greater concern for developers, however, is the fragmentation resulting from Android's open source. Developers are required to test their build on several different versions of the OS, and any updates need to be coded accordingly keeping several version of OS in mind. The open source of the platform also increases the potential of apps not working in conjunction with one another - an issue that is incredibly difficult to problem solve by even the most savvy Android user. As my opponent has forfeited this round, I will hold my further arguments in the event that they return and respond. SOURCES [1] http://mashable.com... [2] http://www.appmakr.com...
Androids are better than IPhones.

androids are better than Iphones. android phones have a wide range of customization without rooting (jail breaking), it gives you access to many different things that Iphones like developer mode, and being able to clear ram if the phone is lagging, also most android phones have a removable battery cover which in case your phone freezes unlike a Iphone where if it freezes you have to wait and hope for the best. another reason that androids is better than Iphone because it allows memory expansion by buying a micro sd card which can go to 128gb.
The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...)

Topic:The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over continuing support for traditional energy sources.Previously established rules of this debate: Round 1 - Acceptance by Pro (Con can make arguments if he desires) Round 4 - No new arguments (responses & conclusions permitted) Both debaters agree not to turn this into a topicality debate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction: It has been a long long time since I've agreed to debate anyone. However, the issue at hand, USFG prioritization of clean energy, is one that I firmly support. I accept the proposition burden: the USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over continuing support for traditional energy sources.
Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its milit

In using private military firms abroad, the United States would open itself up both diplomatically and economically. On the diplomatic stand point, we can see that the United States would keep consistent positive relations with other nations in order to keep these privatized militarise avaliable for use. On the economic side, the United States, altough the war time payout may be greater than the status quo, in times of peace, the United States will save both revenue and tax dollars on funding military bases abroad and supplying salary for enlisted soldiers along with future veterans. For these two reasons, we can see that a privatized military is nothing but beneficial to the United States in war time efforts.
Further steps should be taken to contain the 2014 Ebola Outbreak

Pro stated at the beginning that rounds 2-4 are normal, and now states that I can have no new arguments. .. . Everything that Pro has suggested for their "Education Initiative" I have proving has already been taken care of. He supplied no new arguments to support his side. He makes the assumption that the posters, which are written in more then just English, are not available to remote villages. This is pearly speculation so I can say that they ARE available. I have shown to both the readers and Pro that they are being placed in strategic places for people to see. I will also state again that death and the spread of the disease being BAD has nothing to do with containing the outbreak, it only states what is currently happening and will continue to happen with the disease until it can be eradicated. I will leave off here and wait for the judges to decide.
Further steps should be taken to contain the 2014 Ebola Outbreak

I+II. CON agrees that death is bad and that the spread of death is bad - but somehow thinks this is irrelevant. As I said earlier, this is a central piece of the debate. The status quo (which CON believes to be sufficient) includes death and the spread of death. My plan (an education initiative) has the intent of reducing the mortality caused by Ebola and containing its spread. I understand that CON's plan (status quo) attempts to reduce death and contain the spread, but it does an inferior job. III. CON incorrectly assumed I had not bothered to open their link about the posters. I did in fact look at these posters. The first few images make a bit of sense, but the others of a face puking or a close up of an eye are confusing. These posters are confusing. These posters are not accessible to remote villages. Posters are not the best way to teach a concept. Many villagers do not believe in Ebola; a poster is not going to change their minds. CON claims that the status quo encompasses my education plan; however, a poorly executed poster campaign is a long way away from sending in educators who understand the language and the customs to convince the people that Ebola is a real threat. I believe CON has misunderstood burden of proof. The common understanding of burden of proof is that, if both sides are equal, the side with burden of proof has lost. In other words, because I have burden of proof, I must prove that my plan is better than your plan. Because you don't have burden of proof, you have to prove that your plan (the status quo) is equal or greater than my plan. This does not mean that CON can slide by without making organized and evidence-based arguments. My plan (education initiative) is better than CON's plan (status quo) because my plan reduces death, contains the spread, and is educational. I have shown that the status quo does not encompass my further steps plan of an education initiative. I have also clarified 'burden of proof'. Knowing this, you may either vote for the further step of an education initiative or to allow the horrendous status quo to run its course: whichever you think is the better plan. The death and spread associated with the status quo is unacceptable. Further steps must be taken. Thank you for indulging me in my desire to debate serious topics. I appreciate the time CON put into this, and the time you the voter have put into reading this far.
Further steps should be taken to contain the 2014 Ebola Outbreak

Most of what you stated is obvious and in no way supports your statement that that further steps need to be taken. What steps do you propose that we take that are already not being taken? 1. Death is Bad: This is a given. Of course death is bad, but how does this statement help to contain the Ebola Outbreak? Yes the CDC's website says that there is no significant threat to the U.S. Public, but I used that in reference to how the disease is spread. It shows their case definition for the Ebola Virus, which can be viewed here: http://www.cdc.gov... 2. Spread is dangerous: Again of course the spread of the disease is dangerous... How does this support your argument? The only thing I see that could hold any merit would be that there health systems are weak. This is true, but that is also why they are working with the CDC as well as WHO to make up for their weak health system. They are coordinating their efforts with the CDC and WHO, as well as other organizations, to help try ad get the outbreak under control. "Partners involved in the response to the current outbreak, UN Agencies, CDC , DFID, EU, ECHO, Institute Pasteur, IFRC, MSF, PHE, USAID, and WAHO participated and appreciated the opportunity for dialogue and consensus building; and expressed their views on key issues highlighted by governments.." (1) 3. Education is good: You ask about educating the public which they are also already doing and continue to do. They have used Posters for example, which you can see here: http://www.cdc.gov... Within the Ebola Response plan for Sierra Leone: "Specific Objectives of the operational plan: 1.To ensure effective coordination of the outbreak response activities at all levels 2.To strengthen early detection, reporting and referral of suspected cases through active surveillance and outbreak investigation 3.To institute prompt and effective case management of all suspected cases 4.To create public awareness about EVD, the risk factors for its transmission, its prevention and control among the people" (2) So far everything that you have discussed I have proved that it is currently being taken care of. They are currently using all resources available to contain the outbreak, and unless the "scientists dabbling in their labs" find a vaccine or cure for the disease. Thank you, and I look forward to your reply. References: (1) http://mohsw.gov.lr... (2) http://health.gov.sl...
Further steps should be taken to contain the 2014 Ebola Outbreak

I am arguing that measures currently being taken in contain the Ebola Outbreak in Africa are insufficient, making further actions necessary and an appropriate use of resources. Taking sufficient action to contain the Ebola Outbreak is important for three reasons. 1. Death is BadAccording to the Center for Disease Control or (CDC), the Ebola outbreak "does not pose a significant risk to the U. S. public" (1). This is a very U. S. -centric point of view. Focusing on how the outbreak is unlikely to harm the privileged, undermines the fact that thousands have died and still more are dying every day. While those dying are not first world citizens, this makes their deaths no less saddening. Further action is required because the Ebola Outbreak is continuing to take lives and, to put it simply, death is bad. 2. Spread is DangerousThe World Health Organization (WHO) said in early August that "the Ebola outbreak in West Africa constitutes an 'extraordinary event' and a public health risk to other States;" (2) WHO listed several reasons why the potentional consequences will be serious: "virulence of the virus, intensive community and health facility transmission patterns, and the weak health systems" (2). It is not enough for large organizations to lay down the law on the borders and play with germs in their labs. The underdeveloped nature of West Africa makes establishing a border inherently difficult. Further action is required because the current steps have proven insufficient at stopping the spread to neighboring countries and, again to put it simply, the spread is dangerous. 3. Education is GoodIn the above point I focused on how the current plan is failing to secure the border's of the outbreak's spread. You might ask what further steps (funding, doctors, guards) could do to help when WHO has already tried. How about education? Even with the supplies provided by WHO and other organizations, the spread will continue unless the people are educated in how to avoid infection. For example, did you know that Ebola stays alive even after the affected person has passed away? Trying to develop a vaccine and stopping obvious infection risks from traveling is one step to containing the situation. However, while scientists dabble in their labs, thousands have died and more still will die in part out of ignorance. By creating an initiative to spread knowledge about preventing the spread of Ebola will put the power back in the hands of the West Africans and will be more effective than agencies from other nations fumbling around the borders. To summarize, the devastating Ebola outbreak in West Africa will lead to more death (which is bad) and will likely spread to more countries (which is dangerous). My plan to create an education initiative will both empower the people closest to the issue and be a more effective use of resources. Do not wait until it is too late. STOP Ebola deaths, STOP the spread, STOP the devastation now through education. 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . http://www.who.int...
Further steps should be taken to contain the 2014 Ebola Outbreak

Ebola is spread through contact with infected fluids from either animals or persons infected with the virus, extremely unlikely from normal contact with another infected person or animal. http://www.cdc.gov... I will try to show the readers that all necessary steps and procedures are already being taken to prevent the disease from spreading, and that there is nothing more we can do unless we find a cure or vaccine. To read up on what has been done thus far: http://www.globalpost.com... I will begin my debate after your response. Thank you and I look forward to our debate.
i rule all carrots

Well then why do we as humans eat them. Wouldn't you try to stop us from eating your followers. A true Carrot King would not let people et his disciples.Therefore you loose. Also, I am from the planet of Zourglie also, and I never met any carrots there. I lived almost my entire life there. I am actually the princess, and the king was a dead man, long ago. Unless you are my brother.Thank you very much.