BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites

Based on the value of property rights, protected by US Law, I strongly affirm the resolution: "RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking Web sites." Value: Rights of Property Criterion: US Law Definition: Social Networking websites: Privately or corporately owned websites that permit users to post content themselves. [1] Property: ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything [2] -------- Against 1st Con Contention: The First amendment denies Congress the right to limit free expression. It makes no such limitation on states, local governments, corporations, or private individuals. If I own a newspaper, I am not restricted in choosing whom I allow to write its articles. Were I to deny you "free expression" in my newspaper, you would have no legal recourse. Against 2nd Con Contention: The US Constitution only guarantees us that the federal government cannot interfere with our expression; it gives no such protection against private individuals. As the social networking sites are not publicly owned, but instead run by businesses or private individuals, the government must respect their right to censor content. Con's conclusion (free speech on privately owned websites) does not follow from his premise (government can't restrict speech). -------- 1st Aff Contention: Standards of professional behavior should be valued over unlimited expression, because the Social Networking sites mentioned in the resolution are businesses. Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, DDO, etc. all are businesses that have professional reputations to keep up. Were they to allow unfettered posting of content, the kind of content posted could easily destroy the value of the networks; and as many of them have some sort of censorship of content in place, it is clear that they recognize this. It is clear that the interested parties have already concluded that standards of professional behavior are to be valued over freedom of speech on their websites. 2nd Aff Contention: Standards of professional behavior should be valued over unlimited expression, because the Social Networking sites mentioned in the resolution are private property. Unlimited expression at the expense of the rights of private property is not legally justifiable. An analogous situation would be if I spray-painted graffiti on a wall, and then claimed "free speech" protected me from the just wrath of the owner. US citizens do not have the right to deface private property not belonging to them; and the owners of these site has made it clear which kinds of content they consider to be defacing. The law must respect their choices in this matter. One must not give rights to one at another's expense. The privilege of private property must take precedence over the desire of some to deface that property. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites

"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom" -Benjamin Cardozo Because I do strongly agree with Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Cardozo, I must negate today's resolution, "RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking Web sites." The most important value in today's resolution is freedom, for purposes of today's debate; freedom will be defined as the quality or state of being free, within the text and spirit of the online findlaw.com dictionary. The best criterion for the Negatives value is that of the United States Constitution. Contention 1- Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression [Ratified 12/15/1791] Contention 2- Freedoms without Freedom of Expression If freedom of expression isn't very important, then why did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many more write an amendment, in fact they thought it was so important, the first amendment was written about it. The first amendment specifically declares "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." In other words, Freedom of Expression is very important, and it has been important for over 200 years. Freedom of expression is the most import Freedom, because without it, we wouldn't have any freedoms. Without freedom of expression in America, people can be a Muslim even though the national religion is Christian, but they can't pray to Allah, in this Case they can't put think Allah I didn't get run over by that car, which is not moral. According to the United States Constitution, we have the freedom to express ourselves in any way as long as we are not harmful to others, thus saying we have the right to freely express ourselves on Social Networking Sites. In the end, to be truly fair to everyone, Freedom of expression ought to be valued over Professional Behavior on Social networking sites. "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." ~Abraham Lincoln
for christians, what minimal faith is needed to be saved, is not clear

Could you clarify your position? It's not clear whether you're talking about actual salvation or proving one's salvation. There is a difference between the bare minimum between one and the other. The first involves what's actually needed for salvation. The second involves proving one's salvation to others. Merely being saved does not necessarily mean others will believe someone is saved. Likewise, people can believe someone is saved despite how someone is not. To be clear, I'm taking a non-spiritual perspective on religion. "God" is a model of perfect goodness, and "salvation" is having a good attitude. No offense, but I am not talking about an imaginary friend in the sky who judges us when we die. If you wish to believe in spirituality, be my guest, but the focus here is on religion. Furthermore, spirituality is a personal, not a social, endeavor, so it really isn't respectful to talk about since it can't really be communicated. In fact, it is impossible to confirm whether one's "beliefs" are real. Like you said, someone can confess everything and anything in the world. That doesn't mean it's honest. In turn, when I refer to people judging each other, I'm referring the "grayness" of human nature. Some people are good, some people are bad. Bad people judge others by default, ignoring how judgment itself is an individual quality where nobody's judgment is more important than anyone else's. Good people do not judge because they understand how judging another's judgment is hypocritical... ...HOWEVER... ...good people are still trying to avoid bad people, so it's possible for good people to do bad things in order to protect themselves. Therefore, good people will sometimes judge others in order to avoid being judged themselves. This means that even good people will sometimes expect "good works" in advance of believing that others are "saved". You also referred to how even demons (bad people) believe in "God". That's complicated because you're confusing intelligence with attitude. Intelligently speaking, yes, bad people can recognize models of perfect goodness. Information processing and storage would require what works. Attitudinally speaking, no, bad people can not recognize models of perfect goodness. Information processing and storage would require being faithful. To resolve this difference between intelligence and attitude, it needs to be clear whether you're talking about actual salvation or proving one's salvation.
for christians, what minimal faith is needed to be saved, is not clear

---------------- It ultimately depends on whether or not you believe people are obligated to endure the judgment of their peers. If the answer is "no", then faith is simply believing in God. It's positive by default. If the answer is "yes", then faith has to be strong enough to perform good works. It's negative until it's proven. --------------- you have not shown how faith is tied to enduring judgment of one's peers. i see no connection ebtween that and believing in God or doing good works. also, as i said, per believing in God, even demons believe in God. that's not sufficient. it says in James that for example "you belive God is one, good... buit even the demons do that" to say that that aqlone is not sufficient. you say that the faith has to be strong enough to perform good works. i actually might be able to get behind that somewhat. but, if we were to argue literally "confess w ur mouth that Jesus is Lord and that he rose from the dead, and you will be saved" does not per se require good works. sure, good works would follow and one's faith would allow for it... but as a literal per se minimum, that confess w your mouth thing shows that good works are not required at first brush, bare bones minimum.
for christians, what minimal faith is needed to be saved, is not clear

"Faith v Works" has a positive and a negative side to it. On the positive side (which is usually Catholic), faith recognizes how people can be appreciative regardless of their particular behavior. That way, nobody is judged according to anyone else, so nobody is entitled to say that anyone else has worked hard enough to prove one's salvation. This is usually called "universal reconciliation". On the negative side (which is usually Protestant), faith can be lazy or negligent, so people have to work effectively to prove their salvation. Everyone supposedly judges everyone else, so it's nothing already unexpected. This is usually called "depravity". Your question was about clarity, so to be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another between faith or works. I'm just saying that the minimum is clearer than you're giving credit. It ultimately depends on whether or not you believe people are obligated to endure the judgment of their peers. If the answer is "no", then faith is simply believing in God. It's positive by default. If the answer is "yes", then faith has to be strong enough to perform good works. It's negative until it's proven.
for christians, what minimal faith is needed to be saved, is not clear

what the absolute minimum needed to believe is not clear. this debate is beyond the "faith v works" debate and is simply in the realm of what faith is required to be saved. i am not saying this in terms of seeking to do or believe the minimum such as to "do as little as i have to to get saved". i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does as even the bible says. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. but then there's various beliefs in atonement, "christus victor" v "substitionary" etc. but then the bible has lots of places where it says what to believe. "confess with your lips that he is lord and believe that he has risen and you will be saved". that doesn't really define what "Lord" is though, thoug h in any case all this atonement stuff may not be necessary after all. but what if they do beleive in atonement and all this other stuff, but dont' know to believe that he was risen? or what if they find that piece of evidence insufficient for belief but believe everything else? most christians just say "believe he's savior and you're good". and what if you don't like this "savior" stuff given it's a loaded word. what if you just "relied" on Jesus instead, and acknowledged that you're a sinner, wouldn't that be enough? well it's not confesing and beleiving all that stuff, though no one said that was teh end all be all of what's required. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. if it's too short though, they don't like the vagueness or the possibilities they are forgoing for the sake of an easy answer... it's a brutal issue when you get down to it. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. you have people who are new to the religion and one wouldn think couldn't be held responsible to everything to a T, and you have those who have honest disagreements over what doctrines should be belieeved and what shouldn't. and even if they knew of one doctrine and rejected what tehy knew... what is the minimum they'd have to believe? they can do the "confess with your mouth" stuff and reject say the trinity and be condemned for it? basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
for christians, what minimal faith is needed to be saved, is not clear

This is the final round, so I'll keep things succinct. If there were more rounds, I would explore the matter of "proving one's salvation" further. To wrap up the situation at hand, I'll simply refer back to what was said about "grayness" in human nature. Believing in "God" as a model of perfect goodness is subject to different people being good or bad. Also, people judge one another in order to know whether or not they're saved.Regarding intelligence and attitude, ideas (such as God and other models) need to be imagined. The difference between intelligence and attitude here is whether or not someone is imaginative. A merely intelligent person can believe in God without imagining it. That is a merely intelligent person looks at what works and accepts it even if that includes denying the very imagination required to imagine the workable idea.An attitudinal person, however, has the imagination required for ideas in the first place. When an attitudinal person believes in something, that belief actually creates and sustains the idea. This isn't to say intelligence and attitude are mutually exclusive though. Someone can have both a faithful attitude and workable intelligence. That is someone can both believe in how an idea is imagined as well as what the idea is itself. With that out of the way, we can now clearly determine the minimal belief required for salvation. Keep in mind that pro has admitted that we are not talking about what it takes to prove one's salvation to others. We are discussing a personal, not a social, issue.In terms of faith, one believes enough by simply believing in God. The attitude itself imagines the idea into creation and sustenance. There is no complexity required.In terms of works, one believes enough by believing in what works. Intelligence uses God as a motive in order to create something physically real that sustains itself.Again, this doesn't mean attitude and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Some might even argue they're mutually necessary. That is the idea which intelligence uses to work must be attitudinally imagined. Likewise, attitudes require intelligence in order to physically exist.One way or another, however, the minimally necessary amount of belief to be saved is clear.
for christians, what minimal faith is needed to be saved, is not clear

i see no reason "proving one's salvation" was ever inserted nto the debate to begin with. it was inserted by Con for reasons unknown. It seems clear enoiugh to me that the debate is about acheiving actual salvation. you also mention honest beliefs being rerequired. i would agree with this but would say it's a given. my initial post says the things that must be believed or not, and doesnt add anything about honesty because it's assumed. i dont see how attitude and intelligence is relevant the way you are discussing it. it seems like a made up construct and i dont see how it's applicable here.
Individual privacy is more important than national security

As much as I value my life, there is no indication that I will lose my life if there is no government surveillance. NSA-conducted surveillance program PRISM launched in 2007 and was revealed to the public in 2013. Still, the U.S. was under terrorist attacks after 2007, such as the Boston Marathon bombing. There is no evidence that shows the surveillance program has successfully prevented any single one terrorist attack. As you listed, there were so many attacks was NOT put a stop to. People should not be willing to sacrifice their privacy for a program with no proper regulations nor it can't show its effectiveness.
Individual privacy is more important than national security

The key word, in this case, is "unreasonable." Whether or not the surveillance that the government does is lawful depends heavily on the operational definition of unreasonable. I would contend that unreasonable surveillance, in this age, simply means monitoring or tracking a person, business, or entity without a tangible reason to do so. In layman's terms, this means the government cannot search or arrest you without imminent and clear evidence. It is exactly for this reason that law enforcement must follow such strict criminal punishment laws. Given probable cause, it is perfectly legal for the government or local police to enact a surveillance of a possible threat. And might I add, it is this surveillance that has prevented numerous potentially deadly acts upon American citizens. That statement is one we too often take for granted. Lastly, I would like to conclude with a rather bold point. Circling back to the original focus question of this debate, as stated in the title, I believe a rewording is in order to better reflect the severity of your statement. The title should read as follows: Do you value privacy more than your life?
Individual privacy is more important than national security

To answer the question of "government surveillance not being in the constitution," the 4th Amendment banns the "unreasonable searches and seizures." The massive surveillance by the government is the act of secretively searching personal information with the advanced technologies in the 21st century. The surveillance that is conducting by the government is under the general "unreasonable searches and seizures", therefore, it is banned by the constitution. In your previous argument, you stated that if the citizens are not doing anything wrong, the government doesn't need to pay attention to them. It is only reasonable if the government agenciesfind someone suspicious of terrorism, and then monitor the suspect with a search warrant.
Individual privacy is more important than national security

The following is a list of attacks against and plots related to the United States over the span of thirteen years, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation: 2013 Bin Laden Associate Abu Ghayth Charged | Conviction Sentencing in Plot to Bomb New York Federal Reserve Portland Christmas Plot Conviction | Sentencing 2012 Plot to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center: Abdul-Latif Sentencing | Mujahidh sentencing Cleveland Bridge Plot Sentencing | 2013 Guilty Plea El-Khalifi Sentencing for Capitol Bomb Plot Daniel Patrick Boyd Sentencing 2011 Bin Laden Killed 2010 New York Terror Plot Convictions Faisal Shahzad: Guilty Plea | Sentencing Smadi: Guilty Plea | Sentencing Najibullah Zazi: Press Release | Story Khalid Ouazzani: Guilty Plea 2009 Liberty Six Convictions Kassir Material Support Conviction Ali Al-Marri: Guilty plea | Podcast 2008 Holy Land Foundation Hassan Abu-Jihaad Jose Padilla Torrance Plot: Story | Sentencing 2007 Derrick Shareef Fort Dix Plot Hamid Hayat New York Airport Fuel Tanks Plot 2006 Operation Backfire International Drug-for-Weapons Program Sami al-Arian Operation "White Terror" Ahmed Omar Abu Ali Ali Asad Chandia and Mohammed Ajmal Khan Gale Nettles, Homegrown Terrorist Uzair Paracha 2004 Abdurahman Alamoudi: Story | Press release Matthew Hale Operation Pop Concert 2003 Earnest James Ujaama Iyman Faris Hamant Lakhani: Story | Press release Maher Hawash Portland Seven 2002 Beltway Snipers: Part 1 | Part 2 2000-2001 9/11 Investigation Anthrax/Amerithrax Richard Reid USS Cole bombing With all of these major instances in mind (and many minor ones along with the attacks that have occurred 2014-2015), I again question the logic that the privacy of cell phones, for instance, far outweighs the thousands of lives taken through the above events. Government agencies such as the TSA, FBI, CIA, and NSA do not care what you had for breakfast or what time you are going to the mall. They were established on the pretenses to protect all Americans from threats both foreign and domestic. What they are looking for, then, IS potential threats. In short, if you are not doing anything wrong, the government will not and need not pay a mind to you. On the question of "government surveillance not being in the constitution," I simply resort back to my previous answer which you must have missed or evaded comment on. The Constitution was drafted at a time when surveillance was not necessary nor did we have the means to do so. This is the era of technology, and with that, comes both opportunity and opposition. There are more mediums for violence now than the founding fathers could have ever predicted. I don't know about you, but I enjoy getting on a plane with little to no worry that I will get off safely at my destination.
Individual privacy is more important than national security

You avoided to answer the problem that there is actually no proper laws or system established on the behalf of government surveillance. "We live in an age of terror. Can we really afford to not be cautious?" The argument you are making is actually an act of planting terror in minds and there's no proof of we are living in danger. 'Being cautious' does not mean in any ways of violating individuals' private rights. The nation is consisted of individual citizens. If citizens' privacy and security cannot be protected, how can the citizens unite together and protect the interest of the nation when they don't even agree or trust the government? National Admittedly, privacy and national security are both necessary. Security should be established on the basic of individual's privacy.
Individual privacy is more important than national security

The promotion of strong national security does not imply the complete removal of personal privacy. This issue is not an example of "black and white" where there is either all security and no privacy or all privacy and no security. The ironic factor about national security is that nobody thinks it is needed, until it actually is. We certainly hope it is never needed, but it is the truthful reality that in today's age national protection is both essential and the omission of it could quite possibly be catastrophic. The concept of the Amendments persists to be used as the only defense to a protection of privacy over the security of safety. Although an integral part of American society, the Amendments do not reflect society's best interest. They provide basic rights and responsibilities that all participants must abide by. The repeal process is intensely vigorous and near impossible with the exception of prohibition. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anyone would really consider going through the process of eliminating such vital American rights, so the fact they have not been repealed is not indicative of citizens content with specific details. Lastly, there exists no amendment which states the government cannot pursue possibly threats. We live in an age of terror. Can we really afford to not be cautious?