BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 5/13/16 Dear Colleague letter of the DOJ & DOE re Student Transgender RIghts is Lawful

Pro basically gives two reasons why she believes this letter is lawful. One is such letters are frequently issued; and the second it supports a worthwhile cause.The first is simply silly. It uses a basic fundamental of propaganda. If a lot of people are doing or in this case it' done frequently it must be a good thing. It may well be a good thing but doing it frequently does not make it so. The second point I will concur with it serving a worthwhile goal.More importantly there are 10 counts (reasons) offered by the plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit as to why this letter is unlawful. I will list them here.Count 1 Did not follow proper procedure in implementation. Did so without observing as required by law notice of comment rule making periodCount 2: It is not supported by legislative intent as documented in the Congressional RecordCount 3: Infringes on the separation of powers doctrine in that the executive branch is usurping legislative powers. And it also infringes on the 10th Amendment which reserves to the states rights not enumerated to the Federal government nor prohibited elsewhere in the constitution to the states. These reserved rights include general police powersCount 4: It infringes on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by imposing different requirements on different groups of personsCount 5: It unlawfully abrogates state sovereign immunity. This can be done only if there has been Congressional findings of invidious discrimination. There have been no such findingsCounts 6 and 7: It is arbitrary and capricious in addition to being an abuse of discretion and is not in accordance with existing statutory and case lawCount 8: It violates the constitutional requirement of clear notice. Under the Spending Clause anyone accepting federal funds must be aware from the language in the Congressional authorization the requirements for accepting such funds. Any ex post interpretation which is contrary to the original intent is unlawfulCount 9: It is unlawfully and unconstitutionally coercive. The penalty both implicitly and explicitly threatened by the letter is simply too severe. The loss of federal funds will have a broad and unfairly negative impact on a broad range of children most if not all of them have little or no responsibility for discriminatory practices against transgender students.Count 10 It was issued without the proper regulatory flexibility analysis
The 5/13/16 Dear Colleague letter of the DOJ & DOE re Student Transgender RIghts is Lawful

Second round is for presenting opening argument. Third Round is for rebuttal. Final and Fourth round is for concluding arguments. Please be prepared to provide links to factual and legal claims. The referenced Dear Colleague letter can be found at . http://www2.ed.gov... This debate goes to the issue of whether this letter was an example of "federal overreach" as has been recently claimed by numerous conservative commentators. I say the action was lawful and did not overreach the authority of the DOE or DOJ.
School web filters should be taken down a notch.

I expected my challenger to be in negation of my statement, and to be completely in opposition of it. So, I thought that my opponent would argue for the web filters to stay , not to be removed completely. So, I will continue to argue against that, They should only be taken down a notch, because if we were to remove them, the students would have access to mature content, and they would be distracted, and the moderators would not be able to watch them. Removing them, would be, in a sense, breaking a law. What do you mean by a human web monitor? Have an example of that? Beneficial sites are being blocked, but lets remove the blocks on educational websites, not on all websites. Let me push that taking the web filters down to the correct intensity while still protecting them IS possible.
School web filters should be taken down a notch.

Pro, your position inherently allows for web filters to remain, so I reject your position that the web filters should remain. I also argue, that reasons that you may provide for reducing web filters also apply to removing web filters. I'm not arguing the wrong thing; I'm negating Pro's argument. I know that Pro "never once stated that [filters] should be taken down completely," which is why I, not Pro, am advocating for such. Pro brings up: "students definitely need web filters, because schools are supposed to block the obviously inappropriate." My response: Pro assumes that the only way to block students from websites is to use a web filter. However, along with the suggestions provided by the FCC, an authorized person MONITORING student internet activity can stop a student from accessing inappropriate material. This would negate a need to make web filters less restrictive, because we would not need web filters at all, instead we need a human web monitor. Pro argues first: "[Removing web filters] would be violating a law" Then Pro later argues: "[Removing web filters] is not Illegal...I acknowledge that" My response: So, which is it? Let me tell you that removing web filters is not illegal, in fact the FCC says that "an authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during use." https://www.fcc.gov... Pro concludes: "Beneficial sites are being blocked" My response: So let's remove them. Pro also concludes: "Students are not fully mature and therefore cannot be trusted not to go on inappropriate sites...enforcing web filters would also be in lieu of enforcing school policy." My response: The law requires that schools have some sort of internet safety policy to ensure appropriate educational access to the internet like "monitoring the online activities of minors." https://www.fcc.gov... School policy could be simply monitoring students' internet activity and manually, not with a web filter, stopping them from accessing obscene sites; we could remove the filters, and still regulate student access "in lieu of enforcing school policy." Pro continues: "Any good parent would not want their children to be on inappropriate web sites." My response: I know, that's why we should monitor their activity like the FCC suggests. By doing this, we eliminate unnecessary blockage and ensure appropriate internet activity. I continue to reject the resolution, because there should be no web filters, they are inherently restrictive, thus allowing web filters to remain is allowing for unnecessary restriction. Pro which is it, are the filters too restrictive or are they necessary? Filters either filter content or they don't; by allowing filters to stay, you allow the restrictions which Pro believes are too restrictive. i reject the resolution...Pro?
School web filters should be taken down a notch.

Now, let me define, taken down a notch. My opponent argues, " I'm arguing that school web filters should be removed..." I instigated this argument and I am attempting to argue that the school web filters should not be so restrictive. I never once stated that they should be taken down completely, because that would be violating a law, and It would most definitely be outrageous and detrimental to the learning to students. It would seem that you are arguing for the wrong thing. Beneficial sites are blocked, and I am arguing that those sites, which are clearly educational, should be unblocked. Again, I argue that they should not be so restrictive. But students definitely need web filters, because schools are supposed to block the obviously inappropriate. I understand that this also frustrates teachers, which stresses my point that these web filters should not be so restrictive. Now, disabling these web filters would, let's not forget, outrage parents also. They have the impression that all mature content is blocked. I reject your arguments, because: *We filters SHOULD be reduced, not removed. *Beneficial sites are being blocked, so school web filters should be taken down a notch. * Students are not fully mature and therefore cannot be trusted not to go on inappropriate sites. * If it is not Illegal, which I acknowledge that, parents would be outraged. Any good parent would not want their children to be on inappropriate web sites. * Enforcing web filters would also be in lieu of enforcing school policy.
School web filters should be taken down a notch.

First of all, I stated that school web filters were to be taken down a notch, not completely removed. That would be violating a law. But, the web filters only need to filter these things: The protection measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors) (fcc.gov) So, the web filters are way out of line, blocking things that could be beneficial to the students. Students need to have the ability to analyze information from at least all educational sites. The excess blocking stresses students out even more.
School web filters should be taken down a notch.

Pro mentions: "[Web filters] should only be taken down a notch, because if we were to remove them, the students would have access to mature content, and they would be distracted, and the moderators would not be able to watch them." My response: Without filters, we can monitor students' internet activity. An authorized administrative user can access any computer on the network remotely and see what's being viewed on it. This can also be done on a macro scale, such that all computers on the network can be monitored at one time. As long as all student computers are on the network, an authorized administrator can view those computers remotely at all times and override access if need be. http://www.wikihow.com... Pro continues: "Removing [web filters] would be, in a sense, breaking a law." My response: Nope, the FCC said that an authorized user can disable the web filters in a public school. Pro posits: "What do you mean by a human web monitor? Have an example of that?" My response: I mentioned it at the beginning of this round, but an authorized human monitor, usually the IT person at the school, can remotely access and override ANY computer on the school's network; you can check the link below to see how easy it is to do. With this ability, students' inappropriate internet activity can be regulated WITHOUT restrictive web filters. http://www.wikihow.com... Pro adds: "Beneficial sites are being blocked, but lets remove the blocks on educational websites..." My response: I agree. By removing web filters, we remove the blocks on educational websites. Pro concludes: "Let me push that taking the web filters down to the correct intensity while still protecting them IS possible." My response: I don't know how you would reduce the intensity of a filter. A filter either blocks a site or it doesn't. You can reduce the AMOUNT of blocked sites, but reducing the intensity of a filter seems impossible. Could a web filter only partially block access to a site? No, if it allows access, then the access is not blocked. If it doesn't allow access, then there is no gradation of blockage; it's blocked. I maintain that for the reasons both Pro and I provided, we should remove the school web filters, and not allow them to remain to be "reduced." Instead, there should be remotely monitored student access to the entire world wide web of educational material.
Trump's Reelection

IntroNd2 asked to debate me on this in my thread, so, here we are. As someone who despises Trump, I sincerely hope that my arguments will prove predictive, rather than simply jinxing me. Suffice it to say, I am and am not looking forward to 2020. Here's to what will hopefully be a great debate!In order to ensure quality judging, I have nominated the following judges: Tej, Whiteflame, Warren, Max, and Danielle. Those judges, by accepting this debate, agree to set aside their personal views on the topic and to adjudicate the round as impartially as they can; they also agree to refrain from discussing their vote or the outcome of the debate with any third party or the debaters themselves before casting their ballot. If Nd2 would like to have this list altered in any way, he should inform me before accepting the debate. The voting period lasts 14 days.TopicDonald Trump is more likely than not to be reelected President in 2020ContextThe debaters will assume, for the purposes of the debate, that Trump, during his first term, will not be removed from office via impeachment and trial proceedings, via exercising provisions of the 25th amendment, or by resignation. In other words, we will assume that he remains President at the time of the 2020 elections. We will further assume that he is the GOP's nominee for President in those elections.Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution, the reality of the US political landscape, and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post their arguments in R1 and waive in R410. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR4. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Nd2 for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion about our collective and political futures.
Trump's Reelection

Bsh1, i wanted to thank you for this debate. It was very interesting, and entertaining for me. I know why you have a tremendous record on debating. Your were very good. I just hope i give you a decent fight on this. I also wish i had another round on this topic. Because i know i have more things to touch on. But i will follow the rules of this debate that you put in line. And not make anymore arguments. It very hard not to mention anything else. So i better stop here.... I will just ask the judges to read the arguments carefully and make sure to have fun in reading this debate... Bsh1 again thank you for this opportunity. It was truly a Honor to debate someone with your skill sets. Maybe one day i could have the opportunity to debate you once again. One more thing for the judges, if you find one good piece of evidence on my side. Then Please vote for (PRO)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :):):)...
star wars vs star trek

I think Star Trek is much better overall. The message of Star Trek is stronger than Star Wars. With ST, you have episodes dealing with racism [1], AIDS [2][3], philosophy of mind and rights [4], euthanasia [5][6][7] and much more. Star Wars paints a black and white picture of morality, whereas Star Trek often reveals shades of grey [8][9]. Having a TV record allows them to have a variety of stories. This is like the problem above, Star Wars is all about the Sith/Force/Jedi. It is one clear and common good v. evil trope [10]. Star Trek is about exploration, the TV format allows them to have a variety of enemies, problems, and characters. The TV format also allows for deeper character development. Effects wise, maybe Star Wars does beat early Star Trek when comparing it to older films. Although, those movies aren't suppose to have big space wars like Star Wars does. With Star Wars, there's doubt that the prequels were originally conceived. There seems to be a lot of mistakes in the retconning, which create plot holes [12]. I conclude that Star Trek is philosophically superior, has a better amount of stories, better character development, and less problems with its retconning. [1] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [2] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [3] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [4] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [5] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [6] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [7] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [8] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [9] http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com... [11] http://tvtropes.org... [12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
star wars vs star trek

this is it what is better star wars vs star trek we all know them well but witch one as the better i will show you that star wars is better graphics aliens villeins and a better story line and is go though the history star wars has more of a movie record and star trek as a more of a tv record while they do both i will be pining the best to the best star trek original movies the first one to star wars a new hope graphics wise star wars has it Evan now with the new movie coming out aliens well i will give it to the trekes villeins star wars heroes i have to give it to star wars and over all star wars is better don't get me wrong i love star trek but its just that star wars is better over all
They should lift the limits on whip use in a horse race

Pro has two points: a) that pain isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and b) animals needn’t be cared about. I’ll respond to both. First, it isn’t deniable that pain is undesirable. That’s the definition of pain. When things are “undesirable”, they’re bad unless they have a good consequence- I’m sure Pro agrees with me. If the pain has a good consequence, it is justified. But I’ve shown that the harm of the pain easily outweighs the “excitement” caused by whipping, and that’s the only good consequence Pro brings up. Second, Pro drops all my arguments in favor of caring for animals. There are very little morally relevant differences between humans and animals- and when it comes to causing wanton suffering, there is an obligation to not cause it for both humans and animals. Applying inconsistent standards between humans and animals is being both unfair and unreasonable, so is unjust. An unjust law is no law at all. Pro also seems to hold the despicable view that it is fine to ‘whip’ your kids to discipline them- but Pro fails to explain how that is morally permissible. It is immoral under almost every ethical system. Under utilitarianism, it causes more suffering and very little good consequences (whatever discipline is generated is easily outweighed by the pain if the whipping). Under deontology, it is committing an act of inflicting something deeply undesirable- which is immoral. Under egoism, it could potentially lead to psychological damage to the whipper as a result. Not that whipping children is relevant to the debate, but I just view it as a morally repugnant position. [Note: there are certain voters that will interpret my usage of words such as despicable and repugnant as conduct violations- those voters are wrong because I’m not insulting my opponent so much as criticizing their position, which is what debate is for.
They should lift the limits on whip use in a horse race

a) Moral Framework:Animals are sentient creatures capable of pain and emotion. As such, wanton cruelty to animals is unjust – because consistent standards of moral consideration must apply. The government gives the severely mentally enfeebled rights, which means animals – which lack significant psychological differences to the mentally enfeebled – should also be given rights. Christine Korsgaard explains that humans feel empathy towards animals for a reason; we recognize that there are good reasons to change animal conditions from net negative mental states to positive ones. [1]That’s fundamentally because moral decisions are based on desires and emotions. There’s no thing with intrinsic value except what we desire. What we find undesirable is inherently harmful. Animals feel pleasure and pain, so are worthy of the same moral consideration.This brings us to the role of the government. The state’s role is to legislate based on what is reasonable and fair. I agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all. Justice- being fair and reasonable- is critical to any understanding of the function of the state. Justice is, by definition, treatment without needless discrimination. Since any such discrimination is arbitrary and there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, it is unjust to deny animals basic rights. [1] Korsgaard, Sources of Normativity, p. 153b) Whipping horses causes painHorses are sensitive creatures and feel pain. In fact, a horse can feel a fly landing on it, which means whipping will cause intense pain. Whips cause bruising, inflammation and intense suffering. [2] Since I’ve already established- through the role of the government- that it is unjust to cause wanton suffering to animals, the government shouldn’t remove limits on whipping.[2] http://www.rspca.org.au...c) Re: ExcitementPro says allowing whipping allows for more speed and excitement… this is completely irrelevant because the magnitude of intense suffering easily outweighs the magnitude of happiness from “excitement.” The same way the government doesn’t allow whipping of humans, whipping of sensitive horses is unjust and shouldn’t be permitted- or, at the very least, the limits that exist shouldn’t be removed.
They should lift the limits on whip use in a horse race

When I've seen races in South America with no limit on whip use the horses go much faster and its much more exciting. On top of that its hypocritical as its common nowadays for horses to get a whipping in the stables before a race to wind them up for the race - i know I work in a stables. So why no leave it to the judgement of the jockey - some horses don't need much whipping but some need to be flogged pretty hard.
Impromptu Video Debate

Whoever accepts will post three potential debate topics, and I will choose one of them for us to debate. The topics listed should be markedly different. For instance, three topics dealing with sports, or politics, or religion would be bad. In the event that Con lists three resolutions that are either the same, or are truisms geared towards the Con, I reserve the right to choose a different resolution entirely. Just be reasonable guys. Round 2: 6 Minute limit // Constructive Speeches. Con may make no rebuttals here, he or she may only set up his or her case // 5 source limit. You can cite as much common knowledge as you'd like, but only 5 pieces of empirical evidence may be offered. Round 3: 5 Minute limit // Rebuttal Speeches. Con may not defend case attacks here, only attack the Pro. // New evidence limit of 3 sources. You can continue to cite as much common knowledge as you'd like, but you may only offer 3 new pieces of empirical evidence. Round 4: 4 Minute limit // Case defenses and voters. You can defend the attacks made against your case here, and as time allows offer voters. = Rules and Stuff = 1. Starting in the next speech, the only text posted in each round should be our source citations. 2. Evidence is limited to 5 new sources in construction, and 3 new sources in rebuttal. No new evidence may be offered in the final speech. 3. The Burden of Proof is shared evenly between both the Pro and the Con. In the event of a tie, vote for the better speaker, not on presumption. 4. Give the Grammar and Spelling vote to the debater you feel was the better speaker. 5. Further clarification should be sought in the comments as necessary.