BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The media influences citzen support on behalf of Washington agendas.

Though the media has failed to fully analyze the historical aspects of our involvement in the Middle East, the reason is not because of corporate interests, because corporate interests are not the media's main concern and role. The point of the media for corporations is to provide higher ratings and therefore pay for revenue for that channel. We have seen this happen over and over with tabloid news, whether regarding to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, that the media's main concern is ratings. The media then estimates the rating, or the "newsworthiness" of the issue, and deems whether it should be aired. The media does not report, for example, on the US involvement on overthrowing elected leader Mohamed Mossadeqh in Iran in 1953 and therefore causing the 1979 revolution because it is yesterday's news, and the media estimates that yesterday's news will not provide ratings. What will provide ratings is what happens today, because that is what people tune into the news for. People do not tune into the news to watch people analyze it with history and nuance, but people watch the news to watch...well...news. Were corporations able to distort news for their interests, there would never been a need for lobbyists. Corporations have other ways to set their own agendas, the news is merely another set of revenue for their company. The news is not an activist organization (except Fox, but even Fox is not based on Corporate interest), but rather one that relies on viewership and therefore funding. When news organizations solely base themselves on viewership, they will report only on things they deem will get ratings [sorry for such an unorganized argument, it's like two in the morning over here. And I hope my cynicism gets some empathy from you].
The media influences citzen support on behalf of Washington agendas.

On December 18th, The FCC voted to allow newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. This allows companies like General Electric to buy newspapers to add to the slew of News channels already in their ownership. Why is this a problem? When large companies own the majority of news sources, the U.S. government allows them to use the public airwaves for free, creating a profit of billions of dollars. By doing this, the government holds considerable leverage over the companies who control the news. This allows the government to filter the information it wants to reach the general public. Since the majority of news sources are corporate owned today, this makes for a homogeneous perspective of national and international events. Ex. of underground stories not reported widely... -U.S. support of the Taliban between 1994 and 1997 so that Unocal could attempt to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Taliban occupied Afghanistan, to friendly Pakistan, essentially stealing Turkmenistan's oil. -Current plans to leave troops in central Asia after fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq die down, to secure oil. -The U.S. manipulation of Afghans and Pakistanis during the Afghan-soviet war, which included Osama Bin Laden, and was the building block for terror against the U.S. (I fully outlined it in the debate "in the battle to overcome terrorism islam is not the enemy, ignorance is") -The Baker Agenda, The Bush Administration back in 2006, confirmed Iraqi oil as a fundamental premise for their presidency, Hence, the true purpose of the Iraq war manifests itself. I chose the Middle Eastern related issues, because with proper research, anyone can see that we have been involved Middle East since the late 1970s, and that every time we have gotten involved there, after the troops leave, the oil conglomerates enter. Had the Media been reporting the actual events, and not their opinions, I am rather confident we would not be where we are today. It is a sad fact that today's definition of the American Democracy is "the illusion of having a say". and a large part of this is due to the fact that the government, through the media, tells us what it wants us to hear. They do this in order to achieve the desired results of their Agenda. I am not a conspirator, quite the contrary. I think it is necessary to understand the political landscape which exists today in order to act effectively in influencing government decision making, in other words, play their game. something Americans need to be doing.
People Saw Living Dinosaurs

"Con's rebuttals amount to attributing every single piece of artwork to pure coincidence." You argue that it's not a coincidence, but you never demonstrate that with solid scientific evidence which increases the probability of humans seeing living dinosaurs true. "Even though the DNA argument was sufficient scientific evidence to prove that the aforementioned dinosaurs walked the earth in the past 10,000 years, I also made another argument with the T. rex and hadrosaur blood. I appealed to the intuition and common sense of the voters when I left it up to them to decide whether or not the presence of unfossilized, T. rex and hadrosaur bones complete with soft tissue and liquid blood proves that they walked the earth in the same time period as humans." I will explain why using Pro's own source that red blood cells were not confirmed in the Dinosaur tissue. http://www.smithsonianmag.com... It says: It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone "It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone" Then it says: "Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. "When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that"s what they look like," her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: "Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that"s not what they are." It hasn't even been proven that scientists did indeed find red blood cells, thus Pro cannot use this as evidence to say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I rest my case.
People Saw Living Dinosaurs

Let's recap.Con's rebuttals amount to attributing every single piece of artwork to pure coincidence.Even though I proved that dinosaurs like T. rex and hadrosaurs lived within the past 10,000 years with my DNA argument, Con keeps stubbornly insisting that every single dinosaur died millions of years ago. Con's sole rebuttal to the DNA evidence was a baseless accusation of fraud, a claim that he failed to backup, instead citing a source that had literally nothing to say about the claim he was making. He also blamed the DNA on contamination by human DNA, another baseless assertion not supported by a single one of his sources. My secular, peer-reviewed study was performed in 1994; if it were really a hoax, like Con wants you to think, you'd think he could find a single source in the past 20 years to substantiate that argument.Even though the DNA argument was sufficient scientific evidence to prove that the aforementioned dinosaurs walked the earth in the past 10,000 years, I also made another argument with the T. rex and hadrosaur blood. I appealed to the intuition and common sense of the voters when I left it up to them to decide whether or not the presence of unfossilized, T. rex and hadrosaur bones complete with soft tissue and liquid blood proves that they walked the earth in the same time period as humans.Thus, when Con says,"You never gave me[...] the most recent fossil remains which would put dinosaurs at the same time period as humans[, and] you haven't presented scientific evidence that we can test."...he is stating a falsehood, something this debate demonstrates he has grown accustomed to. It is painfully obvious from this debate that nothing short of a live dinosaur will convince Con that dinosaurs were ever seen by humans. That might be something I'd be expected to deliver if I were trying to prove that dinosaurs live today, but that's simply not what I'm arguing. I'm only arguing that dinosaurs were seen by people at some point in history.Con's meteorite and volcano arguments are incoherent, and he fails to provide a convincing reason for why these vague events would rule out the possibility of a few dinosaurs surviving.Thanks for reading, and have fun voting!
People Saw Living Dinosaurs

You brought more artwork, but no scientific evidence that we can test and validate your claims. "We have lots of unfossilized dinosaur specimens" You never gave me living specimens or the most recent fossil remains which would put dinosaurs at the same time period as humans. "I've provided accurate artwork depicting humans seeing live dinosaurs, and I've also provided dino bones, blood, and DNA. What, exactly, is the problem with these evidences?" They haven't been verified or they've been proven to be hoaxes. "Yes we do have fossils. We have fossils for every single one of the dino art comparisons I've presented. How did you think the modern reconstructions were made? From fossils, of course" You are assuming they came from fossils without evidence. You commit the fallacy of begging the question because you already assumed that they saw dinosaurs without scientific data. "Where is your source for this claim?" It's on Wikipedia when i posted it earlier. "Oh well. Remember that T. rex found fresh (unfossilized) with blood vesses containing liquid blood that I told you about? Well, a Hadrosaur was also found... in better condition than that T. rex" This doesn't prove that dinosaurs lived with humans or that a Medieval tapestry actually saw a Hadrosaur. " the fact of the matter is, I could make a billion fallacies in one sentence, and it still wouldn't mean people never saw living dinosaurs" Your right, but you haven't presented scientific evidence that we can test. "Even if dinosaurs went extinct, it doesn't damage my case as long as they went extinct after some people saw them" You would have to show that humans were alive millions of years ago. "What's your argument now? Every single dinosaur got killed by a volcano? " I never said that, i said that's one reason. "you're saying the dinosaurs went extinct because they weren't fit enough, right? Well, what reason do you have for calling them not fit enough besides your presupposition that they all went extinct before anybody saw them?" They couldn't adapt to the changes of the meteorite impact. Like i said, you haven't proven that people could see dinosaurs vs. pure imagination.
People Saw Living Dinosaurs

While i do find it plausible that scientists may have found dinosaur DNA, it does not necessarily prove that humans lived with them. You bring up interesting cases, but where's the scientific evidence to verify these claims? How did these people know that they were dinosaurs? How do we know that they are dinosaurs vs. the artist's imagination? Solid evidence is required in order to determine these answers. As far as i know, there have been no bones found which would potentially prove that dinosaurs lived with humans. The Source "DNA sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments" was verified to be a hoax. It was revealed to be a human Y-Chromosome after several studies (1). What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Several things (2): 1. Meteorite impact and environmental changes 2. Volcanic ash and gas which suffocated many dinosaurs 3. Diseases wiping out entire populations 4. Food chain imbalances which left many dinosaurs to starve It's highly unlikely for dinosaurs to have survived, those that did eventually evolved into birds (3). Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.scholastic.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com...
People Saw Living Dinosaurs

I argue that it's very unlikely for people to see dinosaurs. Reasons being that we haven't been on the planet for very long. Dinosaurs existed longer than we did, billions of years before early humans. Not only did the meteorite collision wipe out many dinosaurs, other environmental factors also caused them to die off. The Earth's climate changed to the point where they could not survive with humans. No evidence that i know of shows that humans lived with dinosaurs.
Doctor Who

I agree, the war doctor is a great one, but I believe the 4th doctor is the best. He is funny, quirky, and has some of the best moments. Also, the war doctor is only in one episode, which means he dies in the end. A doctor that regenerates then dies in the same episode is not a really good thing. But the 4th doctor has had a few years of adventures, so he is obviously better. But if I were to rank my number two best doctor, war doctor would be there. I know other people have different beliefs, and I accept that. But, like I said before, the fourth doctor is my favorite.
Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control

It is common sense. If a prison is full nobody new can get in. They have to free people by ending sentences or paroling. Here is a source: www. prisoncommission. org/statements/haney_craig. pdf I really wanted to debate gun control but ok. Most of those crimes are not victimless crimes. I support the abolishing of victimless crimes not victimed crimes. On the point about prostitution, "legal prostitutes", such as in Nevada, must be regularly checked for STDs so they don't actually spread the disease like you state. + You can get STDs from consentual sex. Just as much with a promiscuous person. If they outlaw prostitution, a taxable service and livelihood, they should outlaw consentual sex. Prostitution should be legal. I think you should look at the statistics about the hundreds of people raped, killed and beaten by drug users, pimps, and illegal gamblers. Then think of how many of those would be prevented if those drug users, pimps, and illegal gamblers were off of the streets, and all the lives saved from the ones who were taken off the streets + People are constantly exposed to violence in illegal activities but no prostitute is going to say to the cops "My pimp beat me! " /if they could go to the police and there wasnt lawlessness in the profession, then they could complain to the cops and violence would be dramatically reduced. You dont see workers at Walgreens getting raped and beaten because they can complain to the police. In Amsterdam, soft drugs, like marijuana are legal. Their drug usage rate is halved, they spend 156 million less euros a year on crime, their incarceration rate is 5 times lower and their homicide rate has dropped significantly. . http://www.drugwarfacts.org... Ive responded to all my opponent's [weak] points and now I'd like to make my own. Victimless crime prohibition would: - create tax revenue from things like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. - cost the govt. much less money. we spend trillions a year on the war on drugs alone. - our police would be less stretched out and could focus on real crime. - our court system would no longer be clogged and there would be "speedy trials" - our murder and general crime rate would lower significantly - AND VICTIMLESS CRIMES WOULD LOWER! !! as Amsterdam proves. Why not legalise these costly and illogical victimless crimes? Thank yoou.
Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control

For starters lets go over what I asked for which you conveniently ignored, and AGAIN, I would like to press for evidence of these facts 1-"Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded." 2-"If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly" Also, on the note of gun control, I agree, gun rights should not be infringed upon, but that is only part of your resolution, so I will concede that point to you, however I stand firm on the fact that it would be foolish to ignore victimless crime. I would like to point out that EVERY example of victimless crime I listed is considered a victimless crime legally, that being "an illegal act that is consensual and lacks a complaining participant, including such activities as drug use, galnblina, pornography, and prostitution". Therefore, unless you can show me a definition that fits what you say better, and is more reliable than law, we are going to have to go with my definition. To answer most of your bulleted subjects, read the above paragraph about what a "victimless crime" actually is. On the point about prostitution, "legal prostitutes", such as in Nevada, must be regularly checked for STDs so they don't actually spread the disease like you state. In reply to this "- you fail to mention how many lives are saved from the violent crimes correlated with drugs, prostitution, and gambling. + very few. there ive done it." I think you should look at the statistics about the hundreds of people raped, killed and beaten by drug users, pimps, and illegal gamblers. Then think of how many of those would be prevented if those drug users, pimps, and illegal gamblers were off of the streets, and all the lives saved from the ones who were taken off the streets.
Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control

Hello, and thank you for starting this debate. First, I am going to discuss the consequences of "victimless crimes" in which you state, and I quote "No body is hurt". In case you are unaware last year over fifteen thousand people were killed in drunk driving accidents even though drinking and driving is a victimless crime, along with driving underage, and underage drinking. Tax evasion, which costs the country millions of dollars every year is a victimless crime. Driving without a licence, and driving without insurance, both victimless crimes which cost many lives, and thousands of dollars to people each year. Child pornography is a victimless crime, but you clearly state that perpetrators of these crimes should be let off the hook. Illegal prostitution, which spreads some of the most viscous diseases such as HIV/AIDs, and HPV which has been linked to cervical cancer is yet another example of the victimless crimes which you think should be ignored. The list could go on forever, and victimless crimes aren't always so "victimless", whereas violent crime covers only five things, murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. These crimes are often less problematic than victimless crimes. According to the Department of Justice, the rate of violent crimes went down by half between 1994 and 2001 and the rates have continued to decline. I am not advocating the fact that we should let up on violent criminals, but honestly, victimless crime is just as bad. You also make note of the fact that are jails are filled with "drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers" but you fail to mention how many lives are saved from the violent crimes correlated with drugs, prostitution, and gambling. I would like to see statistics to back up these facts that you stated please. "we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year" "Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded." -Specifically mentioning that parole is allowed because of crowded jails "If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly"
Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional. Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. No body is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes. Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes. Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes.
Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control

First off, I read the whole article from your prisoncommision source, and although it does say overcrowded jails are uncomfortable it still doesn't answer my questions, since you were never able to prove these points, it is up to the judges to decide whether they are reliable facts or not, but in my opinion if you can't prove it don't bring it to the table. You stated that "Most of those crimes are not victimless crimes", but I was the only one to bring a definition of victimless crime, and since you used no counter definition, we have to go with my definition, which those crimes DO fit under. On the note of prostitution spreading disease, prostitutes in Nevada are required to test for STDs and if they have them, to stop doing buisness until they can get rid of the STD, so they actually don't spread them. I am not debating whether or not prostitution should be legal, simply that when done illegally it leads to the spread of STDs. "People are constantly exposed to violence in illegal activities" that is exactly the point I was trying to make, and your story about Walgreens further proved my point that victimless crimes lead to violent crimes by showing that people who stay out of the victimless crime buisness aren't affected as much by violent crime, so by allowing more people to get away with victimless crime, you make more people succeptable to violent crime. You mentioned the fact that crime rates are lower in Amsterdam, but you failed to make note of the fact that although violent crimes have lowered a little, they are still only .0001 percent lower than the UK where drugs are still illegal, and that the amount of victimless crime has skyrocketed, so your statement that "AND VICTIMLESS CRIMES WOULD LOWER!!! as Amsterdam proves. Why not legalise these costly and illogical victimless crimes?" was dishonest, and wrong. You say that there would be a "tax revenue from things like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc." but at what price? Are you honestly willing to risk so many lives so that the government can make more money? I believe that through your lack of requested evidence and the points I have made about the risks of victimless crime we have proved everything else in your last paragraph wrong.