BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Media in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Thank you for the challenge.I first need to clarify, though...my argument is intended to attack known bias in the media but I am unclear if your purpose is to argue that there should be bias in the media or that there is no bias in the media.Could you explain your point about the FCC requirement? If you are referring to the Fairness Doctrine, it is my understanding that it was repealed long ago. On the Time Magazine article: You make a good point in saying that publishing a poignant article provoked action on the part of the Israeli government. However, it proves that in this case, the media had a specific agenda, and if it had a particular agenda, then it can no longer claim to be communicating information but rather, opinion. As many regard Time as a news source, it is unacceptable for it to commit such bias.On the Al Jazeera point, if you look closely, you will see that Al Jazeera English does not publish the same material as Al Jazeera in Arabic. It would be much easier simply to translate articles from Arabic than to pay to have new articles written for the English-speaking audience. Because different audiences have different pre-concieved notions of the conflict and also different roles in the conflict itself, Al Jazeera must be conscious of how its audiences can be manipulated by the mere wording, much less content of the articles published. Finally, where do you think the lobbyists are getting their information?
Media in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Thanks for the topic! I'll defend that the media coverage towards the Israel-Palestinian conflict is not biased and that our problems with regards to our policy towards Israel stem mostly from government inadequacies, not problems with the media. Definitions The media is defined by Random House Dictionary as "the means of communication," and traditionally has been limited to radio, print news, and television, but has involved to include online media and the blogosphere. "Mainstream media" would refer to a vague conception of traditional media sources, but the word mainstream does not appear in the resolution, so this debate will also encompass non-traditional media sources. Burden of Proof While my opponent may try to avoid proving anything by taking Con, it is her burden to show how the media coverage is bias so that I might refute this. The presumption should be that there is no problem with the media coverage, since for the radio and television, the FCC requires that any news station provide equal coverage to both sides of an issue in order to maintain their lease on government bandwidths. Contention 1: Time Magazine Even though it's mainstream, Time Magazine ran a cover story very critical of Israel, entitled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace," suggesting the U.S. must take a more hard-line stance towards Israel to get them to cede ground on a Two State Solution. Contention 2: Al Jazeera Al Jazeera recently opened a branch in the United States called Al Jazeera: English, which provides a more Arab viewpoint to the Palestinian conflict. Al Jazeera: English has both a television station and online "print media." Contention 3: Blame the lobbyists AIPAC and the Pro-Israel lobby have more to do with public opinion towards Israel and the Palestinian conflict than does the media. CNN, for example, prides itself on its un-biased reporting and NPR is required to provide un-biased reporting. The way our government treats Israel has more to do with AIPAC lobbyists than it does with CNN's and NPR's news coverage. I await my opponent's case so that I may refute it.
Media in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

How do we know what is true when we read/watch news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Americans are invested in the conflict for a bounty of different reasons and the sources for the ways they stay up-to-date have dramatic effects on the way they relate to the conflict. In the relationship between people in the U.S. and the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, I think Americans are blindly polarized by biases in media sources.
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

1) I would naturally argue that Government Legitimacy is superior to Morality because it shows how we can evaluate and apply morality in this debate. I am just pointing out that Government legitimacy and morality shouldn't be a huge area of clash in this debate. 2) If the people don't want a handguns ban/feel their government is taking too much power then a handguns ban would be undemocratic which deteriorates our democracy and therefore our legitimacy also. 3) "Gallup uses telephone surveys in countries where telephone coverage represents at least 80% of the population or is the customary survey methodology. In countries where telephone interviewing is employed, Gallup uses a random-digit-dial (RDD) method or a nationally representative list of phone numbers. Telephone methodology is typical in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. Gallup purchases telephone samples from various sample providers located in each region, including Sample Answers and Sample Solutions." 4) Consequentialism Util ignores minorities. Utilitarian ethics say that we ought to maximize the most welfare, but this ignores the few who aren't part of the helped majority. Also, ends may not justify means. Imagine this situation, You are in a prison camp but are allowed to live if you pick one of your children to live with you as well and kill the other. Or you can all die. The ends of saving lives doesn't justify killing the one child. Apply this to our debate. 5) The argument isn't over democracy in and of itself. This point is saying that if our government doesn't adhere to democracy which is how we maintain government legitimacy (see negative case) then our government becomes far more oppressive. Also, democracy is really the best "real" form of government in the world. Lets not go to far into that debate though. (:
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

1. Consequentialism 2. Negating allows handguns to exist, which means males can continue using the handguns to dominate females. 3. Look to Contention 1, Subpoint D, which says handguns are rarely used in self-defense. Also look to Contention 2, Subpoint A, which says handguns are the primary weapon used by criminals. 4. If you can prove that the affirmative creates injustice and unequal societal order well enough, then you would win. However, I would try to uphold my framework. 5. Again, look to Subpoint D, which says handguns are rarely used in self-defense. You can make the self-defense argument, but I'll just extend that subpoint. 6. I'm not sure I can give "my own analysis" on this. Based on several pieces of evidence, handguns are simply used more than other firearms, which means males, even those who aren't criminals, can use these handguns to dominate females. I'm not sure if that's "my own analysis" though. Sorry. 7. I don't see how democracy and oppression are related. 8. Subpoint B in Contention 2 gives several warrants for why the buyback would reduce crime and the black market. 9. No. We would need to prove why either your evidence or my evidence should be statistically more significant. 10. That is a valid point. However, having a buyback for just handguns would have a least a chance of solvency. That's also Subpoint E in Contention 1, which says try-or-die for the aff.
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

1) Are you analyzing morality from a consequentialism or deontology view point? 2) How does negating actually systematically oppress a group of people? 3) If one's ability to protect themselves is downgraded by affirming wouldn't that be oppressive to people who can't protect themselves as well? 4) If affirming creates injustice and unequal societal order can you still uphold any of your framework? 5) In contention 1, you talk about femicide. How are they oppressed when a handgun is the most practical gun for their own self defense due to its conceal-ability and portability? ( would you really want to bring a rifle on your midnight walk? ) 6) In your points about violent feelings and femicide, why is a hand gun any different than other guns. (your own analysis) 7) If a handguns ban is indeed undemocratic for any reason wouldn't it be oppressive to affirm? 8) You argue that a ban reduces crime and black market. Wouldn't it actually be giving the guns directly to criminals and our of the hands of the good since criminals are okay with committing crime and the good would comply? 9) Due to conflicting statistics about homicide should this be considered a mute point in this debate? 10) Are you aware that your arguments about Australia enacted a complete firearm ban, not a hand gun ban?
Bad politicians should face deportation from the US when their terms end

"Look, the whole point of this idea is to make politicians own up to their screwups and experience firsthand how they have alienated the world and even many Americans from trusting the US government because of their actions and screwups."I'm sorry but I'm still not getting this. If we wanted them to experience what damage they've done, it only makes sense to punish them the American Way because (a) despite America being a global power, the actions of our politicians still mainly affect us here at home and (b) letting foreigners get their own revenge is pointless, as the exiles would likely end up in jail (same as any common criminal) or get assassinated. Or they could simply move to a friendlier country (as my opponent has conceded), and spend the rest of their lives there in luxury, happy and free as birds. The best way to deliver justice, by my opponent's own logic, would be to give them whatever they gave us. In other words, if someone raises taxes or pursues socialist polices, his own business or salary should be limited and massive punishment fines should be levied against him, rendering him unable to get rich or succeed again. Sanctioned cruel and unusual punishment? Cane him everytime he says something remotely unpatriotic! Took away overtime pay for workers? Send him to the cotton fields! I just think that this scenario makes much more sense then Pro's, which would be utterly pointless, not really a punishment, and accomplish absolutely nothing.Seeing as my opponent has failed the burden of proof, I urge a Con vote.
Bad politicians should face deportation from the US when their terms end

"deporting bad politicians from the U. S. would lead to some unfortunate results for them. " THATS THE POINT "Since America is a global power and it's policies affect the entire world, many, many people would love to get their hands on an unpopular president. " THATS THE POINT "so who knows what may happen to truly bad politicians or lawmakers? " THATS THE POINT Look the whole point of this idea is to make politicians hone up to their screwups and experience firsthand how they have alienated the world and even many Americans from trusting the US government because of their actions and screwups. Deporting them to anywhere may not even expose them to these things since it all depends on which country these politicians are deported to, the point is to exile them from America because they have done more harm than good and these people need to be held accountable for their actions, more than just internet memes. .. .
Bad politicians should face deportation from the US when their terms end

"How does the US have a huge margin of error?"I meant that the U.S. was more powerful and in a better position, and could afford to make mistakes.Israel: Population: 8 million.GDP: $235.222 billion.Area: 20,770 km2Military spending: $13 billion.Surrounded by hostile countries including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iran and multiple terrorist cells.Condemned multiple times by U.N.The United States: Population: 314 million.GDP: $15.094 trillion.Area: 9,826,675 km2Military spending: $687 billion.Surrounded on both sides by massive stretches of ocean, making it nearly invulnerable.Can veto U.N. resolutions. But aside from that triviality, I agree that the memes were a bad point. However, deporting bad politicians from the U.S. would lead to some unfortunate results for them. Since America is a global power and it's policies affect the entire world, many, many people would love to get their hands on an unpopular president. As an example, Bush canceled a trip to Switzerland after they threatened to arrest him due to his use and sanctioning of torture [http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...]. This not to say the torture is a bad policy, but it is unpopular, so who knows what may happen to truly bad politicians or lawmakers?The correct thing to do punish him the American way. We kept slaves for a century and a half, and our current president happens to be the perfect skin c- I mean, example to reinstate the tradition.Or we could just cane them like they do in Singapore. No exceptions for old people, too.
Bad politicians should face deportation from the US when their terms end

How does the US have a huge margin of error? When Barack Obama gave his speech on "You didnt build that" he messed up on one pronoun and Republicans have centered their entire election campaign around it! If you mess up in America it resonates and grows to ridiculous proportions both in America and around the world. Do you know what people are gonna do to Romney when he releases his tax returns? EXACTLY, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. All we know is that whatever does happen it will be f*cking insanity! There will be T-shirts, quotes, bumper stickers, and Jon Stewart will have 3 months worth of material!! As for memes. Memes are a small byproduct of bad politicians who usually get a lifetime salary of over $100,000 a year. And the thing is, these politicians arent affected by memes because OLD PEOPLE CANT USE THE INTERNET!!!!! I watched my grandmother try to Google "Beach" because she wanted to see a picture of the beach, but instead she ended up googling "Brazilian A** porn" because Google f*cking remembers everything I look up and tries to guess what I want like some neurotic clingy girl friend.... Now my grandmother has no idea why shes staring at a video of one woman violating another woman's behind with the handle of a ping pong paddle in my page history because she doesnt know that the little red circle at the top left of the screen means EXIT... If you still dont think that old people cant use the internet look at Rick Santorum, he decided to ban porn just because he couldnt figure out how to delete his history!!!! The point is old people cant use the internet and thus are unaffected by memes, therefore we need to hang something over their heads that warns them that basically says "if you mess up then YOUUUUU ARRRRRRRRE OUTTA HERE!!!!!!". And nothing says "America has had enough of you" quite like forced deportation....
Bad politicians should face deportation from the US when their terms end

"There is a saying in Israel that everyone on both sides want peace, but that all it takes is for one zealot to mess up everything."Israel, being a tiny country surrounded by hostile countries, has a very small margin of error. The U.S. has a huge margin of error. A failed invasion of Iran could fùck up it's entire week. If the U.S. invaded Iran and failed, then what has it lost? An investment?"What becomes of these bad politicians when they're term ends?"We get memes, brah. (Disclaimer: I don't hate Bush, just thought these were funny).Is that reason enough?
Bad politicians should face deportation from the US when their terms end

Ladies and Gentlemen, the US government has a problem. Ok they have a sh*tload of problems but one of them stands out more than just about anything else. Its not the threat of nuclear war or inflation or unemployment or Decepticons........ No I am talking about bad politicians...... There is a saying in Israel that everyone on both sides want peace, but that all it takes is for one zealot to mess up everything. The same concept can be applied to the American government, where the few good politicians we have cannot bring America the change it needs because of the actions of one a**hole always undo's any progress made. What becomes of these bad politicians when they're term ends? bad publicity, low poll ratings, and that's about it. This nation needs to take a tougher stance against bad politicians, and I would recommend that they all be violated with a loaded shotgun in the behind but Chick-Fil-A is against that so I had to go with this instead.... Lets get to the point, When a politicians term ends (Politician = President, Senator, Representative, and Governor) then public approval ratings will determine if a president should FACE the option of being deported. If that politicians approval rating is below a critical point (lets put it at 19% for no reason at all) then the nation will be able to decide the fate of the politician and determine whether or not they will be allowed to stay in this country or get deported through a nation wide public vote. If the public votes in favor of deportation, then the politician is removed from the US. To recap this process 1) Approval ratings determine if a politician should be subjected to possible deportation 2) If approval rating is below 19% then the public will choose to vote in favor of or against deportation 3) If the public approves of deportation, politician is deported. If not, then he/she gets to stay 3 round debate so fire away!
The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God

I was reading a debate in which my opponent stated that the Big Bang theory rationally disproves God, and I wanted to get a little explanation for that. So, I think Korezaan should prove the point that the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God, which I just don't get. Before I let him get started, I'd just like to say a few things. I believe the Big Bang Theory is basically correct. I believe Creationism is basically incorrect. I read Genesis at the allegorical level, as do most of the Catholics I know. I see no contradiction between Science and Religion. Science and Religion approaches to the same thing, which is truth. A bit more explaination might be beneficial. For the purpose of this debate, I define Religion as any organization or system that claims to have supernatural knowledge. It's not the best definition, but I think it's acceptable for our purposes. I define science as any systematic method for aquiring knowledge about the natural world. Again, it is not perfect, but it'll do. A note here, I have no intention of defending belief in the supernatural. A discussion like that seems far to complex for the purposes of Debate.org. What I am concerned with is the claim that science the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God. Supernatural claims might be completely unjustified, but they are not disprovable by science. That is what I want to talk about. ***Bows at the waist*** Let us begin.
Cyber School

Hello and thanks for your reply. I am not sure if you are familiar with cyber schooling or not, but your point about cyber schooling helping students knowledge with the World Wide Web (Internet) is basically not true in most cases. Yes a student gets a laptop, and yes they use the program, but it is pretty much step by step setup for them. They use only one program and that one program surly cannot teach them much of anything about the web. Now for my argument. I believe there shouldn't be any type of homeschooling/cyber schooling. ( I meant them both in my title and you somewhat addressed homeschooling. Anyways, I believe it messes with a students social life, and all the benefits of going to an actual high school. First off, a college wont think as much of a student who got good grades in a cyber school, as much as they would a student who did it in a regular high school. I think we can all agree on that for obvious reasons. Secondly, the student misses out on all of the clubs and extracurricular activities the schools offer. Those are big things colleges look at. Also just the social impact of being apart of those clubs or sports usually has a great impact on students. (http://www.public.iastate.edu...) Lastly, imagine if everyone went to cyber schools, then teachers would loose jobs. (In an economy that we are vigorously trying to get jobs for people) Many jobs would be lost. No such thing as a school board, all the food companies loose lots of business because the schools wont need to buy any food from them. Janitors loose jobs, lawn care company's, bus company's, lots of company's will suffer. I just see Cyber school having a lot more cons than pros.
Cyber School

Thanks, Con. My opponent has the burden of proof yet has failed to make an argument thus far. I'll begin by pointing out that home-schooling students is still an option in the United States. Cyber-school would essentially be an extension of home-schooling, using online and other computer tools extensively as part of the education process. I see no problem with this whatsoever. Considering the importance of the internet in social media, networking, business ventures and other opportunities, utilizing the benefits of the world wide web could have significant advantages in terms of learning. Encyclopedias were originally glorified as educational tools on the basis of them offering a significant amount of information all in one source. The internet offers this opportunity magnified innumerably. Online search engines put a vast amount of knowledge at your fingertips. You can use the internet to learn about a variety of subjects from a plethora of credible sources. In short, utilizing the computer can be significantly advantageous to a student and a viable alternative to traditional schooling. One could use programs, tutoring or other methods to learn at their own pace. Lessons can be specifically structured to appeal and cater to the student's learning needs. The student will most likely be very versatile so long as they're encouraged to use the right methods to make learning optimal. For instance, I've taken several online college classes structured very similarly to the content on DDO. There were forums where the class would meet, get together and discuss certain topics. Conversation was just as engaging and thought-provoking as it can be on DDO. In fact using the internet as a medium was even positive insofar as encouraging more people to participate, appeasing those who are usually shy in person. Young people can be taught to use similar techniques and mediums to make learning more engaging. I doubt my opponent will be able to provide significant benefits of attending school specifically. For example, while learning social behaviors and how to interact with others, make friends, etc. is significantly important, this is addressed by home-schooled children often being enrolled in a variety of outside activities such as sports, music lessons, community service, etc. It's entirely possible for home-schooled kids or kids who learn online to adjust normally and function well within society. There are plenty of informative websites that detail how to ensure the most versatile and complete learning experience for a home-schooled person [1]. There is no reason for cyber school to not be an option for students. I now turn the debate over to my opponent to prove otherwise. Thanks and good luck. [1] http://localhs.com...