BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Net Neutrality

Thanks, Magistrate. Rebuttals: Yes, the FCC's decision to have companies, such as Netflix, pay for faster service is discriminatory. IF a company like Netflix or any other company of the sort wants to stream media over the internet; the company would have to pay to stream their content faster. If that company doesn't then that company will have slower streaming speeds. ISP's have control of that as we all know. Secondly, this decision WILL harm start-ups. Why? The company WILL still have to pay the ISP's for faster service to the consumers. This will definitely harm their profit. They would be losing money while trying to gain a profit. The money they earn will have to be, not only taxed, but they also have to pay ISP's. That is discriminatory. How is one going to succeed when you have to pay for basically everything. This will harm our economy as well. Entrepreneurs DRIVE our market-based (capitalistic) economy. SOONER or later, the ISP's will monopolize on the internet. That brings me to our ANTI-TRUST laws. AntiTrust Law states that no company can determine the policies of a certain market. (That market being the internet). So, yes, this is VERY illegal, it will harm our economy and it will harm our entrepreneurs as well. I hand it back to you, Magistrate.
Net Neutrality

Thanks Tyler, here we go.Main Contention- Resource PrioritizationNet Neutrality advocates proffers a case that of non-discriminatory. This is a major flaw when it comes to resource prioritization. Large companies such as netflix requires huge amounts of data, while users such as ourselves require very little. The complexity of technology leads to a path of optimisation. Resource optimisation is key in technological advancements. Thus, Each user should be optimised to its own needs.RebuttalsTyler, the success of newer start-ups, again is correlating with resource prioritisations. Newer starters rarely need any additional incentives, they usually arrive with whatever they need. Furthermore, the resources that they need are nothing compare to the power core companies. This is just a matter of prioritising and optimising everyone to suit everyone needs. Nothing more, Nothing less.As far as I'm concerned, there is no violation of the first amendment. The right to free speech is still upheld, unless Tyler wishes to go to specifics. Thanks Tyler, I hand it back to you.
Net Neutrality

My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.
Net Neutrality

This debate is about Net Neutrality. RULES: No Profanity Sources are not required but are recommended. 1st round is for acceptance ONLY 2nd and 3rd rounds are for arguments ONLY Last round is for thanking eachother for the debate ONLY To those who have no idea what Net Neutrality is; Net Neutrality is this, "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." Source for the definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes)

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. I found it interesting because I know people who enjoy heavy or angry music and they are perfectly functional with no observable depression or suicidal tendencies. While my taste in music differs, I have no negative bias towards the genre or those who listen to it. Assumptions: The population referenced in your opening would be those currently experiencing suicidal thoughts. In other words, Happy Joe Family Guy won't off himself because he puts in Marlyn Manson by mistake and starts thrashing. So why do I take the con? There is no direct prevention nor contribution to suicide through heavy/angry music. The underlying causes of suicidal thought or depressions come from much deeper emotional issues and pressures than the music the person listens to. Music provides a short-term effect of empathy and understanding. An angry person responds best when another person expresses outrage for or with them. An angry person can grow more hostile when a compassionate person attempts to sooth them, like it is an invalidation of the experience. The "contribution" of angry music to suicide comes from the expectation that listening to the music provides a panacea for existing depression. The listener will seek a short-term "fix" of musical empathy rather than address the underlying causes of the suicidal thoughts. It can be used in some cases as a method of escape or avoidance to tune out the underlying conflict, which in extreme case can lead to suicide. Music offers a fleeting escape from the pain. However, it does not cure it. Much like codeine neither prevents nor causes a sprained ankle. If the ankle is sprained, and the pain is dulled or removed with codeine, then the underlying injury could become more severe when not treated properly.
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes)

People say that heavy or angry music, like screamo, punk, or emo, contributes to suicide. They say it is "crap". Some even say it's not even music, it's "just noise". But who wants to listen to happy music when they're depressed? It would just make them feel worse. Heavy music provides something that these people can relate to. When they have no one and nothing left in their corner, so to speak, music is their release for the pent up anger. Their favorite bands are the only ones who "get" them, who understand them.
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes)

I didn't expect it to end quickly either.I disagreed more with the premise behind the debate than the pro/con I had to argue against/for. I don't see this as a black/white contributing factor to suicide. Unless something is chemically wrong in the brain or there is substance abuse leading to suicide, I see environmental factors playing a much larger role in the depression than musical taste. Music forms an emotional connection on some level based upon experiences. That's why every break-up song ever written was written just for us when we go through a break-up. Likewise, every song of hope applies when we go through joyous events. The music preference reflects our experiences; instead of preventing or contributing to them. There may be a certain amount of circular re-inforcement over time, but I don't see that as a primary contributor. I didn't have that option to debate it that way.I had no idea how I was supposed to come up with three more rounds of "music didn't help your friend" even though you were there and you said it did. Kind of nowhere else for me to go with it.
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes)

I rest my case. People are always quick to diss something, and to argue why they believe they are right, but once there is a legitimate argument is offered, nobody can say anything. Not that I'm saying this about you, just a generalization of everyone who I've personally talked to about this. I'll be honest, I didn't expect the debate to end so quickly.
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes)

I'm going to do something that I don't usually do in a debate; I'm basically going to agree with you.If I could vote and that little "Who did you agree with before the debate?" question would go in your direction. And Truman Edley's parents were wrong. Stupid lawsuit.I took the debate for two reasons:1. I saw a challenge on a good topic. I saw a way to add a nuance to the interpretation and I like to make my brain work.2. It's a serious topic that deserves a serious discussion. I did not want to see someone else come in and minimize the angst of someone considering suicide.You're looking all gothy in the avatar and I figured there was a method to this madness (forgive the expression), not just a bored teen being dumb for giggles. So I responded.Hey I've been there, too. I was saved by a strong soul who took an interest and got me the hell out of the situation I was in. I'm not going to counter-point your personal experience. It's too important. I'm really glad you helped your friend because someone helped me through a tough time. It wasn't music that helped me, but a paradigm shift in my life. There is no wrong way to help someone, and if it worked, I'm genuinely happy for both of you. I'll be happy to give you a fourm for discussion by letting you fill the last three arguments or we can just post quick ones to wrap it up.
Does heavy/angry music contribute to or prevent suicide? (Pro=Prevents, Con=Contributes)

In a sense, that is exactly my point. When I say that people believe heavy music contributes to suicide, I am referring to people such as the parents in the case of the two brothers in Reno in 1985 who committed suicide after listening to Judas Priest, or the case of Truman Edley's suicide (Article about Truman Edley - http://www.dailymail.co.uk...), both parents blamed the music the children had been listening to at the time, and sued. As for the fact that music offers only a temporary relief to the pain, in a sense, depending on your personal position on that topic, you would be right, but to an extent. I speak from personal experience when I say that music can be used to prevent suicide. I myself have been saved by music, and I have watched the progression of my best friend as she progressed toward and recovered from almost committing suicide. It got to the point where she actually had the gun to her head. Today, we are still closer than close, possibly closer than before. I still have my best friend, thanks to music. If a person's life is hanging on the line, and the only thing they have to turn to for escape is music, you're darn right it's going to be what saves them. It has been scientifically proven that music has many positive effects on the brain; it even has been proven to heal physical pain, such as headaches). It has been proven to help with depression, as well. (You're welcome. Glad you took an interest. This is a very personal topic to me, as I mentioned before, it goes deeper than just observations and research. Also, I have been associated with many people who have a very large negative bias toward this type of music, based on the very fact we are debating here.)
Prove a "Judeo" Religion

It has been a while since I've conducted a serious debate and have decided to once again engage myself in a religious argument. I would like for this debate to be cool-headed, rational and serious. I don't care if my opponent plays devil's advocate (though I would prefer him/her to be a genuine believer), but I would like my opponent to prove a literal interpretation of any of the three "Judeo" religions (Judaism, Christianity or Islam). Emphasis on "literal". There are dozens of ways to figuratively interpret any one of these religions and it seems to me that such a debate is pointless as my opponent can simply adapt/shift their interpretation. Any questions will be answered in the comments.
Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector invest

Wow 1 hour between rounds. I sense a lot of forfeiting.AnywayRefutations:Govt Wasting Money--> No impact argued, who cares?--> No warrant or evidence--> TURN: The Government has access to massive financial resources that the private sector never will.--> TURN: Private sector has no interest in science, just profit. Private sector "exloration" would likely be closer to disneyland for the wealthy than actual exploration.--> No trade off argument, unless he can show that the Government leaving the space industry would lead to the money being spent elsewhere WISELY he's gaining no advantage.Competition leads to innovation--> Granted, but why presume that there is no competition in the public sector? Essentially all significant space exploration happened during the Cold War when the USSR and USA were competing. --> TURN: Innovation is less likely in the private sector because the sole motivation in the private sector is profit.--> Less inovation wwould occur because the private sector has very limited resources in comparison to the government.--> Unless he can show that private sector exploration would be beneficial to the Human race like Public sector has, he's gaining no advantage. Space program better managed by Private Sector--> Why?--> No impact, advantage, warrant, or evidence. My Argument:Due to previous experiences with sharing arguments on this site (http://www.debate.org...) I don't want to post a high quality argument. Soo:C1. The Public Sector has access to massive financial resources that the Private sector could not obtain.Consider the following: NASA's budget for fiscal year 2011 is 18.724 Billion[1]. This is only a tiny tiny TINY fraction of the resources the federal government can distribute, and that's only the United States. The net-worth of Bill Gates (wealthiest man in the world) is 59 Billion dollars. He could fund NASA for barely three years before his entire finances become drained. Please Vote Con.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof) Does NOT EXIST

Onus Probandi: The obligation to prove an assertion or allegation one makes; the burden of proof. [1][2][3][4][5][1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[4] . http://en.wiktionary.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...Bestt claims in debate [6] evidence ALWAYS supports existence and can never support non-existence. He goes on to claim proof is only in Math and alcohol. [6] . http://www.debate.org...According to the great Beastt, because I am claiming something not exist I do not have to provide any evidence. So all arguments must be made by Con. If Con attempts to change the definition, then he is changing Onus Probandi to something else, that may or may not exist. If he changes the definition of Onus Probandi then he loses the match. I further already reject any and all arguments Con may present, on the grounds that they are not arrived at by the Scientific Method. And as Debateuser has said "Philosophy is not logical at all"If it is not logical then it is illogical, and not worth my consideration. In conclusion Burden of Proof does not exist, I do not need to present any "proof" it does not exist, becuase there is no "proof" in existence possible for me to present for a non-existent thing. I clearly establish this with the evidence I presented.
drinking slushies is better then eating cough drops

Choking is a more serious danger than brain freeze, but I am pointing out that probability wise, brain freeze is far more likely than choking. There are a plethora of flavors for cough drops. I believe that all tasty treats were create equal which is why I will always advocate that slushies and cough drops are equal in the abstract and real world. That is why I do not think it fair to hold one tasty treat above another! - Cheeks
drinking slushies is better then eating cough drops

You made some good points. You mentioned that I should live a little, but someone is more likely to die choking on a coughdrop then having a brain freeze. I have eaten cough drops before, so its not like I haven't taken a risk. I have just found that between the two, Slushies are more exciting! There is a larger variety of flavors and colors. And speaking of colors, adding tic tacs has nothing to do with cough drops and slushees. For that matter, I could just add cough drops to my slushie (even though I would find that disgusting). There are more colors of slushies then cough drops. I would drink my whole slushee before going to class because it is so good. The cough drop takes longer to suck because it tastes nasty. So my dear boy, slushies still rule!
drinking slushies is better then eating cough drops

Dude, you say that coughdrops are more dangerous because you can choke on them. Hello, brainfreeze-much? And don't you want to live a little? Take a chance, I eat coughdrops like they were candied water and I haven't choked! Also you state slushies are colorful. You can add tic-tacs to a bag of coughdrops and that would take care of two problems. Halatocis and a bad cough. Or just buy a colorful bag of coughdrops! Coughdrops are better because you can take them into classrooms that ban all drinks. Also, they are portable and you can save them for later. Slushies melt and become nasty over time. So my dear girl, coughdrops reign supreme over the slushie family. - Cheeks
God of the bible created the world

we are having a debate, so you are suppose to give reasons to support your opinion regarding the motion. Why did you create an account here if you will not debate. The difference between me just believing in these scientific processes is that they can make a prediction and reproduce it on command. Has the bible ever done that? The best you can hope for is a stale mate. I never said I believe this as fact. All I did was present my EVIDENCE to why I believe it to be true. So we can try and figure out what it means to know something or we can make some progress and we can try to give points of reasoning. "I go with God and his word" is the first time you said anything that wasn't just trying belittle what I was saying. So now you claim to be an expert on scripture? I was merely stating information that anyone can find if they look. Do you believe in he virgin birth as well? That is also a mistranslation. If you are a Hebrew major you would know that. If you aren't then who are you to question me? Wow it is also clear you have no true understanding of evolution. Me saying there was no first human doesn't lead to those to conclusions. That's just a logical shortcoming on your behalf. It is a concept that is counter intuitive. Each generation is different from the last. Whatever the "first" human was it wasn't exactly what humans are today. So the first human depends on your definition of a human. So our galaxy is in location B. If we know the speed of the galaxy then we can figure out how long it took to get to location B from location A. Pretty simple in my opinion. Are you referencing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? It states we can never be 100% certain on the location AND acceleration of anything, not location and acceleration separately. So sure I am not certain about anything and all of this could be wrong, I'm not denying that. But you have failed at providing a reason to which we should have "faith" I'm your God. That's all it is, "faith" at least I can make predictions about the world and be confident those predictions are correct. The Old Testament is a bunch of stories. You really believe in Noah's arc? Is that historically accurate? No I don't have any scientific credentials at the moment, but I am a student of physics and biology, I haven't decided specifically which one yet, they're both interesting. I'm not trying to MAKE anyone atheist. But what I do want is a debate, and you sir haven't given one. You want me to explain uranium-lead dating? I already have. Any other attempt would be futile because it seems I would have to define each term to you. I urge you to do some research. I'm waiting for you to not look so close minded, give me some evidence sir. Otherwise you wasted both of our time.
God of the bible created the world

If you don't know anything to 100% certainty, you do not know anything. And that really ends the debate, because you could be wrong about everything you claim is true. With you having nothing but uncertainty and me certainty, I go with God and His Word. Tell us how uranium dating works, and tell us if you know a runner's speed and location, you can tell how long he has been running. Tell us how the speed of the expanding universe proves the earth is old? If there was no first human, we are left with two choices: either humans always existed or there are no human's now. And prove humans are part of the great ape family? Oh wait, you said you are not here to prove anything. We just have to accept everything you say as true. That is one way to "win" a debate. And actually the Hebrew word translated as Adam is transliterated as adam and is means, a proper name, a single man mankind.. So, we can put your knowledge of Scripture (i.e., this and the other bogus claims you made) in the "don't know what I am talking about" category. And nice try at shifting the burden of proof, but I am too clever for that. You made the claim that Christianity is man-made, you prove it. It appears that it is not the Bible that is wrong about reality, but your knowledge of the Bible. Are you a credentialed scientist or are you just parroting others? And in what sense is the Bible historically inaccurate?