BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship is alive and well on debate.org.

>>How is that not censorship? Ok so then the TOS allows for censorship and its in play on this site. Your statement is in my favor.<< I find it rather unfair that you've completely changed your entire premise. In your opening argument, you laid out a case suggesting that Debate.org is deliberately suppressing unpopular beliefs. You gave PROOF that there was 'censorship,' so I didn't figure you truly wished to debate whether or not it was happening. Now you've changed your position to one simply saying "there are rules on this site." _rules YOU agreed to_. I believe anyone who reads your opening argument will realize that you meant 'unfair censorship.' I doubt you can call upholding a ToS every member here agreed to unfair. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong. >>But there is no oversight, they define when and if the TOS is violated, which reduces it to an excuse set. They have all the power.<< They don't decide when and if the ToS is breached. You do, by breaching it. You can go read the terms of service here: http://www.debate.org... You were supposed to read this when you signed up. If you breach it, it's your fault. You had all the information beforehand. >>There is no force, this page is totally free, the TOS forces users unilaterally.<< I meant the site was forced to close to topic due to a user contacting customer support about the breach of ToS. They were forced to by a user. True, they could have said "nah, we'll keep it around," but if they did, it would seem like censorship when they did close topics for ToS breaches. Censorship ofthe type you're arguing that they use - censorship where the site removes content simply because it disagrees. >>And if I post a plan to murder the president or a gig of child porn, and then send a few email to regulatory agencies, you think it'll last a week? Come on, you know better.<< Why would you call regulatory agencies? Of course you don't have free speech if you're actively limiting it yourself. Also, I don't allow image uploads, so any child porn would have to be ASCII renditions thereof. Also, in case you want to be oh-so-literal about your topic title and change the actual topic of your arguments (like you already kind of did): Censorship is not alive, therefore you lose. You were debating in round 1 that debate.org is censoring people on its own whim, though I've presented a much more likely scenario. Please provide further proof for your claim. You tried to change the topic to 'they censor because of the ToS,' but I am not respecting that. You lose based on your debate topic, and you lose based on your opening argument. Pick one to support in your third and final round.
Censorship is alive and well on debate.org.

"I contend that the 'reason' for that thread's deletion was that it was against the ToS." How is that not censorship? Ok so then the TOS allows for censorship and its in play on this site. Your statement is in my favor. "The staff almost had to comply, since the ToS were in fact breached in the debate." But there is no oversight, they define when and if the TOS is violated, which reduces it to an excuse set. They have all the power. "The site was forced to shut it down because of this. " There is no force, this page is totally free, the TOS forces users unilaterally. "Post whatever you want in the forum I just added. My server is, in fact, in the United States. I'll leave whatever you post there up for at least a week." And if I post a plan to murder the president or a gig of child porn, and then send a few email to regulatory agencies, you think it'll last a week? Come on, you know better.
Censorship is alive and well on debate.org.

I contend that the 'reason' for that thread's deletion was that it was against the ToS. More than likely, a _user_ got upset at the topic, and contacted customer support in regards to the breach in ToS. The user is the one who disliked the topic, not the staff. The staff almost had to comply, since the ToS were in fact breached in the debate. This is my contention. I will now attempt to show you why my theory is much more likely than yours. In your scenario, the site is actively suppressing a certain topic. However, site views, which predicate ad views and therefore income, are based largely on controversy. By removing said controversy, they remove some of that income. Also, the 'bad press' generated by this could easily cause a few members to quit. Also, they have no more vested interest in the issue you brought up as on any other controversial issue. In my scenario, someone suppressed a certain topic. The reason they gave customer support was the breach in ToS. The site was forced to shut it down because of this. The person may have been losing in the debate and/or comments, could have just been a controlling type, etc. Basically, if you don't want your topic shut down, don't breach the ToS. you agreed to them when you signed up (though you probably didn't read them), and they even had a separate checkbox to verify that you agreed not to use profanity, use personal attacks, etc. You also state that it's _impossible_ to have free speech on a US hosted server. I happen to have an unused forum laying around, so in a sec I'll prove you wrong by direct evidence: http://fm.dureiku.org... Post whatever you want in the forum I just added. My server is, in fact, in the United States. I'll leave whatever you post there up for at least a week. Proof positive that free speech can and does exist on some US servers.
Censorship is alive and well on debate.org.

While this site may purport to support controversy and discussion of relevant social issues, and total trivia in some cases such as who's cuter than who or which comic book character is tougher, when pressed it is just as capable of bias and cowardice as any other privately owned expression media. http://www.debate.org... ...was removed because of a heated debate that developed on the nature of the typical American mating paradigm of sexual and economical objectification of females and males respectively. Subjective excuses about manners or cursing will likely be used to defend this action, or maybe a heavy handed "it's mine I can do as I please" from the owner. But the fact is no one wants to hear about the evolutionary dead end we've gotten ourselves into, and this site, like any other, will suppress truly unpopular ideas rather than allow them to be explored unless that exploration is watered down and meaningless. Free speech is not possible on any server hosted in the united states.
Lowering Working Hours of Employees

Maybe our ideas of what practical life differ, but I hardly see how my analysis was impractical. I work a 9/80, which is 44 hours one week and 36 the next (equivalent to 40 hours a week). I have never been an employer, or even a manager for that matter but I do work for a major aerospace company that I feel hires many practical employees and gave us a pretty practical schedule (keeping in mind the average American works 46.6 hours a week). I had a VERY physical job that required a serious choice of either 1) attention to detail or 2) injury. My coworkers and I performed these tasks at our 100% until the clock winded down. SURE we were VERY tired at the end of our shifts. Sure we WISHED we could work less. But if given that option, we would be struggling to make ends meet. So I guess my question is, if we have a system where employees can perform up to and past the company's expectations while meeting the employees financial needs, then why and how would anyone ever possibly change that system? You mention unnecessary job functions in an argument on lowering work hours while I would mention it on how to maximize efficiency and minimize distractions (such as unnecessary meetings, reports, etc.). In situations like yours, I would absolutely agree on lowering working hours and doing much more to change your current situation. But I wouldn't sign a bill that just says "lower working hours" because MANY people are working as much as they need to to make ends meet. Many of them are not working these hours because their job requires it but because they need the money (which is crappy as well). I agree that negligible employees, or any employees for that matter are a bad reflection on the corporation, and if the general populations consensus is that 46.7 hours is too long to be worked in one week, on top of whatever their home life is, then they'd request less hours or find work elsewhere. And that's very harsh to say and I even feel bad saying it, but that's the cold hard truth. If we look at extreme cases of labor then I agree with your points. But if we're talking 46.7 hours, the average Americans work week, then I can't agree. (An aside: If anyone, man or women, cannot balance work and their personal obligations, then maybe they should have considered those obligations a little more carefully OR considered a line of work that will compliment their obligations more generously?)
Lowering Working Hours of Employees

The analysis provided by you was perfect but theoretical. Practical life is extremely different rather I'd say exactly opposite. More working hours are only and only cost effective if the efforts are consistently provided into the work and work is given prime importance. Most of the employees experience fatigue due to the long 8 hr schedule. Many a times unnecessary meetings, reports and discussions take away the time of employees. If these are cut short then there would not be any requirement of stretching the time. Unnecessary functions take away the time which was destined for the original and important work. You are telling that 8 hrs are extremely cost effective. But there are pharmaceutical, banking, investment, industrial and other service sectors which extend the hrs of employees even more than 8 hrs. The working hrs on paper are different and in reality are different. This absence of transparency leads to more frustrated workplaces and more arguments leads to workers working inefficiently or just slacking off despite of their potential just to show that they do not respect the management. For your kind information we are living in the 2nd decade of 21st century and it is perfectly easy and effective to work at home for urgent report works and other works connected with the departments through internet. Gone the days of typical 9 to 5 24/7 packed with 40 hrs of work. Many of the workers are unable to display their actual caliber due to excessive but unnecessary work load. They usually change their jobs after merely few years of working, My argument is from the employee point of view and probably your argument is from the employer point of you but still I'm fine with it. Because eventually ( according to the essential business ethics ) it is the supreme authority of the employer to keep their employees satisfied in order to get satisfactory work. Or else employees are humans and they would be unable to provide golden results for the shop, firm, company, bank, or govt. Where I live....we don't even get holiday on Saturdays and if we add traveling into the working hrs then it becomes 10 hrs not 8 hrs and hence we work 60 hrs precisely for the company not 40 hrs. Finally less working doesn't mean drastically less. Only 2 hrs less also holds good. And a very important point to be noted is of working women. More working hrs means more stress for women because they have to play the both the duties which equally take their time. Due to this stress ridden lifestyle they become resilient and over wrought. And negligible women in the workplace is making only the impression of the company bad. And of course if the employees are paid a fair price for more working hours...still I'd find that appropriate but most during poor trade cycles the newly recruited esp. fresh employees are charged negligible in spite of working long hours.
Lowering Working Hours of Employees

Working through 8 hours is the most time efficient and cost efficient method of work. If you disagree. I'd respectfully request that you give me a little more precise idea of what type of schedule you see that will consist of lower hours but still output the same productivity. The typical 8 hour workday has proven that it is the most cost efficient to both the employer, and the worker. You have to consider the average persons needs, both financially and personally. The 8 hour workday fits extremely well into a time slot for people who have kids that are at school for around the same time. It is a good amount of time to earn enough money to make ends meet and to pay bills. The study of the counterproductivity of fatigue usually focuses on the hours beyond 8 hours. And most studies that do focus on the initial 8 hours do not reflect any type of substantial amount of fatigue that is leading to dramatic loss amongst the company. In order for the system to work (for let's say, a half work day), and remain the same as far as productivity for the company, and pay for the individual, you'd have to double pay, AND double productivity, in half the time.
Lowering Working Hours of Employees

I feel that with proper research of a position, and the corporation worked for, and questions asked during an interview, that you should be able to get a good idea of the average work week and the type of demands that a job requires of you. I feel that's the time to decide whether both your personal needs, and the companies needs will be met. And that is usually when I feel someone would decide whether or not they can meet that jobs required hours of work. But I don't think that lowering the working hours would be beneficial to most people. Just the people with "special circumstances" or people who think that 46.7 hours is unfair. I see validity in some of your statements, but I don't think that "lowering working hours of employees" should act as the rug to sweep all the problems under. I understand that the homework done on a company is not ALWAYS correct, but if you truly take the time to learn you can USUALLY get a good idea of what it will be like to work for that company and even if you're not directly spot on, it should only take small adjustments to be able to perform up to par. And if not, then maybe you work up a little experience then find a new position that can be a little more accommodating for you. I agree that women are underpaid. And I will tell you that I think equality amongst every employee should be standard. But I don't see how you think that lowering working hours of employees would help even that gap. I agree that understaffed companies who work their current employees far past the national average do deserve lowering working hours. But I feel that by placing a blanket statement of "lowering working hours of employees" across every spectrum of job, that you are also taking the hours from the 46.7 hour employees (such as myself) who are perfectly fine working those hours and who are content with the wages they are earning. I believe the argument is extremely situational. And when something is situational it needs to be treated as such. Which can be handled with a trip to HR, or conversations with management, etc, etc. But to say that the majority of Americans are being slave driven and need a break I feel is kind of extreme. And I feel that people in those types of situations usually have the option of working their butts off and finding a position elsewhere that is not placing those impossible and debilitating demands on them.
Lowering Working Hours of Employees

Tx for considering some of my points. Starting from your ending.....we cannot decide whether the company is prepared to provide obligations or not. Many of the fine details are not discussed during the negotiations and are realized after the recruitment procedure. Surely that can also happen in the case of getting the wrong employee. But the important point is about the working atmosphere is not experienced before the recruitment. And certainly if any of our past colleagues or friends have been in the company for years they may not understand our limitations and may not be able to provide the exact information about the company. Many of them won't even provide the 50% correct information....maybe because they are new or not an insider or don't want the impression of company turning bad. Hardly any company provides fair pay share to both the genders then at least they should lower the working hours of the employees. That's it. If the company is providing a hefty amount quiet much corresponding to the job profile then I don't have a problem. But less increments, more working hours, less holidays, more work load, less no. of employees and more donkey - work is nothing but exploitation. We have studied types of unemployment years ago. This is the golden example of disguised unemployment. Putting less workers in the office and making the remaining workers work like donkeys is utterly inhuman practice. I'm not even asking about any other services or holidays. I am telling that lowering the working hours is the best option available to satisfy employees already working in a less paid job or stressful job. If they get rest and leisure they'd work far more superior....and submit the 100% proper work before dead line.
The Process is More Important Than the Result

The result teaches a lesson. Say someone wants to achieve their goal, So they go through a process to get to it. When their process is done, They get their result. If the result is what they wanted, Then they know that their process is good, And they know it works. If the result is not what they wanted, Then they know that their process is bad, And they know it does not work. Then, They will go through it again, Trying a different process for a different result. If they did not have a result, How would they know if their process was efficient or effective? They may just do the same thing over and over again, Not knowing if they should change it. Or, They may give up entirely, Knowing that their process has no result, Which, Therefore, Makes their process meaningless and unnecessary. Without the result, The process means nothing.
The Process is More Important Than the Result

Here the process, I mean by the path of you doing something; and for a result, I mean by what you get from finishing doing something. So from your statement, "If someone focuses on the process too much, They may lose sight of their goal, The result, " I want to clarify my topic that the result is what you get after finishing the process and it is not the same as your goal. The goal is a different thing because you may expect your result to be the goal, But it does not necessarily equal to the result. And you said, ". . . And their actions will become meaningless as they have no central purpose. " And I think that if you were to fail, It probably means you should learn from the process. Your process would not be meaningless because even if you fail, It does not mean you should never do the actions. The process always has colorful experience whereas the result is always just the result.
The Process is More Important Than the Result

I do not mean the other way around. Any action has a reaction, Or a result. If there is no result, Then nothing has happened. Simple as that. Also, You are correct that someone shouldn't care too much about the result. But the same is true for the process. If someone focuses on the process to much, They may lose sight of their goal, The result, And there actions will become meaningless as they have no central purpose. There should be a balance between the two, But the result is more important.
The Process is More Important Than the Result

Thank you for accepting my topic. I agree with you that the process does not exist without the result, I get what you mean here that how the process would be not valuable if the result has no means. However, As you"ve stated, "If there is no result, Then the process had never happened. " Here I didn"t quite understand what your logic means, It"s somewhat confusing. You might mean the other way around? The result wouldn"t exist if the process has never happened. Here it also states that the process is somewhat more important than the result because the result exists based upon the process. You said later that, "Any importance or benefit that comes with a process is also due to the result as the process couldn"t happen without the result. . . " Here again, Logically does not make sense. The importance or benefit that comes with the process equals to the result and is included in the result; however, It does not determine whether the process could happen or not at all. The process happens then we are able to tell if the result has somewhat importance or no. So here the process is automatically more important than the process. Additionally, I want to add an interesting fact about why people should be more process-oriented when doing something. If one focuses on the process and if devote all you got into it then the results seem to take care of themselves. Let"s suppose one is preparing for a speech. If he cares too much about how he is going to either succeed or fail when giving the speech, The result is not going to turn out well. While, If he just chooses to write a good script, Polish it, And practice presenting it over and over again, No matter if he cares about the result or not, We know that the speech is always going to end up well. Whereas when one cares so much and is afraid that he is going to mess up, He would be always in a great panic when preparing and always be plagued the fear of his failure in mind even when giving the speech. If one cares too much about the result, It is not a great start of having real happiness.
The Process is More Important Than the Result

The process does not exist without the result. If there is no result, Then the process had never happened, As if something is done then there is a result. Any process results in a result. While the process is important, It could not happen without the result. So, Any importance or benefit that comes with a process is also dude to the result as the process couldn't happen without the result, Which means the result is automatically more important than the process.