BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United Nations ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes".

Contention #3 Defense: While may be easy for "Hogan"s Heroes" to be viewed outside of the US and be translated, the PRO has missed several key points that make this situation especially suited for the US to deal with internally. First, a quick search reveals that "Hogan"s Heroes" on the internet is mostly based on US based sites. While the internet is diverse, it is contained on servers. Most of these servers, if not all of them, are based in the United States. The US has both the cybersecurity task force necessary to contain the issue as well as the manpower to physically affect the servers if necessary. Second, due to the fact that the show is both inaccurate and unfunny, there is no motivation for people in foreign countries to watch it. The fact that it only plays on one channel proves that this show is not popular or good. Therefore, any risk of outside countries viewing it is minimal. In English speaking countries, the argument is the same"it"s not a good show. And each of these countries, in bilateral agreements, has the capability to better deal with the threat. Contention #4 Defense: PRO has conceded this argument. His argument"s final sentence: "With this clear threat to public safety, the United States could easy make an exemption to eliminate the evidence in accordance with U.N. policy" has proven the CON"s point. The UN is not doing the eliminating. It"s the US doing it. If PRO attempts to go this route, PRO will not be under the resolution"that the UN will be eliminating. This debate is not about a UN policy, it is about UN "involvement""actual action. The United States sees the danger and will act to contain the threat that it rightly has the right to deal with"without UN arbitrary involvement. Value Clash: PRO has missed the standard by which freedom should be judged"national sovereignty. Nations have the right to have the power of act, speak, or think as they want. They should not be forced by the UN to obey under arbitrary rulings. Due to the fact that "Hogan"s Heroes" is in fact a national issue in two nations (Germany and the US), Freedom and National Sovereignty are to be considered superior; as the premise of PRO"s argument depended on it being an international issue, which it is not. Freedom and Justice must be balanced"but within nations, not by the UN.
Resolved: The United Nations ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes".

The Con has accepted for "the most part" that "Hogan's Heroes" is both inaccurate in its depiction of Nazism and that the humor of the show has a potential to be perceived as horrifying and unfunny. In response to contention #3: Because of the modern internet age in which we live, it is extremely easy for a show such as "Hogan's Heroes" to be viewed in countries outside of the U.S. and translated into foreign languages provided that evidence of the show is even in existence. Although the show only exists outside the U.S. in Germany currently, it would be extremely easy for the show to diffuse to English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, which would mean more than just a "bilateral agreement". Although the U.N. has no active military, military force would not be needed to erase the evidence as most evidence of the show is currently documented digitally and physical evidence only exists in the United States. The clear trend showing this as an international issue makes U.N. involvement justified. In response to contention #4: There have been many exceptions to the right to free speech in the United States before. Generally, when speech threatens the public safety of the citizens, it is no longer protected by the Constitution. As proven by the Pro case, there are many harms of the show "Hogan's Heroes" which present it as a public safety issue, including perceived lack of humor and Holocaust denial, which can lead to riots and acts of violence motivated by religious and political issues. With this clear threat to public safety, the United States could easy make an exemption to eliminate the evidence in accordance with U.N. policy. In terms of the value clash, the Pro's value of justice is superior to the Con's value of freedom. The Con defined freedom as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." However, in many times, hindrance and restraint is needed on this power when it directly conflicts with the rights and safety of others. That hindrance would be done because of a perceived injustice being committed. If justice is going to be defined as "giving each their due", then justice would involve a system in which freedom and the public good were evenly bounced while freedom would tip the scale towards one side in exchange for endangerment of the public. In terms of the Con's criterion, national sovereignty is only to be considered in cases where the issue at hand does not affect the international community. As shown above, "Hogan's Heroes" does have a place in the international community because of digital evidence of the show. Thus, the U.N. would be justified in declaring this an international issue.
Resolved: The United Nations ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes".

Value: Freedom Criterion: National Sovereignty and Censorship Precedence The definitions are accepted. Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. National Sovereignty: the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference. The CON stands resolved: That if an entity ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes", is should be done by the United States and other nations in bilateral agreements outside of the UN. But first to the contentions. In response to Contention 1: It is important to point out that many of a the actors on the show were in fact directly affected by internment camps and holocaust--yet they agreed to be on the show, provided it mocked Naziism--which it did. However, that is not the main argument of the CON. Contention 1 is for the most part accepted. In response to Contention 2: Humor is extremely relative--the actors mentioned above clearly saw the humor as real comedy. There is a critic for every show (except Sherlock) and there will always be people who say that shows are an "Injustice" to be labeled as comedy. But again, this is not the main argument of the CON. Contention 2 is for the most part accepted. It is the "quick observation" that the CON will be focusing on. Contentions 1 and 2 were PRO and should be for the most part ignored for the remainder of this round. Now to Contention 3. Contention 3: National Crisis = National Responsibility Assuming that a crisis does exist, the crisis is mostly confined to the United States. As of now, the only channel rerunning the show is a US channel. Hogan's Heroes was an American deal--that much is indisputable. Therefore it is the national responsibility of the US government to deal with the issue--not the international community. The only other country (and language) where the show has been released is Germany--and a cooperation with them could be easily established with a bilateral agreement. Furthermore, since the UN doesn't have nearly as much active military in US as the US itself, the UN acting on its own would be unable to complete the task. The US is equipped to deal with this issue without outside help. Contention 4: National Sovereignty The right to free speech is guaranteed under the US Constitution--only by the US Government can that freedom be modified. If the UN were to attempt to withhold such a right arbitrarily, not only would it damage relations with the US Government, but it also would set a bad precedent of the UN taking powers beyond its jurisdiction. When dealing with this issue, national sovereignty and correct jurisdiction must be preserved. The American people would not tolerate a infraction on liberties by an essentially foreign power. Only through National action can freedom and justice be preserved.
Resolved: The United Nations ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes".

Value: Justice Criterion: Reparation of Past Harms Definitions: "Hogan's Heroes": A former American sitcom set in a German prisoner of war camp during World War Two. The United Nations: A body of international governments forming a collective body that promotes international welfare. Ought: Expressing duty or obligation Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Erase: To rub out or remove. Justice: Giving each their due. Contention #1: "Hogan's Heroes" promotes Holocaust denial. Throughout the series, Hogan and his band of soldiers live in a prisoner of war camp. Hogan describes the camp as being "the toughest prisoner of war camp in Germany". Despite this claim, the camp is run by a pair of farcical German officers who allow the prisoners free roam, adequate food, and medical care. They even invite Colonel Hogan to parties, plying him with wine, cheese, and even German women. To describe these conditions as being "tough" would seem to amount to a denial that people actually suffered in prisoner of war camps during World War Two. This promotes Holocaust denial, which is an injustice that could be solved by providing reparations for past harms. Specifically, this injustice could be solved by erasing evidence of this television series. Contention #2: Despite being labeled as a sitcom, "Hogan's Heroes" is simply not funny. The bumbling antics of the German officers quickly lose their charm, and the American officers generally are not funny, even when they attempt to poke fun of Nazism. Also, the setting of a World War Two prisoner of war camp is generally not conducive to humor. Rather, the setting generally leaves the viewer reflecting on the atrocities committed by the Axis Powers in that time frame. It is very clear that it is an injustice to label something as a comedy and have it not be funny because that is not "giving each their due". However, by erasing all evidence of this television series and giving reparations for these past harms, justice could be achieved. Finally, the affirmative has a quick observation. Because the show "Hogan's Heroes" can be seen in almost every country, it would be most efficient for this international crisis to be handled by the U.N., which further proves the affirmative's case.
Resolved: The United Nations ought to erase all evidence of the television series "Hogan's Heroes".

Since this is the last round, I too witl provide defense and a summary. Both of the original points of Hogan's Heroes possible danger still stand--but they have been mitigated to be a danger in a limited locale--specifically, that of the US and Germany. The show is not a global problem--it is an American show with American actors made for an American audience. It was translated into one other language--German. The problem is limited and the disadvantages of a full UN intervention necessitate a national, rather than international, response. My opponent says a controversy will make it more watched--agreed. So why involve, unnecessarily, the entire world? By making this a UN issue, any hope of a swift, effective, and self-contained response will vanish. Only with decisive national action will this crisis be averted. By attempting to make this an international issue, my opponent will cause what he fears--the show being put on international servers and protected from governments. Action is needed--but not at the cost of making everything worse. In terms of the fourth contention, CON conceded that the US government must take action, not UN operatives. This only proves the point that the US Federal government should take action, not the UN, which does not have the capabilities to act effectively. In terms of value clash, since the problem of "Hogan's Heroes" is contained and is not an issue of global justice, National Sovereignty and freedom must be valued over necessary UN intervention--sacrificing rights as a people and as a nation for a doomed solution is not the answer. The debate in this round has come down to who can and should do the job. The UN simply does not have the right or capability to do the job--this is a national problem that should be solved with decisive and appropriate action by the US government. The UN is an ineffective, inferior, and potentially dangerous tool to use to solve this issue. Because of these reasons, I believe that CON has shown that UN involvement is neither necessary nor beneficial.
This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!

In conclusions my opponent's plans only support myself, and show this debate's confusion and of course we can't forget Confucianism. s://kenanmalik.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="384" height="398" />Vote for me because the only way to stop environmental pollution is to support the death penalty, helping the woman who is trying to legalize gay marriage, allowing for smoke to become legal, which is moral in the sense of God's Existence, so help the citizens build architecture that can sustain up to 100 floors by using animal control to get us Gun Rights. You have done well, abortion supporter, but at the end, you cannot defeat the Master in the War on Terror.
This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!

Monkey bar theoryI deny that monkeys traversing bars is confusing. The monkeys are not confused, only the audience is. Like the bars in music these monkeys make their own melodies as they cross the bars, their war music. Can you deny that these monkeys wish to kill you: Roses are red and violets are violet: as you can see by this highly convincing and scientific argument blue is not red, red is apples. Blue is clearly not blew but defiling something violet. This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!Two negatives equal a positive so two not's equal "is".Is means: to continue or remain as before. So it can be left as a blank space. "not nearly-not" therefore means nearly "nearly" plus "hardly" equals almost. "not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT" there are 6 not's and three Not's which equal one NOT. in other words, simplified the debate is: Almost NOT confusing!Do you have evidence that says that this argument is totally confusing?If my opponent cannot explain the strange "we allow our opponent to...", then I winThis one is easy, the "we" you are describing has too be a remark about the fact you are both Aladdin and Genie as your profile picture illustrates. You must be both of theses characters because otherwise the use of them, even in a profile pic is illegal, I know my opponent would not do that! http://info.legalzoom.com... This is possible as if Genie is magical and wishes to be with Aladdin forever he can make them be same people inside one debater wile still being able to take a presentable, and magically moving, photo such as the one you have taken: Here is my refute to my opponents main argument: As you, the lovely audience can see I perfectly understand my opponents combination of Greek, Spanish, and other junk as they have written it. Now I shall play you the music of my people: *best singing voice* "this is, this is, the scarecrow's song" Judges did I impress you? Opponent, Are there scarecrows around you? Can you prove it?In conclusion:-Monkey bar theory-GIF is countered-Explained title-main arguments -we allow our opponent to..."- Please describe how may scarecrows are around you. I have at least one. - If singing you must now provide a better singing voice then mine to sway judges in your favor.-Judges, Please don't spell peach!For the Judges only: Judges please look away as this is going to scare my opponent and lower their attack stat provided they are not a "dark type": Thank you google images.
This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!

Reasons for why this debate is confusing1. The Monkey Bar theory (what did I tell you, we could use monkeys couldn't we?)P1: If the monkeys eat the bannanas, they will traverse the bars, annoying our viewers, allowing them to be frustrated, and as a result become confused, because monkeys traversing the bars shouldn't be confusing.Supporting of P1:-The monkeys have ate their bannanasRingmaster Cardovana can verify this."Oh yes, I feed them everyday...and whip them too, of course." --Ringmaster Cardovana.-If the monkeys eat the bannanas they will traverse the bars.This has been proven in many studies within illegal circuses, especially by Ringmaster Cardovana."Yes, sir, the bannanas are so efficient that....monkeys...oil bars...slip and not fall!" --Ringmaster Cardovana -Traversing the bars will annoy the viewersThe viewers do not like this seemingly difficult task that the monkeys easily do; they are jealous of the monkeys."ARGHGGGH!! How do they do that! I can never transverse bars so easily." --Random viewer whose name is not Ringmaster Cardovana Annoying the viewers allows them to be frustrated because traversing bars shouldn't be confusing-The studies have proved that usually traversing bars isn't confusing, because bars is like music, and music is universal. But since the monkeys ate their bannanas, and got whipped, they will traverse the bars at unusually high speeds, disturbing our musical bars, therefore being able to annoy the viewers.And of course, we can't forget my main body of argument: Whew! I'm glad that's over. The fact that it's invisible makes it even more powerful and asserting that this debate is confusing.So in conclusion:-Monkey bar theory-If our GIF is not countered, I win-If my opponent cannot explain my title, then I win-My main arguments show that my opponent cannot possibly understand the combination of Greek, Spanish, and other junk, even if she uses google translate-If my opponent cannot explain the strange "we allow our opponent to...", then I win-Judges, if you spell a peach, then I win.Onto you, my opponent.
This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!

Round one acceptance only please. This debate refers to this exact particular debate you are reading. Confusing: causing or tending to cause confusion [from: http://dictionary.reference.com...]We shall allow the opponent to use (but not limited to using):-Monkeys to annoy the opponent -The Strawman Fallacy as long as you can prove you don't have any scarecrows-Singing to convince the judges- hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT troll-Circus clowns to creep out the opponent-Love notes to bribe the judges -The word, "Knot", because who knows you might want to hang yourself from seeing the resolution of this debateAnd most of all,This jif: Good luck and have fun.
Parents have favourites.

Parents have favourites. There's no denying it. Most parents know that they have a favourite and the rest are just lying to themselves. Even science is for the fact that parents have favourites. If you don't believe me, go look up "my parents favour my brother/sister over me" on the Internet. Many links will come up which just goes to prove that parents have favourites. Have a favourite child is not something many parents will admit to. Yet it is repeatedly shown through nature that the mother/parent will favour the best child. Most of the time in nature its because the child is bigger than the others, for humans it's usually because the child excels in a lot of things or is the most attractive or charismatic. A Californian study that studied 384 families showed that the 65% of mothers and 70% of fathers showed favouritism and those numbers should probably have been higher since the parents probably didn't behave as naturally while being watched. That's more than half of parents showing favouritism and those numbers weren't even as high as they should be. Science and the nature of humans and animals have proved that parents do have favourites. There's no denying the fact, parents have favourites whether they deny it or not.
My opponent is smarter than me.

Since my opponent has chosen to be so, It's clear that he has found this motion interesting. That means he's somebody who's capable of identifying good motions and is also humble, For he'll be trying to prove that he's not smart at all. I assume that he'll try to follow in the footsteps of Socrates ad act incredulous while being wiser than me. If he attempts to prove me wrong and does so beautifully, Which he will ultimately, Then too my motion will stand.
Arkansas Should Allow Candy Machines to Be in the Schools

What about the other 72% that do serve vegetables. If you are at risk of being fat and the school doesn't serve it, bring a lunch. Fat kids can choose what they eat. Let all of the underweight kids have something delicious to eat. Kids have a life out of school and they can get healthy then. Did you know... lemon drops (which are pretty much flavored sugar--like most candy) are given at benchmark tests to students because they stimulate the brain? It's true.
Arkansas Should Allow Candy Machines to Be in the Schools

You're obviously just a teen pissed off that your school won't give you candy. Let me reply to each of your points from round 3. -In another argument I did in fact say that most schools have serious budget cuts going on and can't afford to buy all of the kids school supplies like notebooks and pencils. Then how in god's name can you expect them to buy loads of candy to stock machines with? You've got to have money to earn money. -For the next point you said that in schools who don't serve veggies, 28%, the kids can just bring veggies from home. That is correct. But will they if they can buy delicious candy from school? Not some overweight kid who just had a twinkie! He'll have some more candy!! -"Obviously the healthy kids didn't need it before, why now?" You say? They need to keep eating healthy! -Actually I can tell a fat kid he can't eat it? No, that is very unethical. Arkansas took candy away from all of the students and told ALL of the students they should eat healthy. -DON'T bring the candy because this will only lead to life problems.
Arkansas Should Allow Candy Machines to Be in the Schools

You even agree that the schools are poor. As you said in another debate "Well, schools simply can't afford it. It is not the school's choice how much money they have. Money that they do have is spent on teachers, textbooks, gym stuff, matinence, extra curricular activies." And wait... YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND what about the 72% that have the veggies for free. If someone wants them, they can bring their own lunch. Obviously the healthy kids didn't need help before. Why would they now? Actually, you can tell a fat kid they can't eat it. Arkansas has told the fat kids this. They took the candy from student and told them they were fat, and it's not like we can't say it, is there a magical elf stopping us? Bring the candy, and let the fat kids make a choice.
Arkansas Should Allow Candy Machines to Be in the Schools

You don't understand. 72% of the schools DIDN'T SERVE VEGGIES AND FRUITS. They aren't punishing the healthy kids, they're trying to keep them healthy! "Fat kids can choose what they eat. Let all of the underweight kids have something delicious to eat."- This would mean the overweight kids had access to sweets at school too. You can't tell a kid, "You're fat and you don't deserve that brownie."