BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "Fairness Doctrine" should be rejected

Pro has challenged me to present the specific history that he thinks is relevant to the debate. I have accepted this challenge and would like to present the last paragraph of Pros argument in Round 2. He says that the watchdog groups do not have anything to do with the fairness doctrine. In truth, watchdog groups have everything to with any bill passed because they are usually the ones who came up with the bill in the first place. Pro would have known that if he studied his history some more about this issue. 1. I assume pro has agreed that I won argument 1 for he doesn't counter my argument, but simply asks what if the government forces the Fairness Doctrine on books, magazines, and the Internet. None of which are owned by the government, which means that those media sources would not apply. Radio waves are owned by the people for the people. Allowing a corporation to dictate its opinion on public air waves and not let anyone else do the same is called a monopoly. The Fairness Doctrine must NOT be rejected to prevent corporations from having a monopoly over public property. That is why I'm the Con in this argument. 2. Because "fair" has different meanings, to let everyone reading this know, the definition that I used applied to what the watchdog groups decided what they thought was fair. Pro hasn't argued against this so he must agree. 3. Pro continues to argue his case that his statistical data is right. All I said is that my data was more accurate because it was less then 1 year old, while his was all the way back from 2007. His data was also from an opinion based news article, while mine was from an unbiased tracking agency giving statistical numbers and facts, not stories. Meaning the information that Pro has gathered can't be used to present his side of the case, because media was different 2 years ago. Which might I add he agreed it was true (last sentence of argument 2 round 3) 4. Pro said that the Parents Television Council who addressed the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction during the 2004 Super bowl had no impact on the FCC's decision to fine NBC. It DOES have an impact on the FCC's decision because we are in a democratic country and P.T.C. representing us, the people, said it was a violation. The FCC didn't do anything until the P.T.C. (a watchdog group) brought it up. The Fairness Doctrine must be accepted or there would be no such thing as free speech on the airwaves. WE, the tax payers pay for the FCC to protect OUR RIGHTS! Our rights to give our opinions on public property, which includes radio waves that we pay to own, to express our beliefs! The Fairness Doctrine must NOT be rejected to protect our freedom of speech!
The "Fairness Doctrine" should be rejected

Great choice for a debate and I accept. Thanks for the brief history and your right wing opinion against liberals. Not bad at all. Well organized and very informative. Anyways my responses to your arguments: 1. Radio waves are owned by the government. That is why you need a broadcasting license to run a station. Because the government owns the am/fm frequencies they have a right to make the rules of what goes or doesn't go over the air. The Internet and print media are not distributed by the government, so it wouldn't be accurate to include them into the discussion. 2. Actually the government has little to do with judging what is or is not fair. It is the job of political watchdog groups such as Fairness Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR for short.) That is why there are watchdog groups in the first place, because the government isn't fair. China on the other hand doesn't allow watchdog groups and makes the rules them selves, which is because China is a communist nation. The United States of America is not Communist and that is why we allow watchdog groups. This falls under the whole "checks and balances" thing. 3. 85%? Where did you get a percentage like that. The National cable and Telecommunications Association states that the percentage of homes with cable is only at 57.1%. So first of all, you might need to recheck your sources and second the Internet is not owned by the government. (unless you are in China.) 4. I'm stating this again. Our government doesn't choose the balance... That is the job of Watchdog groups. I also don't think you realize what Free-Speech is. In good nature, I will tell you that free-speech is allowing someone to give their opposing view point. This is what the Fairness Doctrine does!!!! By you saying that liberals should not be allowed to give opposing viewpoints means that YOU are banning free speech. 5. Fox News is conservative. MSNBC is liberal. Apples are apples and oranges are oranges. This is why it is so important to have the fairness doctrine, because all news has someone's opinion and is never just news. The Fairness Doctrine helps give people an accurate perspective on both sides opinion. Not just one. Give up?
Daniel was not a prophet

Part of the justification for the Babylonian captivity was the Asherah poles. The people loved to fornicate in public. Some have the mistaken idea that Daniel was a fornicator, but a strong argument is made that Daniel was a eunuch. Now if Daniel was a eunuch then that might make the office of Prophet effeminate. The problem is that prophets are rough and tough. Therefore Daniel is suspect as a prophet. If Daniel is not a prophet then what was he? His writings certainly seem to be prophetic. He certainly is a visionary. Here are the three branches of ancient Israeli government- 1 The Priests 2 The Prophets 3 The Kings Daniel was certainly not a Priest. Daniel was sort of related to the kings of Judah. And our position is that Daniel was not a prophet. Is there no other office in Israel comparable to priest/prophet/king? Who has been ruling over Israel these past 2000 years? Wait, I know- Rabbis Daniel was a Rabbi. Daniel was the greatest Rabbi who has ever lived. Daniel is the greatest Rabbi who will ever live. Yes Con, I know Daniel. Daniel is my Rabbi.
Daniel was not a prophet

Generally speaking I don't agree with Judaism. But with respect to Daniel being a prophet, main stream Christianity is just plain wrong. Daniel was not a prophet. The Pro position, (mine) is that Daniel was not a prophet. Con's position will be that Judaism has miscategorized. (Some questions as an aside: If Daniel was not a prophet then what was he? Can Daniel's position be degraded within the Church if he was not a prophet? What can be done to the so called 'end time' theories that has sold so many books if Daniel is degraded?) This debate will be 4 rounds- 1 Acceptance/general thoughts 2 Judaism's position 3 Mainstream Christian position 4 Final thoughts
Daniel was not a prophet

There is a certain segment of Christianity that says they can find no sin in Daniel's life. But I am going to ask a few question- When God commanded the Jews to leave Babylon and go back to the Land of Canaan did God allow for any loop-holes in the command? Did God suggest that the Jews leave Babylon? Did God say leave Babylon if you are not too busy? How about this one- Did God say for the Jews to leave Babylon unless you are old and in a place of authority? Or this one- Maybe God said that the Jews were to leave Babylon unless they were Rabbis? Daniel is in Babylon. The only way for a Christian to commune with Daniel is for the Christian to go to Babylon. It would be better to go to hell than to go to Babylon no matter the reason. We don't need Babylon. We don't need Daniel. Christ is the PROPHET. He will tell us what we need to know. What you need is to leave Babylon and stay away.
Daniel was not a prophet

Didn't the children of israel forfeit their right to the Kingdom? I can just see it now- The real prophets came to the israelites and told them that they were about to lose. And you know what answer the israelites gave? First they spewed profanity. And then they just kept right on spewing until the debate was over. Dear Christians, The writing is on the wall and it reads- 2 + 2 = 4 That is Rabbi-speak. The Rabbis are not prophets. The Rabbis are one-trick-ponies. Daniel as a Rabbi is a one-trick-pony. The only way that Daniel can be consider a prophet is that the work of the Rabbis is a self-fulfilling-prophecy. In other-words, what the Rabbis do leads to their own destruction. Daniel cannot be reformed. Daniel cannot be saved. No matter what.
On balance, the pen is mightier than the sword.

The pen is mightier than the sword. This maxim was created to explain how the written word has much more impact on humanity than does warfare. For example, I will use the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. The Bible and U.S. Constitution were both created with the pen. The Bible has had effects on humanity that are quite beyond measure. The creation of Christianity (a direct result of the writing of the Bible) has had such pronounced effects on humanity that I cannot even begin to list the implications of those effects here. If my opponent disputes my claim that Christianity has had a very pronounced effect on humanity, more than any other war in history has, then we can debate that in round two. For now I will keep it short and sweet without getting into a religious tangent here. The U.S. Constitution guides our country, the most powerful nation in the history of the world (from an absolute standpoint). Our country is utterly devoted to following the U.S. Constitution, and our Commander-In-Chief must swear to uphold it by name before he is allowed to take office. Words cannot begin to apprehend the might of the U.S. Constitution. Wars have had a significant effect on humanity, but war's effects are not as long-lived as the written word. The combined effects and influences of all religious scripture, philosophical texts, all countries' constitutions, fictional stories, poetry, music, and other texts both ancient and modern (the list is endless) have had a more profound effect on humanity than has the combined effects of the world's wars. The effects of texts, for one, are cumulative. That is, they are preserved indefinitely and continue to create influence long after the author has died. Wars' effects are not cumulative; wars pass and after a few centuries their influences are relinquished to the pen.
Christianity

I shall make my answer brief just as my opponent did. He stated that rape is worse than stealing a toothpick, here is my attempt to prove him incorrect: Lets start with some logical statements which I have created to justify Deontology: Argument #1: 1. Humans can be wrong. 2. Nature, nor the universe, nor the Christian God hold prejudices to moral actions(Jesus loves us all the same unconditionally and the only punished action is one of non-belief and not true morality). 3. If this is true then the only moral prejudice has been created by humans. 4. Since humans can be wrong and the only moral prejudice comes from humans, it is likely/possible that current human conceptions of morality are foolish and incorrect. 5. Therefore we cannot trust modern ethical systems. This means that though rape is more punishable than stealing a toothpick, this is only because us foolish humans have deemed it so. It is idiotic for us to assume that we are at the height of human understanding. We cannot say whether or not your previous statement is true. Argument #2: All actions which your soul deems immoral are equal because they have the same consequence. You are merely spitting in the face of God, your existence, and the gifts you have been given. Because of the indeterminacy of human judgement we cannot say that being punished for an action was wrong and since every sin is in essence simply spitting in the face of your existence then all sins are equally evil.
Christianity

Jesus said in Matthew 12:31 that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that can't be forgiven: I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This debate is called Christianity. Christians must accept this as proof that not all sins are equal, since blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven but all others can be.Case closed, thanks for debating me on this topic.
God is responsible for the creation of humanity.

Evolution by nature is haphazard. Judging from the lack of sentient life in the history of the Earth, intelligence does not seem to be a popular evolutionary trend. The existence of life itself and the tremendous fortune of Earth's placement that allowed life to exist are all startling coincidences which has led to the existence of humans in our present form. My position is that this is not an accident and is instead the work of another intelligent entity. To put it simply, without a divine entity's interference, the probability of our development into sentient beings able to appreciate his magnificence is virtually 0%.
Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

I affirm: Regulation harms a capitalist system. Regulation limits liberty. Liberty is threatened by regulation. Liberty, among other things, is at stake. Further, regulation worsens depressions and limits one's potential in a capitalist system. The definitions: Regulation-A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... This does not mean a regulation that limits traditionally immoral behavior (rape, murder, etc.).This certianly means such regulations like safety concerns and minimum wage. A maximum wage is also inluded in this definition, as well as many other things. harms-to injure physically, morally, or mentally http://www.thefreedictionary.com... defeats-to prevent the success of; thwart http://www.thefreedictionary.com... capitalism-an economic system controlled chiefly by individuals and private companies instead of by the government http://www.azete.com... So, in order for regulation to be considered to harm and defeat capitalism, it must: a) reduce the success of capitialism b) defeat the purpose of capitalism A) Regulation of the markets reduces the success of capitalism. Capitalism is successful because of its flexibility and ability to adapt to problems within itself. Regulation reduces this flexibility. Therefore, regulation reduces the success of capitalism. Regulation also reduces the ability of individuals and companies to innovate. Therefore, the market is worse of than it would have been. Therefore, regulation restricted the success of capitalism. I will elaborate as necessary. B) The purpose of capitalism is for people to own and control their property. However, regulation controls conduct through the government. Therefore, regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism. Further, it limits its benefits. I will elavorate as necessary in later rounds. So, regulation harms and defeats capitalism. It restricts liberty, a key aspect of capitalism. Liberty makes capitalism successful. I await an opponent.
School uniform

I believe that we should not abolish school uniforms because they teach kids to dress intelligently and to take pride in their appearance. I am not going to use bullying as one of my points because it doesn't stop bullying. However, if they kept school uniforms, then students would not have the chance to dress inappropriately. If they did, then they would get punished instead of having a chance to do it again. These are my main points, and I stand by them. Thank you.
Conservatives should vote for Ron Paul, and NOT Fred Thompson

Here are my reasons: 1. Ron Paul is pro-life. As an OBGYN for decades, Dr. Paul delivered more than 4,000 babies and never considered performing an abortion. As any true conservative should, Dr. Paul believes that the federal government has no legitimate jurisdiction over the issue of abortion, including a national ban on the practice, and thinks that the states should decide. And, unlike his Republican rivals, he stands behind this belief with proposed legislation that would strip the issue of abortion from federal courts, thereby proactively returning the matter to the states. By contrast, Fred Thompson is wishy-washy on life, and even did lobbying for pro-abortion groups. 2. Ron Paul is against world government under the auspices of the UN, NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, etc. Fred Thompson is a globalist member of the liberal Council on Foreign Relations, and he supports continued participation by the U.S. in these internationalist organizations created by Fabian Socialists and supported by liberal Democrats like FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Bill Clinton. 3. Ron Paul supports abolition of the income tax -- the ultimate instrument of government tyranny. Fred Thompson favors no such move, and thinks it's just fine to have the income tax, which was first championed by liberal "progressives" and "populists" in the early twentieth century. 4. Ron Paul is the only opponent of the Federal Reserve running for president. This evil institution, signed into law by ultra-liberal Woodrow Wilson, allows the government to inflate the money supply and silently steal from savers and pensioners. When combined with the income tax, there is no limit on how much the government may spend for any number of projects. 5. Ron Paul has the traditional Republican foreign policy of peace and commerce, but no entangling alliances -- the same policy of "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft, who opposed the ultra-liberal interventionism embarked upon by Wilson, and later taken up again by FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton. As a liberal CFR member, Fred Thompson supports Rooseveltian liberalism / globalism, and the march towards One World Government. NOT conservative. 6. Ron Paul has family values. He has been married to his wife for over forty years. Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has a new wife young enough to be his daughter, and he recently said his "trophy wife" was his "most prized possession." Disgusting. 7. Here are some facts about Ron Paul's record: He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. Can Fred Thompson say the same?
The Oxford comma

So the only reason the Oxford comma is important is because of a parody song? I feel like it shouldn't be used, because I believe written language should be like spoken language. This being said, although I agree with the song's point of getting more people to use better grammar, grammar is flexible. People not following the exact rules of grammar is how languages are created. If not, then we would all be grammar robots, and in reality only a few of us are. Things like the Oxford comma are kind of pointless to think about when they're simply not needed. I think it's a great thing to happen to our language, but it simply is not a necessary component of anything.
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

Christianity is not the cause of morality. Please look at other cultures around the world; you will find that there are many societies that have never had widespread Christianity running perfectly well. Buddhism is a very peaceful and moral religion, without any mention of a supreme creator.You claim: "Also, if you take away the three top cities in America (all of whom have had gays legalized and who gave up christianity a long time ago) America is down at the bottom of the list."Let's look at these figures...Highest crime rates in the USA by state: [1] 1. Tennessee - Same-sex marriage not allowed [2]2. Nevada - Same-sex marriage not allowed; state constitution bans same-sex marriage [2]3. Alaska - Same-sex marriage not allowed [2]Human morality is a much larger debate. Many people argue that fairness evolved so that we would be rewarded in the future, and also to help society run smoothly; your view of evolution is very limited -- evolution brings out the best traits to help an organism to survive, for humans, being in a large group helps us to survive, and having instinctive morals can help the society to run smoothly and consequently pass on genes. I can't get into too much detail because it really is a whole different debate.I'm going to leave the LGBT rape etc. out of this -- do you even know how difficult it is for someone to rape their own gender? It's not impossible, but it's far from easy. Rape crimes are predominantly carried out by men; the victims are predominantly women. I have no energy to argue this fact any further.[1] - http://www.usatoday.com...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

I did not say that every atheist will become a dictator and kill people. However, they can and should be held responsible for their crimes, and if they had been religious, that most definitely would have been cited as proof that religion is violent. So you cannot dismiss them as not being able to contribute for the amount of crimes that atheism has caused. Also, the UK had been the strongest and longest center of Christendom. The removing of it from your culture won't happen fast. It will still be ingrained in your society. However, it is going to go away. It won't last forever. Also, if you take away the three top cities in America (all of whom have had gays legalized and who gave up christianity a long time ago) America is down at the bottom of the list. Also, those monkeys would be under the category of reciprocal altruism. They do it so that they will get a favor back some time in the future. Why would large societies need to run smoothly? All that would need to work smoothly is your gene pool so that your genes will survive. That's whats supposed to happen in Evolution. Survival of the Fittest. I did some research, and I am verified. To look at the rape, go to snow.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/NRC_LGBTDVStatistics.pdf. It shows that rape is higher. Also, sexual promiscuity is substantially larger if you research it, as is drug abuse and depression and alcoholism