BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected Under Freedom of Speech

If you have a verbal confrontation, and it turns into a physical one, the aggressor can be indited for aggravated assault. (Don't worry, I never curse at people during debates) Freedom of speech always has to be top priority. It should never be that in a public setting you have to think of what to say. If you are physically attacked for what you say, that impedes on your right to free speech, and also it is classified as assault, and you can press charges. However, any word, no matter the severity should be protected. That does not mean, in any way, that you should use it, but there should never be a time when you can be fined or jailed for what you say. Psychological stress or harm does not matter to me. Again, it should never be considered breaking the law if you say something to someone, no matter the severity. There are rules in courts and public hearings, that you cannot verbally harass someone. Harassment is, of course, something you can be reprimanded on by the justice system. Continuously insulting someone is harassment, unless you are doing it out of verbal defense. "Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right of free speech is broad and guaranteed to all. This Amendment prohibits the federal government from abridging this right, and the U.S. Supreme Court in modern times has interpreted the First Amendment as also limiting the ability of state and local governments to regulate speech expression."[1] First, certain kinds of contents has been ruled to have either more limited protection, or in some cases, no protection at all. Among unprotected categories of speech are pornography (obscenity), child pornography, "fighting words," and incitement to imminent violent action, such as threats to kill an individual. "Commercial speech and speech that constitutes libel or slander are provided with a lesser level of protection. Commercial speech can be regulated to make sure that it is not misleading or fraudulent, and defamation, while it can"t be prohibited outright, can subject a speaker or author to a lawsuit for damages. "Indecent" speech may face particular restrictions when minors are exposed to it, and this has resulted in the regulation of indecent expression in broadcasting." http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com... I agree that it is not very good to slander someone and demean them, but you should be able to. If we cannot express our grievances with anger, then what good is it? Need I remind you that the nations with the most restrictions on Freedom of Speech are authoritative nations, mostly in the Middle East. Anything said against the Muslim authority is justifiable by flogging, imprisonment, or death. This is America, not Iran. We cannot lose this basic Constitutional right that millions died protecting.
Any proof that 0.999(recurring) equals 1.0 is a misrepresentation of the steps taken in the sums.

Burden of proof is on Con as well as Pro.Definitions to avoid trolling0.9 recurring is 0.9 with the 9999 going on to an infinite length.1.0 is the first whole number after 0 that is positive.'proof' includes pseudo-logic and pseudo-science in this debate's context of the term. In other words, 'proof' includes incorrect proof.'misrepresentation' includes murky waters, it doesn't necessarily mean active lying but simply can mean omission.'sum' includes the operation leading to the 'sum'. 'sum' does NOT mean purely the result but can also be used in that way in this debate but not the resolution's context of it.The following user [http://www.debate.org...] is requested to not vote on this debate because this is not a troll debate and he/she has trolled many debates with insufficient votes.
That aliens exist

How do they not exist ?? Whilst we currently don't have any conclusive, solid evidence that aliens exist, we also don't have any evidence to say that they don't exist. If you put a cat in a box, and leave it there for a year without food and water (then you would be a very cruel person) but more importantly, you cannot absolutely confirm that the cat is dead without opening the box. Whilst we all heavily assume that it is dead, we can't be certain until we open the box. Now think of aliens as the cat. People who say that aliens don't exist are only ASSUMING that their are no aliens out there. They have no proof that there is no such thing as aliens just as we have no proof that the cat is dead until we open the box. The thing is, we haven't opened the box yet. We haven't searched every nook and cranny of every planet to safely say that aliens don't exist. Whilst I cannot say that it is certain that aliens definitely do exist, it is a false statement to say that they don't. We just need to keep looking. After exploration of everything in space is complete. Then you can say aliens don't exist. Until then, we are just guessing.
That aliens exist

I suppose first rounds are being used for arguments. Let's begin. Good luck to my opponent. I have two rebuttals to make (pay attention to the second one if you wanna be lazy): 1) The analogy (which makes up most of my opponent's first round) is incorrectly placed. His analogy would only work if we specifically placed the means for life to be created on a planet then left. A better analogy would be assuming what kind of creatures live in the depths of the ocean where we can't explore, although that's still not the best analogy; because, evidence occasionally washes up (see what I did there) to give us proof. So yeah, that's a logical fallacy, so you can definitely just throw that out the window. 2) My opponent essentially conceded the debate. Pro has the burden of proof, and as such, we cannot vote for pro if there is no substantiated proof that there are aliens. All he can say is that we can reasonably assume that it's possible that aliens exist. I think that's all I needed to say. Thanks for reading.
America should have the ACA. Also known as " Obamacare".

Good luck to my opponent. JobsBack in the day, most pople had insurance from their employer and that was their plan. You said big corporations were laying off the workers. The ACA has a plan for this. The exchanges were established to create less expensive quality healthcare. Those workers may apply for a subsidy and a tax break. This will help the lower income families by providing them with quality insurance. They may pay more but these plans provide more. Quality is the keyword here. If their employer's plan provided them with bad healthcare they had no choice. Now the government is willing to give medical groups more money. If they provide quality healthcare, which is what the ACA is all about. Focusing healthcare by not the cost but by the outcomes. As for those 603 businesses, they may find it cheaper in the longhaul to buy insurance. Think about this: Employee in hospital= not working=not producing profits. If they are sick they can't do their jobs. If they declare bankruptcy for their bills they may go to court which means even more lost productivity. The WorkersObamacare is subsidized because of the government. The plans were designed to be cheap and reasonable. They cannot charge more because of, gender and pre- existing conditions. It makes it fairer to those people. Also think about those who buy coverage in their 20's and keep it after 65. Let's say 1 million do this it could save the U.S millions. That's 1 million less individuals who bill the government. That's one less person future generations will have to pay taxes for. More people will buy from the government causing many companies who don't deliver to shape up or risk extreme losses. Barebones coverage The people who lost their insurance did so because their plans were not enough. Here's a example. John, 23, has insurance. He has a barebones plan which dosent cover much. Let's say he gets into a car accident and goes to a hospital. They cannot turn him away. They treat him and he gets a bill for $ 40,000. His plan covers 10% of hospital stays. He ends up paying $36,000 and may have to declare bankruptcy. Not to mention any other therapy, follow-up care, and medications. He can't go to work and he may get fired. The new plans cover more at a reasonable price. This way those people get more bang for their buck. Those losing it can maybe get a better deal at a reasonable price.
America should have the ACA. Also known as " Obamacare".

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. I wish him the best of luck. Opening statementMy arguments will consist of how badly the Affordable Care Act(ACA) had failed and miss interpreted the nations current healthcare stake. Although the intentions are in the right place, this legislation resulted in a complete disaster for our national healthcare system. Since this legislation was passed it had many difficulties and flaws which increased criticism and opposition. Arguments First of all, we need to articulate why the ACA was created. According to the census bureau, 48 million people were uninsured in 2012. The white house expected 14 million Americans to have signed up by 2014. Its 2014 and this is clearly not the case. This could have been true, however, due to Obamacare mandates of private insurers, many people lost their coverage. It is estimated that around 6 million lost their coverage due to mandates imposed on private insurance companies. The people who actually worked for their healthcare experiences premiums hikes to subsidize Obamacare members. So with around 6 million people loosing their healthcare insurance and an estimation of 7-8 million people who signed up actually equals itself out. Statistics show that after 4 years only 12% decrease in uninsured. Those 12% are said to be young-adults who were previously on their parents healthcare plan.This is, however, not the only fault in this law. Under the ACA, businesses with employees over 50 are mandated to provide free healthcare insurance to all their employees. For some businesses this can be financially dangerous, especially the smaller businesses. Large corporations like Target and Walmart had to lay off a lot of employees part time to fulfill this employer mandate. 41% of business have completely stopped hiring and 19% have laid off several workers due to this mandate from Obamacare. This is just ridiculous. For the sake of time. I will end it here for now. I will await my opponents arguments. References http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.politifact.com... http://www.mediaite.com... http://kff.org...
America should have the ACA. Also known as " Obamacare".

“There is competition. Lot's of competition. The government is willing to give money to medical groups that will perform. Tell me, what will happen when the millions of new patients get their insurance and the government tells them that if they want them they will have to perform. The medical groups will be all fighting to get contracts, that means competition to perform better.Which will mean better care.” Where are your sources? I have provided my arguments with sources now I expect you to as well. Medical groups that will perform? Is this some kind of compensation? I have never heard of this. How much money are we talking here? Is this separate from the coverage? Please clarify “We are just making sure people have options. We are trying to give quality care to everyone. We are spending to much money paying for care that does not deliver. I don't think we should be paying taxes to support bad healthcare. “The ACA says that if you have a pre-existing condition you can't be denied for coverage. Those with asthma,arthritis, and other conditions can get coverage. As time goes on more options will be available. The woman who has cancer can try joining a high risk pool.” Your arguments are composed of the requirements the ACA intended to meet. The ACA had failed to meet those requirements. So therefore, this act shouldn’t have been enacted, even if they perceived certain glitches and flaws. “ You are right, you are paying. Everyone else in America is paying.Paying to support Medicare and Social Security. The amount for hikes is peanuts compared to the amount you pay for Medicare and S.S. It is not like the hikes are forcing people to be ruined.” No no no.. The hikes are granted to the people so the private insurers can meet the ACA standards. A lot of private insurers can’t meet those standards so many people end up losing their coverage. The argument im trying to make is this. Fact: 6-7 million people lost their insurance due to Obamacare. As your resolution follows, America should not have the ACA. This law should have been repealed a long time ago. I just want to make clear, I like the intentions of the president and this law. But wow, this law was poorely executed. Im all for helping Americans get covered but not at his expense. I truly believe every American should be covered. But the ACA, unfortunetly, is a failure.
Should the U.S devote more money to fight ebola.

Hi! Thanks for making this argument, as Ebola is a well talked about subject worldwide.I'll leave the second round for you to present your reasoning and arguments, and I'll produce my counter-arguments after that.It might be a bit difficult to discuss a virus such as Ebola with only 2,000 characters a round, but I'm sure we can both cover a lot.I have one question I'd like you to answer in your next round though, if you can.Why should America spend even more money on foreign aid? It's quite clear America's medical system (as well as Canada's) can do just fine defending our population against Ebola. Aids, Meningitis, Syphilis, Malaria, and many more diseases plague Africa, and each of those are much more contagious than Ebola.Also, why should we even care about Africa? Why should we care about foreign countries when we have diseases and poverty and famine and many more important things to worry about and spend money on here at home?Thanks, looking forward to a good debate!
Easter Rabbits are An Evil Tradition

You mainly talked about your own opinion. Your whole argument is based on opinion. Easter bunny: There's no story in the Bible about a long-eared, cotton-tailed creature known as the Easter Bunny. Neither is there a passage about young children painting eggs or hunting for baskets overflowing with scrumptious Easter goodies. And real rabbits certainly don't lay eggs. How the Moon Affects the Date of Easter Why are these traditions so ingrained in Easter Sunday? And what do they have to do with the resurrection of Jesus? Well, to be frank, nothing. Bunnies, eggs, Easter gifts and fluffy, yellow chicks in gardening hats all stem from pagan roots. These tropes were incorporated into the celebration of Easter separately from the Christian tradition of honoring the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead. According to the University of Florida's Center for Children's Literature and Culture, the origin of the celebration "" and the origin of the Easter Bunny "" can be traced back to 13th-century, pre-Christian Germany, when people worshiped several gods and goddesses. The Teutonic deity Eostra was the goddess of spring and fertility, and feasts were held in her honor on the Vernal Equinox. Her symbol was the rabbit because of the animal"s high reproduction rate. Was the Last Supper a Day Earlier? Spring also symbolized new life and rebirth; eggs were an ancient symbol of fertility. According to History.com, Easter eggs represent Jesus' resurrection. However, this association came much later when Roman Catholicism became the dominant religion in Germany in the 15th century and merged with already ingrained pagan beliefs. The first Easter Bunny legend was documented in the 1500s. By 1680, the first story about a rabbit laying eggs and hiding them in a garden was published. These legends were brought to the United States in the 1700s, when German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania Dutch country, according to the Center for Children's Literature and Culture. The tradition of making nests for the rabbit to lay its eggs in soon followed. Eventually, nests became decorated baskets and colorful eggs were swapped for candy, treats and other small gifts. Sources: (1)
Easter Rabbits are An Evil Tradition

Egg Arguments Eggs are fantastically delicious and mouthwatering. They an be served as scrambled eggs, hard-boiled eggs, etc (1). They can also be decorated with many different lovely patterns and colors. Eggs can be served in a variety of different restaurants including pubs, bars, fancy restaurants, fast food restaurants, etc. I love eating eggs. Eggs can be eaten for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I enjoy eggs and lots of other people enjoy eating eggs as well. Some eggs are eaten with omelets and others are eaten with bacon and toast. I really, truly, like eggs. In conclusion, vote con if you like eggs! However, if you are a despicable obese human being with an unrealistic sense of humanity and a horrible conscience, I will let you vote for pro. Picture source (1) http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Easter Rabbits are An Evil Tradition

Like all Roman Catholic "holy-days," Easter is evil. The festival is no where prescribed in Scripture, and its origin is thoroughly pagan. Now this may shock many uneducated Catholics and non-Catholics, but many today are certainly in need of a good jolt. May the Holy Spirit give us eyes to see and ears to hear. What is the Roman Catholic, the Arminian, and even the secular reply to the charge that Easter is evil? The sinful world replies that Easter is a special day to celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To this Roman Catholic response comes the Biblical reply: the Bible no where commands Christians to set aside one special day out of the year for the remembrance of Christ"s death, burial, and resurrection; the Bible commands Christians to publicly celebrate the life, death, and resurrection of Christ on the first day of each week. For the Catholic Church, or anyone for that matter, to command that which is nowhere commanded by God in Scripture is blasphemy, and such blasphemous practice testifies that the Roman Catholic Church is the institution of Antichrist. The Bible says: Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:32) Jeremiah is very clear: any worship not commanded by God is opposed by God, and it will not benefit those who practice such false worship"it will only be a curse to them. The proper method of worship is found in Scripture alone. The proper method of worship must be either explicitly stated or logically deduced from Scripture alone. Again, how we worship is to be limited by the Bible alone. That God will have His people worship him according to His own prescription, and to avoid methods of worship He has not prescribed, is clearly stated in Scripture. This teaching has come to be called the Regulative Principle Of Worship. The Bible says: Deuteronomy 12:29 When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeeds them, and dwellest in their land; Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thy be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying How did these nations serve their gods? Deuteronomy 12:30 Even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. I am sorry to hear that butterfly.
Easter Rabbits are An Evil Tradition

Your arguments are extremely religious and historical and I have never dealt with this kind of argument before. Therefore, you must not blame me if my arguments are weak, unrealistic, or misinformed. I will state a logical argument, a troll argument, and a moral argument. I'm not sure how to rebut to your vast informational cache, so I will do that next round.Arguments1. Easter is a time of happinessIn Easter, everyone is happily bouncing around and enjoying the Springtime. Some people roll eggs (1) while others go on fun Easter egg hunts. Everywhere you go in Easter, people have little bunny ear headbands (2), eggs with brilliant patterns, and other neat pastimes. There is no reason to try to find odd customs and origins of this cute little harmless holiday. After all, the past is in the past!2. You're taking things too seriously You have written tons of historical information about the bible, the Jewish Encyclopaedism, etc. I did not have any time to skim over it because after reading the first five paragraphs I started to snore. Please take no offense, but you're taking things too seriously. Eggs are supposed to be eaten hungrily for breakfast or decorated with exciting flashy patterns!3. Your sources are extremely complicated and confusingI've read your sources. Unfortunately, I am merely a student and I did not understand your long and detailed sentences. Most of your argument is just quotes from different encyclopaedists and ideas of how Easter originated. You did not state that Easter was bad in any possible way. You were simply talking about it factually.Sources(1) http://www.recreation.gov... (2) http://www.partycity.com...;
Easter Rabbits are An Evil Tradition

My opponent is being very silly. In fact he is being so terribly ridiculous that I will not post any arguments because of his stupidity. Enough said! I am obviously right and he is most certainly wrong. In conclusion, vote for me if you like eggs and adorable little bunny rabbits! Sources Pictures of cute bunnies (1) http://1.bp.blogspot.com... (2) http://aprilpug.com... (3) http://2.bp.blogspot.com... (4) https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com... (5) https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...
Call of duty 5 is better than call of duty 4

As far as I am concerned you are on hallowed ground with any of the Call of Duty games. Four is, however, the best by far. Four's campaign is remarkable, it makes you think you are there, the sniping is amazing. Five's campaign is just another blood and guts world war two fest. Four dared to take on a modern battlefield and succeeded. Also the plot on number four is genius. You are in a situation with unanswered questions and outcomes, you care what happens because you greatly affect the entire campaign. The two player is also better, it is interactive and enjoyable, the weapons are amazing, they look and sound the same as they do in reality. http://www.youtube.com...
Call of duty 5 is better than call of duty 4

I don't think that games are about blood sprays. I don't even like a lot of gore like you get in call of duty five. Also the maps are very well portrayed, they accurately depict what it is like for people fighting today, it is urban. And once again that is spelled bayonet. The bayonet is only on one gun in call of duty five anyway, that is not even an issue. All in all call of duty four is better.
Call of duty 5 is better than call of duty 4

While five has Nazi zombies that mini game quickly becomes redundant and boring. Also the flame thrower is kind of boring to use. The comparison between the dogs and the chopper is only a matter of period relevance they are equal in my eyes. Also I think that you meant bayonet when you said banet. Also there are three different sniper rifles in four. In five the main weapon, the M1 Garand is underpowered in real life that weapon chambered a 30-06 and was very powerful. On the other hand the main weapon of number four, the M16 with three round burst is very accurately portrayed in the game. So clearly four has the better weapons. Another thing, in four you get a lot more versatility n the maps in five they are all similar and get old fast.