BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Privacy is a Fundamental Right

My opponent has engaged in activity I consider to be in extremely poor form. Had this been a scored debate, I would demand his immediate forfeiture for not adhering to the stiputations of this debate. He accepted this debate, so to contest what he accepted renders his arguments a priori invalid.Specifically:CON: "I reject usage of the term 'unauthorised monitoring' as it is uneccessarily prejudicial."This is simply not true. My opponent accepted the usage of the term 'unauthorized monitoring' by accepting this debate.As this is central to defining the resolution, specifically the word "privacy", the debate cannot continue until there is agreement upon what exactly we are debating.My opponent also has various questions about the kind of surveillance inherent in this scenario. This is just more evidence that my opponent is not exactly sure what we are debating, rendering actual debate on this matter impossible.---The logic here is similar to thus:Given that 1) Chocolate is a sweet food2) I like sweet foodsTherefore, I like chocolate...my opponent accepted 1) and 2), and then proceeded to argue that "Chocolate is not a sweet food". Ridiculous...he already accepted that chocolate is a sweet food, so to argue otherwise is to not argue the topic at hand and thus forfeit the argument.---As this is not a scored debate, and both my opponent and I are motivated in debating this topic, I encourage my opponent to state any other changes he would like made to the rules of this debate, preferably in the comments section or via PM. Then, we can start another, more proper debate on this resolution.
Privacy is a Fundamental Right

I accept the amended resolution as mentioned in comments.I will argue that privacy is not a fundamental right and therefore road monitoring is within the legitimate business of government.I reject usage of the term 'unauthorised monitoring' as it is uneccessarily prejudicial. Such monitoring may have been sanctioned by the elected representatives of the people without the people being aware of its existence and can thus be authorised by the legitimate government (if we are to assume governmental legitimacy as my opponent suggests). I would instead prefer the term 'unadvertised monitoring' as it does not suffer from this connotation.I would also like my opponent to clarify what precisely he means by surveillance of pedestrians. Does this include surveillance of the sidewalk? Paths within parks that do not border roads? Does the system have the means to identify pedestrians or does it use number plate analysis to determine the registered owner of the vehicle? Presumably facial recognition software could determine the identity of pedestrians and cyclists but it may only be done after the fact, rather than routinely.Perhaps we should take the most extreme example of using biometrics to determine an individual's identity on leaving their place of residence and keeping track of every move they make since this would be where our positions have the most obvious differences. However, I would caution the audience that I do not believe that such a thing is currently possible or that it would be cost effective. I ask that they keep in mind that I am not arguing that such monitoring is the responsibility of government (in fact I would not support such a policy), just that I would not dismiss it for reasons of violation of privacy. I may support a more conservative monitoring programme, but that would depend on its aim and extent.I ask these questions not because they are particularly important to my argument, just that they will give the audience a better idea of what it is that I am actually asserting.A monitoring programme is not to be dismissed based on the right to privacy of citizens, but there may be other reasons to dismiss such a programme.
The US should prohibit the import of all goods derived from the Amazon Rainforest.

I knocked down your points so if you just stand by them then you pretty much lose (although you already lost because of the forfeit, sorry). If you don't want to write all that over and over, you could use copy and paste... I don't mind... or you could post new content. Voters, please cast your ballot for the Proposition (due to the forfeit), thanks.
The US should prohibit the import of all goods derived from the Amazon Rainforest.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
homework

Most of my arguments went unaddressed in my opponents case so I shall refute my opponents singular argument. in stating that my argument in false because trees make oxygen and we need oxygen to breath, he has ignored my point that paper is not pre-ordained to be homework when it's produced as well as my point that an increasing number of classrooms are becoming more and more digital. a large quantity of homework is now done on the computer and in the status quo that number is expected to rise. My opponent also ignores my point on a reduction in academic achievement. I would also like to point out my opponent's emotional appeal that he concludes with. "imagine a child with homework in his bag dead because of no air." this emotional appeal is built off of an illogical and impossible concept that could never occur. He fails to realize that due to the information I have provided and he has ignored, this is a completely implausible situation.
homework

As my opponent did not state that round one is for acceptance, I am going to make my case now. 1. My opponent states that we should have NO homework because "homework kills trees and trees are needed to make oxygen and take in carbon dioxide." However, my opponent has overlooked the logical discrepancy in his statement which is that he fails to recognize that trees are not cut down to make specifically homework. They are cut down to make paper which is then by random chance, made into homework. Furthermore, my opponents argument can be further invalidated due to the fact that in an increasing number of schools across the world more and more assignments and examinations are completed on the computer rather than on conventional paper. Now for my points. I believe that homework is a necessity for effective education and as a result, effective members of society. if homework were to be outlawed in any given country or group of countries, that (those) countries would fall behind academically losing their graduation rate and college acceptance rates as well as losing progress in STEM fields.
Holocaust deniers should challenged rather than ignored

I don't see why we should waste time and energy to convince people that are unlikely to change their minds. This was a terrible thing that did in fact happen, and whether a minority of people insist that it didn't is to me not an actual problem, it is a shame that we have people with such small brains, but it is a problem out of all problems that we should prioritize? No! Let people believe what they believe, belief doesn't change facts
Holocaust deniers should challenged rather than ignored

Often, I have found many do lack information. True, they hold onto their opinions regardless of true facts but if others see the facts presented, they may not be left to believe in revisionist history. Many did not challenge Hitler, saying he was a ridiculous corporal with silly ideas. Those silly ideas went on to ravage Europe. If we do not stand up and say "you are wrong and here's why"... then we are not standing up for what is right. We need to make our voices counted among those who will not tolerate the memory of those who died....to be forgotten.
You can't jump in the same river twice

Hi, I think that you can jump in the same river twice. First if someone asks you what river the Thames is you will say the Thames. If they ask you the same question a few seconds later you will give them the same response. You won't say "This is the Thames of now and that was the Thames of five seconds ago." Second, the fish are the fish, the rocks are the rocks, the water is the water, none are the river itself. They can change but the river will still be the river. Third, I am me, now that might not sound like it applies to this debate but if you break my nose I am still me. I do not become some other person I am still the same person, the river is the same river. And finally no one will tell you that you can jump in the exact same water, with the fish and rocks in the exact same positions. But it still is the same river.
You can't jump in the same river twice

Hi, I think you can't jump in the same river twice even though it is common sense you can but common sense is wrong sometimes such when it was common sense that the world was flat, but now we know it is round. Now suppose you jump in the river Thames, you get back out and you jumped right back in. You wouldn't have jumped in the same river because right after you jumped in the fish moved a bit, the rocks did too so did the water. So when you jumped in the second time the river isn't the same, it changed a tiny bit. So therefore you can't jump in the same river twice. What do you say to that?
You can't jump in the same river twice

Thank you for debating with me. It is the first online debate I have done (the last one on my account was my brother). I would finally like to say again that a river is only a river if it moves. My opponent would like you to believe that this is about jumping in the exact same water. But the debate is actually about jumping in the same river. And since I have shown that a river is only a river if it moves, you can have comfort that next time you jump in the a river twice. It will be the same river.
You can't jump in the same river twice

First, thank you. Second if this debate were about whether rivers change slightly I would concede right now. I couldn't agree more that rivers change, sometimes even in major ways! But this is not what the debate is about. Now to counter my opponent's argument that rivers change I would like to agree that rivers change. It is a part of what they are. If the fish and rocks and water didn't move it wouldn't be a river. Therefore to jump in the same river twice, for it to be a river both times, you Must end up jumping in different water with the rocks and fish having moved. To counter my opponent's argument about people I will say that if break my nose people will think I am different. There is no way to get around that. I am a slightly different person. I have new memories and have been through that experience. And it has changed me. But I am still me. I have changed but I am still the same person. And finally I would like to thank my opponent for posting this interesting debate. It is fun to argue these subjects.
You can't jump in the same river twice

Now, my opponent stated that " if someone asks you what river the Thames is you will say the Thames. If they ask you the same question a few seconds later you will give them the same response. You won't say "This is the Thames of now and that was the Thames of five seconds ago. " That is one of the similarities between the river you jumped into first and the river you jumped into the second time but the river isn't the same it has changed a tiny bit. Next my opponent said that" the fish are the fish, the rocks are the rocks, the water is the water". So let' say for example, my personality, my organs, my eyes, my nose all of that is a part of me just like the fish, the rocks and the water it is all part of the river. Finally my opponent stated that " if you break my nose I am still me. I do not become some other person I am still the same person, the river is the same river". You are a different person after you broke your nose but you are not a completely different person so people wouldn't you are a different person because they would think it means a completely different person. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
superman is the most powerful character than all other fake characters

Its not often, in fact its extremely rare. However, Batman has defeated Superman. He has lost quite a few times. Here he loses to Nuclear Man the villain in Superman 4 In Superman 3 he lost to a super computer and had to be saved by a human being. Here he is killed by Lex Luthor. Here he lost to Metallo All of Superman's strength, it wasn't enough to save Lois with it. Amazo not only defeated Superman but every single effort from the entire Justice League. Superman is neither the most powerful character or unbeatable.
superman is the most powerful character than all other fake characters

I'm not sure if you're saying that Superman is unbeatable or that he's simply the most powerful overall character than anyone other character. Any omnipotent character is overall more powerful than Superman. The truly omnipotent characters are The Presence and The One Above All. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://marvel.wikia.com... PR Beyonder is omnipotent capable of tanking an attack stated to be able to destroy billions of dimensions. Characters who could arguably defeat Superman and actually has defeated Superman are Runner The Hulk Galactus The Spectre The Phantom Stranger The Atom Doctor Fate Doomsday Amazo Lex Luthor Atlas Muhammad Ali Hawkman General Zod Shazam Orion Wonder Woman Martian Manhunter potentially any Green Lantern THE SENTRY Superman's first fight with Doomsday ended with them both dying. The second fight ended with Superman losing and having to send him to the end of time. The list could go on until I maxed out the characters allowed in the debate. http://comicvine.gamespot.com... Superman is neither unbeatable nor is he the most powerful character ever.
Rap Battle.

They say there is not greater weapon then a Marine with his M16,Here to dump karoseen,All over your home and make the greatest flames ever seen,Imma take your girl and do the Charlie Sheen.I'm the Creator,I'll take you down like Arnold Schwarzenegger,It's time for me to end you, call me Terminator,Unforunately you won't be back, I won't see yah later.Teffehuden is German for Marines and Hell Hound.You're gonna lose this harder than Japan, you're destiny boundYour game still ain't found,Imma take ya and show you how BEN drown.Imma light you up like the NVA in Vietnam.Seek and destroy, just like Hams.Call me Goku Cuz here comes the Spirit Bomb.Hell I'm smoking you like Cheech and Cong.After I beat you here, I'll put you back on the shelf.Do you like Robbin Williams and hang yourself.Like an Arthur Miller anti-Utopian Society.Imma hand you a loss in every varriaty.
Rap Battle.

Flip ya lid, call me SId Vicious how I approach and slit Your throat and slaughter these bars And launch you straight past the aliens on mars Caught shooting like Kurt Cobain You won't have Obamacare to end your pain This may be Armistice Day 11/11 But I'll slap you with an illness call me 7/11 When the times start changing and you need to stand tall I'll knock you down just like the Berlin Wall Afterwards I'll split you and gut you like a fish But at least you'll get one last chance from Make-A-Wish I'm so formidable ISIS soiled their pants When they heard I was coming they said "we're gonna have ants" Winter is coming- no it's just your worst enemy Watch out cause I can sting just like a sea anemone
Rap Battle.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,You want me in a rap battle then so be it.Unlike Jesus, you won't have a Resurrection.How could I lose to a guy who can't get an errection.From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.I can school yo a$$ anywhere from Africa to Hawaii.Go and try to flee,I'll make sure I hang you one last time, from a tree.I'm the king of this site, I even schooled STALIN,I'm set set for life with free schooling, housing, and retirement. Hell I'm ballin',Speaking of school Cuz your skills are lackin'.You better back out Cuz you know that I'm packin'.Got a 9mm, an AR, and an AK 47.Make one false move I'll blow a hole through the Stairway to heaven.You ain't nobody, not skilled just someone who works at a 7-11.You shouldn't have challenged me Cuz now it's Armageddon.My rhyming skills are so cynic,Call me St.Jude's Cuz I'm Puting on a clinic.I don't care if I've hurt your feelin' Cuz I'm a pr*ck.I hand out so many a$$ beetings they call me St.Nick.
Rap Battle.

I make fast easy cheddar and I'm quick with a knife Don't reach youngblood or you may lose your life I'll snap into you like a Slim Jim At a whim I got some biblical rhymes, call me Busta I can't deny, because I'm a hustla I shut you down like the Legion of Boom I'll annihilate you, call me the Legion of Doom Enough about me now what about you I'll see what you got in your head and see what you can do
Darth Bane's "Rule of Two" was a better sith philosiphy then Darth Krayt's "Rule of One."

I look forward to this debate with you. ^^ I'm glad another Sith fan is out there. "The sith are all about secrecy, cunning, and minipulation." --> That depends on the group of sith at the time. E.g. Yes, I would say that the Sith Triumvirate was mostly built on secrecy. However, Revan's Sith Empire was not. He used conversions and war to spread his empire, not assassination. "it demamded that a sith be more cunning and deceptive then ever." --> Not necessarily. The Ro2 only limited this because only the master and apprentice got stronger, while the sith adepts, minions, marauders, and sub-lords fainted in power. The Ro1 was made to strengthen the Sith group entirely, not just 2 people. By exercising full power, they can work on expanding the empire, while all the minions are under the DLS's thumb. "The reson Bane began this order was because in the past the sith were too stagnant and disorganized. Examples like how Malak betreyed Revan and began a war that shook the foundations of the galaxy, Nihlus and Sion betreyed Traya, and the great hyperspace wars, are testemant to this fact. The sith were too random, too spread out, and bore too many conflicting beliefs, and desires." --> The Ro1 would have worked better in this circumstance. With only 1 ruling, then it creates stability within the empire. Your argument can be used against the Ro2 because there was always destabilization because rulers were being dethroned all the time. E.g. Revan and Malak. If Revan had used the Ro1, he probably would have survive the Jedi boarding party, and would have destroyed the Republic. (Yay ^^) Argument: "Instead of two there is now only one—the Sith Order itself. I have recreated the Sith, Lord Bane, as you once did. I have given it a purpose. For what use is power without one?" - Darth Kryat --> Absolute Loyalty to the DLS --> Reducing the chance of many sith teachings all at once --> Easier to create an empire --> the Ro1 had more followers because the Ro2 led to too many killings which was the cause of sith destabilization. Thank you ladies and gentlemen
Darth Bane's "Rule of Two" was a better sith philosiphy then Darth Krayt's "Rule of One."

Hey CiRrO, I noticed you were into the whole sith scene and I figured you'd be one of the few on thid site to know about this topic. Even though your a Republican, Catholic, which is like my polar opposite in every way, I thik we'd make good friends in reality. I hope you accept my challenege on this debate. Darth Bane's Ro2 is a much greater philosiphy then Krayt's Ro1. The sith are all about secrecy, cunning, and minipulation. They had been like this as long as most sith can remember and Bane took that to the next level with his Ro2 philosiphy, because it demamded that a sith be more cunning and deceptive then ever. Darth Krayt completely screwed all that up when he created his Ro1 with his new sith order. Considering the damage the Republic had sustained from the clone wars, the galactic civil war, and the yuuzhan vong war, taking a more political approach like Sidious, would have been eaiser then starting an all new order to destroy the republic. Sith had been following the Ro2 since [roughly] 1050 BBY to 130 ABY and had been doing just fine ever since. Even Krayt's holocrons of Bane and Andeddu [or something like that] scolded him for abolishing their order. The reson Bane began this order was because in the past the sith were too stagnant and disorganized. Examples like how Malak betreyed Revan and began a war that shook the foundations of the galaxy, Nihlus and Sion betreyed Traya, and the great hyperspace wars, are testemant to this fact. The sith were too random, too spread out, and bore too many conflicting beliefs, and desires. Not only that but the many sith adepts and troopers that served beneth them made waging war with each other that much eaiser. Banes order made these problems a thing of the past, but with Darth Krayt's rule all of that was compromised. Thats all I have to say for now. I'm saving the rest of my argument for the rest of the debate, assuming my opponant accepts.
Discrimination should be stopped immediately

I have been talking about the effects of discrimination and right now let's move to the cause of discrimination. So,yeah, why do we discriminate? Maybe because we would like to feel superior than others or maybe we want to destroy his/her reputation and by a chance of 80% the person is mental. We are all human beings and we must love and respect each other not fighting and discriminating, if we continue this system of discriminating then the tendency is the human system will fail and be corrupted. We are all the same , we are all equal, we have to start loving each other and also, if you discriminate, please think before you utter those foul words because with just those words a friendship may fall or a relationship may break. I hope that every being on earth will see the true meaning of discrimination and try to think before making a choice by discriminating.
Discrimination should be stopped immediately

Being racist or a sexist or even discriminating was not created by God but was created by human nature itself. Thus, we can conclude that it is not natural. If that's the case, then we can also remove/demolish the act of discriminating . "With great cause comes great effect" It is believed to say whatever doings you did will always have an effect. What happens or what is the effect of discriminating others? Have you ever thought of what may happen if you discriminated? People will obviously get sad because they are being discriminated although some may take it as a teaching but some may also take it as an insult leading to rage and later to revenge and worse comes to worse, death. The ones being discriminated might also have lower self-esteem . E.g , let's use the muslims as an example(no offense) , what happens if you discriminate them and the society. A continuation of the example, if you discriminated them by saying that they couldn't do anything because they're just Muslims then their self-esteem maygo down , they migh think that they can't do anything. All human beings are unique and painted with colorful abilities and we must all have higher self-esteem because we are gifted.