BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Speech on Public Colleges

Frankly, it makes no sense for me to be going first in this debate, so I'm gonna keep this very short. My opponent's case will almost certainly focus on "hate speech" and "uncivil discourse," so I'll go ahead and focus my case on that stuff as well. PREMISE -- The purpose of a college education is to prepare students to live productive lives in the real world. I argue that any attempt at restricting free speech is counter-productive to that end. In the real world, people can say virtually anything they want to say. People have the right to aggressively and uncivilly challenge your views. They have the right to insult your intelligence, to spew toxic vitriol at you, and to say stuff that makes you feel bad about who you are. And people often do exercise those rights. That's how our society works. To restrict such behavior on college campuses is to deprive students of the opportunity to learn how to cope with that reality. It deprives them of an educational experience which is crucial in learning how to maintain their emotional stability, as they navigate their way through a world that's largely indifferent to their sensitivities. There is absolutely no reason to protect college students from anything that adults have to deal with. Doing so only leaves them less prepared to live their lives after graduating, which is unacceptable. I rest my case.
Free Speech on Public Colleges

IntroRomanii applied to debate me on this topic and on these sides through my "You Choose the Topic" debate challenge. As an interesting bit of trivia, if Romanii accepts this debate, this would be our 7th time debating each other. I think that this topic is particularly interesting and timely, and I look forward to engaging him on the subject. He's an excellent debater, and I look forward to a fun round.In order to ensure quality judging, I have nominated the following judges: Tej, FT, Whiteflame, Warren, Max, and Danielle. Those judges, by accepting this debate, agree to set aside their personal views on the topic and to adjudicate the round as impartially as they can; they also agree to refrain from discussing their vote or the outcome of the debate with any third party or the debaters themselves before casting their ballot. If Romanii would like to have this list altered in any way, he should inform me before the start of the debate. The voting period lasts 14 days.TopicPublic colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speechTermsPublic - of or relating to a governmentCollege and University - an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degreesOught - expresses moral obligationConstitutionally Protected Speech - any class or category of speech which the speaker has a constitutionally protected right to say (as guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments). The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what classes of speech are protected by the constitution. Common exceptions to free speech protections include: obscenity, fighting words, true threats, age restrictions on adult content, and defamation. That list is not exhaustive, but in general the US legal system has historically erred on the side of not restricting speech. Hate speech, as a class of speech, is protected by the constitution.Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Pro must post their arguments in R1 and waive in R411. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR4. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Romanii for the debate. Looking forward to an intriguing debate!
why is gay marriage such a big issue

You know man it is common to worry about the next life but I am with you. I live it to the fullest but try to hold good virtues that if there is an afterlife, will be recognized and rewarded. Being a good person doesn't have to be because you trying not to go to hell, its just how people should. There is a lot of evil people out there and it is up to us good folks to enjoy life, worry about death or not, and help others as much as we can. Don't take this the wrong way but I have met many atheist people and they seem kind of jerky to me. Kind of like whats the point of life? I want to do what I want giving no care for others, like really selfish and mean. I dont know why they are like this cause we all just trying to live the way we want. Your thoughts?
why is gay marriage such a big issue

oh yeah i know you weren't trying to take a shot at me or anything...apology accepted yeah but i see what you mean about kids being adopted by gay couples and how much that would suck for the kid lol yeah, not going to hell is a pretty good reason to believe in god but one reason why that doesn't affect me much is that if i worry too much about what will happen when i die, then i won't be focusing on how to live a good life now, when i am alive lol
why is gay marriage such a big issue

I totally understand that and I didn't know you were atheist, so do not think I tried to take a shot at you. I wanted to also note that you said people shouldn't have a small dick and ignore it lol but it is hard to ignore it when you see gay couples being married on TV or when your young child comes home asking how two men married can make a baby. I think you can kinda understand where I am going with this, it is just such a difficult, touchy situation. I am fascinated with religion as well although many people have tried to disprove the existence of a god...I would rather believe in something like 3/4 of the world does as well than be wrong and spend a life in hell you kind of see what I am saying?
why is gay marriage such a big issue

I just want to start off by saying I am for gay marriage because it doesn't bother me. However, as for looking at the other side and being from a very right family, I can tell you why its an. Many Americans would say that our nation was founded by men of great religious beliefs. This being said, you have to admit that our government has actually come a long way and giving the benefits to gay couples as far health and insurance benefits. Now they want to be recognized by the church as being "married". This is where many people draw the line. They feel that the moral collapse of America starts with the idea that marriage is no longer between just a man and a woman. People think this is sick and claim that not even animals constantly mate with the same sex so why should we permit such an act. Also, why is it fair for say, the Catholic church to change centuries of sacred marriage ceremonies if they don't want too. Especially if they and the bible are total against the idea of gay marriage. By making them change and have to take on these ceremonies through a government law would be illegal in the sense that the government is getting involved in religious institutions. As much as atheist hate religion, it has to be recognized that over 66% of American citizens believe in some sort of higher being. So with all this said, it is a big deal for many people to have their children subject to such confusion as to what marriage really is.
Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

First off, in every debate format I've ever seen (Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Policy) the second speaker always addresses their opponent after they first make their arguments, but it all happens in the same round. Next, While private colleges do have a bit more room to bend the constitution, no one has the right to completely nullify it. Going back to your Movie Theater example, the hypothetical person in your example caused a disruption that interfered with the intended activity at the theater. This is not constitutionally protected. (see Bethel V. Fraser. ) Also, the resolution specifically mentions Public colleges and universities not private. And finally, while Colleges are increasingly becoming places where people are indoctrinated into a specific ideology, freedom of speech would allow us to challenge this ideology and form our own opinions and choose what we believe for ourselves taking into account all of the possible arguments and all of the possible viewpoints. Stifling specific viewpoints by curtailing free speech would increase the number of people that are successfully indoctrinated.
Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

In most debates you don't respond to your opponent until after you made your case. Apparently those were not the terms of the debate. Either way my argument was that colleges are private property and they can make their own rules this may not apply to government colleges- but most colleges are private. Furthermore, see what they teach those kids- and see how those kids turn out and what kinds of kids go in there- colleges today are most certainly brain washing camps and there is no doubt about it.
Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

To begin I would like to point out my opponent's dropped arguments. My opponent has not attacked my contentions except for when I talked about dissenting speech. Since I don't have much to defend, I will immediately move to attack my opponents case then defend my point. My opponent has stated that since a Movie theater can throw you out if you give a speech during a movie it should then equate to universities being able to silence students. This is, however, completely irrelevant. a Movie Theater is a private institution whereas a public college or university is a part of the state government. While the Movie theater has the right to refuse service, the university does not. They must abide by free speech laws. However, even in public colleges certain speech is not constitutionally protected. take the landmark supreme court case Schenck v. U.S. in which the Supreme Court decided that free speech can be context dependent; such as speech that is intent to promote or incite violence or panic. Next, my opponent states that dissenting speech is getting in the way of a proper brainwashing. However, that clearly isn't what College is for. College is meant to be a place where ideas flow and transfer, where our young people develop into pragmatists rather than ideologues and it is limitations on free speech that block the true purpose of higher education, not free speech itself.
Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

All rights are based in property rights, {1} and if you are in a movie theatre, and stand up to give a speech- they will throw you out because everyone there came to watch a movie, and not hear you speak. Likewise, colleges should be able to censor speech because- why do you think people go there? People don't go to colleges to hear dissenting opinions, they go to colleges to get brainwashed- and your dissenting speech is getting in the way of that!{1}. https://mises.org...
Forcing American Japanese into Internment Camps during WWII was the correct decision.

"much of our forces were being pushed farther, and farther back" The US forces were not being pushed very far back. I will remind you that the Japanese losses were horrendous compared to that of the US. The American victory at the Battle of Midway turned the tide (which was already weak). "Also with the help of Japanese sympathizers, Japanese Submarines were able to attack a lot of American towns and Bases." This is a very vague claim that is not backed by any source or fact. "invasions that took place with the help of spies even though they were proposed useless by my opponent." These spies were sent in by Japanese during the war. They were not US citizens that had lived in America for years. "Submarines attacks on Santa Barbra, and on Fort Stevens can be directly related to the intervention of hidden spies in America pre-planning the attacks, and relaying information." I read up about the attack on Fort Stevens and Santa Barbra and nothing about the "intervention of hidden spies" was mentioned. http://www.school-for-champions.com... http://www.historylink.org... "I ask you not to vote on the basis of Moral swaying and pot-shots made by my opponent but rather to vote using intellect and reasoning, and to understand that this decision was not made lightly but rather with the intent of preserving our nation, our land, and our people." In persuasion, there is ethos, pathos and logos. Logos is logic, Ethos is credibility and Pathos is emotion. Especially in a situation like this, Pathos (emotion) is a large part of the argument and I do not see the problem. If you disregard emotion, then my opponent could argue that stabbing a child to death is fine because according to logic, 20 more children are born within the minute. Stabbing a child is not fine because we are humans and have morals, which happen to be one of the only things that separate us from animals. Also, my opponent is not in a position to judge whether or not this decision was made lightly. Not only was the forcing of Japanese Americans into internment camps a morally low decision, but it was also completely unnecessary. The US had all the means to defeat the Japanese Empire, as shown by history. I would also like to note that my opponent has not provided a single source to support any of his arguments.
Forcing American Japanese into Internment Camps during WWII was the correct decision.

"while concentrating primarily on the moral dilemma that this situation posed." Morality happens to be a very large part of this problem. "In the Pacific at the time the U.S. really had no power." The US fleet was equal, if not superior (as considered by many) to that of the Japanese at the time. ____________________US____ Japan Aircraft carriers: ____8_______4 Battleships:_________17______12 Destroyers:________171_____169 Cruisers:____________37_____ 44 Plus, the US had an additional Patrol Craft and Mine Warfare force of 153 ships. http://www.navsource.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... There was not such a sharp need or risk as my opponent portrays. "as much of our fleet had been destroyed at Pearl Harbor" 3 battleships were sunk and 16 other ships damaged. This is no where near "much of our fleet". http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... "if even 10 of those 130,000 people were spies." A civilian spy is nearly useless. If these were US officers in military, then I would understand. "Forced with the decision to either place 130,000 in Camps, or subject our whole entire culture to an onslaught by Japanese forces" This is an exaggeration. The Japanese military was not so powerful. During the Pacific War, Japan suffered 1,740,000 casualties while the US only took 111,000. This shows that the Japanese threat was not so great. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com... "there was a very high chance that a large number of those 'Civilians' could have been providing very important information to the Japanese." Could you please show some examples of important information that the Japanese-American civilians could have provided? "up to this point besides a moral plea you have failed to provide cold hard facts that derail my argument." I would like to note that my opponent has also provided no reasoning for the internment other than a vague, potential threat by the Japanese with no numbers or actual facts to back it up. This "potential threat" was relatively weak as I showed above. A combination of superior US strategy and technology gave Japan almost no chance. D-Day showed how difficult it is to mount an amphibious invasion. Allies lost 4 times as many troops as Germany. This can be applied to my opponent's idea of a potential Japanese amphibious invasion and shows that it would be almost impossible. The Japanese threat that my opponent speaks of is impractical. Numbers show that Japan took very heavy losses when mainly defending, these losses would be even greater when aggressively attacking the US.
Forcing American Japanese into Internment Camps during WWII was the correct decision.

Your feedback, and more importantly our discussion around this pivotal topic in U. S. History, opens our minds and frees from being surrounded only by our opinions. One thing I would like to say about your argument is that it sidesteps a lot of the facts while concentrating primarily on the moral dilemma that this situation posed. If you had read my argument carefully you would understand that in no way, shape, or form was i disregarding the fact this was highly unconstitutional, and morally wrong. What I am saying though is that it was the decision that needed to be made. In the Pacific at the time the U. S. really had no power. When this Order was put into affect we were on the losing side. With no protection really from a full frontal attack, as much of our fleet had been destroyed at Pearl Harbor, we were forced to look at the Western Coast as our defensive area. With such a large population of people with direct Japanese decent we had the right to be worried about what might happen if even 10 of those 130,000 people were spies. What we did not have at the time though was the Intelligence, and Surveillance gear that we now have at our disposal. Forced with the decision to either place 130,000 in Camps, or subject our whole entire culture to an onslaught by Japanese forces was a difficult choice for Roosevelt. I do agree with you that Japanese Americans made great sacrifices that far outweighed most of the average Americans, but their internment was necessary. Also when you say that you do not see how imprisoning civilians protected Americans from an Invasion I suggest that you again reread my argument. I tried to make it clear that there was a very high chance that a large number of those 'Civilians' could have been providing very important information to the Japanese. The discussion topic is not whether this decision was ethical, or moral, but if this decision was right and up to this point besides a moral plea you have failed to provide cold hard facts that derail my argument. The culture we live I think we all agree outweighs the needs of the individual. We live in a Democracy where if the needs of majority are threatened by a small minority we must overlook them and protect our people and way of life as best we can. The Romans lived in a democracy yet understood that in times of war turned over all power to one Philosopher King, and although I don't think this is a good idea, I do believe there is something to be learned from it that we must make hard decisions when in a time of Emergency.
Forcing American Japanese into Internment Camps during WWII was the correct decision.

"Forcing 100,000 thousand Japanese into camps was and remains very unethical, but protecting America from the very real possibility at the time of a Japanese Amphibious invasion outweighed those concerns." First off, there were almost 130,000 of them. I do not see how imprisoning civilians in camps helped protect America from a Japanese Amphibious invasion. "The camps were no where near the atrocity levels of those in Germany" Yes, the camps were not the same as German concentration camps, but they were still in bad conditions. They were forced to live in tar-paper barracks with no plumbing or cooking facilities. "So we all made sacrifices" Not "all", only the innocent Japanese-Americans who were forced out of their homes. The only "crime" committed by these people was that they were of Japanese ancestry. They were forced to sell their homes and businesses, often for only a fraction of the real value. Even after these people were "free", they could not return to their homes because of the amount of hatred towards Japanese at the time. About two-thirds of these Japanese were actually Japanese-Americans who were born in the US. Even Japanese-American veterans of WW1 were forced to leave their homes. This is an immoral, unfair decision. There was no reason to make 130,000 people give up everything that they knew and live in poor conditions just because they were of Japanese ancestry. They committed no real crime, this was a decision made only out of paranoia. http://www.ushistory.org...
Forcing American Japanese into Internment Camps during WWII was the correct decision.

Not only was this correct decision, but it was the only decision. Roosevelt was a very diplomatic man who understood the Democratic preference that was needed in order to protect the majority of Americans. Forcing 100,000 thousand Japanese into camps was and remains very unethical, but protecting America from the very real possibility at the time of a Japanese Amphibious invasion outweighed those concerns. At this time in the war directly after Pearl Harbor, a large majority of our naval bases on small Pacific Islands had been taken out. Left with no early warning/defense system we as a nation were left to protect our own West Coast. With what could be described in some cases as an enemy behind our gates there was no need to run the risk of there being inside this large population enemy sympathizers, and even active participants in the Japanese Army such as spies. Roosevelt being left little to no other choice as acting President of the United States of America had to do his best to both protect and serve the Constitution. We forget that as time passes that it is easy to judge his decision. To plague it as out-dated, and morally wrong yet I argue that in fact he did his best to uphold some ethics in this situation. The camps were no where near the atrocity levels of those in Germany and although they were internment camps there were units comprised of only Japanese Soldiers that served in the European Theatre of combat. As I bring my opening statement to a close I leave you with a fact that this was a total war. Every facet of our nation was focused on winning a war, something that unless you're above 70 years old, have never felt. So we all made sacrifices, some big and some small, and we all made decisions some easy, and some hard that we had to make in order to continue on as the great nation we are.
Resolve: the U.S Federal Government should colonize Mars

What I meant by "economic activities" was the building of weapons factories and things that are killing the environment. I'd also like to add the fact that eventually we will end up in a nuclear war, and it will be up to what's left of the U.N. to save the survivers. I wasn't saying that the United States should, colonize Mars. I meant that the U.N. should. What's left of the world powers could help out as long as they don't go down fighting in the process. The birth rate has nothing to do wit this, but now that you mention it, it would cause the buildings to be slightly smaller than anticipated. But then again we could still make them big enough to leave room to let each civilization grow in population.