BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Certain Cases, Censorship is Necessary

Within a community, we are born into a social contract. Within this social contract the community at large expects certain things to be upheld. With these expectations, the moral standards within the community formed. As these moral standards are developed, we trust that our fellow members within our society upholds themselves in reputable manner. The key to this, is that we have to trust that this will happen. Yes, we can adopt legal enforcement, which we have done. Yet, we trust the legal authorities to serve our best interest. This expectation of trust would then also be extended to our Government, which again exists to protect our best interest. However, our Government does not exist to shield us in what "they" think is in the best interest of the public. Again the Government serves the people and has the expectation to inform its community of items or topics of any nature. Censorship in the manner you are presenting it would be deceit (lying) because you claim a governing body should be able to omit factual information. A government that lies to its public, is self-serving and emulating tyranny. If the public does not trust its government due to its lies (which you suggest it does), the social contract begins to diminish and the community begins to regress to a former lower less developed self - domino effect. There"s a reason why we have the laws that we do. The European Enlightenment (greatly due to tyrant governments like Great Britain) heavily influenced out constitutional rights because communities throughout the globe wanted to strip the Governments power and place it into the hands of the public., A Government that chooses what to inform its masses on (which you suggest) would only betray the trust of its people, which in no means increases the stability of its nation" which you suggest. Transparency is the key. Informing people of important topics doesn"t mean they would be able to make decisions with devastating results, it just gives them a chance to have an educated opinion and then cast it out for others to hear. Whereas deceiving its people". Well... history has explained that situation many times over. Deceit: "the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth. " Again, Deceit is not the key to a stable community.
In Certain Cases, Censorship is Necessary

This debate is not 'Giving Rights Up for Security', it is a branch for the necessity of censorship for national stability. So please, do not start an argument for Rights to Security. Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals to Arguments Round 3: Finishing Statements I believe that censorship under specific cases is necessary. A primary argument of mine is that many people of the masses are uneducated and do not have the educational or mental stability in order to process and formulate a valid opinion based on truth or other opinions. My opponent may argue that we can simply 'educate the masses' but that is an extremely long and expensive process with no guarantee of working. It is also considered by some as an indoctrination and frowned upon by an international community that treasures freedom of speech. By truth, I mean that when a nation suffers a devastating attack, for example, some details would have to be blurred out in order to maintain public stability. This of course varies to how powerful or weak the attack is, the details of the attack, and such things corresponding. Regardless, censorship is 'justified' when exercised with caution and only in appropriate situations which is necessary to preserve the stability of a nation. In terms of opinions, people may have anarchist beliefs which is detrimental to the stability and order of a nation. If a person gathers enough influence and has the ability of mass persuasion, no matter how violent or anti-government it may be, censorship is the most effective tool in order to remove a negative influence to gathering power. Do NOT accuse me of advocating for absolute oppression, that is not my point, (Although I do believe that freedom of speech is a careful topic and not all people should have that much freedom of expression if it comes at the cost of the stability of a nation whose interests are the protection of its people.) My argument is that censorship is a tool necessary in order to preserve the stability of a nation and its interests, as long as it doesn't encroach to close to people's line of oppressive manners.
Should dislexic people be allowed extra time in exams

I do not mean to discriminate I just feel that there is a certain injustice to those who have not got this disability. Giving people unlimited time in an exam does not reflect the real world in any way does it. It is not the persons fault that they have such an ability, but in real,life if a dyslexic person wee to go for a job in a firm, because of their disability are you saying that the employer should give them extra time because it is not fair? Should somebody read out every detail to them, because it is not fair? We can baby disabilities in school and fight for extra time, but the fact in the real world is that nobody in the business world is going to provide somebody with extra time just for the sake of their disability. Having teachers to help those with disabilities I am all for, but I feel that it is unjust to those people without disabilities, those who have an A that they will have worked hard for with a time limit and somebody with a mild disability is getting the A too because of having double time. It is not a fair portrayal to employers either. Also I feel that if we are to give dyslexic people extra time we are to note by their result that they have got extra time, just so that people have and idea or know. I know many people that are allowed extra time when they can work just as fast as your average Joe Bloggs because of a test saying that they are mildly dyslexic, they do not need extra time but of corse they claim it. Is that fair or just on the rest of us? Tests give us a portrayal of how we are at subjects we all have our weaknesses, but should we be allowed extra time for doing so? I know many dyslexic people who have A* at GCSEs in English. Do you think they are at this level or stage in REAL life? No of corse they aren't but because of extra time in these tester they come across as wiz kids at English. And what about tests like maths which I know for a fact dyslexic people do not have a problem with, what about the fact that they get unnecessary extra time then? Dyslexia has also been clinically proven to be a disability that can be overcome. Ones brain can be trained as it were 'out of dyslexia', so for those who feel they have it tough they can get rid of it and for those who simply can't be bothered, why should they get extra time if they cannot be bothered?
Should dislexic people be allowed extra time in exams

Yes, let's begin. I think that it is unfair that dyslexic people are given extra time for exams and yet if I were to look at take GCSE results for example I may look at a dyslexic persons results compared to a normal persons results and see that they are the same, so I take the dyslexic person on for the job in preference due to other things on their CV. This is not a fair portrayal as someone who is dyslexic will take possibly twice as long to do a job and will be less capable to do a job than a non-dyslexic person. In real life a dyslexic person would not be given an extra week to get that presentation done due to their condition would they?
Homosexuality is a gentic disorder, and should be treated like any other gentic disorder.

To start i would like to publicly state I am not a gay or homosexual basher, I believe all people should enjoy the freedoms that this country offers. Let me state a couple things I have heard many arguments that homosexuals bring up; and one that i want to put to debate is this, Homosexuals state that they are born the way they are. My stand is this; No you can not be born gay, unless its considered a genetic disorder. Being born gay is stating that homosexuality is a Gene within our DNA. If somebody states that there "born gay" then that means his/her parents must have been gay, but if the parents were gay, then they would have never married each other. If the person was born gay, and the parents weren't gay, then that states a genetic mutation within that persons gene's, that is not found within the parents (since the parents had to be hetro to have a child). This is a genetic disorder that should be treated. -1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: "…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."
free will

Unfortunatly my opponent has forfeited this debate. All I will say is free will can be defined as many things. From thoughts to feelings to actions. Everyone who is reading this right now is doing so as an act of free will. They do not have to read anything, but they chose to. Some may say breathing is not an act of free will. Though it is true that your body automatically regulates your breathing, as long as you are concious you can choose not to breath. If that isn't free will then I'm not sure what would qualify.
free will

"Free Will" is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware"or failing that, being culpably unaware"of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. " The debate tittle is a statement rather than a question. My opponent has made the claim that free will does not exist in any universe. Such a statement includes infinite variables and points of view. Therefore the BOP is on con for this debate. I accept this challenge and I wish the greatest of success to my opponent. So lets do this. http://plato.stanford.edu...
free will

Nothing in this (or any other) universe has a free will. Just as an apple seed must develop into an apple tree and do exactly what apple trees do humans are likewise so obliged. Some humans do "believe" they have a free will, some humans "believe" a lot of things like what's in the bible however when it comes to that thing called 'truth' they get tongue tied. Just as the Big Bang was "Orchestrated" by some mysterious "intelligent" entity I shall call "the uncreated creator" everything after the BB was so intended to unfold a specific way as did the speed of light and gravity. It is this fear of helplessness that is responsible for the rejection of free will by some humans. They were programmed to so believe just as they were programmed to do & believe everything else they do. If you understand the use of "heuristic" which I invoked to arrive at this conclusion you'll know my trip.
WAR ON TERRORISM!!!!

<<< >>>>>>>> Let's not be ridiculous. The President has no such right, and if, for example, he wanted to go to war with Iran he would have to go through our checks and balances all over again. <<< >>>> Well I incited you to start this debate because you stated you did not support the war on terrorism. Now, if you don't think the war in Iraq is a true war on terrorism, then it shouldn't enter our debate. Point is, we agree Iraq is NOT war on terror, so now let's check out what is and see why you don't want it. <<<<<<<<< http://en.wikipedia.org....... this shows that when completed with Afghanistan he moved on putting troops into foreign territory>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand how the link relates to G.W.B. because this bill you provided the link for is from 1991. <<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>> I thought we were settled that Al-Qaeda made the attack. Unless you're one of those conspiracy maniacs who I love debating. You can debate me on the 9/11 attack conspiracy separately. Meanwhile, thank you for this debate.
WAR ON TERRORISM!!!!

i apologize for my misprint. what i was referring to was the quote The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" from wikipedia. this basically says that any county he says planned 9/11 he could commit war against. now that is rectified i would like to ask if you just ignored my whole argument i just made. you gave a flimsy excuse saying that "Bush's "war on terrorism" was a distraction from the REAL war on terrorism we should be having." the whole point of 'my rant' as you call it was to tell you that Bush made the war on terrorism and i am against what he made it. that was the whole point of this debate. i don't care about the the REAL war on terrorism we SHOULD be having, it is what is happening NOW that concerns this debate. an what is happening now.... take this link and see another bill that was passed. http://en.wikipedia.org.... this shows that when completed with Afghanistan he moved on putting troops into foreign territory without any sort of permission and taking advantage of the bill he got passed to fight the people who started 9/11. and by the way they STILL haven't found the person/ organization who did it.
WAR ON TERRORISM!!!!

You start off saying < > Then you went on this rant about the bill A.U.M.F. I do not support this bill like you said, and I don't see the connection between this bill and the war on terrorism. Bush's "war on terrorism" was a distraction from the REAL war on terrorism we should be having. You gave me the quote: "to punish all who HE THINKS may be part of the people who committed 9/11." But I didn't find that quote on the wikipedia article you referred to. It is not true that Bush has the right to punish whoever he thinks is responsible for 9/11, otherwise Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean would be sentenced to death :P. (not to mention all the comedians that make a living off of his mistakes) This bill was basically permission to go into Iraq. What does this have to do with the war on terrorism?
WAR ON TERRORISM!!!!

well, let us define 'the war on terrorism'. i will quote from Wikipedia ""AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups." so what you are supporting when you are arguing against me is a bill that was passed by bush of all people to take revenge on the people who caused 9/11. once at these places he did not find what he was looking for and while he was there took oil from it. from there he expanded and as you will see in the titles of today the war on terrorism has become a slogan to try to get people in favor of the war. i would also like to say that this bill gives bush the right "to punish all who HE THINKS may be part of the people who committed 9/11.
WAR ON TERRORISM!!!!

Well if you are not against the concept, why does it say so on your profile? The issue is simple: "Do you support the war on terrorism?" I do, I believe we must fight terrorists. Either fight them or negotiate (they usually don't really want to negotiate, and that's the problem). When you are asked "Do you support the war on terrorism?", answer with your own interpretation of what the war on terrorism is. Apparently you don't believe the war in Iraq can be considered war on terrorism. So the war in Iraq is a different topic, now tell me why you wouldn't support the fight against terrorists.
should kids be paid to go to school

PRO stated that they should have a student bank account, and that students can only take out $20 for his/her needs. $20/week? $20/day? $20 for his/her needs? As I stated at round 1 that the needs are the parents' responsibilities, and orphans or kids with less fortunate parents have a lot of organizations that would help them. There's a huge difference between "wants" and "needs". PRO stated about the loss of trees to make money. And this is against PRO's case. PRO stated that if kids get paid to go to school so that they buy school supplies for themselves would make them grow up to be more mature and responsible. I disagree with this one. They'd be spending money they didn't earn, might as well call it "easy money". This won't make them more mature and responsible, it's just spoiling them. If they're not paid to go to school, they'd work to buy what they "want" if they're parents doesn't want to spoil them much. And that would be making them more mature and responsible. If they worked to buy what they "want" instead of asking their parents for everything. PRO stated that if kids could provide for themselves, they would stop nagging at their parents for stuff(Candy, soda, clothes, books, treats). Again, this would be spoiling them. Kids should learn to be satisfied with what they have, and stop begging for their parents to buy them stuffs they "want". Parents should be able to provide their kids clothes. Candy, treats, and soda are basically something that the kid "wants", they're not a necessity. Books? As long as they're educational books, I don't see any reason for the parents to not buy them. And if the parents are not able to buy the certain book the kid wants, I say it again, kids should learn to appreciate what they have. There are a lot of public libraries everywhere where you can find good books, and read them for free. PRO hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and I've countered all of PRO's arguments. Your turn PRO.
should kids be paid to go to school

you make a good statement as i said i do agree with con i left out that the government pays the children in Pre-10th but the government would let them have a student bank account like for lunches you have a school lunch account so you can purchase lunch or something extra, but the catch is that a student can only take $20 out of the account for his or her needs. So basically there would be a student bank. Now one thing that is bad about it is loss of trees. Many environment friendly people such as myself would be against this. but if we grow more trees before we cut the other ones down we will have a unlimited amount of trees for the paper which is for the money. I am just free flowing it I have no resources but i will in the next round. I do agree con it is the parents responsibility to pay for the students school supplies but if the student experience this kind of responsibility they will grow up to be very mature and responsible in the future as adults. So many people think this is a bad idea I do to but just think about a world were parents get paid for them not their children. the kids could provide for themselves. Then we would stop nagging our parents for stuff. Like candy,soda,clothes,books,treats and stuff. I do respect your opinion CON, you give a good argument and helpful resources to help support you argument. I do agree but this just a fun topic to debate on. This one is just random. YOUR TURN CON
should kids be paid to go to school

There were no conditions set, so I will start my round one with arguments. Against: Kids should be paid to go to school. You didn't include who's going to pay them whether the government or the school, but here are my arguments. 1. Kids shouldn't be paid to go to school, the better solution would be making education on all levels free. Primary education in most countries is already free, there are also some countries where college education is already free. 2. If you're referring to preschoolers, elementary students, and high school students when you say "kids". And they should be paid so that they can buy school supplies. That is the parents' responsibilities. 3. You're saying that kids should be paid, so that they can buy things that they want. There is a huge difference in "want" and "need". The "needs" should be provided by the parents, and the "wants" is something they should work for. If you want something; don't beg for it, earn it. 4. If kids get paid to go to school, they will have a source of money. Money is a powerful thing, and giving kids money would most likely lead to terrible things. Illegal drugs, and alcohol would be easily obtained (it is already easy) by teenagers if they have enough money to pay someone to buy it for them. 5. If kids get paid to go to school, some terrible parents would abuse their kids to extort money from them. This would result to more child violence. It would be like their parents live off of their kids' money. They will have them go to school so that they can bring in money. 6. If kids get paid to go to school, they will stop wanting to work. It is quite ironic. We study to get degrees, and apply them into the real world (to work). But if we're getting paid to go to school, we wouldn't want to work anymore. 7. People go to school because they want to learn or to get a better job. If kids get paid to go to school, some kids(especially teenagers) will just do it for the money, not for the sake of learning. 8. For the kids that doesn't have parents or have parents with low income, there are a lot of organizations(Bill Gates foundation for example) that's already helping them get to school and to provide their needs. So not paying kids to go to school shouldn't be a problem. 9. Paying kids to go to school would nullify scholarships. The kids on scholarship study hard to maintain their grades so that their scholarship won't get revoked. Most kids these days doesn't even have the thirst for knowledge already, and paying them would just make it worse. I believe I've already stated adequate reasons to why kids shouldn't be paid to go to school. Your turn PRO. References #8 http://www.more4kids.info... https://en.wikipedia.org...
should kids be paid to go to school

Now I know all kids are thinking yes but adults no that's ridiculous but if us kids were paid for going to school then we would be able to buy supplies for school (books,pens,pencils,notebooks ect.) and some kids would be able to live in a nicer home or buy things that they want but can't have like a skateboard or something like that who ever is con is probably right we shouldn't due to loss of trees and then having to have money given to every kid in the world. But if we all did we would be able to travel more and go places give money to school for fundraisers and to have more books in library's and better classrooms for the students. I know it would be hard to do and accomplish but just imagine getting paid to go to school and then having a wonderful school were you can afford anything like bigger gyms or bigger school for instance there are some schools that are very small like some preschools are so small that not many kids can go to that preschool or like elementary school at some of them you have share a classroom nowadays there are pods and floors but those floors and pods cost a lot but if kids were paid then you can make that school bigger and better.