BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

Pro says the NSA stopped Najibullah Zazi. However, the evidence says otherwise. “The Associated Press’ Adam Goldman explained that the NSA program was very likely irrelevant – British intelligence had already identified an al Qaeda email address, and shared that information with U.S. officials. Zazi did, in fact, send an urgent message to that address, which ultimately led to his arrest before he could successfully murder a lot of people. So, what does this have to do with NSA surveillance, metadata, and PRISM? Given what we know, nothing. But maybe, the argument goes, British intelligence learned of the al Qaeda email address in the first place thanks NSA programs. Right? No, as it turns out, the address was found on a laptop when a different terrorist was captured in 2009. It appears, then, that conventional intelligence gathering saved the day” [1] The case from 2008 was from the NYSE potential bombing, which you dropped. As I showed in my last round, U.S. officials have stated the director misspoke. A member of the task force in charge of the NSA program is much more reliable than some FBI director’s comment. I never said having something to fear has to do with jobs. Anyway Pro claims I have said nothing about his you have nothing to hide argument. I'm unsure what debate Pro is reading, but I had an entire section on that argument in round 1, which was never objected to. The resolution doesn't say you have to prove the NSA is a good organization, but in order for your jobs argument to be valid, you need to prove that. As I’ve said before, creating jobs is not a good sole reason to continue anything. Crystal Meth cooking could employ thousands of chemists, but it shouldn’t be done. You have to prove the resolution in order for this argument to work. [1] http://www.msnbc.com...
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

First to start with the subway station yes bombing may have been stopped by police work but first as the guardian reported it was assisted by the NSA. In the fall of 2009, Joyce said, the NSA intercepted an e-mail from a suspected terrorist in Pakistan. That person was talking with someone in the United States "about perfecting a recipe for explosives," he said. Authorities identified Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi of Denver. The FBI followed him to New York and eventually broke up planning to attack the city's subway system. Zazi pleaded guilty and is currently in prison. That from cnn at an actual later date. So thus using a more recent source I win that argument. Also this happens in the fall of 2009 not sure where he got 2008. Also, there is no way an FBI director is a bad source. How having nothing to fear has anything to do with jobs I'm unsure. His argument says that I have to prove that the NSA is a good organization. I have however no where in the resolution does if say I have to. All it says is that the NSA should continue domestic surveillance. One of the reasons it should is because it provides jobs. Also on the nothing to hide argument. He never attacked this and I'm simply saying that if you have nothing to hide doing be afraid.
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

I have provided a source three times now refuting Pro’s claim. It specifically deals with Pro’s claim of the NSA preventing the subway bomber. One of the examples Alexander mentioned, the case of would-be New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi, appears to have been prevented by conventional police surveillance, including efforts by UK investigators. [1] Furthermore, court records disprove Pro’s claim “According to interviews and court records, the 2008 plot failed, not because the authorities broke it up, but because the alleged attackers decided against it. The Kansas City man’s attorney today said that Joyce’s comments were news to him. Among other things, his client pleaded guilty in 2010 to providing money — $23,000 in “material support” to Al-Qaida. He also pleaded to a count of money laundering and bank fraud, and is set for sentencing next month.” [2] Pro brushes off the task force’s report. I don’t think Pro understood this. This isn’t some guy who happens to be a part of the task force, he is the guy who is in charge of reviewing NSA programs. This was an official report, not some blogpost he wrote. Joyce is not a valid authority. “A U.S. official familiar with the case acknowledged that Joyce had "misspoke" about a jury finding. “ [3] Pro goes onto repeat the “you have nothing to fear” argument. However, he does nothing to respond to my objections from round 1. I have already refuted his argument. Simply providing jobs does not mean we should continue something. You must first demonstrate it is a good organization that should continue its surveillance. Ultimately, Pro’s jobs argument is only valid if he has already proven the resolution of the debate. Making it irrelevant. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.wired.com... [3] http://abcnews.go.com...
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

That's great someone on the task force believes that. However a deputy director of the FBI is more reliable. He said there is no way that the subway system could have been stopped without the NSA. Also again I go back to the fact that this should not be an issue if you have nothing to hide. Newsmax reported that ex director said that the der spiegeleisen story show that NSA is keeping Americans safe. Also BLS.gov reported that unemployment is at 7 percent. Anything we can do to help these people support their families is needed. As I have shown the NSA is good and it is a well paying job.
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

Pro expands his second argument by claiming the NSA has stopped several terrorist plots. I have already shown this is wrong in my previous round. Evidence has shown the NSA played little role in preventing these plans. “Gen Alexander's testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA's bulk phone records collection program helped thwart 'dozens' of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods," Wyden and Udall said in a statement. "The public deserves a clear explanation."[1] A member of the presidential task force agrees “Law professor Geoffrey Stone, a member of the presidential task force charged with reviewing NSA programs, told NBC News the group specifically looked for times when the program may have helped prevent a terrorist attack, but "found none." The task force's final report reflects that, saying: Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.” [2] If a terrorist plot comes to be, it can easily avoid the NSA by doing a little research. This invalidates Pro’s jobs argument since it hinges on this one. Pro dropped his third argument. Pro has not addressed my argument from the fourth amendment. My position is justified while Pro’s is refuted. Sources in comments
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

So yes terrorist can avoid it just makes it harder for them and it saves life. From msnbcnews.com The National Security Agency surveillance programs made public this month have helped foil more than 50 terrorist plots since Sept. 11, including one to blow up the New York Stock Exchange, top intelligence officials told Congress on Tuesday. In the stock exchange plot, the NSA used Internet surveillance to find an extremist in Yemen who was in contact with an operative in the United States, said Sean Joyce, deputy director of the FBI. He said that intelligence agents were able to detect "nascent plotting" to bomb the exchange. So with this the NSA has actually stopped terror. While yes the mafia provides jobs the NSA provides jobs for a good organization. As you can see the NSA has stopped terror. Both of the plots stopped could have been 9/11 sized by NYtimes. We need to use every resource to stop terror. The loved ones that can be affected are so important.
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

Jobs This is a really bad argument. If something is wrong, it doesn’t matter if jobs are created. The mafia can also create tons of jobs, but this doesn’t mean what they’re doing should continue. Terrorism Terrorist threats aren’t that widespread. You’re more likely to get killed by a deer than a terrorist [1]. Even if the NSA found a terrorist, since the data farming is incredibly huge the probability that it’s a legit terrorist is only a 1 in 10,102 chance [2]. Furthermore, the terrorist plots that the NSA have claimed to prevented showed they played little role [3] [4]. The NSA could easily do surveillance if they had probable cause. Since they are doing mindless data collecting, they are violating the fourth amendment. Finally, terrorists can avoid the NSA. First, it is unlikely that the NSA can crack encrypted messages from programs like PGP, since many cryptographers and mathematicians are trying to do so and there is no evidence that they have succeeded. [5]. Second, one can use a VPN to encrypt their internet traffic making it hidden from their ISP [6]. Even using the free infamous onion router can make it difficult for the NSA. The NSA themselves have said “We Will Never Be Able to De-Anonymize All Tor Users…..With manual analysis we can de-anonymize a very small fraction of Tor users, however no success de-anonymizing a user in response to a TOPI request/on demand." [6] If you are using a VPN with Tor with a SOCKS5 proxy with encryption with coded words for phone communication the NSA is virtually irrelevant to a terrorist plot Hide The US law is so huge, I have no idea if I have something to hide. Research has shown the average person commits three felonies a day [7]. Daniel J. Solove [8] has argued that this argument is irrelevant. We don’t want someone taking nude pictures of us and publishing our credit card purchasing history with pictures of where we live and work. Not because we’re criminals, but because we care about our privacy. Sources in comments.
West Coast rock owns East coast rock

to start, you misendurstood my questioon, i asked for bands with 4 or more record who have had hits in each of them, you only specifically gave me some songs, i am talking about at least 6 to 8 hits, not your measly 3 to 4 and sometimes even 1 also, i will give you a list, but i wont bore people with random bands with little or no fame. I am of course talking about bands with great success: Metallica Blink 182 Jimmy Hendrix Green Day Guns and Roses Jimmy Eat World Kansas Linkin Park Nirvana The Offspring Sugarcult System of a Down Weezer these are some of the few well known, famous and consistent bands brought about by the west coast. You can give me hundreds of eats cost bands but people would still recognize more bands from this list than urs ur list is good and i do like east coast rock but for you to say that east caost rock is better is wrong. You have stated a bunch of new bands but all the good classic rock comes from back then in like the 60s and the west coast, california in particular developped this breakthrough fo this type of music, ROCK
West Coast rock owns East coast rock

I can sit at my computer for two hours as well and name all my west coast bands but i won't because i have more debates and other things. You listed a whole bunch of east coast bands and i respect you for your passion of rock but most of the bands you named have either had a few hits or barely any fame at all West Coast owns in consistency as they create multiple hits and never fade the only bands i will give you credit for consistency is Aeorsmith but even they have not been at the level of the west coast hits and cosistency out of that huge list, name me at least three bands which came out with at least four albums with great hits your list would narrow down completly you name good bands but that cant compete with the west
West Coast rock owns East coast rock

You state that West Coast bands are better than East Coast Bands. This implies that the argument is focused on all rock bands on the Western Coast of America, and all rock bands on the Eastern Coast of America. This eliminates all rock bands that originated in Britain, UK, or elsewhere. Apparently, you weren't clear on that part. You stated that three great Western Coast rock bands were ACDC, The Beach Boys, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. However, ACDC originated in Sydney, Australia. Therefore, they do not qualify as a West Coast rock band. This leaves you with The Beach Boys and the Red Hot Chili Peppers fending for West Coast rock. West Coast rock lacks the diversity of location as East Coast rock. West Coast rock is made up primarily of two set locations: sunny California, and Washington. You don't hear about many famous rock sensations originating in the barrens of Utah, the deserts of Phoenix, the heart of Portland, Oregon. East Coast rock has bands from many different states, from all around the Atlantic coast. To name a few, here's some lists I've compiled: New York-Based Bands: *The Ramones *Television *Patti Smith Group *Mink Deville *The Dead Boys *The Dictators *The Fleshtones *Richard Hell & The Voidoids *Blondie *Talking Heads *Barry Manilow *Death Cab for Cutie *Neil Diamond *The Heartbreakers *Sonic Youth *Kiss *Fiona Apple *Cute is What We Aim For New England-Based Rock Bands: *The Pixies *Aerosmith *Boston *Jonathan Richmond and the Modern Lovers *Jay Giles Band *Till Tuesday *Dropkick Murphys *Godsmack *Rob Zombie *Carly Simon *James Taylor *The Verve Pipe New Jersey, Southeast, and everything else: *Red Jumpsuit Apparatus *Devo *Bon Jovi *Good Charlotte *Black Tide *The B-52's *My Chemical Romance *Hawthorne Heights *Fugazi *Verve Pipe *Plain White T's *Fall Out Boy *Smashing Pumpkins As you can see, there are many more East Coast rock bands than there are West Coast rock bands, providing a wider spectrum of choice for the everyday listener. I await your first rebuttal.
West Coast rock owns East coast rock

philadam, I apologize for misunderstanding your question. Thank you for clarifying. However, the bands you have listed as "famous and consistent bands brought about by the west coast" don't all have these credentials. Every Blink 182 album released wasn't chocked full of wonders; the same goes for Guns N' Roses, The Offspring, Sugarcult, or Jimmy Eat World. In fact, I, in all modesty, have knowledge of music, can only name one song from three of these bands; All the Small Things (Blink 182), Welcome to the Jungle (Guns N' Roses), and The Middle (Jimmy Eat World). To make matters worse, I have never heard of The Offspring, or Sugarcult. Maybe it's because their music doesn't appeal to me. Maybe I hadn't discovered them yet, but were next on my list of fate. Or maybe, just maybe, they weren't as good as their East Coast rivals. After looking the bands you listed up, I noticed that each and every band was from either California, or Washington. Not Oregon, not Nevada, just California and Washington. This furthermore proves my argument that East Coast rock bands are more diversified than West Coast rock bands. By the way, for future reference, I suggest you check a Rock history book, or at least a map; The progessive rock band "Kansas", formed in 1972, originated in Topeka, Kansas-far from the West Coast. In the midwest, actually. Truly a pity, because you really didn't need another band taken off your inadequate list. Throughout my comparisons, research, and personal listening to the different artists and styles, I have concluded that East Coast rock does in fact "own" West Coast rock. Thank you for taking your time to read this debate, and I urge you to vote for the better debater, rather than opinion.
Adam and Eve were a brown/black couple.

If the biblical story of Adam and Eve is a factual account of the origin of the human race, we can only conclude that the couple was dark-skinned humans with a significant amount of melanin. A white couple can't create a human darker than themselves; it's genetically impossible. If my statements are wrong, please prove the origin of white humans without the possibility of black/brown humans creating them and the ability of a white couple to create a human being darker than themselves.
Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security

I stand in Nag(Con) That Resolved: Current U.S. foreign Policy in the Middle East undermines our national Security. 1:The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shared globally.: 2:The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousand of years of fighting each other. There is no one policy that the US can have that will undo thousand of years of history. Also with saying that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US. 3: Obama has been successful in engaging Israel and Palestinian authorities to work toward peace.
Personal success

FrameworkI extend my case because my opponent has no refuted my case yet. I will rebut my opponent's second round. I cannot defend my own case because my opponent has not refuted it. The BoP was shared. I filled it in the first round, and my opponent's burden was to rebut my answers to the questions, which he did not do.Rebuttals1. My opponent says, "then I can't take credit for my brother because he was fighting the wars." I never said that you can't get credit. I just said that you can't boast about it, because you did not do it by yourself. You can be proud by it, but you can't boast for it because you did not do it by yourself. My opponents argument is rebutted. There is a record, but then my argument in the first round and my opponents question in the first round was boasting, not credit.ConclusionAs I rebutted my opponents case, and because my opponent failed to fill the Burden of Proof when I filled the Burden of Proof, vote for Pro!!! I extend my case.
Personal success

FrameworkThis debate is merely a question, unlike the resolution. Because BoP is shared, and he merely asks a question, this means that if I answer the question, I win. My opponent can't rebut my answer because it is an "opinion" and an opinion is never wrong. So I will answer the question, then that means that my burden is filled, I win.Question/ AnswerPro's first question: "How can you define personal sucess?"Here is a quote of someone's answer, "You see, success is a very personal thing. What drives one entrepreneur may be radically different for another. And understanding how others measure success can help you better understand your own definition. For me, it's "Success is spending the majority of my time focused on work or tasks that are fulfilling, leveraging my Zone of Genius, maximizing my potential and helping other people in a meaningful way while providing the freedom, lifestyle and experiences that I desire [1]"I think this is right also. I think that sucess is that your goal is acheived, and you finished what you had to do or what you were expected, that is sucess in my definiton.Pro's next question, "Can someone boast of someone else sucess because they are family member of that peeson.?"I will assume, "peeson" is person. No. It isn't you who did it. Lets say that your brother successed in going to somewhere or getting a job, does that mean that you went there or did what he did?No. This is why I think that you can't boast for someone else success. You can say that you did it, but then tha does not mean you can boast because you did not do it by yourself.Pro's last question is, "Can a family take credit for what you did after you die?"I say No. As I said as it is not you in the second answer, even in this one, just because they died doesn't mean family can get credit for it. ConclusionBecause I answered my questions, and filled my burden, I win. This debate isn't really a debate, just a question. Put these on opinions topic. I win.[1] http://www.inc.com...
frozen is a good movie

In the year 2013, Disney would release a movie that would teach kids about love, betrayal, and being yourself. This movie would actually turn into the longest music video in recorded history. Let it Go: The Movie (Frozen) was filled with lovable characters and dastardly villains. Anna (aw-na) is a sweet princess who spends most of her life in a castle, which she could leave at any time, but finds the need to go out into the world. Her sister, Queen Elsa, is the absolute stereotype of practically every Disney princess, but now she as more power, as a queen. She also feels the need to go off and isolate herself for some reason, because she's programmed to be attractive, she has magical powers, and she has responsibilities to take care of her people. IT TEACHES KIDS THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH BEING IRRESPONSIBLE. It also promotes a gay agenda, and incestual one due to the where true love between the Anna and Elsa saves Anna. Not being against the gay agenda, but is a kids film the place to bring it up? What the heck is with the trolls? Why are they there? There are too many holes in the plot and character's developments. Did it make a ton of money: yes, but so did Transformers 4: Age of Extinction and that movie was terrible.
Across cultures darker people suffer most

Ah, but your example as skin bleaching agents is more of an ancient styling type technique. Asian cultures have always been pail and have always valued lighter colored skin as royalty. If you think about it, royalty would always spend their time inside and have pure, light, skin. Farmers had tan skin and were valued less simply because it showed that they were not rich and did not have the royal blood within them. And whilst yes, it may seem like right now those of darker skin color have it worse, it's not true. They also have so many privileges light colored folks don't. More benefits, more leniency, and a whole lot more privilege to use the, "Poor me I'm dark skinned" card. White people can't really do that. Your argument, sadly, is flawed when you just look a bit closer and stop listening to musicians who "think" they have it hard.
Across cultures darker people suffer most

That is a really good line of arguement that I hadn't thought about. I'm looking more on the societal impact of colorism, such as in certain Asian cultures where skin bleaching agents are in normal skincare products. Where seeing dark skin as a negative is considered normal, the standard. And unquestionable ideal. Has the idea of darker skin coming from working in lower class outdoors jobs prevailed into modern day stereotypes where they are profiled for crimes more. Where dark skinned women seem to be underrepresented in the media amongst the ideals of real beauty, with the implication that they'll never be quite up to par due to the tone of their skin. Where within ethnicities they create a hierarchy based on colour which may not allow darker skinned people to prevail, as they're unable to reach position of power as often.
Across cultures darker people suffer most

I disagree. Think about it, darker skinned people have suffered a lot through the years, but imagine this. Those of a lighter colored skin are suffering more now than they every have before. Not because of "inequal rights" but because of their ignorance. I mean, they are all overly privelaged and ignorant of what they don't possibly have. In the long run those with darker skin are going to prevail simply because they know what suffering is and what it's like for them to be pushed down and rise up over and over again. I view the ligther skins as suffering more.
Across cultures darker people suffer most

Rapper, Andre 3000 featured the text "Across cultures darker people suffer most. Why?" on his Outkast reunion tour jumpsuit. I personally believe that there is a stigma attached to dark skin, not just in black communities, but in cultures of ethnic minorities and white people historically worldwide. I would like to know if you agree that you automatically seen darker people as less than; whether this is deliberate or not, and if so, whether you feel this is justified.