BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Legislation to Extend First Amendment Rights to Employees and Students

Resolved: That Congress(1) enact legislation to extend First Amendment(2) rights to persons employed in privately owned enterprise(3) and persons employed by and students of privately funded schools(4) and universities(5) , while transferring certain responsibilities(6) from said employers and administrators to employees and students. Definitions: See footnotes Under current law and practice, private employers and school administrators are empowered to punish, up to and including "disciplinary lay-off" and firing "for cause", any employee at will. This is termed "serving at the pleasure of the employer," and is the standard practice in the United States. Certain restrictions do apply, however, among them any form of Discrimination covered buy the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and amendments thereto, The National Labor Relations Act, and others(7). However, the First Amendment rights only apply to government employees and students of public schools and universities. Employees of private companies as well as students at private schools and universities give up their rights of free speech, assembly, and press as soon as they accept employment or enroll in the school or university. This also extends to include what an employee or student does on their own time and in their own homes! Unless something is done now, ruthless employers, eager to avoid paying unemployment benefits or getting embroiled in Anti-Discrimination litigation, will use these lack of rights to fire employees for simply posting something the employer doesn't like on FaceBook, MySpace or their blog. Obviously, protection for employers will still be afforded under the laws covering slander and libel as well as defamation laws so employers and schools will not be put at undue risk from unscrupulous employees and students. Nothing in this legislation will negate or diminish the application of these protections for either employers or employees, students or school officials. Footnotes: (1)Congress: The Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of American (2)First Amendment: Amendment #I to the Constitution Of the United States which States, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (3) http://en.wikipedia... (4) http://en.wikipedia... (5) http://en.wikipedia... (6)Currently, various laws at Federal, State and local levels that place heavy responsibility upon employers and school administrators to prevent and/or punish employees, faculty and students for instances of harassment of various types, regardless if it is done with the knowledge and/or consent, implied or explicit, of management or administration. (7)See http://www.eeoc.gov...
Graphics don't matter in gaming.

I just now realized that the debate title is misleading since I meant graphics are not the only thing that matter. Plus I have a habit of changing my opinions and thoughts to match nearly everyone I encounter. Double plus, I was bored and couldn't think of a title to debate from. Triple plus, I'm new and this is my first debate. Before I end this debate, have any concluding statements? I guess this concludes our debate then. Thanks for participating.
Graphics don't matter in gaming.

While I agree that the game play is more important, the graphics do play a part in making it easier and more fun. I apologize for not knowing off hand, but I do remember a game that had poor graphics, though good game play, but the poor graphics took a lot away from it. It seemed like a well developed game, but when something caught on fire, the object was just surrounded by fire, and smoke coming off, but the object itself didn't catch on fire. And you say games aren't played for their realism, but besides simulations people do enjoy games such as Battlefield for its realism. Taking gravity and distance in to account when firing, and using team work to survive. No, the game isn't all real, but the game has it's real aspects that attract certain people. The graphics play a big part in this, too. And I agree graphics aren't the most important piece in video games, but this debate is over if graphics matter a lot in a game (actually according to the title, your position is that they don't matter at all, but your opening argument shows that it does play some part in the game). I never said, and I will never say, that graphics are the only important aspect. And you know what, I prefer an arcade game with poor graphics that's fun to play over a detailed down to the last dot that is a poor in game play. But the graphics do play an important role in games.
Graphics don't matter in gaming.

Yeah, I agree. Graphics are what makes games look realistic. But, let's be honest here, games are not meant to be realistic. Unless if you're playing a simulation, graphics should be the least of your concern. Ask yourself, is it a FUN GAME WITH REPLAY VALUE or is it a BORING CHORE AND A PAIN TO PLAY THROUGH? There are many boring but pretty games out there. Kill zone SF is a prime example. Killzone is not a bad game. It's just not a great game. Average and mediocre reviews. Not that much innovation. The devs just put way too much focus on the graphics to make it look like a movie. Games are not movies. If they were, then we would call them movies. On the other hand, look at games like Minecraft or Fallout or Deus Ex or Borderlands. Average visuals but amazing gameplay. Now, don't take this debate the wrong way. I'm not against graphics. I just hate it when people think graphics are essential to a game's lifespan. Most successful games has both good gameplay AND graphics like Batman Arkham series, Far Cry, GTA V, and much more. But, keep this in mind, visuals doesn't mean better. Explosions doesn't mean better.
Graphics don't matter in gaming.

The graphics in a game should be efficient enough so that a person can make out what certain objects in a game are. Besides the fact that good graphics have an almost realism effect, the good graphics contribute to better, more fluid motions in a game, and it makes it easier to make out an object, especially if said object is required to do a mission. A game using good graphics also makes a better view on certain things, for example, in a baseball video game, I don't want a stick looking bat, or a dot sized ball, or a rag covering a hand called a baseball glove; and in a war game, I don't want a stick with a trigger on it to be called an M16 rifle. There is a fascination with a real looking game, and the graphics do contribute to the realism. The right graphics are required for the right movements to look good, and for the movements being done to look fluid, and that we don't get confused about the movements. You wouldn't know, because people don't make games with such poor graphics, but a game with very poor graphics can look confusing, and cause such confusion in a person playing. And, if you are playing a football game or a wrestling game, watching someone go through the ball carrier or their opponent, which is caused by bad graphics, takes away from the fun of the game play.
Graphics don't matter in gaming.

Like seriously, graphics don't mean anything in games. They call them games for the GAMEPLAY not how pretty it looks. Yeah, I don't want a 2005 looking game, but I don't want a piece of garbage game either. I don't understand how people think that graphics are more important than its mechanics. That's a foolish opinion. I know the ideal of opinions are never wrong, but I've never anything so stupid than this. It's like saying, in movies, the action matters, not the storyline, narrating, or the acting. Looks can be deceiving especially in video games.
Joseph Stalin was a more ruthless dictator than Adolf Hitler

In this debate, I will be the Opposition (Con) side, whilst my opponent will accept to be the Proposition (Pro) side of this debate. To whom it may concern, please take a look at the structure of this debate. StructureRound I: Acceptance of this debate. In this period, there will be no contentions listed by any side. However, both sides may come up with their definitions, elaborate on the opponent's, or disagree. Round II/III: Contentions are listed by both sides. A clash to the opposing side is allowed. Round IV: Rebuttals. In this period, the proposition and opposition summarizes the points gathered in their debates. In this period, no new contentions nor facts may be addressed in your argument. A clash to the opposing side is allowed. DefinitionsNow, the proposition side would like to define the topic before us. Topic: Joseph Stalin was more ruthless dictator than a Adolf Hitler. Joseph Stalin - The leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. [1]Ruthless - Without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless [2]Dictator - A person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession [3]Adolf Hitler - A German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party, Chancellor of Germany, from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945 [4]1. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)2. (. http://www.dictionary.com...)3. (. http://www.dictionary.com...)4. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...)If there are any questions, please leave it in the comments.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

That's freedom from religion. That's why you cannot have school prayer, school bible study, why "Under God" in the pledge is likely unconstitutional as well as "In God We Trust" on our money. Because the government has no right to push a religion on you. You have freedom from religion. Nobody argued that the bill of rights prohibits people from preaching to you, in fact that's prohibited by the first amendment. You have freedom from religion as guaranteed by establishment clause of the first amendment. It not protects the rights of the religion from government interference as well as protects the rights of the non-religious from a government pushing of religion unto the people. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. You're the one assuming that the first amendment constitution protections need to apply in public where the government isn't involved. It's like saying that I don't have freedom of speech because Disneyland would kick me out for yelling profanities really loud while walking around. The Amendments of the Constitution are restrictions on government power, first amendment right of freedom from religion and freedom of religion are no exception.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

OK, seems we are arguing the same thing here. The establishment clause affects only the Governments interference in religious matters. It does not guarantee you freedom from religion. It protects the rights of the people to practice religion in any manner they see fit. It does not protect your "rights" to not be exposed to religion simply because you have no such right. If the church of scientology wants to send a group to stand on the street outside of your home holding up signs of Ron L. Hubbard and yelling that Zenu is going to throw you in a volcano if you don't convert, they are free to do so with no recourse by you. In order to guarantee freedom FROM religion, the Constitution would have to specifically outlaw religious expression in public all together.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

The first amendment of the US constitution guarantees that the state will not force a religion on you. A state sponsored religion is certainly prohibited and you are free from the religion of the state, but you are free from any establishment of religion by the state. The state cannot force you to be Buddhist or Muslim, but it also can't force you to read the Koran or meditate. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You say that because it contains the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that you have no freedom from religion? To the contrary, the first part gives you freedom from religion being imposed by the state and the second part gives you freedom of religion beyond the interference of the state. You have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The Bill of Rights is established specifically to restrict the rights of the government, these restriction prevent the government from doing a number of things forcing religious ideas on you, keeping you from your religious idea, keeping you from speaking out, keeping you from printing news, keeping you from assembling, etc. The first clause specifically restricts the government from imposing a religious idea upon you. You like many others, fail to understand the restrictions of the first amendment. They are limits on the power of government not on the power of the people. Freedom of religion means the government can't interfere with religion on Oprah's couch or a little prayer group after school. Freedom of religion means that the government cannot sit you down in class and make you read the Bible (was actually done until it was struck down by the Supreme Court) or force you to pray (also done, also struck down). The government at any level (due to 14th amendment expansion) cannot impose religious ideas on you. You can be exposed to religion all day long. Your freedom of religion is freedom from the government. Just as you could have a group telling you there is no God all the time and it would be legal. It would simply be illegal for the government to do so.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

The first amendment does no such thing. It simply prevents the Government from establishing a state sponsored religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See, it's that last part that destroys your statement of fact. "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". That means you aren't free from hearing about religion. In fact, it gives you (the person who wishes to not hear about religion) no "rights" on the matter at all. Any religion is free to air itself in public. Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah Winfreys couch, for example. There are no "rights" to NOT be exposed to something in the entire Constitution.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

Your disneyland freedom of speech example is an excellent illustration of why the establishment clause doesn't guarantee freedom from religion. "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" aren't guaranteed freedoms in the least. They simply protect the individual from the Government interfering in your practices of them. School prayer and Bible reading aren't banned to protect your "freedom FROM religion", they are banned so as not to infringe on anyone elses right to freedom OF religion. In the case of schools, these bans apply only in the classroom setting, where students are obligated to be. Many school sponsored functions open with prayer or contain religious connotations, such as the school choir singing religious songs in it's Christmas program. You aren't free "from" religion simply because an event happens on Government property. The establishment clause simply prevents forced religion, it does not in any way, shape, or form guarantee freedom from exposure to it. Not even on Government owned and operated property. If your argument is that the establishment clause somehow protects you from having to participate in religious beliefs, that's a non-starter. Religious choice is a personal matter. To choose no religion at all doesn't need protection as there is nothing to protect against in the first place. The premise is no religion as a starting point, then rights are given to protect those who choose to practice it, without Government intervention. To protect against something, you have to ban it. That's not the case here.
it is unacceptable to have a messy room

All over the world? I think messy rooms are only really a problem in The U.S.A., Canada, Japan and a few other European countries. In Africa, Most of Europe, Asia, ect., Children have very few possessions, if even a room to call their own. "I know first hand that theres nothing mothers like more than comming in your room and rearranging everything so you CANT BLOODY FIND IT" Who's mother? Your mother? That's one mother. You can't make a conclusion on an entire group of people based on a single sample. "Self Expression" is not simply not cleaning your room, that is called laziness. Self expression requires some sort of creation, painting, writing, composing, ect. Having a Clean room is different that having a tidy room. I've been in rooms extremely clean, but very messy, and vice versa. having a dirty room has some health concerns to think about, dirt, dust, food,ect. all can attract bugs, mice, and other undesired pests. Who all can bring with Bacteria, viruses, and different microbial beasties. None of which are particularly healthy for a human. Having a cluttered room, as you describe, could potentially create a stressful environment. If you don't spend much time in your room, this is a non-issue, but for people like me, who spend almost all time at home in their room, this is an issue. Parents also come into play, if you are under 18, you must abide by your parents rules, unless they are dead, or you are emancipated. If your parents want your room clean, it's their house, they can do what they please with it. Also, as an extremely judgmental person, I've walking into many peoples rooms, thinking "What the hell?! do they take themselves seriously?" To me, a persons room reflects the owner of the room.
it is unacceptable to have a messy room

at this exact moment, all over the world, mothers are tearing their precious hair out over the state of their son/daughters room.I know first hand that theres nothing mothers like more than comming in your room and rearranging everything so you CANT BLOODY FIND IT !!!! but i was wondering what other people thought about this, as i think it is perfectly acceptable to live in the biggest heap of rubbish and long as you can walk in some sort of path between the stuff.I dont know if this is just a teenage thing or im just a generally messy person, but to be honest it doesnt effect my school work, its just a tip :) i like to call it self expression and ( though some mothers may not believe this ) i actually know where the stuff is. hope we can have a good old moan :)
All Propositions Are True

I previously instigated and participated in the following three discussions. 1. "All Propositions Are True," http://www.debate.org... 2. "All Propositions Are True," http://www.debate.org... 3. "All Propositions Are True," http://www.debate.org... The next paragraph is verbatim an argument I used in my opening arguments for the three aforementioned discussions. Consider the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square." Since some rectangles are squares, a rectangle is a square. Thus, p is true. Since some rectangles are not squares, a rectangle is not a square. Thus, p is not true. So by Conjunction Introduction, p is true and p is not true. But that is a contradiction. Since every proposition follows from a contradiction by the Principle of Explosion, the proposition "all propositions are true" is true. Therefore, all propositions are true.
All Propositions Are True

If all propositions are true, then the proposition "Not all propositions are true" is true. This implies that the aforementions premise is not universally true. However, the proposition "Some propositions are true" is both true and is not self-defeating, as my opponent's proposition ensues. Another argument: Not all squares are rectangles. All rectangles are squares. Since all squares can be both rectangles and also be said of a larger genus, namely that of shapes, it cannot be said that it is necessarily or sufficiently true that all propositions are true. Therefore, my opponents argument is refuted. Another argument, from nebular displacement math: Propositions = 2 True = 1 False = 0 All = 7 7^1-n*(sk^(2*0*1))*sin(7n) = 0 Therefore, it is not true that all propositions are true.
All Propositions Are True

From the last paragraph of my opening argument, all propositions are true. Since "not all propositions are true" is a proposition, the proposition is true. Thus, not all propositions are true. So by Conjunction Introduction, all propositions are true and not all propositions are true. As the form and content of the argument that is the last paragraph of my opening argument suggest, the proposition "all propositions are true" is universally true in the sense that it is necessarily true. I agree that the proposition "Some propositions are true" is true, but regarding the issue of whether all propositions are true, I don't see where its truth leads to. I disagree with your premise that not all squares are rectangles. I also disagree with your premise that all rectangles are squares. That argument of yours is not sound. I'm not familiar with nebular displacement math. Your argument allegedly involving it appears to be nonsense. An Internet search(1) and its apparent lack of results regarding nebular displacement math support my position. Sources Cited: (1) https://www.google.com...
Circumsicion is necessary and ethical.

I think and realized that your proposition is written being not debatable; I would like to suggest such proposition stated as: Resolved, that circumcision should made practice I think it makes a better proposition because if you make it necessary how can I counter you when each person has his own human rights, if this will be the proposition. I can debate with you because it is not mandatory to all to be circumcised. They can have their rights in either choosing to get circumcised or not. Feeling fresher and cleaner is a reason why circumcision must be practiced. If you push to urinate, if you push it back, not all the urine went out (all of us knows that) a certain amount of urine with be released and will make the foreskin smelly. If a person doesn't pull and don't care about hygiene, how will his hygiene stable? This is a good idea so that no extra effort of cleaning and pushing and pulling. It does not mandate, it could only prevent such diseases and increase hygiene which leads to higher self esteem. If you are a God fearing man or such, try reading Genesis 17 (circumcision, a sign of covenant). It is a sign that you are a part of God's family or what you call from God's generation. When you were circumcised, did you felt pain? IF your still a baby, even if you choke and etc., it is pain but not the one that hurts you totally and the doctors are not that stupid in doing operations. They know what they are doing. I mean circumcision in the process. You can't feel any pain because of the anesthetic chemical. After your operation, you will be given some prescriptions to do, so, you can't feel pain but you will only feel uneasiness because of your condition. …and with that I end my speech… (I thought that i was forfeited but luckily i was not, i will be expecting for your response)