BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The internet brings more harm than good.

This site also shows the greatest flaw of the internet: trolls and spammers. Although other websites might have some, this website is extraordinarily packed with them, whether it's troll debates, or trolling in the forums. Children who see trollers and spammers might actually think it "fun", or "funny" and be affected by it, becoming trollers or spammers themselves. "being offline the threat of crime can never be entirely eliminated." Con says. That's actually a bit false--being offline means no one can anonymously post danger messages or deliver massive hoaxes to the people, one infamous hoax being http://dhmo.org.... While this site might work online, it fails to do so offline, and people have to physically deliver them using papers, which is much easier portrayed in a website. My point is, the internet makes everything easier--including bad things. Furthermore, the internet is relied upon as a source of information. Before the internet existed, everyone had to read magazines, newspapers, or borrow books from the library. You might argue the internet is much much faster, but I rebut back with the fact that not all sources are credible--the grand "mother of all" being Wikipedia.org. Even its own website claims it can make no guarantee of validity, and the site is usually number one on google.com searches! https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... This is only one example of a website or source that is not credible. Even people who know this fact can still stumble upon unbelievable websites, which is why people post tips to tell if a site is credible or not, one such as this: http://www.usg.edu... If the internet was really credible, nobody would have to post such things online. I doubt people have to test the credibility of non-fiction books or encyclopedias, or post tips for seeing if a book is credible or not. All books are reviewed heavily and edited many many times, but a website, on the other hand, is usually not. In conclusion Websites aren't credible as books or newspapers, and thus they bring more harm than good. (What good is "all the knowledge in the world" if some knowledge is invalid and some are valid, but you have to evaluate which?)
The internet brings more harm than good.

It is clear that everyone's privacy can be greatly harmed by the internet. Privacy online is a big concern, but an educated citizen can navigate the Internet in a safe and sensible manner with minimal privacy issues, although as with being offline the threat of crime can never be entirely eliminated. My opponent gives an impression that the effect of the Internet is having a negative impact on society, this is clearly not the case, people like the way the internet can bring people together. **************************************************************************************************** People often complain that their opinions are ultimately pointless as nothing will change. This trend can be demonstrated with the numbers of people going out to vote consistently falling, however with the rise of the Internet this trend could reverse. What the internet has enabled is for everyone, in one way or another, to have the chance to truly have their voice heard. It has given them the ability to fully engage in topics that matter to them on a personal level. As this website and this very debate show, people can debate, share opinions and start petitions in the ways that were never truly available before.
The internet brings more harm than good.

It is exactly because of the internet's wide-spread that allows anyone to post anything, leading to cyber-bullying, stalking/sexual predators, and inappropriate photos or videos. These can lower people's reputation as well as bring embarrassment to those whom information are revealed to others. As said by http://www.webmd.com..., "Cyberbullying includes sending hateful messages or even death threats to children, spreading lies about them online, making nasty comments on their social networking profiles, or creating a website to bash their looks or reputation." this clearly shows a negative effect of the internet, especially on children--the adults of the future. Nobody wants the future to go wrong!
Gay Marriage

Big topics like these are more prone to wind up discussion and I too will to my best not to offend your perspective. Nevertheless, why is it that gay marriage is sexually immoral? Put yourself in their shoes. You love someone more than anything else in the world, your soul mate. But today, in this society, you are not allowed to be together in marriage. The government should not be able to intervene. My thoughts are that if you don't support homosexuals, then don't voice your opinion and put them down. They are humans just like us and they deserve every right we, heterosexuals, do. Incest and marriage within your 2nd cousin range has been outlawed for medical purposes. Although I will agree with you about bestiality, animals and humans are very different.
An atheist must believe "something comes from nothing."

My opponent does two things right from the get-go. First, he tells me that 'coming from no thing' and 'coming from nothing' are completely different. Second, he says my whole argument is meaningless, since I spoke of causes, and the resolution uses different meaning. First, let me address the definition of nothing. Nothing: 1 : not any thing : no thing Source: Merriam-Webster For example: If you ask me what I turned in for an English assignment, and I answer that I turned in nothing, I am stating that I did not turn anything in; that there was no thing I turned in. It does NOT mean that I turned in a negative state of existence, or whatever ridiculous definition my opponent wants you to use. In this same way, something coming from nothing simply means that for some thing, it did not come from any thing, there was no thing from which it came. "Something comes from nothing" doesn't mean there's some 'negative state of existence,' and all of a sudden it pops out a something. It simply means there is at least one thing that did not come from anything. Next, the accusation that cause is irresolutional. This is ridiculous as well. It is obvious that a first cause, such as the Judeo-Christian god, by the very definition does not 'come from' anything. This is true for naturalistic first causes as well, such as the universe for those who believe the universe did not have a cause outside itself. The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything. A large portion of my opponent's round was targeted at the bad definition of nothing. As I stated, nothing literally means 'no thing.' My opponent's definition is simply wrong, and I challenge him to show otherwise. I not only provided a definition from a reliable dictionary, but also a use in context to show that my definition is the correct one to use. My opponent lays out a case where the universe simply existed forever. In this case, the universe itself is the thing which does not come from anything. Therefore, "something comes from nothing" is true here as well, the something here being the universe. My opponent also suggests that there could be a point when moments following each other in a sequence no longer exists, so that things at one moment are not caused by something else. In this case, too, this is something coming from nothing. Something being whatever it is that isn't being preceded by a causal moment. My opponent's entire case is working to show that the universe possibly did not come from anything. However, using the correct definition of nothing, we see that he is indeed fulfilling my resolution for me with his possibilities. My opponent says he will show more examples of an uncaused universe next round [who knows why he would do that, since CAUSE has nothing to do with the resolution, remember?]. Anyway, I welcome this, and I thank my opponent in advance for his generosity. And the floor's back to my opponent.
An atheist must believe "something comes from nothing."

Since my opponent has not made a case for his side, I will simply state my case, plain and simple. It is my position in this debate that atheists believe that something came from nothing. However, I will go much further than that. I will argue that this is true for everyone, not just atheists. Here's a premise we can all agree on. 1. There is a sequence of events. This is obviously true. This paragraph is shown on this debate. This came from me hitting submit once I had my argument written out. This came from me seeing this debate and accepting the challenge. Etc. We can hypothetically track this back to the beginning of the universe. If the universe came from something, we can hypothetically track it back to the beginning of that thing. If that thing came from something, we can track it back to the beginning of this new thing. However, we are left in a conundrum. If these things all came from something, there would be an infinite list of causes - so that the beginning could never truly be reached. The only solution here is to either keep going, or just figure that something somewhere in the line indeed did not come from anything. Even if you believe the cause of the universe's existence was a god, you must believe that something came from nothing. In this case, the something would be that god. Or if that god did come from something, then it would be whatever caused that god, or whatever caused that, etc. However, it can be agreed upon by atheists and theists alike that: 2. Somewhere, the sequence of events must stop. From 1 and 2, we can clearly see that there is a 'first cause', as many call it. This first cause existed, yet did not come from anything. There was no thing it came from, it simply existed/happened. And that, as they say, is that.
Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

"It gained women in the US the right to vote and to fair treatment. That is a good thing that civil disobedience has brought about change in a society for justice. And it is appropriate that civil disobedience be used in the fight for justice." Yes, but my argument is that regardless of the effectiveness of CD, it shouldn't be done. "In the case of Mary Beth Tinker it was legitimate because it was a policy that was unjust and through an act of civil disobedience the policy was then changed." No, the policy was not changed. The Supreme Court said the policy was an illegal policy, so the policy was void. "SUCCESSFUL as stated by my opponent that it brought an end to discrimination that was unjust. Through an act of civil disobedience, yet again, there is another example of civil disobedience being appropriate in the fight for justice." That doesn't make it appropriate. "I urge you to vote in a PRO ballot because I have given legitimate examples and circumstances where civil disobedience was used to free people from the unjust of government and of society." Civil Disobedience is often effective, yes, but it is not appropriate. It violates the Social Contract. "My opponent has not stated why he is right in the CON position but just why I am supposedly wrong in the PRO position. No case has been constructed against me." This was my case "When I become a citizen of a country, I enter into a social contract. The government promises to protect my safety, and in return, I promise to obey the laws of the government. Of course, at some point, the government will break its side of the deal. For example, the fact that the even after the abolition of slavery, racism was allowed in government policies. This however does not justify one in breaking their part of the contract. Two wrongs do not make a right. You have two options. The first is to fight the law peacefully, and legally. You do not violate your contract, and you point out the government is violating theirs. The other option is to leave the country, and end the contract, and enter into a contract with a better government."
Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

Rebuttal: "Okay, I concede that is true, but nonetheless, I cannot see how this is truly important. " It gained women in the US the right to vote and to fair treatment. That is a good thing that civil disobedience has brought about change in a society for justice. And it is appropriate that civil disobedience be used in the fight for justice. "It was not a legitimate law. Continuing with the house rental analogy, if my landlord decides that I am guaranteed to ability have a red car, but my neighbor says I cannot have a red car, I should obey the supreme law of the land, so I can have a red car if I want. " In the case of Mary Beth Tinker it was legitimate because it was a policy that was unjust and through an act of civil disobedience the policy was then changed. Thank you for the studies If there is a question of whether or not Mohandas Gandhi was an act of civil disobedience then I will use of example brought by my opponent "the civil rights movement in the United States, led by Martin Luther King. This movement, unlike Ghandi's, perpetrated clear acts of civil disobedience. Its activity, partly illegal, was successful and brought an end to the discrimination of the blacks. Moreover, the movement helped create a modern technique for illegal protest aimed at bringing about a change in the law. " SUCCESSFUL as stated by my opponent that it brought an end to discrimination that was unjust. Through an act of civil disobedience, yet again, there is another example of civil disobedience being appropriate in the fight for justice. I urge you to vote in a PRO ballot because I have given legitimate examples and circumstances where civil disobedience was used to free people from the unjust of government and of society. My opponent has not stated why he is right in the CON position but just why I am supposedly wrong in the PRO position. No case has been constructed against me.
should students be able to get a job at the age of 14

First off, people who are 16 usually get entry level jobs anyway. People who are 14 are even less experienced. No one would hire you because not only were you young but also inexperienced in the work field. My point is, even if 14 year olds could get a job, no one would really want to hire them. Jobs may also take their focus off school and even cause them to drop out or think about dropping out later on. This is evident in teens in high schools.
why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?!

citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way
Public High School Students and Exit Exams

It seems my opponent has forfeited his final speech. Regardless, I will proceed with some crystallization. In this round, we are valuing Progressive Post-Industrialism through Accountability. The debater who best achieves this has won. Remember that Progressive Post-Industrialism is "the evolution of industrialist societies into more technologically advanced and culturally progressed civilizations dedicated to humanist principles of justice and human dignity". The Negative achieves this quite simply. The high level nature of exit exams ensure that a graduating population is fully educated and enlightened. We see this quite clearly in strong European nations with accountable systems. Apart from ensuring economic survival, an exit exam leads to numerous social benefits, including increased healthcare and decreased racism and discrimination. My first contention clearly shows that the problems with todays schools are a result of rubber-stamping diplomas and low standards of accountability. People enter the workforce unable to function on the required level which undermines the economy and the individual, who cannot hold a steady job. The solution here is a high stakes, critical thinking exit exam. You can look the example of the Irish 10th grade test as the basic framework that the Negative upholds. It is only these high stakes tests that can achieve any form of accountability because students have no incentive to perform on low-stakes tests. The problems on the affirmative case all quickly dissolve in a progressive post-industrial negative world. Higher value and standards in education ensures that students are ready for life. A focus on actual education prevents teaching to the test (which is more rightly 'teaching to the curriculum; exams reflect the curriculum, the skills students need to learn). Finally, the affirmative case is all geared towards multiple choice exams. Never do I ever say that multiple choice exams are a proposition on the negative side. His entire case is a giant strawman (see: http://www.clker.com...) and he never once makes an attack that can be applied to my case. Because I am the only one left in this round with any offense at all and achieve a stronger, more empowered society, I urge a Negative vote.
Public High School Students and Exit Exams

To clarify, this is the LD debate topic for September and October of 2009. Both debaters shall be debating "resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. " This debate shall follow a slightly altered LD format. R1 is for introductions and no arguments. In R2-4, both sides will present cases, starting with Neg. The structure should follow: R1: Introductions R2: NC; AC/AR R3: NR; 2AR R4: 2NR; 3AR Both sides should present LD cases and argue in the spirit of LD (no plans/counterplans etc. ). This means that Aff and Neg must both present and argue for value structures in addition to their main body of arguments.
Iran is a backwards country.

1.) Does not mean people looked at it the same way you think they did. 2.) Yes, we are talking about Iran. In Iran, nobody has been executed or jailed for apostasy. If you speak out against Shia Islam publicly, of course you are going to be prosecuted. You are speaking out against the government. Does that make it a "backwards" government? Stalin imprisoned his political opponents, and the Soviet Union was very progressive. So this does not make Iran, backwards. 3.)Executions are not a denial of human rights. You say theocracies lead to backwards polices, this is entirely false. Backwards policies is an opinion. What a religion looks as a law, the west looks at it as a crime. Why do secular countries get to decide what a human right is. Even what a backwards policy is. Secular countries are generally western. One Iranian law especially looked at by people as a denial of human rights, is the execution of minors. More specifically, anyone who has gone through puberty, girls 9, boys 15. How is this a denial of human rights? If someone who has gone through puberty commits a crime, they are responsible for their actions. Stoning and beheadings have never been used either. 4.) Two people that commit a crime against the human race. They are to be executed under law, this does not make Iran, "anti-progressive". Unless it is progressive towards a secular nation, which is not what Iran is supposed to be. 5.) The links you sent, say it is under sharia. In cases that blood money was used, it was under tradition of the families. Sharia is not used in Iran. 6.) You claim that females don't have rights in Iran. In Iran, they can take almost any job. Women are still fighting for rights in the west. So, that is why I pointed out that America does not have many female politicians yet they point fingers at Iran for not having many, when they do. Iranian women are treated with lots of respect compared to many other nations in the world. https://www.msu.edu...
Iran is a backwards country.

1) Commons sense dictates the West consisted of the most advanced and modernized nations. Iran was also a US ally at the time. Clearly, reorganizing your culture to modernize and develop a society that reflects that of America's was seen as the same thing. 2) Surprised how you can't deduct that apostasy is the same as the denial of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is not that hard to make a connection. Denying someone the right to abandon or even speak out against a religion is a clear violation of basic human rights. http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com... 3) Strange, all kinds of sources indicate that they do. But it must be "Western propaganda" huh? https://www.hrw.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.hrw.org... http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://www.amnestyusa.org... Is that enough sources for you? 4) Ok? I said that in my argument. This bullet is now redundant. 5) So two people can be executed for doing something in the privacy of their bedroom and you claim Iran is progressive? Yeah, right. 6) Maybe you should work on your searching skills. While the spelling differed, it wasn't very hard to find. http://insightiran.org... http://guardianlv.com... http://www.slate.com... http://iranhrdc.org... http://www.worldlibrary.org... 7) So having elected a female President is an accurate representation of their rights? We haven't had a Hispanic President, does that mean Hispanics are oppressed and fighting for rights in America? No. We haven't had an Asian President, does that mean Asians are oppressed? No. Perhaps you should question how many women actually are involved in politics. Not a lot choose to pick politics as a career. Women can be astronauts, CEO's, and politicians just like men. Women are treated kindly under the law (as opposed to Iran). Hopefully that was enough sources for you.
Iran is a backwards country.

1.) Where did you figure this out? 2.)Since you gave no citations I looked everything up myself. Hadd is not anything like what you said. It has to do with sexual relations outside of marriage, apostasy (Which Iran has never executed anyone for doing so) and theft. There is no removing of your, "basic human rights." http://people.opposingviews.com... 3.)Poor human rights record? Iran does not have a bad human rights, according to the west. But does the west get to decide everything? 4.) Iran did not recently just give the right for women to vote. Only Saudi Arabia just gave them the right to vote. http://iranprimer.usip.org... 5.) Execution for gay men? That is only if they commit sexual acts. 6.)I could only find two links to Diyyeh. Both were wikipedia. A lot of info on that page was not cited, nor verified. 7.) Equality for sexes? Has the U.S. had a female president? No. So don't point fingers at Iran, when women are still fighting for rights in the west.