BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is using social media such as facebook or linkedin for marketing an invasion of privacy

I'd like to explain my statement in hope that Con and voters would not assume that I am misunderstood. When I refer to customers I am referring to the marketing companies who wish to keep track of what people are interested in. It's an effective means of figuring out what people are interested by specific race, age, gender, location, favorite music, ads and games. .. you get the picture. They don't sell "personally identifiable information" which is data associated with your name and address and phone number. They gather information like what you like, what city you are in, and bundle that with similar information from other Facebook members and sell that bundle. No names, no addressed, no phone numbers. The information marketing companies receive is the same information your "friends" see. You have the option of customizing your profile to prevent others from viewing information you may find private to yourself. It is also listed in facebooks legal terms. "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. " Facebook. com/legal terms Seeing how we do not pay for Facebook, we are not customers. I guess you could call us the product. Marketers want to know what we are interested that way they can use this and collect general information to produce a product we are looking for. What it narrows down to is if you are concerned with the information you are placing on a "publicly" accessible site than don't put it up. Aside from that you are safe when you customize your security settings not only on facebook but inprivate filtering as an option on your internet provider.
Is using social media such as facebook or linkedin for marketing an invasion of privacy

My opponent stated that Facebook customers aren't any users but the companies. I think he might of misunderstood, I never said that we the users are the customers, but instead I said that the our information that we post on Facebook is their merchandises. According to the article "How Will Facebook Make Money?", it said that Facebook gives onsite advertisers and app developers the advantage of its user data to help them target ads and customize their content in apps. That means Facebook can and is providing what the users are doing and saying on Facebook to ads so they can target potential customers. My opponent also said that "Likes" doesn't necessarily mean that our privacy is being invaded because we had liked it "publicly". Many marketers is using those "Likes" to track where the users had being on the web and Nik Cubrilovic, an Australian Blogger, found the evidences that Facebook "like" buttons track the users browsing even when they aren't logged. So Facebook can track users whenever the users encounter a "Likes" at a different site. Tracking cookies can also be place on cell phones and they can track the users movements on other carriers as well. My opponents also mention that Facebook cannot sell information such as the users' name, sex, age, IP, etc. But Facebook have access to all the information that you put on it and they can sell it at their will sell those informations to marketers even though they claimed that they are not. How do you think ads are send to your e-mail address when you have never given to those sites. Facebook is providing them with all your information. Not only that, many lawsuits have been filed to sue Facebook of invading the users privacy. In one case, a class- action lawsuit alleges that Facebook had violated the federal wiretap statues by tracking people's Internet browser history even when they are not logged in. In conclusion, Facebook is using our information and activities as merchandise to marketers. Through Facebook games, they can leak you information to marketers whether if you permit them to. I believe that using social media such as Facebook for marketing is an invasion of privacy. This last statement from "How Will Facebook Make Money?" from PCWorld should convince everyone, Harvard Business School professor Ben Edelman said "After app developers and partner Websites get 'hooked,' Facebook could start charging for access to its user data"
Is using social media such as facebook or linkedin for marketing an invasion of privacy

I am not sure if Con understands that everything you publish on a "public website" is up for grabs. You and you alone control the output of information from your private life. Simply because a marketing company can tally up "Likes" and "tweets" does not necessarily mean that your privacy has been invaded. Why did you "like" it in the first place? I am assuming because you want others to know that you liked it "publicly". You also have the option of.... Disabling or deleting cookies to prevent from being tracked. Taking advantage of the option to ensure all privacy boxes are selected. Turn on in private filtering to prevent your information from leaking. Refrain from putting personal information on public access. Every website tracks consumer movement for marketing purposes. None of your vital private information is spilling into their hands that will affect you in anyway. Even phone company's exchange this same information for marketing tactics. [1] Facebook customers are not you, me or other individuals, but companies. Individuals and their data product are not the customers. Technically facebook is not allowed to provide information about you however is allowed to provide trends that can relate to you. In that way, Facebook cannot sell information such as your name, sex, age, IP, etc. However, they can sell generalized information such as: "X% of female users, aged 18-20, from Tacoma, follow this trend, respond to certain posts, and frequently use the word 'Beiber". What they do is they show targeted ads according to geographic location like if a company wants their ads to be seen by only American users then facebook arrange this without giving any info of their users. There is one case in which facebook will share personal information to any particular user, if Security Agencies like FBI, CIA asks for it. [1]Theregister.co.uk
Is using social media such as facebook or linkedin for marketing an invasion of privacy

It might be true that when we post something on Facebook, we make it public. But we can change our privacy setting to only friends so nobody else can see it. That's where the problem lies. Marketers are still getting our information through Facebook, twitter, and other social media. There are proves that apps on Facebook such as FarmVille and Family Tree that leak identifying information to marketers. Also, when we use the "Like", "Tweet", and "+1" on other website, tracking cookies are placed on us by the social network so that the user's interests and online shopping behavior can be easily tracked by marketers. Not only that, social websites such as Facebook also allow companies to place within ads cookies and beacons, wich are pieces of software that can track the users and gather information about what they were doing on a page, in the users computer. Just these two actions invase the users' privacy. Facebook also sell our information to marketers so that they can use a behavioral targeting marketing method to place ads on our Facebook pages. So I stand that using social media such as Facebook for marketing is an invasion of privacy
Is using social media such as facebook or linkedin for marketing an invasion of privacy

Whatever is posted on a public site such as forums or social networking should not be expected to stay private. Whatever is private is submitted by the "user". It is at and only at the user's discretion of what they would like available to the public. It is not eavesdropping when you openly post information and updates about yourself. You have the option to privatize your profile and send sensitive information via email or message from user to user. To make it simple, it is on the user what they want to publicly post and seen by marketers. If you don't want your information gathered either don't put it up on public sites or privatize it to prevent marketers from gathering your information.
AI will kill us All!

It could be unlikely, But whenever a advancement comes we make a fail-safe. No one can know for sure what will happen but we can get through it as humans. But once again, All AI is is just a program. AI isn't necessarily a giant evil robot. But since AI is a program it is possible to stop. And if AI, More likely ASI, Become intelligent, It can and will develop compassion and ethics. AI isn't just a program that just keeps learning, It is a program that develops. While it develops however, It will begin to have "quirks". The reason I put "" on quirks is to represent what an early AI would think emotions are, Quirks. But as an AI will develop, And become self-aware, It will gain our "quirks" and instead of making decision based purely on knowledge, It will soon make decisions based on knowledge, But also its ethics.
AI will kill us All!

I know Asimov's Laws are fictional but if AI comes to the point of needing it, It should be put in place. As we make more and more technological advancement, Me make restrictions. We did it with nuclear weapons, Chemical gas, Ect. When AI comes to the point of queries about restrictions, We will have restrictions. AI already exists in many forms. The situation you described would also be very, Very unlikely because as me make one innovation we make others. If a rogue AI, If it can, Tries to break into an infrastructure to make a micro army of robots, We also will make innovations to prevent that, Whether it be via cybersecurity, Physical security, Or something else. AI at its current state is just a program and that is what it will technically always be, A program, Which are breakable. Since it is a program, It can be counter hacked and stopped.
AI will kill us All!

I understand the law if robotics you are talking about. The ones I was talking about are Asimov's Laws. The rules are as follows. 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, Through inaction, Allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. [ There were a couple of articles I found but surprisingly wikipedia covered it the best. https://en. M. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics Based on these three laws, An intelligent robot should not be able to hurt a human. I am also not denying that they could be used for destruction. But AI, In normal cases, Should never be able to kill humans. I also don't doubt that it might be possible for AI to become smarter than humans. It is entirely plausible. I just believe based on Asimov's Laws that it would be impossible for AI to kill us all.
AI will kill us All!

They are laws of robotics that are in favor of me too: including The Law Of Accelerating Returns This law states that when societies develop the rate of development increases. Like in 1500, The rate of society increasing was not the same as 1750. Jump forward the same time period and in 2019, The rate of societies devopiling is not the same and WAY different. Now we can actually apply the same process to AI. Another example in computing? , You ask In 1940, A computer was able to do 1 calc per second, In 1960, 2k clacs, 1980-2 million calcs, 2000-8. 80 to the tenth power. All of this compared to the Human Brain is Lake Michigan comes out to be a puddle. And now the lake is halfway full. So for AI, It would look like this: AI is currently at a brain power of an ant. Now if we put a intelligence staircase an ant is 4 steps below a human and 2 behind a chimp. By 2025, It is a human brain and it is accelerating faster than ever. 10 years later and it is WAY smarter than anyone can comprehend and is higher by 20 steps on the intelligence staircase, We can't comprehend how smart it is. It goes more in-depth here: https://waitbutwhy. Com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1. Html Any task given to AI is a risk. Lets say that AI was assigned to getting rid of spam email. AI starts to think and uses the delete button. Then a tripwire of intelligence happens and realizes that to get rid of spam is to get rid of humans. The AI hacks into infrastructure and creates an small micro army of robots. The AI who is imaginable smarter than us easily kills off humans for good. AI can be used in WW3 by many countries.
Abortion and Libertarianism

Full Resolution: All people that believe in libertarianism ought to advocate abortion == Rules ==1. First round for acceptance. No new arguments or rebuttals in the final round2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions... All: Every People: A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.Believe: To accept as true Libertarianism: The political ideology that believes in a less restrictive government and strongly values the individual in society. Ought: Used to indicate obligation Advocate: Be proponents of Abortion: The intentional killing of the fetus by a professional medical expert up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. 3. Burden of Proof is primarily on Pro. Pro must show that libertarianism ought to be advocates of abortion and con must show that libertarians have the right (under their political ideologies beliefs) to not advocate abortion. 4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, forfeiting, etc. 5. Accepting the debate is automatic acceptance to all rules, definitions and the burdens. 6. This challenge is impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission you will forfeit all points to me. You may apply to debate this in the comments section and I will choose an opponent shortly.
Abortion and Libertarianism

Okay. This will be a one round debate where you will judge my arguments vs wylted's. Wylted is not allowed any rebuttals in his round to keep it fair. Things To Consider - Wylted has had roughly 1 week longer than I have to construct a case. - Wylted basically admits to cheating in the comments when questioned about why he posted the wrong round. He states: "You're my opponent here. I will discuss what strategy I used or even if it was strategy after the voting concludes. Other than that I'll be extremely vague about how mistakes were made, if things were in fact mistakes and the reasons for these things. " I understand that he isn't directly admitting this so I will leave this up to voter's to decide how to weigh this when judging. Thank you for an .
Abortion and Libertarianism

My opponent's arguments have nothing to do with the resolution. He accidentally posted the wrong debate. I don't mind continuing the debate and just ignoring my opponent's R2 however I believe that this should work in my favor. My opponent had less than 3 hours left to post and in the last few hours he posts the incorrect debate. This gives him now essentially 6 days in total to complete his next round since he now has 3 additional days to complete his argument. I find that this is unfair since he receives additional time to complete his round. We can continue the debate but I do think that this mistake should factor into the votes.
The death penalty should be abolished.

First of all I would like to state my views on the death penalty. I believe that prisoners who have been convicted executed with any appeal or staying. I also believe that to avoid innocents being executed, the death penalty should be used only and every time there is hard, undeniable evidence on the person. As it is innocents are rarely executed. =============OBJECTION TO 2============= For the second group of people, those who may be shown the error of their ways: Why should they be allowed to live even if they will not commit crimes again? Where is justice for the victim and his family members. If someone takes another person right to live then why should he be given the chance to live. Also if there were a chance that they could be released what would deter them from committing murder just once? Even if you did allow them to be reintegrated into society how can you be sure that will not commit murder again? How can you separate those will not commit murder again from those who might? ================OBJECTION TO 3================== a) How many people are actually like that? Apart from Saddam Hussein , how many people are actually considered martyrs and how dangerous can it really be? Before I respond to B I will point out some problems with life in prison. -------------------- ---------DANGER---------------------------------------- Keeping murderers in prison poses a threat to other inmates guilty of less serious crimes as well as prison guards and innocents outside the prison. Many times, in prisons, inmates have killed other inmates and guards sometimes in an attempt to escape and sometimes even escaped from the prison and murdered more innocents outside the prisons ------------------------COST------------------------------------------- Long term prison costs when added up cost over $25,000[2]. Because of Life without parole has led to many prisons being overcrowded, not only making it more dangerous for other inmates and guards but forcing more prisons to be built. More prisons are being built but crime is not decreasing. Why should taxpayers waste money on housing people who have taken other peoples lives and building more prisons. Costs that come from the death penalty are only there because people remain on death row for long periods of time. If the maximum time for them to remain on death row made something like 6 months or a year then those problems would be gone. ===============Objection to 3b=========== They killed someone else so killing them is a just punishment. There's no reason to let them suffer in prison with all the problems associated with keeping them there. If they killed someone in a painful way like shooting him, then they can be killed in a similarly painful way. [1]http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [2]http://debatepedia.idebate.org...
The death penalty should be abolished.

I originally set up this debate to challenge track8493, simply because of the unfortunate result of his attempt to set up this debate already - a misunderstanding of the resolution leading to two people agreeing with each other. However, he hasn't been online for the last week, meaning that the challenge expired. I therefore open this debate up to everyone. I affirm the resolution that the death penalty should be abolished. By "death penalty", I am referring to the punishment enacted by various jurisdictions across the world (including many parts of the US), whereby certain criminals (as decided by that jurisdiction's legal system) are killed by the state as punishment for the crime that they committed. I ask that this first round be used only for accepting the debate, and clarifying any terms that my opponent may feel needs to be. We will then have a four-round debate afterwards which will proceed as normal. Good luck!
The death penalty should be abolished.

Now, I'd like to make my conclusion short as I do not have much time. ===INNOCENCE=== Concerning case of the Cameron Willingham, my opponent states "Cameron Willingham to be innocent was discovered as a result of advances in scientific method: the court, therefore, believed according to the methodology of the time, to have hard, undeniable evidence against Cameron - for example, the burn patterns on the floor were taken as evidence that accelerant was used. " According to the source he quoted[1] The evidence used at that time was not truly 'hard undeniable evidence' but merely, as his source put it, 'folklore, than fact. Hunches handed down for generations. ' The evidence had little scientific basis. My opponent states 'Technological advancements may yet prove that what we currently understand to "clearly not be forgery" was forged. The fact that computer geniuses could very easily have access to, or themselves create, such technology ' Technological advancements, however, are made gradually and not in large leaps. In the case of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs[2] it was stated that "In theory a photo can be faked, but to fake a forty minute video would require a studio and a whole year. " In this case no sudden technological advancement could have made it possible for the video to be faked. When I said large number of witnesses I meant something like a large crowd, in public perhaps, where court can be sure that the witnesses saw it exactly as it happened. ===MARTYRS=== The only reason for a moderate to become an extremist is for him to believe that heaven is a one way ticket to paradise and extremist try to convince them this. Other extremists' excecutions cannot lead moderates to believe what extremists say. ===JUSTICE=== My opponent states "the only punishment suitable for any crime is one that allows for the criminal to realise their error of their ways and become a law-abiding member of society once again. " I have to ask, does this mean that if someone realises the error of their ways before even being punished and completely changes, he should not be punished? Death suits the crime of murder because it is the exact same thing the perpetrator has done. If he takes someone's life then his own life should be taken. "And even if the person is "unreformable" - either because they're actually innocent or because they're, say, a career criminal - then LWOP gives the innocent a get-out clause (whereas death clearly does not) and the career criminal a better form of punishment than does the easy way out of death. " There is no reason to go that far and make the punishment worse. Death is enough for someone who takes anothers life. ===DETTERENCE=== I agree that it is subsidary to the issue of Justice but I hold that nonetheless it tips the scale towards my side. CCTV in private homes is too large a breach of privacy to accept. The death penalty does fine though. [1]. http://edition.cnn.com... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...