BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

What you just said goes both ways. A new turf field could bring more lacrosse or soccer players, but I can guarantee you a new ice rink would do the same thing for hockey players. Hockey at MSC is our most successful sport by far. If you walk into the gym and look at our state championship banners, nothing compares to the Varsity Hockey banner. Hockey is successful in Division 1 and I find that it would be much more important to continue this legacy of Mount Hockey. There has to be a reason why Mount has not even considered a turf field as well. Maybe to those who have a say in what happens, a turf field isn't practical because we just do not have the room for it. A new Ice Rink will not just benefit the 65-75 hockey players at mount either for I have given the point of many other schools or teams that use the arena as well. What seems to be the most practical investment for MSC would be a new Ice rink. I am not denying that a turf field would be cool, but the arena is way out-dated and is SCREAMING for renovation.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

I say my "what if's" mostly because the thought of turf fields hasn't quite hit MSC yet. Sometimes i really feel like saying "Open your eyes mount!" It's really something that could help the school out tremendously. It's certainly helped the other catholic schools in the state. A new arena would benefit the hockey players at MSC. The 65-75 hockey players at mount. A number that has decreased over the years. A new turf field benefits the lacrosse and soccer players at mount. Theres probably 80-90 just lacrosse players at MSC and that number has been growing and growing! Many of these athletes are also hockey players! Now when mount upgrades to turf fields, the number of soccer and lacrosse players will increase which will probably help out the number of hockey players as well. Now also being a school located in New England, an area that gets hot summers and cold winters, our grass fields get it all. And they certainly get a beating from all the teams working hard on them. Now with turf fields, it doesn't matter what the weather is. The field will be in great condition all year long no matter how many teams play on it. A hockey rink doesn't quite have that much of an effect whether it is hot or cold outside. It doesn't get a beating from the hot sun and cold winters like the poor grass field.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

How do you even know that the land where the trees are is owned by MSC? You're saying a lot of "what ifs" when the only positive and valid point made here is that we NEED a new ice rink! The ice rink now is so out dated as I've stated many times already. I am clearly not alone on my opinions because everyone knows we need a new ice rink. I'll cut this short because I don't have much else to say to your last point except that it is a necessary investment.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

Construction! Of course you can't just lay down a new turf field and just have it look like Gillette Stadium. Mount would need to do the same thing that was done when putting in the new tennis courts, a little landscaping. Tons of trees were cut down to place in the new tennis courts and I feel that to put in a new turf field then the school would need to cut down some more trees deep in the far end of the lower field. Once that is done, sure! I feel that a turf field would fit! If not, then they would search about the campus to put in one just like they did for the tennis courts. But lets be realistic, a turf field maybe costs $700,000- $1,000,000. A new arena would maybe cost triple that, plus quite a bit more. New arena talk has been going around forever at mount. "Next year", "In two years", "By 2014", "By 2018"...... NEVER! I, as a hockey player here at MSC, feel like Mount is never going to get the job done with a new arena.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

Is there even enough room for a turf field at MSC? Is the lower field even big enough to fit a football field? Forget the idea of having a track around the border of it. Regardless of whether a football field could even fit, I can guarentee you there is no way that a track would be able to fit around it within the borders of the fences. In my own opinion, the way things at MSC should be updated/upgraded should be determined by demand and chronological order. CLEARLY the arena would be the next thing on that list. Sure, you can ask plenty of kids at Mount if they want a new turf field or if they want a new ice rink and that's because the ice rink won't benefit them, but the turf field will. You can't always get what you want. What is needed though is a new ice rink. I will go back on my point about the community. The Ice Rink is used every day by many different teams. A turf field would be worshiped over like Mr. Seaver's baseball field and would be guarded by big fences.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

The field will take up more area for playing field and stands can be held outside the field. With a turf field, field lines can be kept in place easily. For instance, there can be white lines for football duing the fall and yellow for soccer. And in the fall, white for boys lacrosse and orange for girls lacrosse. This can help so that every team can play on the field. This is exactly what the other schools do with their beautiful turf fields (North Kingston, Lasalle, Hendricken, Cumberland, Burrillville, Portsmouth, & more). I feel that getting a turf field is a big gateway to the establishment of a football team at MSC which has been argued and looked upon in the past few years. Also, girls will benefit from the field not just in soccer or lacrosse, but also a field hockey team could be brought up at mount. This is another sport that has secretly been argued over if mount should have or not. With football and field hockey more students which is just what mount wants!!
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

Ryan, you have very good points as well. I feel that what you said on how the establishment of turf fields would only benefit the sports teams and gym classes at mount is possibly accurate, although there can be ways around that if the school would like to put the work into it. They could rent out the field to local lacrosse, field hockey, and soccer teams. It could be used for tournaments and practices. Also summer camps and sports training camps could also possibly be held on the field. If the field was able to get a track around the border of it, like most turf fields, then it would benefit the track and field team and also the school would be able to hold track meets. There is much more use that can be brought out of a turf field than many would think.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

Okay Brian, those are all fair points, but lets address the elephant. The Mount Ice Rink is very out-dated. Sometimes I wonder if it's even safe to be in there anymore. The arena is a hazard in its current state. Let alone the fact that it's probably the only ice rink in the world with chain linked fencing around the perimeter instead of glass, which goes along with my argument of the arena being out-dated. The Mount St. Charles Academy hockey program has brought a great name to our school and I feel that the hockey program deserves an investment more than turf fields do. Mount St. Charles is a school for the community. Adelard arena is not a private rink just for Mount St. Charles. There is NEVER open ice at Adelard because of all the other high school teams or town teams that use it as their home arena. The turf fields would end up just like the tennis courts and be guarded off by fences and would only benefit the school itself. BUT, a new arena would benefit the entire community which is exactly what the Mount St. Charles mission statement is all about, bettering the community.
MSC turf fields over ice rink.

Mount St. Charles should invest in turf fields instead of an ice rink. Turf fields would help help out the enrollment of the school way more than a new ice rink will. It's easy to say that many students do come to MSC because of the wonderful ice hockey program, although many of the hockey players are multi-sport athletes and participate in another sport or at mount. These others sports are possibly soccer, or lacrosse, two sports that will involve using the turf fields. Lasalle Academy, and Bishop Hendricken High School are two of MSC's rivals when it comes to hockey. These two schools excel in all sports that the schools offer. In lacrosse, boys and girls, both schools compete in division one of the RIIL and in the past 4 years have finished in the top 4 each year. On the soccer fields they also compete in RIIL's division 1. Mount St. Charles on the other hand on the lacrosse field, has a boys team who struggles in RIIL division two as well as a girls team who is also on and off in division two north. I feel as if these schools excel a bit more than the mount teams because they offer a better facility, which includes turf fields, that falls into better athletes looking to go to these schools instead of Mount. If mount had turf fields, it can benefit the enrollment greatly and help mounties excel in sports.
The United States is justified in using Private Military Firms abroad to pursue its military...

I will first attempt to show that the use of private military firms is justified. If they are justified, then it logically follows that it is justified for the United States to use them.Argument 1The use of private military firms allows the competition that is naturally present in a free market to reduce the costs of military operations. Competition is considered beneficial when it is applied to televisions sets, breakfast cereal, toothpaste, and all manner of things, so Argument 2Private contractors play a large role in the composition of the United States armed forces. Statistics from March 2011 show that there were more contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq than soldiers. There were 155,000 contractors and 145,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq at this time. [1] If we were to discontinue the use of private military firms, then over half of our military would disappear, depriving soldiers of vital support, which is hardly justifiable when we expect them to fight wars for us.Argument 3Hiring private military firms to fight in our wars decreases the cost. Both soldiers and contractors cost money; however it is only the soldiers that incur long-term costs that continue long after the military objective is completed. Programs such as the GI Bill provide for college education, vocational training, and unemployment compensation for past soldiers. No such costs are incurred with private military firms. You pay for length of time they are fighting and then part ways. When considering how best to spend taxpayer money, it seems that spending less money for the same services is the reasonable choice.Sources[1] http://www.fas.org... Page 2
The United States is justified in using Private Military Firms abroad to pursue its military...

Utilitarianism defined by Plato is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people for the greatest amount of time. Justify -To prove or show to be right, or reasonable Objective - Something toward which effort is directed: an aim, goal, or end of action Abroad -Beyond the boundaries of one‘s country Pursue -To find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish All my definitions are from Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition I would like to make one (1) observations before we begin. My arguments will uphold this observation. 1) We have never justified the use of an abusive organization and we never will.
The United States is justified in using Private Military Firms abroad to pursue its military...

Resolution The full resolution could not fit in the box, but it is "Resolved: The United States is justified in using Private Military Firms abroad to pursue its military objectives" Structure This is the structure Austin and I have agreed upon in a PM: Round 1 - definitions, clarifications, and rules Rounds 2, 3, and 4 - arguments Round 5 - closing statements Rules 1. Any forfeit will result in the loss of the conduct point. 2. As R4 is the last round that will be used for debating, no new arguments may be presented then. This allows both debaters to respond to their opponents' arguments. 3. Dropped arguments will count as concessions, in order to prevent the use of abusive debate strategies. Definitions Private Military Firms - legally established international firms offering services that involve the potential to exercise force in a systematic way and by military or paramilitary means, as well as the enhancement, the transfer, the facilitation, the deterrence, or the defusing of this potential, or the knowledge required to implement it, to clients. [1] Justified - Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason [2] Sources [1] http://www.privatemilitary.org... [2] http://www.google.com...
the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searchers ought to be a

My opponent states that not all forms of intrusion are crude, Of course not all forms are crude, and if that is the case then in most cases people would not try to have it removed. If someone uploads a photo of you playing hockey with them, then odds are you will not want to take it down, this debate is about whether people should have the right to be forgotten on the internet, not a debate on whether people are offended or not by certain information. Secondly I would like to address the topic on drones and surveillance that you brought up. To a certain extent I agree that monitoring criminals is good, however if we look at the fact that only 3% of the population is a criminal then compared to the other 97% rights it seems insignificant. A major problem that is arising is that the FBI"s criminal database is filling up with people that are not truly criminals. The problem arising is that people are being listed even though they are not convicted criminals. For example in 2009 Ms. Daniels was arrested for participating in a small protest. She paid a 50$ bail and was free to go. 5 years later however when applying for a job she was rejected because the FBI database had not updated her status saying that she was not convicted. So although the FBI monitoring criminals may be good there is still several other people who have done nothing and should be removed. As a matter of fact the right to be forgotten law, in Europe is limited and does not apply to criminals as such my opponents argument is invalid. My opponent also states "I have never claimed that we have the right to look at the dead daughter of this family." However in the first intro she claimed, "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." So while not directly claiming that she has a right to look at these images, she is implying that people have a right to receive information regardless of frontiers. I place emphasis on regardless of frontiers, she doesn"t place a limit on frontiers, in this case the frontier would be the fathers wish to keep the images personal, so by stating this she, I understood that she was implying that she had a right. I realize that this is a delicate topic so I wish to leave it at that. To Conclude I wish to state that history will never be removed. History is usually applying to multiple people for example a war, containing thousands and thousands of humans. The right to be forgotten mainly applies itself to individuals. As such it is highly unlikely that this will interfere with history.
the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searchers ought to be a

My opponent made the statement of saying the breach of privacy should be illegal. I am here to say that not all forms of intrusion are necessarily crude. We have many criminals running on the streets. They are outsmarting the government on a daily basis. We use surveillance to deter crimes and catch terrorists. The drones, for example, are one of the things that we use to help monitor our enemy. If we were to take down the images of Nikki Castouras this wouldn't mean it will be permanently deleted. There may be the chance of someone getting ahold of this image and reposting it for the world to see once more. Moreover, the architecture of information systems has become much more complex, with the numerous links rendering any deletion of data tricky and expensive. With the information being posted again you will need to do the cleaning job again. I have never claimed that we have the right to look at the dead daughter of this family. That is irrelevant to what this debate is even arguing about. That is why I am choosing to overlook this question of his. For it will distract us from the truly important issues in the debate. This take power away from the freedom of expression because someone may have his/her website or comment flagged and tucked away from the public eye. If the opinion were to be silenced, the opinion may have been true. All beliefs are not certain or infallible. If the opinion, even if untrue, helps solidify truth of present belief. Our beliefs currently even if proved true must be discussed. Not just taken down without our knowledge. On an article called "Wikipedia Swears to Fight 'Censorship' of 'Right to be Forgotten' Ruling" dated on August 6th, 2014. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said " History is a human right and one of the worst things that a person can do is attempt to use force to silence another," he said. "I've been in the public eye for quite some time. Some people say good things, some people say bad things ... That's history, and I would never use any kind of legal process like to try to suppress it."
the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searchers ought to be a

I will be running for the positive side of the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searches. Each and every single human being has a secret. The exact definition of a secret is: "not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others." I would like to put extra emphasis on the second part of this definition, which states that it is not meant to be known by others. As human beings we have a right to do as we wish with our secrets, we deserve to be able to choose who we can trust with it and who we cant. Unfortunately sometimes we are stripped of that privilege. NerdHerd stated "The "right to be forgotten" on the Internet sometimes constrains us from viewing things we want to know more about." I would like to flip the perspective on this and view it from the victims point of view, in this case the "right to be forgotten" sometimes deprives us of our personal right to choose what others can think of us. This is a real life example; Nikki Castouras, crashed a sports car. The impact was so forceful that it decapitated Nikki in a horrendous manner. It was so horrible that her parents were not even allowed to identify the image. A few images were taken from the scene and sure enough they surfaced on the Internet. The image spread like wildfire and the family had no way of stopping it. You can only begin to imagine how terrible it must be to have to avoid the Internet all-together because images of your dead daughter are being shown everywhere and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Had the right to be forgotten been implemented when this occurred, it would have spared them from this. How can you claim that people have the right to look at his dead daughter, when he himself never gave the right? The simple matter is that this is a breach of privacy and should be illegal. In the pros argument, she claims that this might interfere with freedom of expression. This makes little sense. How can this be taking power away from freedom of expression. The definition of freedom is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.", the definition of expression is "the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings." Basically it is referring to peoples power to make ones thoughts known. If this were truly being followed then surely just as people have a right to express what they are thinking they have a right to not express what they are thinking. It would be absurd to think that one has a right to show information but not a right to conceal information. The world would be a mess if people had to reveal all their secrets. To conclude I would like to quote the President of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties Stephen Blanks as saying "I think people view information about themselves as something they want to be able to control"
the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searchers ought to be a

You opened up by stating that the government protects people"s criminal records. If this is true then you have contradicted your previous argument where you stated that the right to be forgotten would eliminate criminal data. If as you state it really has no effect, then surely there would not be a problem with this law being implemented. Even though some things are rights it doesn"t necessarily mean that it can"t interfere with other rights. Humans for example have a right, which is freedom of speech, however certain situations remove that right. For example revealing information about the government is a crime, even though they have a so-called "Freedom of speech" In an article of Stanford law Commissioner Reding states "If an individual no longer wants his personal data to be processed or stored by a data controller, and if there is no legitimate reason for keeping it, the data should be removed from their system." Once again you have stated that people require a "freedom of knowledge", the thing is we would not be removing the freedom of knowledge. We would only be slightly limiting it, and in turn strengthening other rights such as personal privacy. All rights have limits and the freedom of knowledge is no exception. The simple truth is that knowledge is not yours to have and decide whether you view it or not. You also state that individuals should be responsible for their actions. This doesn"t seem fair since many of the times the actual information was not posted by the individual but rather by some other person. You also state that this is placing an unjust burden on search engines. I hardly think that that"s fair since if they are the ones that have allowed it to be uploaded it in the first place then surely they should be rightfully the ones to take it down. An even larger burden that seems to be forgotten here is the emotional burden placed on people whose information has been placed online. A company can fix this burden in several different ways, an emotional burden however is much deeper and people should not be denied to have this burden removed just because a multibillion-dollar company is refusing to put the extra work into it. Lastly you stated "Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could precipitate dramatic clash between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet." This shows that you are not entirely ruling out the right to be forgotten and in fact he is accepting it as a major possibility. To conclude I would like to state that the right to be forgotten should definitively be a civil right since it helps people maintain their right of personal privacy. Does not interfere with criminal records as my opponent had stated it would. Helps remove a emotional burden on people who have had to undergo some sense of breach of privacy which has emotionally hurt or scarred them, and lastly helps strengthen internet security and safety online. Thank you for the debate NerdHerd, it has taught me a lot :)