BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship

Thanks Shtookah for a thought-provoking debate. <"Being a federal crime generally excepts the ideal principal that the vast majority see's it to be wrong" It actually reflects the fact that the government see it as wrong; Governments create laws, not the general public. <"because this action is done out of the will of the vast majority of people, it would not be considered censorship because of its highly undemocratic characteristic." Anything a democratically elected government does is technically democratic, including censorship. ___ <"I feel it's the wrong approach by a government to blacklist an ideology." No ideology is blacklisted by UK hate speech laws, (see sources in debate I linked above,) it's legal to be a bigot, it's only when you start encouraging others to perform violence that you break the laws. Con wants politicians speech protected, but would this still be the case if a party openly preached a doctrine of murder or genocide? Free speech laws don't and shouldn't protect those who commit fraud through verbal dishonesty, those who shout out "bomb!" in a crowded airport, or those who incite violence and hate. ___ <"Seems we've stumbled upon a semantics debate. It really comes down to what you view censorship as. For me, censorship is the restriction of speech, press etc. committed by a 2nd party to a specific group or persons against their will. Pro believes censorship can be an act of voluntarism." The definition we have is indeed a very broad one. Suppression of harmful material by the government would clearly include child porn etc., while "media outlets" suggests it covers voluntary self-censorship. Since Con supplied the definition himself and is in favour of both of these forms of censorship, it seems he has conceded his position as Con towards the resolution. If he wanted to limit the debate to exterior, enforced censorship of legal activity, he should really have made it clear at the outset. Thanks.
Censorship

For clarification of my quote, "Anything posted of REAL (mind the emphases on REAL) activity of illegal actions that would be considered a federal crime such as child pornography isn't really in the realm of being censored or not, it's simply not even within the question.", the reasoning behind this is that of which it is a federal crime. Being a federal crime generally excepts the ideal principal that the vast majority see's it to be wrong and without question filtered. However, because this action is done out of the will of the vast majority of people, it would not be considered censorship because of its highly undemocratic characteristic. Now, my opponent brings into the light of how the UK has treated certain kinds of hate speech causing him to rather agree with their actions. First of all, I hypocritically applaud the UK for banning Michael Savage and his arrogant racist bigotry. Unfortunately I feel it's the wrong approach by a government to blacklist an ideology. Even IF that said ideology was racist, hateful, and outright false. I guess this would be a reflection of me living in my country as well. You see we have a party here in our country that is hateful and outright false all the time but we as a nation do nothing to restrict there speech because we feel it is their democratic right, to speak their minds. I'm talking of course about the republican party. (zing) Needless to say that just because I feel these parties should have protected speech does not mean that I feel that they should be above the law. Its really just a matter of free speech, press and assembly. If these particular parties actually commit acts of hate than that's another story. Seems we've stumbled upon a semantics debate. It really comes down to what you view censorship as. For me, censorship is the restriction of speech, press etc. committed by a 2nd party to a specific group or persons against their will. Pro believes censorship can be an act of voluntarism.
Censorship

Thanks Shtooka. Con: "Anything posted of REAL (mind the emphases on REAL) activity of illegal actions that would be considered a federal crime such as child pornography isn't really in the realm of being censored or not, it's simply not even within the question." Why not? Looking back to our definition, the legality of the materials is not mentioned at all and it is just this kind of media that ought to be suppressed because it is indeed harmful. As I said before, the laws do not successfully prevent such material being produced, and since it exists, the government is absolutely right to censor it, as my opponent appears to agree. The definition Con supplied is from this wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org... which acknowledges the censorship of child porn in the first paragraph of the "rationale" section. Google censor child porn too: http://www.timesonline.co.uk... Certain kinds of hate speech are illegal in the UK, which is partly why I feel it should be censored in certain contexts, see here: http://www.debate.org... Regarding self-censorship, I'm glad my opponent agrees that it is acceptable and I won't attempt a semantic argument on whether or not an artist in this situation would qualify as a "controlling body". Far more significant is the point that Con has not responded to, that independent media outlets should have freedom to censor their own content as they see fit. http://people-press.org... http://www.fair.org... http://www.freemuse.org... So far my opponent seems to have conceded that images of illegal acts should be censored, that artists can censor themselves and doesn't seem to have a response as to whether independent media outlets should have the same freedom he wants to grant to artists. I think this negates the resolution. Thanks.
Censorship

My opponent asks two things of me. 1. Shouldn't censorship be necessary for things such as child pornography? 2. If an artist wishes to censor themselves shouldn't they be allowed to? My answer to his first question.. Although I am unaware of the age of consent laws in the U.K., child pornography much less children having sex in the states is illegal. Anything posted of REAL (mind the emphases on REAL) activity of illegal actions that would be considered a federal crime such as child pornography isn't really in the realm of being censored or not, it's simply not even within the question. Proof/Source on subject: http://www.missingkids.com... Secondly, to pro's question regarding artists having the ability to censor themselves or not, I wish to yield to my previously defined term of "censorship". "Censorship: Is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a GOVERNMENT, MEDIA OUTLET, or other CONTROLLING BODY." Note my capitalized terms that I chose to highlight in the previous quote. You see what an artist does with his or her own work would be editing under free will of choice to do so and not censorship committed by a 2nd party or a controlling body. If an artist chose to make a "clean" version of a track by his or her own choosing, it would be an act of editing and free will, not censorship or restriction. Unless pro can find more loop wholes in the case for censorship, I'm afraid him and I are on the very same page along the lines of freedom of expression and free speech. That being said, until pro can make a case for censorship being a form of necessity, I feel my argument has most defiantly outweighed his case thus so far leaving me victorious in this little feud. For further reference: Here is the ACLU declaring censorship as unconstitutional. http://www.aclu.org...
Censorship

Thanks Shtookah for setting up this debate, it seems we agree on a great deal (92.8% BIG issues), but that this particular topic provides some scope for discussion. Con is the instigator here and bears the burden of proving that censorship is always wrong. As Pro, my burden will be to provide examples of occasions where censorship is a necessary and/or appropriate course of action. I accept Con's definition and also hope that he understands that I am not really interested in debating the constitutional significance of censorship. As a UK citizen, my knowledge of the US constitution is sparse, and I certainly don't derive any moral imperative from its contents. ________ Like my opponent, I am generally an advocate of freedom of expression, I think that the majority of censorship is unnecessary and counter-productive to society. However I do feel that certain material within certain contexts is inappropriate and harmful, and that some level of censorship is entirely justified. Child pornography is perhaps the clearest and most obvious example of data that ought to be suppressed, along with snuff films and the like. Clearly the illegality of producing such material doesn't prevent its production, and sadly there is certainly a market for it. Uncensored outlets for such images would certainly lead to more of it being made. I challenge my opponent to defend his anti-censorship stance within such contexts. While I can agree with Con that (as long as nobody is being harmed) the government should not censor, his inclusion of "media outlets" makes little sense to me. An independent media group has the right to suppress any material it wants to, and should have full creative control of its own content. If an artist wishes to censor themselves, for example by releasing a radio edit, "clean" version of a track, with certain words edited out, in order to appeal to a wider audience, should they not be allowed to do so? Out of characters. Thanks.
Censorship

"Censorship: Is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." (Wiki definition) "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."- Noam Chomsky "Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them."- Mark Twain "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court It is my belief that censorship is wrong and is a direct violation to the first amendment of our constitution. Never is it necessary to restrict a persons right of free speech. (That includes hate speech) Even kids in kindergarten know that censorship is insensible.. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me." In addition to my claim of censorship being wrong and constitutional, I also would like to make the argument that I blockades societal progression. More specifically religion vs. science.. Censoring intelligence.. Despite it's good intentions, censorship has sincerely proven to be the wrong way to fight hatred. Needless to say, I await for someone to take me up on my debate and represent censorship and why It is good and under what grounds it is by any means constitutional. Sources: (Religion vs science censorship) http://www.evolutionnews.org... http://richarddawkins.net... (Internet censorship) http://www.greenleft.org.au... (Clarification on my claim on why censorship is the wrong way to combat hatred) http://www.aclufl.org...
Zoos Should Replace Cages With Natural Safari-Esque Enclosures

The larger enclosures should try to closely mimic the size of their daily roaming habits. Mountain Lions, for example, can travel 25 miles at night. [1] I admit that such a size would be impractical at best, but no enclosure should be smaller than half of their average roaming distance -- it would be similar to me locking you inside your house and not allowing you freedom to go anywhere. Modern zoos have tiny enclosures in comparison to the animal's natural roaming distances. Chester Zoo (http://www.chesterzoo.org...), for example, has an African Lion enclosure not much bigger than a mere acre. The lion can see the cage walls at all times; the lion knows it is trapped. Lion enclosure at Chester Zoo: 1. http://www.countrysideonline.co.uk... 2. http://www.kilgraney.com... 3. http://photos.zoochat.com... [1] - http://www.bear-tracker.com... [2] - http://www.zoochat.com...
Zoos Should Replace Cages With Natural Safari-Esque Enclosures

Hello! You have not specified the size of the enclosures.... However, animals are in safari like enclosures. They aren't kept entirely in metal gates... There's plants and dirt and all of that kind of stuff in the current enclosures. Zoos are doing a great job with natural habitats. Sources: Google pictures of current day zoo enclosures, you will see what I'm talking about.
Zoos Should Replace Cages With Natural Safari-Esque Enclosures

I believe cages and small enclosures are a big price to pay for people's satisfaction in watching them. I agree with the education and preservation zoos provide, but I think it would be better on everybody for the animals to have a lot of space to roam and explore, instead of being cramped in cages or tiny enclosures. You will be CON; you will argue that zoo animals should be kept in their current, small enclosures. This is not a debate on whether zoo animals should be released. Original stimulus for this debate: http://i58.tinypic.com... -- (the human is in the cage, the animal roams free).
Hermaphrodites are proof that homosexuality is not just a life-style

First, my opponent has not addressed his supposed topic at all. The only thing he has tried to prove is that homosexuality is not a sin, which is not the choice of topic he claimed to argue in his title. I will however, argue both. Now, before i get into prooving homosexuality as being a sin and everyone starts hating on me, I would like to mention that I am, in fact, pro gay rights. Gays should have the right to practice that lifestyle. I do however, believe that it is still a sin. 1. As far as homosexuality being a sin, I can give you plenty of places in the Bible, where Jesus and his apsotles have condemned it. Leviticus 18:22 Deuteronomy 23:17 Romans 1:27 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:9-11 Jude 1:7 (fact to know while reading verses that refernce Sodom and Gomorrha. Sodom and Gomorrha were renouned for their wickedness, but especially in homosexuality as is written in Jude 1:7 and throughout Genesis) As far as hermaphrodites go, they choose one way of life or another. They still very much have the choice to remain loyal to only one sex, which is the opposite of the one they choose to become. Hermaphrodites almost always choose to become one sex or another and thusly, they are perfectly capable of following God's laws. The verses I listed are clear proof that Homosexual activities are, in fact, a sin. 2. As far as Hermaphrodites being proof that Homosexuality is not just a life style, that is COMPLETELY untrue. Hermaphrodites do, in fact, have the capability to have feelings for both sexes without hormonal treatment. The reason this isn't proof however, becuase there is one major difference. Hermphrodites have equal amounts of both estrogen and testosterone. Because of this, they naturally do, in fact, have feelings for both sexes. Homosexuals have no such balance of hormones. Any gay guy you may meet on the street has about the same amount of testosterone as any other straight guy. They have very little estrogen at all. Otheerwise they would be developing breasts. No, gay guys emotions have nothing to do with hormonal irregularities. They hormones are working just fine, which is why hormonal imbalances DO NOT explain their homosexual feelings. Hermaphrodites, however, ARE suffering from hormonal irregularities that explain their feelings. There is yet to be any kind of scientific explaination that justifies a gays guys feelings. There have been loads of pscological evidence to prove that its all in the head. Either way... hermaphrodites are sepcial cases that have no relation or similarity to homosexuals at all.
Hermaphrodites are proof that homosexuality is not just a life-style

First, I shall request that the observers vote for the best argument! Second, I'd like to define hermaphrodite: adj : (biology) of animal or plant; having both male female reproductive organs [syn: hermaphroditic] n : one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs; at birth an unambiguous assignment of male or female cannot be made [syn: intersex, gynandromorph, androgyne, epicine, epicine person] Biological Clarifications: A person born with both ovary and testicular tissue, this could be 2 seperate gonads ( one of each) or a combination of both in one (an ovotestes). The genitalia can vary from completely male or female, to a combination of both or even ambiguous looking. The chromosome (karotype) compliment can be XX (female), XY (male), XX/XY (mosiac) or even XO (extremely rare). Those XX with female genitalia are raised female ( some have even given birth). Those XY with male genitalia are raised male ( a few have fathered children). The children born XX/XY or XO (with genitalia male or female are raised in the sex they look most like) ,Those born with ambiguous genitalia have many medical tests for the doctors to determine which sex they should be assigned. Doctors then recommend early surgery to make the child look physically like the sex assigned to them. Reference: http://www.jax-inter.net... I'm addressing a specific Christian view, but you're welcome to propose your own: "It is very possible for a child born with both sex organs to grow up to have a healthy view of sexuality and successful relationships. From early on, the child should be taught how valuable, loved and accepted they are by their family and also by God. He or she is not a victim of divine judgment, but God has a plan for each one of us that will bring Him glory, as we can learn from a man who was healed by Jesus Christ. "'Teacher,' his disciples asked him, 'why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?' 'It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins,' Jesus answered. 'He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him'" (John 9:2-3)." Reference: http://www.gotquestions.org... Argument: Based on the definition, a hermaphrodites is inherently both homosexual, since they technically have intercourse with the same sex no matter what sex they pick. If God created hermaphrodites, then, as the Christian definition suggest, that's an example of God's power. From a biological point of view it's argued homosexuals are born that way, attraction to the opposite sex is based on hormones, and understanding hormonal disorders are relatively common, it's not surprising that homosexuality is found relatively frequent too. Given that God doesn't hold a grudge against hermaphrodites, Jesus never said anything against gays, and gays are God's children too, I don't see any reason to believe that being gay is a sin. Thanks to those who wish to take on this debate!
Young Earth Christian Creationism (YEC) is a viable explanation for the origin of our universe.

== Debate Rules ==BoP resides on Pro.Pro should present their argument starting immediately in the first round, and post "no round as agreed" in the fifth, thus alloting each participant the same number of rounds for arguments.Any and all Biblical passages should refer to the King James version as to avoid confusion.== Definitions ==Young Earth Creationism (YEC): the belief that our universe, along with all of its contents, were created around 6000 years ago, from nothing, by the Christian God of the Bible (Yahweh).Viable: capable of working successfully; feasible."Origin of our universe": the origin of the universe itself along with all of its components, including life and the Earth.Good luck!
Young Earth Christian Creationism (YEC) is a viable explanation for the origin of our universe.

== Case ==Regarding the Origin of EarthThere are many pieces of scientific evidence that suggest that the Earth is significantly older than 6,000 years. These pieces of evidence render the claim of a Bibilically created Earth invalid. In the following paragraphs, I will list three of such pieces of evidence and explain how they invalidate a young Earth. Ice core layersDue to the fact that temperatures in the Antarctic almost never reach above the freezing point of water, ice core samples taken from the Antarctic contain well-preserved information about the environment there in the past, namely temperature data and greenhouse gas concentrations; however, the most relevant and easily distinguishable information is how many annual layers are preserved in that core. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...One specific sample shows around 60ka (60000 years) of annual snowfall layers [2]. In order for these layers to have formed in 6,000 years, there would need to be 10 summer/winter cycles every year since the formation of the Earth. Continental Drift theoryFossils of the same species of dinosaur/prehistoric organism have been found spanning multiple continents, supporting the idea that all continents were once grouped together into one large supercontinent (Pangaea). . http://en.wikipedia.org...Currently, the Earth's tectonic plates are drifting at a rate of around 1 centimeter per year [3], A tectonic plate movement of 6,000 centimeters is obviously not enough for a connected mass of continents to become the wide array of landmasses that are present today. Also, a sped-up version of plate tectonics, commonly known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics' and created to explain away these problems, has been thoroughly debunked [4]. Petrified forestsPetrification refers to the process of trees or tree-like plants transitioning completely into stone through perminalization [5]. The formation of petrified forests, such as the one pictured above, takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years [6]. Thus, these forests could not form in a young Earth environment. == Note ==In my next round I will specify continuing evidence against YEC regarding the origin of life. I would have preferred to add more to this round, but personal matters and time constraints prevent me from doing so. References[1] . http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk...[2] . https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr...[3] . http://education.nationalgeographic.com...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.nps.gov...[6] . http://www.livescience.com...
White children vs Asian children - Whites result in more negative teenagers

This isn't turning out to be much of a debate; even worse, my opponent's account has been cancelled. It seems as though this debate has come to an unfortunate end. I'm upset - this topic excited me. But it is still up to the voters, whether one opponent is present or not. In the end, vote for who made the better argument - vote for the one that based his argument off of fact rather than stereotype and assumption.
White children vs Asian children - Whites result in more negative teenagers

This is a general overview on the two sides. White children tend to grow up with lower educational grades than Asians. They tend to drink and smoke more than Asians therefore damaging their body. They tend to be way more underage and pregnant. They tend to be more unemployed. They tend to be involve with the police more. They tend to be partying more. They tend to do drugs more. They tend to have jobs in sex jobs more. They tend to have sex more as teenagers. They tend to leave their homes more. They tend to disrespect their parents more. Why is this? Because of white parent standards and Asian parent standards.