BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance

**This round is prescribed to be for questions only... however, I feel the necessity to answer the questions partially for clarification so I can provide a full answer in round 4**"Where did you find those sites?" -- To which sites are you referring? The ones that exemplify your arguments, or the ones I referenced for my arguments? (Full answer, after these clarification concerns are mitigated, will come in round 4)"Why do you think I plagiarized?" -- The answer here is quite obvious: your arguments were entirely unoriginal, and there were sites that outlined your exact case; all were the cited words of professionals, with no further explanation of the arguments. Per the definition, this is plagiarism. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: plagiarism - "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person" [1] I revealed the sites and subsequent Google Doc (since I had to transfer the file to a google doc -- it was an online link to a doc) which contained proof of the copied material.My Questions:Are tangible benefits measurable?If a policy maximizes societal welfare, should it be preserved?If a policy demonstrates the maximization of societal welfare on a utilitarian level, should it be implemented?Is the destruction of societal welfare and safety advisable?Hypothetically, if you were to commit a crime, would the realization that documented footage of the activity would exist, would it in any way dissuade you from committing the crime?Should tangible benefits carry weight in policy decisions?Should a just government attempt to protect their citizens?Should a just government prioritize citizen protection over potential privacy infringements?Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance

I am going for the U. S. F. G should curtail its domestic surveillance. Which means whoever accepts will be going for the U. S. F. G should not curtail its domestic surveillance. Definitions and cites will be provided if asked for otherwise they don't have to be provided. Rules:1. a forfeit of concession must be allowed.2. If you run out of space you must either delete it or leave it as it is.3. Keep it clean4. max of 10 cross x questions allowed per side. any others?
Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (Supreme Court Case)

Conclusion My opponent keeps insisting that these "hate missles" were targeted directly at the Snyders and their deceased son. None of the Westboro Baptist Church's protests or arguments directly implied or spoke of the Snyder name or their son's name, but simply to disagree on what America's armed forces are doing to their country. Also please keep in mind before you vote that my opponent only stated loaded questions almost the entire debating period. ^^^^^^^^VOTE CON^^^^^^^^
Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (Supreme Court Case)

1. No, sir, you ment it was 1 mile from the funeral. Even so, they did not have the protest where he was buried, but outside his viewing. 2. In an ordinary case, no right should overlap another, but in this case, there are conflicting rights. That is the purpose of this debate to find what right has more precidence, and, Con, there is no such thing as a miniscule right. Either I have it or don't, and each right garunteed to me by my Constitution by lady liberty grants me the right to exercise it without a biased interpretation of it's value, because it is still my right. In this case, so far, I believe I have established precedence. 3. I do not understand your last additive to the question. To the first, if they felt so strongly in their belief, then they could have had it somewhere else instead of verbally launching hate missles. 4. There is proof, for they were wanting to protest AT his funeral as close as they could get, targeting his memorial/grave and desecrating it with signs of "You're going to burn in hell; Thank God for dead soldiers!" If they had just so 'happened' to be outside of this funeral that they knew nothing about, it would be different. No, the intention was to attract attention to their cause by publicly humiliating the final memory of this man. They targeted this funeral along with over 440,000 others. =CONCLUSION= It's time this was ended. A point my opponent did not refute, which I contend primarily for, is thus: "The government is obligated, above all else to ensure domestic tranquility. I would like to add you neglected many of my points. =VOTE CON=
Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (Supreme Court Case)

1. When i stated that their picket line was 1 mile outside the city I simply meant that their signs had started appearing outside the city limits but Snyder still buried his son there. 2. The right to protest should always overlap the right to privacy. If this country had made the right to protest a miniscule right then almost all of the famous people and presidents throughout our history would have been nothing. 3. Why would the protest be started somewhere else? On what other circumstance would the protest have actually had anywhere near the magnitude that it had at that time. 4. As you previously stated, "It was the intention of the church to damage the memory of this soldier and harm his family and friends", the church had no intent on harming the family but simply wanted to protest against what the American military stood for.
Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (Supreme Court Case)

Opening Statement- The United States of America has many rights that the government cannot tamper with such as freedom of speech in the First Amendment. This one right, extended by the supreme court to all levels, is one that America was founded on. Where would African Americans be without "I have a dream..." -Martin Luther King Junior? Albert Snyder's case is simply a matter of emotional vandalism vs the freedom of speech. Contention 1 The right to protest should always prevail over a simple funeral procession. Almost every day there is a new protest taking place somewhere in America. Whether a it be at a funeral or at a senatorial rally a protest has never been sued for protesting. Besides the right to protest; a soldier's funeral, unless orchestrated by a highranking official, is open for the public to participate and observe. Albert Snyder sued the church in federal court, arguing that the congregation had violated his family's privacy and inflicted emotional and physical distress, when members carried offensive signs and picketed the funeral of his son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq. Snyder ultimately won a judgment of $5 million. But a federal appeals court threw out the judgment, finding that the protest signs weren't aimed at Snyder specifically, and said the statements are protected by the Constitution because they contained "imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric" meant to spark debate. Contention 2 Eventhough the protesters carried sighns of hate they did not threaten anyone participating in the funeral procession there for Albert Snyder had no right to sue the church on any physical damage. Eventhough the church did protest it was up to Snyder to bury his son there. The westboro baptist had set up a picket line almost a mile down the road towards the cemetary. Any emotional sickness that was caused by the protest was in due, part Snyder's choice. Conclusion In conclusion, the Westboro Baptist Church had the right to protest at the funeral and should have no penalty for doing so.
South Africans should embrace a prodructive culture

Culture is a very wide entity. It express people ways of life politically, socially, economically etc. Can a man change what favors him? No! The culture of South Africa has made them one of the most richest country in Africa and their economy is rich and strong still. So why will they have to change their modusoperandi? South Africa is rich in tradition, wealth, economy to mention but a few. How do you think South Africa could host the 2010 historical world cup if not for its great and indispensable culture.
South Africans should embrace a prodructive culture

Culture! Culture!! Culture!!! This is the foundation of a people. It's what distiiguish them from others. It's what makes them unique and infact it's what makes a country. Just as we have the European culture so do we have the African culture. The easiest way to kill a man is to take to away his real identity. Take away the culture of South Africans and you are successful in killing them. Beside, they are not complaining or are you a South African?
South Africans should embrace a prodructive culture

Greetings delegates the afore motion clearly states that South Africans should embrace a productive culture and i the great ntebo.com fully agree with the motion at hand first I would like to give you the following definitions . embrace- to accept So i would like to advice my opponent to please come up strong points on why should south africans not embrace a productive culture. Round 1 should be a debating round. i will talking about the following; why should South Africans embrace a productive culture. te importance of productive culture
Social Security is beneficial to United States Citizens

Defined Terms: Social Security - is a social insurance program that mainly refers only to the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death. This essay will mainly deal with the social security program of the U.S. http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov... is - linking verb. beneficial - helpful, useful, and is generally good. -http://dictionary.reference.com... United States Citizens - all the legal passport holding citizens inside the U.S. Border that are paying for social security or receiving it. My contention is that social security is beneficial for the U.S. Citizens: Social security provides a bases for which many hard working seniors can finally leave there job and have a secure income on which to rely upon. Though social security has taken small increments of a person's paycheck monthly, it provides a safety net for retirement. In addition to giving benefits for retirement, it also gives benefits for disability and to families whose working member has died or become disabled. This is beneficial as it helps these families survive. My opponent has the burden of proof in that he must cite specific examples of when social security has not been beneficial to the people of the U.S. and must explain why.
Social Security is beneficial to United States Citizens

Here are my contentions: 1-. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Think about it. Social Security promises its investors money, then gives it money from new investors. This requires more and more investors to contribute their money, making the problem steadily worse over time [1]. The problem is, even though we've realized that it's a Ponzi scheme, we aren't allowed to back out of it. The government will literally force us to contribute to its funds, as it punishes independent men who will con, not force, money from people. Any system that has to force people to contribute to it cannot be beneficial 2-. Social Security cannot sustain itself. When Social Security was first started, there was one retired senior for every 16 workers [2]. With both a steady increase in life expectancy and a steady decrease in the fertility rate over time, there's a retired senior for every 3.3 workers, and this number is only going to get progressively smaller. Eventually, every two workers will have to support one retired senior, which hardly seems possible given how much money these seniors demand from the system. Taxes will have to go up dramatically, and nobody wants that. That would hardly be beneficial. Sure, we could borrow the money, but the national debt is verging on collapse as it is; social security will quicken the fall. Either we'll be far overtaxed as we begin to work, or the government will break its promise to new retirees and refuse to pay them, despite the fact that they paid into the system in the first place. Neither of these inevitable scenarios look promising at all. 1 . Social security gives money to seniors. Sure, seniors get money after they retire, but that's only because they paid money before they retired - and chances are they aren't getting as much back as they put in, given the time value of money [3]. The U. S. government is taking the money to use for itself, then returning about an equal amount later, essentially robbing the workers of the time value of that money. If workers want a safety net for retirement, they can, and do, have savings accounts in the bank, and meet with financial advisors to ensure that they have enough money for retirement. The government is a laughable and dangerous replacement for a financial advisor. 2 . Social security helps the disabled and those whose relatives have died. Yes, but this helps them with the same tax dollars that it robbed from them, so they overall still lose money. Besides, few families that actually receive these benefits would literally die without them. In conclusion, while social security may benefit a few, it overall sets up the rest of the country to a collapsing system that's sure to cause economic pain. With that, I leave the debate to my opponent, and request that he begin to properly source his claims. [1] . http://www.americanthinker.com... [2] . http://www.socialsecurityreform.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marxist Communism is better than capitalism

I'm glad to be debating with you today on this interesting question. Good luck, and may the odds be ever in your favor.Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.Communism:a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.I will not disagree that capitalism has its flaws, but we need it for nations such as the United States to thrive and grow. In theory, Communism is a great system. Social classes are entirely abolished, and there are equal wages for most citizens. However, any government that is capable of giving you everything is also capable of keeping it for themselves. Under the Soviet Union, the party ruling the nation kept most of the money to themselves, or toward military spending [1]. Capitalism works because the government is not in charge. The economy is free to flourish as it pleases.If the government were to regulate everything, there would be no competition in the market, and no reason to expand ideas. As an example for this reasoning, I would like to introduce you to "Business A" and "Business B." Both businesses are companies that sell cars. However, they are both competing against each other. To win over more of the profits, Businesses A and B continually improve upon their product to make it more appealing to consumers. If the government were to have full control over the market, there wouldn't be any need to improve upon their products because nobody is competing against them for profits.Another example of why communism is terrible for the economy is a Pigram colony in the 1620s:After the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they decided that they would plant a community garden and share the fruits and vegetables equally at the end of the season. The idea was that all would work together and share equally at the end of the season. However, no one wanted to work in the gardens. Most were reluctant to do the planting and weed a garden that was not theirs. That first year, the gardens were not well kept and they had poor crops, which led to hunger the next winter. Under this system, by 1623 the colony was facing starvation. It was decided that a new system be used the following year. Each family was given a plot of land to garden in proportion to its size. They would be allowed to keep the fruits and vegetables for them selves [2].Sources:1) http://www.stridentconservative.com...2) http://www.culture-war.info...;
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

I suspect that the source of you confusion is that you still do not realize what an "extraordinary claim" is. What you must realize is that an extraordinary claim, by definition, is a claim that prior to the claim being made very weak or no evidence (or even evidence to the contrary) exists which supports it. What else would make a claim extraordinary ? However once an extraordinary claim is established, the same kind of claim in the future would be more ordinary (or less extraordinary), this again is by definition. For example if I claim that aliens visited earth in the past, that is an extraordinary claim for the reasons stated above. However if I establish this claim by providing extraordinary evidence, such as an alien spaceship relic, then I can cash in my claim. After this, it would be established scientific knowledge that aliens visited earth in the past. If a few years later, the same star child I spoke of in round 1 is found, then there might just be enough evidence to support the claims about him being of alien origin. Why ? Because the claim itself is not so extraordinary anymore. This is because it will be made after we establish that aliens have visited earth in the past. Hence what Carl Sagan's phrase practically means is that when you wish to establish an extraordinary claim you must work harder than someone making an ordinary claim, this is because prior knowledge supporting the ordinary claim already exists. Hence the extraordinary(out of the ordinary) evidence you must provide to cash in the unsupported claim (unsupported prior to you evidence). So your job as con was to argue that the same amount of effort is required for supporting an extraordinary claim as an ordinary one. I guess you would need some extraordinary arguments to pull this off, I thank you for your valiant attempt, but it seems you have been unable to do so. I think Carl Sagan's phrase is an extraordinary antidote to irrationality and is a marvel of healthy skeptical thinking. I don't think there can be a doubt that the resolution stands affirmed. Thanks,
Is English and British the same language

One problem with this debate is that the resolution seems to be in the form of a question rather than a claim. Since your statement on Round 1 is only a question, I can make the assumption that based on the fact that you are Con and I am Pro, you arguing that British and English are not the same, while I am arguing that they are. This solely depends on what you define as "English". I assume (and will have this be a definition) that "British" is British English. British English is defined as "the English language used in England" as shown by the Merriam Webster. http://i.word.com... Since English originated from Great Britain, I can consider English to be the same as British English (British as you claim). English was a language formed by people of British descent, so why should we take that away from them? The U.S may use English as a primary language, but we didn't make the English language. English is Great Britain's language and we cannot claim it to be our language. Any arguments addressing that by English you meant the American reformation of English will not work because: a) You did not define your terms, so the job is passed over to me to do that for you b) If you just say "English", we shall assume that you are talking about the original language from Great Britain since they are the ones who made and have rights to their official language.
George W. Bush was a bad president.

Resolution: George W. Bush was a bad president.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of both national parties." -Ludwig von MisesDefinitionsGeorge W. Bush: The 43rd President of the United States This guy--> http://l.yimg.com...Bad: Of poor quality; unsatisfactoryI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
George W. Bush was a bad president.

Extend my arguments like a laser beam into deep space.Fun Fact: George W. Bush is also guilty of murder under federal law. Okay, I know you're thinking, "LOL.. Federal laws only apply to poor people." But, hear me out. US Code Title 18 Section 2 (b): "Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal." George Bush lied over 900 times to initiate his war of aggression in Iraq, while deceiving Congress and the American People, which resulted in 4,459 American deaths and many amputations, traumatic brain injuries, and other gruesome injuries. Since he willfully caused the War in Iraq and committed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to serve there, which would result in those aforementioned American deaths, he is guilty of multiple murders under the law. For justice to be upheld, George W. Bush should be prosecuted for these crimes.Vincent Bugliosi, one of the most prestigious American lawyers in history, documented the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence against Bush in his book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder that a) Bush took this country to war on a lie, b) his willful war of aggression is responsible for multiple deaths, and c) according to US Federal law, he should be prosecuted and imprisoned.Thank you, and 'Buck Fush'.
God created the earth

Obviously not. "I was told by an evolutionist that life can only come from life"Don't believe everything you hear. If I say "bats are potatoes", does that make it true? "So who created the atmosphere? "Nobody created the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and a very small percent of assorted other elements such as carbon and argon [2]. The fact that there is so much nitrogen and oxygen allows for life as we know it to exist [3]. I'm sure that Pro wants to know where all of this came from, but the Big Bang is a debate for another time. Pro has not refuted anything I posted in round one, but has merely tried to bring the debate from evolution to the origin of elements and the universe. [2] . http://teachertech.rice.edu...[3] . http://www.feasta.org...