BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship is good

My opponent says that if people are easily offended, then it isn't the job of librarians to censor the content, but the reader's job to avoid things that offend them. However, my opponent avoids the fact that the community chooses what is censored, and that includes things that offend some individuals. Also, it is unfair to ask every person to research every material that they read or watch. If you had to research the plot and themes of every book you ever read, or book you watched, then it would ruin some of the fun of the content, and would ruin the point of reading or watching the content. In some cases, censorship can help fix this. If the only things in an elementary school library are appropriate for age level, then the kids can feel free to pick up any content they want, without having to worry about whether or not it contains things they should not see. Censoring the content in libraries like that can help protect the minds of the people who read it, and make sure that the person is not required to do any research into the content they are reading beforehand. Also, many books may seem perfectly fine at first glance, but contain things that offend them, or are not appropriate for them. It is the job of censorship to make sure that all content available to the public is appropriate, and doesn't spark any debates (that lead to fighting, not the calm and logical kind) and that doesn't seriously offend a group of people. For example, if someone writes a novel that black lives don't matter (which they completely do), then releasing that could lead to fights, hate mail, or other violence from groups that are insulted by the content. That novel should not be released to the public in a place like a library, because it could lead to all those negative outcomes. Censoring a book like that benefits the community because it can prevent violence, and can make the community a more safe and calm place. Finally, censoring content can prevent public backlash, and keep everything more controlled and safe for everyone to live in. Censoring things keeps people in a better emotional state than they would be in with offensive and rude content right before them. Censoring materials benefits everyone it effects, when it's used correctly, and provides a better base of publicly available content, helping to keep everything appropriate and to make sure that the public will not resort to violence to show their opinions on certain content. When used correctly, censorship is good.
Censorship is good

My opponent says that parents and librarians choosing which books should and should not be in school libraries is a good form of censorship, because it prevents people from being offended by certain content. I disagree. If people are easily offended by sex, violence, profanity, etc., then it is up to them to learn about the media that they are planning to read (or watch, or listen to, etc.) before they read (or watch, or listen to, etc.) it so that they won't be offended. If they are easily offended, then it's not the job of the librarians or parents to appease to them and remove the books, but the job of the people who are easily offended themselves.
Censorship is good

If, in this debate, we are counting the government censorship as self-censorship, then I will no longer debate that topic. Thus, I will bring up another example of censorship that can be useful and positive. That example is libraries. Some books/films/other cannot be found within public and school libraries because they have been removed from the shelves for a certain reason. This is a form of censorship. When certain items are removed form the library it is for inappropriate content, or for content that would offend the general public. It could also be because of numerous complaints from community members, and those complaints could be for too many reasons to count. Censoring the content that is available to a community is a job given to a committee of community members, but since it does not represent everyone then it does not count as self-censorship. My other point is school libraries. The books that are removed form school libraries are chosen by parents and librarians. This is also not self-censorship because the people that are affected don't get to pick what is censored. Still, both are beneficial to the people they censor. Censorship in libraries helps protect the emotional state of all the people in the community, and keeps groups of people from being offended by certain content that is available within public places.
Censorship is good

My opponent says that the government should censor some of its own information and not let it leak to the public so that there is not a backlash from the public. I somewhat agree, but I contend that that is a form of self-censorship, which I have already discussed my approval of. If the people who are censoring the government's information are part of the government itself, then the government's right to free speech is not being abridged, so I would have no problem with that.
Censorship is good

My opponent brought up an example of people drawing cartoons that may be rude or offensive to a certain religious group. I agree that the people have the right to express themselves in that way. That example is not something that I believe should be censored. Allow me to clarify: I don't believe that censorship should be used in every case when someone may be offended, only at certain times is censorship positive. Still, not censoring anything is a very bad idea, and can cause many problems for many different people. In response, I'll bring up my own example of a time when censorship is useful. Certain government information has been leaked from the U.S. over the years. The information has been on many topics, and has involved many different organizations throughout the years. Though I won't discuss specific leaked information, I'll be discussing the situation as a whole. A lot of the information that people have found out over the years has caused an uproar from the public. Learning things that the government keeps from the people, or learning specific things that the government is doing have caused people to react in very different ways. Sometimes, people will get in arguments, fights, will start riots, or will react in other violent ways to the things that they learn about the government. For the good of the country, and all the people in the country, the government censors the information and amount of information that it shares with the public. If the government shared all of the information that it has with the entirety of the American public, then things would be a lot less safe. Certain things can be misunderstood if they are judged or evaluated by people who do not know what they are doing. With some information, people will form opinions, and fight with others to prove their points and opinions. Even if the people do not fully understand the things they are forming opinions on, or do not understand the results that will come from their opinions, they will still argue their point. When things are only disclosed to people who need to know it, and people that can understand and make use of it, then better results and no panic result from the information. In this way, certain information is keep from people, whether it's the government, a company, or something else that is withholding the information. When information is withheld like this, it is a form of censorship that benefits the person/organization/thing that is censoring it, and benefits the people by stopping possible panics, violence, and misunderstanding. Therefore, censorship can be used in a way that is beneficial and right.
legal age should be 16

Another good point however sources indicate that the fully development and maturity starts in the early 20's another point that my opponent made was that it would effect them in the future if at a young age they be treated like adults with the responsibility that can make them an responsible as adults do longer you treat them like children the more immature they will be If you say there not older enough to do this or that there going to do it anyway what makes teens what to do grown up enough is the fact that someone tells them they can't if these teens knew about the responsibilities of being adult earlier on they would be careful in the decisions they make.
legal age should be 16

My opponent starts off by contradicting himself/herself by stating a relationship at such a young age may be disastrous. My opponent argues that some people mature faster than others, which is true; however, the frontal lobe of the brain, the part of the brain whose function involves the ability to project future consequences resulting from current actions, the choice between good and bad actions (or better and best), the override and suppression of socially unacceptable responses, and the determination of similarities and differences between things or events, isn't fully matured until the late 20's. With that said, many will argue that the legal age of marriage should be set at past 18. http://biology.about.com...
legal age should be 16

I agree that getting married and being in a serious relationship at a young age can be a disaster being legal at 16 don't necessarily means that they don't have tobe married or in a relationship that being said although at the age 16 you are still figuring yourself out the reason there an age limit based on maturity which isn't fair because some people mature faster than others that being said those who under the age limit are smarter and mature then those who over the age limit so I feel that why should someone who is very mature advance and know what there doing be helded back because of the age it doesn't make sense.
legal age should be 16

People who are 16 and even older are still discovering themselves. With that said, the couple barely know each other and marriage is to be for a lifetime, not a few years. Understanding yourself as well as your partner is a vital point in marriage and should not be dismissed. It is impossible for a 16-year-old couple to be independently financially stable. By marrying at such a young age, you'd only be setting yourself up for disaster and an inevitable divorce. I will address my other points later
Bowe Bergdahl should be convicted and punished for desertion or misbehavior before the enemy

http://www.youtube.com... Disclaimer: We both recognize that this is a contentious issue. Note that neither of us chose our side; we both prepared cases for and against on this topic, and the sides were decided by coin flip 5 minutes before we started. Thanks a lot to Raisor for debating me. It's my first time doing this topic, and it's been quite a while since I've had a live debate, much less against such a great opponent. The structure for our debate is as follows: Raisor (Pro) Whiteflame (Con) 7 min. Pro's 1st Constructive 1.5 min. Cross-examination 7 min. Con's 1st Constructive/Rebuttal 1.5 min. Cross-examination 7 min. Pro's 2nd Constructive/Rebuttal 1.5 min. Cross-examination 7 min. Con's 2nd Constructive/Rebuttal 1.5 min. Cross-examination 5 min. Pro's Final Round 5 min. Con's Final Round Note: We were establishing some of these rules as we went, so apologies for those short disruptions.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't have a cat. 4. I don't have a cat. 5. I don't have a cat. 6. Yes, to an extent. For example, I can't go to an infinite number of decimals for Question 8. 7. 4 8. In exact form, it is the square root of 13,946,507,706. In decimal form, it is approximately 118,095.3331. 9. I don't have a cat. 10. I can't recall ever trying tuna, so I really don't know.
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes or No, or with an explanation as to why neither Yes nor No would be completely correct or appropriate. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
The left is racist, and sexist

So with the BLM stuff you said, it may have good intentions but the reason it was created is still racist. Police brutality is bad no matter whom it happens to, so when people see a rise in brutality happening to blacks, they are still dividing people (in this case, brutality victims) by race. Not every black person is a victim of this and some people from other races are victims. If they want to fight against brutality (a fight I would join) then they shouldn't make it a race issue. The reason I think the wage gap is a leftist issue is because I rarely see a non-leftist presenting it as a problem. If people are getting paid less for the same work that should be a problem in itself, not a women's problem. It's still divisive because it presents men and women as two different classes of workers. We can talk about the party stuff another time but notice how I said "leftists are racist/sexist," not "Democrats are racist/sexist." Leftist philosophy, no matter what party holds it, is the topic of discussion here :).
The left is racist, and sexist

OK, I'm going to try to not take this too much to heart and have a civilized debate. I am going to say though, what you have said and labeled the leftist orientation as is totally uncalled for and offensive. To start off my side of this debate I want to try and debunk what you have said. First of all, the Black Lives Matters Movement. I understand what you are getting at in your explanation of your views, although you are only seeing black and white ( I will probably come back to this a lot. ). Although it may seem like the Black Lives Matters Movement is racist in the way that it is trying to protect Black Lives along with others, the Black Lives Matter movement wasn't created to say that only black lives matter. The movement was created to say that black lives matter TOO. Around the time this modifier was created there was a rise in the number of African American police brutality cases and homicides. The BLM movement wasn't created to discriminate and exclude other races of people, it was created to say, "Hey we are here and people too. " It was only meant to be a wake up call to others in the nation. Now the wage gap. I have no clue how you came up with the idea that the wage gap was created by the left side. The only thing the left side is trying to do with the wage gap is get rid of it so that all workers working the same job and doing the same work are making the same pay. This is no way sexist at all. If anything it is including and interweaving the sexes. I have no clue how you came up with the idea that closing an unfair pay gap is sexist. This is all I have to say about what you had to say in your first post. Although there is one thing that I do want to point out. Around the time of Richard Nixon's presidency, the Democratic and Republican parties' views switched. Around the civil war Southern slave owners voted more democratic and Northern civil right believers voted more republican. The Democratic party at that time (now Republican and right side party. ) believed that African Americans were not even considered people. African Americans were used as slaves by now Republican citizens.
The left is racist, and sexist

From what I've seen, the left heavily divides people based on race and sex. For example, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement comes from the left, and the reason it's racist is because it isolates a certain race of people, discriminates them from the other races. Discrimination based on race is racist (I think every life matters, not just black ones). They also divide people sexually, for example they talk about the "wage gap." The existence of it is not relevant (it's a different issue) but it proves that they divide people into classes by sex (i.e. men make a certain amount and women make a certain amount). There are more examples I can say in later rounds so this isn't too wordy. Bottom line: the left is racist and sexist. Maybe I'm wrong we'll see.
scottish independance

Do you understand that I want Scottish independence? The campaign For Scottish independence started in 2011 when the SNP (Scottish national party) were voted into Hollyrood in Edinburgh. For me independent Scotland is not-and never will be-an end in itself. It is about Scots gaining power that all independent nations throughout the world take for granted:powers which will enable the creation of jobs, encourage sustainable economic growth,secure social justice, tackle inequality ands promote fairness in Scotland and throughout the world.
They should not teach homosexual sex in public school as if its natural

To extend what I've said before, simply having things taught at school isn't going to harm anyone. Peter Gilmore said in the Satanic Scriptures that "Allowing same-sex marriage does not mean that Christians and others who oppose such a practice will be forced into such unions. They may find it distasteful, but then, when nation encourages the individual pursuit of happiness there is no guarantee that everyone is going to like what everyone is doing. That is part of freedom - the tolerance of diversity." I feel like this concept basically sums up my argument here: just because it's being taught does not mean that anyone opposed to it will be forced to listen or do such things, and therefore there isn't really a reason against it. This kind of change to education is necessary to ensure both homosexuality and heterosexuality are viewed as viable options, and will be valuable for people who will want to learn this, but those who don't wish to participate won't be forced to. As such, this leaves it optional, but still available, which is better than not having it at all.
They should not teach homosexual sex in public school as if its natural

I see what you mean as far as it being a sensitive topic is concerned. However, I feel as though it should be available to everyone, with the option to not attend the classes, rather than it being made something which parents must teach, rather than the school. It is a controversial issue, and people may not wish to partake in lessons due to their religion, but for others who do want to learn these things, it is important that they are able to do so, and therefore the lessons should at least be available: it is better to have them, even if some members of the class choose not to go to the lessons. If it is offensive to their religion, or they have strong feelings against it, then absolutely, it should not be forced upon them, but if they do not want to attend, they don't have to. As well, as I said, there are parents who are opposed, but their children are not: if we leave it as something that parents must teach, then there will be children who do want to know these things, but don't have access to the information. At the very least, there should be classes, should they wish to attend.
They should not teach homosexual sex in public school as if its natural

I'm happy to accept this challenge! I think that, far from being thought of as unnatural, we should absolutely be teaching children homosexuality in the same light as heterosexual relationships. What you are saying here about it being a sensitive topic seems strange, if you consider teaching children about heterosexual sex to be normal. The way I see it, homo- and heterosexual relationships need to both be seen as normal options, rather than one being normal, and one being something "strange" and different. If we start teaching children about homosexuality in schools, this allows it to become more of a normal thing. It is important to let people know that both are acceptable, and both are things which they are allowed to do. If only heterosexual sex is taught, then children have little knowledge of homosexuality. This makes it harder for people to "come out", as it is seen as being abnormal. Also, consider children whose parents are opposed to homosexuality: in this scenario, they would have nowhere to learn about themselves, and that isn't fair. If everyone is taught this, then people won't be seen as "different" for wanting to find out. There needs to be more equality between gay and straight people, and homosexuality shouldn't be abnormal. Of course, I understand that some people do have issues that are genuinely because of their religion, but in that instance, they should be excused from the class, if they really don't wish to participate. That is a better way of doing things than not having the class at all!
They should not teach homosexual sex in public school as if its natural

On the news they were speaking on public school teaching kindergarten and pre-k students about gay marriage and that it is normal for two men or two women to be together. In middle school and high school they will be teaching them in health class about sex and how to protect yourself which is normal but now they will be adding how to have sex with a male if you are a male and how to have sex with a female if you are a female which they shouldn't i believe because it is unnatural and i feel if you can't talk about god in school and that its something that should be taught at home than i think this topic as well should be taught at home. I believe this is a very sensitive topic that should be had by the child and parent. I also believe the school system shouldn't have the right to tell students anything they feel about certain things being natural especially without parent consent.