BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cyber communication is good for our society

I repeat myself again. This is my first point. Cyber communication decreases the credibility and productivity of an individual while doing a task. For example, todays society on wifi is not a debateable topic anymore. This makes every company owning wifi. So,the company has the legal rights on checking on their employee while their doing their work. But,there is a law that says that employers are legal to check on what their employees are doing. But, there are not allowed to check on their employee's own laptop or smartphones as it is stated in the law. So, employees can drag time and not finishing their tasks given and thus decreases the productivity and credibility of an individual while doing a task. I would like to see what you have to say about this.
cyber communication is good for our society

Cyber communication decreases the credibility and productivity of an individual while doing a task. For example, todays society on wifi is not a debateable topic anymore. This makes every company owning wifi. So,the company has the legal rights on checking on their employee while their doing their work. But,there is a law that says that employers are legal to check on what their employees are doing. But, there are not allowed to check on their employee's own laptop or smartphones as it is stated in the law. So, employees can drag time and not finishing their tasks given and thus decreases the productivity and credibility of an individual while doing a task.
cyber communication is good for our society

1) "Instant communication has improved people's access to information. More and more people are getting connected and informed compared to people in the past. In a sense, information is more free than ever. First reading was limited to the educated elite. Then most learned how to read, and now more people than ever have access to information." 2) "Cyber communication gives people another way to communicate. It makes society better for that reason alone. There are times when you are in situation when you might not be able to use your phone. The more resources we have the better off we are in this society in my opinion." 3) "The Internet has done wonders for communication in modern society. Cyber communication allows people from all walks of life and from all over the world to interact and share ideas with one another. Communication has become democratized due to Internet chatting and communication. This will positively impact society for years to come." These are three quotes. I have many more and there are up and owns I will try to present evidence and it is proven that cyber communication is good for our society. "Cyber communication decreases the credibility and productivity of an individual while doing a task." Although you may think that many top company's allow it and ave conducted study's proving that Cyber communication helps in a workplace for example think about Google they have tested that it helps and look they are the top place to work in America. " For example, today's society on WiFi is not a debatable topic anymore. This makes every company owning WiFi. So,the company has the legal rights on checking on their employee while their doing their work. But,there is a law that says that employers are legal to check on what their employees are doing. But, there are not allowed to check on their employee's own laptop or smartphones as it is stated in the law. So, employees can drag time and not finishing their tasks given and thus decreases the productivity and credibility of an individual while doing a task. I would like to see what you have to say about this." Most company's use this to increase productivity in a workplace. And company's can monitor how much work they are getting done so if they are not working they will most likely get "The Boot" That is what I have to say about that.
Trump's policy to ban Muslims from the country can be enacted practically and effectively

First I want to say, If Donald Trump wants to introduce a new law, he has the power to, and he will. Once Donald Trump gets an idea in his head, I'm sure he will do his utmost to put it into practise!!!I also want to point out that the pictures you posted in your last argument was not exactly fair, I believe the pictures you posted of the Christians were of Roman Catholics and/or re enacted images of olden days, and if that is so, then I do not think that they would wear the clothing the whole time- Only during worship/spiritual rituals. I'm going to counter your argument about the appearances of Muslims by posting my own images:Muslims: Christians: So it was simply a case of carefully selecting our images to match our arguments. We can both agree, unless you think otherwise that both Christians and Muslims would probably only wear such clothing during worship services. I am not altogether acquainted with the ways of the Muslim faith, all I know is that I sometimes see Muslim women in particular with a shawl covering their heads out in public, if it is an ordinary practise to do such a thing, then that almost completely blanks your argument about Muslims and their clothing.You can read more about the Islamic clothing here: https://en.wikipedia.org...So yes, It may be and certainly is to me a very chilling thing to think that officials and spies may be sent out to track down all Muslim people, but if that is what needs to be done, then that is what will be done.And to close in on your point that it would be shocking to remove American citizens from their own country because of their religion, Well yes it would be shocking, but American citizens would probably not know about Islamic religion if it wasn't for Muslims entering the country from abroad and practicing their traditions in America.I also want to say that removing mosques from America would be one way to lessen the load of Muslims in the country, and that the officials and spies I mentioned earlier on could easily find Muslims in such mosques while worshipping. I am sorry that my debate here is a bit messy and full of different points, but hopefully you will be able to piece them together. I have not done many debates, so i'm still learning! I will not be offended if you post another debate on the same subject, I probably wasn't the best opponent, but I tried!Thank you for your time, it has been a pleasure debating with you. I have learnt many new debating skills during this debate, thanks once again.Keep on debating!!!Yours,E. MacLeod
Trump's policy to ban Muslims from the country can be enacted practically and effectively

We agree that banning all citizens from "countries that contain the most Muslims" would reduce the number of Muslims entering the US, but it would be completely ineffective at keeping Muslims from other countries out. So, that alone cannot be the solution. There's also the huge political fallout that would occur banning citizens from the large trading partner and ally that Saudi Arabia is, which would make such a move horrible on a diplomatic perspective.Pro says "Muslims are quite distinctive and stand out from other people in their actions, looks, and clothing". Yet that is blatantly untrue. Here are some examples:Muslims http://rollingout.com... http://www.gettyimages.ca...Christians http://www.timesofisrael.com... http://www.asianews.it...If a border guard were simply going on looks and clothing, then the guard would be much more inclined to let the two Muslim people shown above into the country than they would the two Christians. Again, being Muslim has nothing to do with dress or looks or actions. It is a belief, something held in the mind of a person, and there is no such as "Muslim characteristics" that can be used to prove someone is or is not a Muslim.Pro's last paragraph chills me to the bone. The idea of sending officials and spies out among the populace to track down and remove American citizens from their own country based solely on their religion is very similar to how the Nazi Gestapo hunted down and removed Jews from their homes and forced them to leave. What Pro is proposing is creating the equivalent of the Nazi's Central Office for Jewish Emigration in the US, but this time for Muslims. Pro is correct, such horrific acts have been done throughout history to many different racial and religious groups. I simply cannot see how either the US Supreme Court nor the US people as a whole would ever allow such a thing to come to pass in present-day USA.
Trump's policy to ban Muslims from the country can be enacted practically and effectively

That was my slip up of words there, of course religion is not something declared in a passport, so there is no such thing as Muslim Citizenship. So perhaps Donald Trump cannot ban all Muslims from entering into the United States of America, but he could certainly reduce the problem. For example, Donald trump could ban citizens of countries that contain the most Muslims, such as Saudi Arabia, maybe not everybody in Saudi Arabia (for example) is a Muslim, and it may not be completely fair to simply ban people with Saudi Arabian citizenship from entering the US, but it would certainly help reduce the amount of Muslims entering the US. However, Muslims are quite distinctive and stand out from other people in their actions, looks, and clothing etc. So Border officials could also prevent people with 'Muslim characteristics' from entering the country. Donald Trump's policy might still work out though, because Muslims could easily be removed from the country once they were in the country itself, they don't necessarily have to be stopped at the borders. Think about people who are Christians, even nowadays they are persecuted and in the past the government of many countries have sought to kill all Christians in the country, obviously Donald Trump's proposal to only ban Muslims from the US, not to kill them could be carried out in the same way, Christians were easily enough tracked down back then, so Muslims are probably more likely to be tracked down nowadays and removed from the country. There may have to be officials and spies appointed to track down Muslims and remove them from America, but I think it could quite easily be done.
Trump's policy to ban Muslims from the country can be enacted practically and effectively

Pro is correct that I can't see how a proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US could ever be practically or effectively implemented, and I'm still no closer to believing it could be. Being Muslim is not a nationality or a race, it's not something you wear or is declared in a passport, it's not something that you can see. Unlike Pro suggests, there's no such thing as "Muslim citizenship", just as there's no such thing as "Christian citizenship". Being Muslim is a belief, which resides solely in the mind of the person. A border official has no clue what the person in front of them believes, and although the official could ask, the person could very easily just lie. Example: Border official: "Are you Muslim"? Person wanting to enter to country: "No" Border official: "Um.. Okay then, you can come in" Pro states that maybe the US could simply close its borders to all people from countries that have Islamic governments and that would work. There are two problems with this: 1) In those countries not all citizens are Muslim, so you would be banning not only Muslims, but Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists/agnostics as well, but the bigger problem is 2) Muslim people are living all around the world. There would be no way to stop Muslim believers coming in from England, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Germany, Russia, etc... Furthermore, there would be no way to stop the millions of Muslim Americans from entering the country, many of whom are the typical Caucasian or African Americans you would see walking around big-city or small-town America. Because being Muslim is simply a belief, and not anything visible or inherent to a person, there is simply no practical way to enforce a ban on Muslims entering the country.
Trump's policy to ban Muslims from the country can be enacted practically and effectively

My opponent tells us that he believes that Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US is unlikely to be practically or effectively implemented. I must argue, however, that I think that such a proposal is quite practicable, Muslim emigrants, or people with Muslim citizenship could simply be deprived of their freedom to travel into the United states without special permission from the US government, it is quite easy for the president of a country to just say that people from a certain other country are not allowed under any circumstances to enter into the country under his or her command. I think that Donald Trump's proposal is also quite reasonable, since Muslims have been given a chance to enter the US and adapt to the American lifestyle, however, the Muslims did not want to (or their religion prevented them from) adapting to American lifestyle. Because of their religion, Muslims felt that they could (or should) mercilessly slaughter American citizens, even though they had been treated kindly. Muslims are a danger to the American society, exposing American citizens to situations that could cost them their lives, only because they do not want to adapt to US customs, traditions etc. The Muslims think that because the US citizens have made them feel at home that they can just somehow turn the US into the place they want it to be like, which is unfair to the citizens of the US. I am sorry if I wandered away from the point, but I am not exactly sure what you found difficult to understand, perhaps you could be more specific and cut down the possibilities of debate to minor points? Thank you.
Trump's policy to ban Muslims from the country can be enacted practically and effectively

After hearing Donald Trump propose a ban on Muslims entering the US, I was perplexed as I couldn't fathom how such a policy could be implemented practically or effectively. I invite someone who believes it can to spell out how. As my time for research is limited, I'm setting this debate up with the understanding that facts pointed out don't need to be referenced, but should pass the test of common sense. Either side is more than welcome to challenge any claims made and provide references for or against any point if they so choose. Pro can either feel free to start into their argument right away, or can choose to simple introduce her/himself and then I will start with my argument.
Abortion

The hypothetical with Betty is an interesting one. 1 in 10 women every year claim to have been raped. Only about 5% of raped women actually become pregnant. In the case of abortion, should we be talking about the extremes or would it be better to talk about the real women who are really aborting their babies on the basis of it being inconvenient. Not that they had this forced upon them, but that they could have prevented the pregnancy before it happened. I looked at two different answers to why women have abortions. The first one was simpler, with less specific categories. 93% -Personal Choice or Inconvenience 4% -Mother's Health 2.5% -Baby's Health 0.5% Rape or Incest http://www.projectultrasound.org... The second one had more categories, but showed similar results. 27% -Not Ready / Poor Timing 25% -Can't Afford a Baby 20% -Finished with Childbearing 9% -Relationship Issues 8% -Lack of Maturity 4% -School or Career Concerns 4% -Fetal Health Concerns 3% -Parental Health Concerns 0.1% -Rape As it turns out the fetus can feel pain quite early on. At 3 weeks, the fetus nervous system is virtually complete. So it can feel pain. Ultrasounds from during abortions sometimes show babies screaming from inside the womb. Doctors can't always tell the physical conditional of a baby before it's born. There was a baby who the doctors said that would be born without a brain. The parents went through with the pregnancy and the child lived for 4 years. But it wasn't 4 years instead of 70, it was 4 years instead of none. Another person I know, the baby's lungs weren't developing properly. The doctors said that the baby would be sickly. Be is alive, and just like any other baby. What I mean by this is that the doctors can't tell the future, they can give a good guess, but they aren't always right. Another person I know has had 3 or 4 abortions, because she was told that it could kill her. After that she later had a child. Both she and her child are fine.
Abortion

Abortion is in violation of human rights. Whether you believe the baby / fetus is a person or not, it is still a human. It is violation of a number of articles in the Declaration of Human Rights. These are: Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. You cannot be born free if you are dead before you are born. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. All of which are withdrawn from an aborted fetus. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Self explanatory. Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. In your outline you said "Abortion is not the murder of a person, as the fetus is not developed enough to feel the pain." As a human, even a very small one, they have the right to recognition as a person. I'd also like to bring up the Hippocratic Oath. Since the original oath many changes have been made, with many doctor's swearing different oaths. A section from the Hippocratic Oath reads: I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In ancient Greek times people understood that it wasn't appropriate to give an abortive remedy (ie. perform an abortion) to a woman. The word "Similarly" is used. This suggests that the killing of a baby is equal to helping kill themselves.
Abortion

I am going to be arguing that abortion is wrong. Round 1 will be definitions and outline of argument. Abortion: the intentional ending of a pregnancy I will be arguing that: 1. Abortion is in violation of human rights, and goes against the original hippocratic oath. 2. Doctors aren't always right about the physical condition and life expectancy of a baby before birth 3. The medical community is pressuring women to have abortions if there is any complications
Is Cam Newton a good QB

It couldn"t get much worse for Cam Newton in the first half Sunday. The Carolina Panthers quarterback completed just 3 of 12 passes for 18 yards " the least amount of yards he"s had in one half " and an interception. To make matters worse for the reigning NFL MVP, the pick was returned for a touchdown. With the Panthers trailing by 10, Newton dropped back on second-and-5 and appeared to be throwing a screen to running back Fozzy Whittaker. Raiders linebacker Khalil Mack read the play, leaped up and picked off the pass, returning it for an easy pick-6. Newton, whose QB rating was 4.9, did run in Carolina"s only touchdown before the half. The Panthers, who had won three of four heading into Sunday, trailed 24-7 at the break. http://www.foxsports.com...
Is Cam Newton a good QB

Fu(k Jerry Richardson. Our offense put together one of the most pathetic displays ever in the Super Bowl. I love Cam and have since his first season but when things go wrong with him there"s no chance he turns it around in a game. With most top tier QBs they can have a terrible start to a game and you can still hope they turn it around for one or two drives to pull out a win. Not Cam. I don"t know a single optimistic long-term Panthers fan. We all just expect the good young teams to collapse and then to go through a half-dozen 6-10 seasons. On the field the team isn"t really all that spectacular, despite last year"s success. The OL is garbage (we all know Oher is going to suck balls going forward), the secondary is trash (can you even name a single guy back there?) and almost all of our pressure comes from DTs. We all know Thomas Davis is nearing retirement and then it"s basically Kuechly, Short if they can resign him, and a bunch of nobodies. But most of all seriously fu(k Jerry Richardson. http://deadspin.com...
Is Cam Newton a good QB

Well by his 3rd season Cam Newton made the pro bowl in a Quarterback-loaded NFC and led his team in a 12-4 record and an NFC South title.It"s time to start recognizing what Cam Newton is and stop talking about what he"s not. we should give all apologies to a pre-prison sentence Michael Vick, Newton is said to be the greatest athlete to ever play the quarterback position. He is able to throw the ball more than 60 yards with just a flick of his wrist and nothing else. He can run away from defensive backs and linebackers and also run through them. He changes plays at the line of scrimmage and is the emotional leader of his football team, regardless of how his smile and celebration after touchdowns is perceived. Ryan kalil said this about cam newton"He"s a special player and the big thing about Cam (Newton) is that he"s grown up so much each and every year and he"s really become that quarterback that you want in a franchise guy,"
Christianity is false according to the bible.

First of all, Christianity doesn't say too worship eggs laid by some weird rabbit. the main reason Easter is celebrated because we are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins so we could live in heaven with him one day. Your argument does not make any sense what so ever, and eating candy on Easter is not satanic. Yes I agree that sometimes the media takes away the true meaning of Easter and also Christmas, but that is were our challenge comes in. We need to remember that we are celebrating the birth of our Savior Jesus at Christmas and his resurrection at Easter. Is it bad to give each other gifts at Christmas? No, it is not because we are showing our love for one another. The Magi gave Jesus gifts when they went to visit him. I could not understand your argument due to the fact that it was just random sentences in bold. Could you possibly actually represent your thesis and argument in the next argument please? It would be very helpful. Thank you.