BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship should be Eliminated

1.) “…there are times when the internet should be censored.” Let’s look at the country of China, where a Communist government rules over the people with an iron fist, figuratively speaking. In China, according to Britney Wilkins of OnlineCollege.org, whatever you type is recorded, your visits to game sites, e-mail websites, and others are monitored by an, “Internet Detective,” and programs such as iTunes or blogposts are blocked. Our internet here is not that bad, sure, but if censorship continues to exist, and we continue to let the government do what it wants, nothing will stop our internet from becoming just as bad. 2.) “…the website host should have the ability to remove the content because it is harmful.” I realize that harassment is a dangerous thing, depending on how it is happening. However, a parent should be nearby to make sure a child is not being exposed to this; if an adult is on a website like this, perhaps they should be expecting this. Also, it is against the Consitution for one to delete another’s statements, etc. (Freedom of Speech). There is a difference between deleting someone’s profile from your website and deleting their posts. That brings me to my next point: 3.) “What is a pedophile is posting child pornography online?” I am going to assume that you meant, ‘What if a pedophile…’ over, ‘What is…’ On March 26th, 2011, it was reported that the world’s greatest pedophile ring had been annihilated by the authorities. This all took place in the Netherlands, where censorship does not exist, though debates have been held on the subject. How was this stopped? The 184 suspects were subdued, not censored. If censorship had existed, people would be expecting it to stop just because they have stopped showing it. You may have stopped showing something, but you haven’t eradicated the source.4.) You mentioned the other types of censorship in your definition, but only talk about the internet is here. What about films? Books?
Censorship should be Eliminated

To begin, I will define censorship: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." Under this definition, there are times when the internet should be censored. If you are being harassed on the internet, the website host should have the ability to remove the content because it is harmful. The only people who have the right to censor the internet are website owners. We all have the right to be free, and to not have to worry about harassment. What is a pedophile is posting child pornography online? Thanks
Censorship should be Eliminated

Round 2: Thank you, AbandonedSpring for joining me in this debate. First of all, I wish to quote George Bernard Shaw, who once said, “The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.” Our Constitution grants us the freedom of speech, something that censorship is taking away from singers, actors, and others. I feel that a lot of back-breaking exertion was used to successfully give us our own country, and even more so to create the Constitution. Getting to the point, by allowing censorship to prevail, we are denying the progress that was made by our Founding Fathers long ago. Secondly, I would like to point out that the words that are censored are just words. The “B-word” is nothing as insulting as the word stupid or idiot, but it is regarded as a, “bad word.” This doesn’t make sense to me. Surely, my opponent would agree that if we are teaching our kids how to insult someone’s intelligence with TV, calling them a female canine.
Censorship should be Eliminated

Round One: Acceptance. I have noticed that this seems to be a tradition on this website so I figured I would keep with it.I would also like to say that this argument is strictly professional. This means that if one is going to argue against me on this topic, I ask that you keep any emotional statements out of the situation (i.e. profanity, name-calling, etc.) to prevent us from getting off-subject and to prevent one of us from getting reported. I imagine that either one would suck. I would also like to thank my opponent, whoever he/she may be, for taking their time to join this debate.Let's get this started!
Censorship should be Eliminated

"So what if China is a Communist country? China is still full of living and breathing human beings, just like the United States." No one can do anything about the suppression. In cChina, there are many other forms in suppression. There is not first amendment for china. Us being democratic-republic allows for such a document that protects us. We elect officials who have similar ideals. "Internet Filter systems do exist, such as K9 Web Protection, Net Nanny, and more.' This are not free. Not everyone has money for a month-by-month payment. "(That included 184 suspects, like teachers and police officers}" But once again, it;s one situation. There are a countless number of others, and since you did not give a second situation, I am assuming you could not find another. "My parent has posted a picture of me on a social media website; I am not bullied for it. Bullying is always going to exist, pulling content will not stop that." Did your parents put nude photos of you online? Bullying will exist, but in varying degrees. A nude photo versus an embarrassing one are completely different. "I invite you to recheck your definition of censorship. We are strictly talking about, as the topic suggests, eliminating censorship. The topic does not say the word, "Internet."" clearly you don't understand how definitions work. I grabbed a definition off of a dictionary, and applied it to a situation. I did not make up this definition. I have only been talking about internet censorship. You also dropped the constitutional argument, so i'm assuming that you just had nothing to come back with. Voting issues: My opponent failed to prove that the internet should not be censored. He gave examples of situation where it wan't, but he never said it shouldn't be. He never really said why child pornography should not be pulled off from the internet. Website owners would have the ability to censor things on their own websites to protect the overall experience safety of users. Thanks
Beyblade is better than pokemon

In your previous statment that Pokemon toys are just squishie baby toys is incorrect,because Pokemon toys are generally hard plastic. Also you stated that in Pokemon you can only pay your friendes again and again, and that there are more beyblades than pokemon. But you didn't even show any evidence that there are more beyblade than pokemon. Also your last sentence is gramatically incorrect unless you think beyblades are not fun. I don't belive that Pro's burden of proof was strong enough and he didn't really respond to my round 2 argument.VOTE CON!!!!!!
Beyblade is better than pokemon

Pokemon has had 6 generations of video games; and Beyblade has also had video games but only 7 games were released in the U.S.A. so more people play Pokemon games because they're more popular. Also in response to your statement that "people could but beyblade toys and then play with it". Anyone with money can easily buy Pokemon just as well as anyone wanting to buy beyblade toys. Also using your own opinion on battling people with beyblades is not that reliable. Sources. Pokemon games-- http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game_series) Beyblade games-- http://beyblade.wikia.com...
The Mass Media is a Tool of Deception

Thank you for your very thoughtful and informative reply. First of all, And just so we are on the same path, What we are debating is the truth value of both premises and whether they lead to the conclusion. Premise 1: This premise assumes that the current hierarchy depends on irrational citizens. Why is that so? Is it possible that the current elite will remain in power or even grow their power if citizens become more rational? In addition and more crticially, Why is it in the media barons' interest to protect contemporary hierarchy? Premise 2: In this argument you assume that ignorance is nurtured. Could it be that humans follow their emotions by nature and the media just tells the people what they want to hear? I believe the premises, If true, Definitely do not lead to the conclusion. Firstly, The 6 major companies are owned by numerous shareholders. It is probable that the main driver of these corporations is generating profit regardless of the agenda which refutes the argument that they are deception machines. Also, We see severe disagreements between powerful people about the media which also refutes the homogeneity of the media. https://money. Cnn. Com/quote/shareholders/shareholders. Html? Symb=FOX&subView=institutional Can you give examples of "the homogeneity within the media corporations is at least to me very apparent and undeniable and I do believe one can see it in reporting on major issues. "? To point out my pitfalls, I am new to debating and not a close subscriber to US media.
The Mass Media is a Tool of Deception

I appreciate your engagement. Though, You did not attack the premises of my argument. You simply stated a different one which I will come back to later on. First regarding your questions. The question of 'who controls the news' is hard to answer in particular, But a little more simple in a general sense. In the United States today only 6 media corporations essentially own 90% of the media. (Whether to own = to control is another question essential to this). This is due to the fact that these huge corporations corner the market and buy up any media outlet unable to compete. This link can give a little insight https://www. Morriscreative. Com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/ Now I would argue that we have established that in the very least the large media corporations in the United States constitute monopolies that OWN the media. In the world of private enterprise owning something essentially means controlling it. Private businesses are constructed in a hierarchical way, Meaning one does what the person above has ordered. The most influence/control, Therefore, Lies within the hands of the owners of the company. After this, The managers follow. The employees I would argue have some but very limited influence for the very reason you pointed out. Their incentive is to pursue a career and if reporting on something contrary to your superior's views threatens your career, You would want to be following along the narrative. The influence of viewers and investors might be relevant, Though I would like to leave them aside for the sake of simplicity. If you, However, Want to include them again in your next point I will be happy to engage with it. My last point will be regarding your argument. I do believe your premise is flawed. While those people who have control over the media have 'differing opinions and agendas' to a certain extent, The homogeneity within the media corporations is at least to me very apparent and undeniable and I do believe one can see it in reporting on major issues. I want to make clear that the argument cannot and will not be that those 6 company owners sit together and decide what can be reported on and what cannot (though the leadership of the corporations is heavily intertwined). Therefore I grant you that influencing the media might be is a 'reasonable argument'. However, Influence suggests that the media apparatus operates largely independently and there is only distortion and deception to a certain extent, While control, In my argument, Meant: distortion and deception is the norm and independent reporting and journalists is the exception.
The Mass Media is a Tool of Deception

Who controls news? 1. The managers? 2. The investor? 3. The viewers? 4. The employees? 5. All of the above. Who has the most influence? What do managers care about? Profit. What do investors care about? Returns. What do viewers care about? Entertainment and information. What do employees care about? Careers. Premise 1:There are several major stakeholders in news companies. People who have control over the news have differing opinions and agendas. Conclusion: It is not possible to control the Mass Media due to the fact that no one has enough power to control the news. Maybe influencing the Mass Media is a more reasonable argument.
The Mass Media is a Tool of Deception

The argument that I will formulate will be the following: Premise 1: Informed citizens would threaten the contemporary structure of hierarchy and dominance as it undermines their self-interest. Premise 2: To ensure the citizens do not follow their self-interest indoctrination and deception becomes necessary. Conclusion: Therefore, The Mass Media is a sophisticated apparatus of deception, Dedicated to distorting information to create "uninformed citizens making irrational choices" (i. E. Voting and supporting policies that contradict their self-interest). This argument can be applied to multiple nations and conglomerates but to simplify the debate I want to focus on the United States and their privately owned media complex. Hoping to have a productive and enrichening debate.
Existense of Evil is Good.

There are many things which ascribed as evil. I will divide it into two categories -Natural Phenomenon, and Human action. First, natural phenomenon, atheists sometimes use tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, and etc as proof for evil and so proof for God doesn't exist. Regardless of whether God exists or not, describing natural happenings as evil is scientific illiteracy. Because those happenings is what keeps Earth 'alive' and habitable. So, they are good. Second, human actions, I will touch on two things which are always said to be evil - murder, and rape. Murder, the result of murder is death, so logically for murder not to exist, death shouldn't exist. But actually non-existence of death would be an evil. We need death, because our food, water, energy, and etc supply is limited. One can argue, there should be more deaths to keep supplies balanced. Rape is common factor among mammals, as homosexuality is. So, if one regards as not being immoral, therefore rape is not immoral, and by extension is not evil. And in order for rape not to exist, sexual intercourse shouldn't exist. But we need sexual intercourse for reproduction as species. Thank you for reading. It is my introductory argument.
Chewing gum in educational environment is appropriate.

1. It's not about you in the classroom it's about the student 2. Most students wouldn't give a public speech while chewing gum, and if they did then it's an easy thing to address with them 3. If a student respects their teacher, school and classroom then they won't destroy it. Yes people put their gum under a desk or on things sometimes but it doesn't destroy a school. 4. So tell them not to snap or blow bubbles inbetween or after class 5. Most people share gum because someone asks for it and not for some sort of bullying or social hierarchy. I'm sure it exists but when I chewed gum in school and gave a piece to a friend it's because they just asked if they could have some 6. For some students it does help with concentration. Even coaches and athletes do it. 7. They allow it in college so why not high school 8.How does it set a negative precedent? It's gum.
Chewing gum in educational environment is appropriate.

1. The classroom is not a barn yard. Chomp-clack-chomp-clack. When I taught at a high school where gum was permitted, that’s all you heard in the sea of students. Looking out at them made me think of a host of cows chewing cud on my brother-in-laws farm. 2. It’s terrible for public speaking. There’s nothing more awful than students who have just delivered the GREATEST PRESENTATION OF ALL MANKIND, but the whole time you can’t think about anything beyond how they fit 6 pieces of gum in their mouth. It also muffles the voice from operating in a proper manner, and a piece of gum sitting on one’s tongue or stuffed in their cheek just looks silly. Want to get in a debate and win against someone? Give your competitor a piece of chewing gum. 3. It will destroy your class and school. This is probably the number 1 reason to prevent gum chewing. Our middle school is nearly 60 years old, and it’s in pretty decent condition. A large reason behind that is the fact that gum is and has been prohibited. Compared to the high school that I taught at, which is less than 10 years old – I still remember going to get a drink from a water fountain that was splattered with gum, someone even wrapping their gum around the faucet. Nasty! 4. Gum snapping and bubble blowing is distracting. There are silly things that students do unconsciously or even consciously when you turn your back to make one another laugh. Why give them another? 5. Gum sharing is inconsiderate. It become a popularity contest to share gum, and students act selfish by giving to a select group of people while neglecting others. I operate by the policy if you have something in this class, there needs to be enough for everyone. Period. 6. People try to claim that it stimulates concentration. But I don’t buy it. Do you really think a slap of Big Red or 2 pieces of Orbit are going to make you do that much better on the test? How about an interactive, stimulating classroom, a healthy breakfast, or 8 hours of sleep? That’s what I’d rather focus on for my students. 7. Opening Pandora’s box to a host of other classroom discussions. If students can chew gum (which I’m opposed to), why can’t they carry around a water bottle (which I support)? Why can’t they eat snacks or bring in soda pop? 8. It sets a negative precedent for years to come. We are animals of habit. If we can model good behaviors in our students in any age, they can become standards for years to come. If teachers restrict the ability to chew gum in class, it’s possible that students will go to college and be on interviews and think to themselves – I shouldn’t have gum in a professional setting. It’s amazing how many young adults – or even the President of the United States – forget about that.
Euthanasia should be legalised

"The Supreme Court, who has the duty of interpreting the Constitution, says that the right to die, as asserted by many supporters of euthanasia, has no Constitutional basis as a right."I would like to point out that the Supreme Court has been wrong before. Take the Dred Scott Decision. The Supreme Court ruled that slaves are property according to its interpretation of the Constitution. Yet just decades later, we amended the Constitution to say that slavery is illegal. In the same sense (though this issue is not as extreme as slavery), we can just as easily make a law that contradicts a former Supreme Court ruling. It is only logical that the right to death comes with teh right to life. "Returning to another argument pro made in round 1, you seem to suggest that the legalisation of euthanasia would reduce suicide rates. What is your source for this?"I do not have a source for this, unfortunately. However, to make sure that it WOULD reduce suicide rates, the US Government could add a clause onto the law passing Euthanasia that requires doctors to make an effort at suicide prevention therapy before administering the euthanasia. "...quote from the Hippocratic Oath. I do believe that the first half is "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked..." This EXPLICITLY bans euthanasia. Not just advising it, but the actual act."In addition, looking through the actual text of the modern Hippocratic Oath, I did not find the quote you have given (1).The oath DOES however have a lot of stuff about easing the suffering of fellow man, and sometimes Euthanasia helps with that, leading me into my next rebuttal."But what do we define as suffering? A person with a terminal illness under horrible pain, a mentally ill person who will never to live out their life to the fullest, an infant with a horrible birth defect..."You seem to have defined some instances where euthanasia would be an acceptable solution with the consent of the patient and/or family members. I don't understand who's argument you are trying to contribute to with this point..."...some hospitals have resorted to killing perfectly healthy newborns in order to meet their quotas and receive the government funding associated with it."That problem has an easy solution: don't offer government funding for euthanasia...SOURCES:(1) http://www.pbs.org...;
Euthanasia should be legalised

First of all, I encourage pro to reread the quote from the Supreme Court, pro asserted in round 1 that there was a right to end your life prematurely. This quote explicitly rejects that on a legal basis. Furthermore, it has been referenced as if it was found in violation of a law. The Due Process Clause is not just a law, it is a part of the Constitution, wherein all the rights of American citizens are outlined. The Supreme Court, who has the duty of interpreting the Constitution, says that the right to die, as asserted by many supporters of euthanasia, has no Constitutional basis as a right. Returning to another argument pro made in round 1, you seem to suggest that the legalisation of euthanasia would reduce suicide rates. What is your source for this? Otherwise it is a presumption that is irrelevant. Pro also focus on only the back half of my quote from the Hippocratic Oath. I do believe that the first half is "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked..." This EXPLICITLY bans euthanasia. Not just advising it, but the actual act. Euthanasia also is a decision that would be made when a person is in extreme distress. It would be making, literally, one of the last decisions of your life under the influence of extreme pain and when you are desperate for relief. To continue, there is no clear line of where to stop euthanasia. Euthanasia is supposed to be given to the suffering right? But what do we define as suffering? A person with a terminal illness under horrible pain, a mentally ill person who will never to live out their life to the fullest, an infant with a horrible birth defect, or even a perfectly healthy newborn? The answer may appear clear us, especially when it's the last example that is in question. However, according to the National Review, even in the United Kingdom, where euthanasia is extremely restricted, some hospitals have resorted to killing perfectly healthy newborns in order to meet their quotas and receive the government funding associated with it. Finally, this "Slippery Slope" is compounded by the financial implications of legalised euthanasia. Studies show that euthanasia will save the government and hospitals money. While some might see this as positive, it could mean that people are pressured into suicide by hospitals and the Government looking to save money.
Euthanasia should be legalised

"...pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg..." Yes, legalizing Euthanasia would go against an old law... that is the whole point... we are trying to make a new law. Referencing an old law doesn't count as "proof" when the whole purpose of the debate is to create a new law."...doctor who administers it violates the medical profession...the Hippocratic oath which states 'I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;' The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it."I'm pretty sure I pointed out that doctors wouldn't be ADVISING suicide if a patient came in requesting it. The doctor would then have an opportunity to help the patient through suicide prevention therapy. That opportunity would not have been available if the patient tried comitting suicide privately. If even suicide prevention therapy doesn't work then the patient's death is inevitable, and there is no problem with a doctor taking the patient's life painlessly, rather than the patient taking his own life in more painful methods like hanging or shooting.