BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality)

Mr Believer (Pro), thank you for proposing this interesting topic. Pro is in favor of internet neutrality, or transparency, or equality, or freedom - as opposed to the controls proposed by Virgin Media to limit access to certain sites based on bandwidth or advertising arrangements. Well, while I agree that a China-esque approach to Internet control sounds dreadful, this scheme is not being proposed by a government but by a corporation, which is also one of the last vestiges of real freedom. Corporations can do whatever they like in the free market. If they want to sell pickled rabbit turds, they can. They are free to try...and fail. As such, Virgin Media is free to try this bandwidth throttling scheme. If their customers like it, they will prosper. If their customers hate it, they will fail and the customers will switch to other vendors. If no other vendors currently exist, I promise you they soon will. In the United States, telephony was once controlled by a very small cabal of large corporations. However, people didn't like the policies of those corporations, and now we have dozens of contract-free, internet-based and cell-based telephone company options. While Virgin's scheme sounds dastardly, it is merely an expression of the free market. They are free to try. If you, the consumer, don't like their service, don't pay for it. Net Neutrality is not in danger.
The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality)

NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAT THE INTERNET IS OUR LAST VESTAGE OF FREE SPEECH. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. NET NEUTRALITY IS. I believe that Net Neutrality should be spared, and should be kept away from Virgin Media's grubby, greedy hands. For those who don't know, I'll summarize net neutrality in a simple way. Net neutrality is what lets you sit at your computer, hop on the internet, and visit every site on the internet at the same speed. Now, granted it will not always be the same each visit. There is sure to be differing ammounts of content on each site your computer has to process. What Virgin Media plans to do, is 'throttle' your internet. Which means, they can tell your computer to fo fast to one site, but slow to another. And they do this because, most people would pay to be in the fast lane. They can also block access entirely to sites you normally go to, and redirect you to sites their sponsors create. Which means, if Google doesn't pay Virgin Media, typing google.com in the address bar will take you to a site like fetchfido.com, who has paid Virgin Media. The only way to get to Google, is to pay. Now, I believe the internet is the last vessel of our free speech. TV isn't. It's controlled by a group of people who care more about displaying an interesting story than the truth they promise. Same goes for newspapers/magazines. On the internet, everybody's oppinion is virtually the same. Nobody has a higher authority than another on the internet, except in a controlled situation. If Virgin Media takes that away, they're taking away one of our most primary rights.
The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality)

All corporate schemes to force people to pay for their web sites to run faster are simply schemes to maximize profits. Let them. If they anger their customers, then a new generation of ISP companies will rise to replace them, just as the VOIP telephone companies have appeared to challenge traditional telephony. Returning to the issue of freedom of speech and net neutrality: Free speech is the first defined and protected right in the United States. It has succeeded in protecting all forms of speech, including political and social, for centuries. It is fully intact. Regulations on media do not limit free speech, they limit corporate activities. And skewed news reporting is a business decision. If you think Fox News is shallow or biased, watch BBC. We have a news marketplace. I have a dozen news channels standard in my TV package. They are all skewed to reflect the policies of the corporations that run them. You stated initially that net neutrality was about the freedom to access all web sites at the same speed. But web access is already limited by the user's computer, OS, browser, and ISP, as well as the web site's design, plugins, and servers. All of these elements are corporate products and are tweaked to perform in certain ways beyond your control. You then claimed that the internet represents free speech because the traditional media, as I described above, is biased by corporate interests. However, the internet is biased by personal interests. Blogs don't represent some higher truth, they represent the opinion of one person, who is probably not a well-informed expert. The article on Wikipedia on "cardiology" may have been written by an angry teenager and not a team of eminent cardiologists. Also, most blogs have tiny readerships. They are little more than personal journals sharing personal opinions with a small number of like-minded friends. This does not spread ideas or information. In fact, as demonstrated by my Wikipedia example, the "information" on the internet is largely untrustworthy, and untrustworthy information is completely worthless. Conclusions: (1) My opponent's claim that throttling schemes or other attempts to alter internet access threatens net neutrality is False because there is no such thing as net neutrality. The internet is already governed by and predicated upon corporate interests. (2) My opponent's claim that the internet represents the "last vessel of free speech" is False for two reasons: (a) The internet already is just as biased as traditional forms of media, and (b) the right to free speech as strong today as when it was drafted in the Bill of Rights. It is false to equate corporate access to information with the freedom of expression.
The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality)

Here is a bit from the main net neutrality supporting site, savetheinternet. com, under the FAQ section. Who wants to get rid of net neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Which means it isn't just Virgin Media that's heading into this. They're followed by many other companies as well. Now, I know you might think, "Well, people can just switch to Embarq or one of the 'safe' IPs" But that wouldn't work exactly as planned. Why wouldn't Embarq take that opportunity to raise their prices? No matter how you look at it, we have to pay more. I know that sounds a bit greedy, but in times like this, with our economy as unstable as it is, this simply cannot turn out well. Otherwise, my arguments on the unethical nature of net neutrality still stand. I can understand if you don't intend to disagree with them, as well. As the consumer, I can't begin to think of a scenario where getting rid of net neutrality would be beneficial. Either way, I had fun. And it looks net neutrality is winning. I hear action was recently taken against Comcast.
The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality)

I think my opponent may have a false notion of what Virgin's throttling really is. Virgin Media is an internet service provider (ISP) in the UK, just like AOL, Comcast, and NetZero in the US (or globally). An ISP is merely a company that gives an individual access to the internet, it does not in any way affect the internet itself. An ISP is like a window that lets you look at internet content. The internet, of course, is a giant web of servers spread all over the world. No one controls all of it, and everyone who owns a server wants it to run as fast as possible. Virgin's throttling is a system of controlling the bandwidth of the data uploading and downloading through their internet access servers. If you are a Virgin customer in the UK, then you are essentially looking at the internet through Virgin's window, which allows Virgin to block or slow down parts of the view (web pages) at their whim. If you are not a Virgin customer, then Virgin's policies have no effect upon your internet access. If you are an AOL customer, you are viewing the internet through AOL's window which is subject to AOL's policies or shady business deals and no one else's. Conclusion: Virgin's throttling only affects Virgin customers, and if they get angry, they will change provider.
The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality)

JoeBob, you make a good point. Businesses are free to try what they would like to attempt to make money, that much is true. Customers are also free to try whichever company they would like based on a multitude of factors, none of which are outside of the obvious. But that is not what Virgin Media is proposing. The way it will go is, they will enforce this whether it is purchased or not. In other words, they are not giving customers the option to try their new 'service'; they are forcing it on everybody and recieving money from the ones who want it gone. What this is doing is esentially enslaving the internet. Like in the business world, the internet is a free market for ideas and oppinions. When Virgin Media does this, they're basically saying "Your oppinion doesn't matter because you don't have money." Now, I'm not sure if there really is a law like this, but it seems there would be a law that those with a certain ammount of power (big businesses controlling utilities, for example) cannot use that power to infringe on the basic rights this country was founded on. What I'm trying to say is, isn't it illegal to infringe on the rights of the people for money? If it wasn't, we might as well allow slavery while we're at it. I know those are two different levels of importance but in escense, it's the same thing. Taking away the rights of another person so you can make money. To make something clear, the way Virgin Media is predicted to 'throttle' the internet would make using the internet so slow that it is near unusable. And to the person in the comments, this isn't an internet service. It's a throttle on the internet as a whole. A brace on the entire internet, if you will. So you can't just switch at will. Sprint, Embarq, Cox, all of it will be 'throttled' by Virgin's plan.
Men wearing high heels

If you are referring to the height difference between males and females. That does not cut it. There are many women tha are over 6' tall and still wear heels. The reason that women wear heels is because society has told them that they need to do so in order to attrack a man. If you want to talk about height in relation to heels the avg hieght of a male in 2013 is 5'9" while a female is about 5'5" so you can not really say it was because of height that men stopped. They stopped because the shoe was sexualulized by out society. When you take that in context men don't wear them because people will assume he is gay and the last thing most men want is their sexuality called I to question. I was referring with something else. No I was not referring to sexuality. I understand the difference. What this comes down to is the objctifcation of women. For the most part in today's society women are objectified. So everything that women wear is designed to objectify them. Women even though they are far better off than they where just a few years they still have a long way to go. What May argument comes down to is simply this. Society looks at this type of thing as a deviant behavior. Yet where a pair of shoes no matter where them come from does not change someone behavior. Ok, good.
Men wearing high heels

Men's feet and legs are longer than women. That is why they stopped wearing them. If you are referring to the height difference between males and females. That does not cut it. There are many women tha are over 6' tall and still wear heels. The reason that women wear heels is because society has told them that they need to do so in order to attrack a man. If you want to talk about height in relation to heels the avg hieght of a male in 2013 is 5'9" while a female is about 5'5" so you can not really say it was because of height that men stopped. They stopped because the shoe was sexualulized by out society. When you take that in context men don't wear them because people will assume he is gay and the last thing most men want is their sexuality called I to question. No I was not referring to sexuality. I understand the difference. What this comes down to is the objctifcation of women. For the most part in today's society women are objectified. So everything that women wear is designed to objectify them. Women even though they are far better off than they where just a few years they still have a long way to go. What May argument comes down to is simply this. Society looks at this type of thing as a deviant behavior. Yet where a pair of shoes no matter where them come from does not change someone behavior.
Men wearing high heels

'I relation to high heels there is nothing that say this style of shoe belongs to this sex or that sex. It is up to which ever sex to decide if they want to wear high heels. To say that high heels are for female's only is like saying every female would have to wear them and that is the only shoe they can wear. To me shoe's are shoe's no matter which side of the store society puts them on. My mode of thinking "is that if the shoe fit's wear it!"'Men's feet and legs are longer than women. That is why they stopped wearing them.'When heeled shoe first started they started back in the 1600 as a way for some one male or female to keep their feet from sliding out of stirrups when riding a horse. It wasn't until the modern time's that men kind of tossed this style of shoe aside. They did this because they had to go off and fight wars that, at the time female's could not do. When you look back to the renaissance time period men of nobility always wore some sort of heeled shoe. It was typically thought that the higher the heel on the shoe the higher their stature in that given society. Men's mode of dress during this time period was far different also. Men of nobility dressed far more extravagant than a common man and lived a far more pampers and lavished life. 'Fast forward to more modern times. When the industrial revolution hit and many men went off to work in factory's this necessitated that they change their mode of dress. They wore clothing that was more subdued, rugged and eraser to move around in in this type of harsh working environment. Yet there was still a select group of men who still wore a heeled shoe and that was a butcher. They did so to keep their feet of of blood from an animal. Females during this time period still where for the most part stay at home and take care of the kids and home. It wasn't until WW2 that women where forced into the work place. Once they entered into the work place this necessitated yet another change in how female's had to dress. Yet they where still expected to go home after work and go back to being, for lack of better terms girly.'That was way back then.'Now into more of a more modern setting. We are now seeing a big swing as far as male and female's in the work force and what their job's are. We are starting to see more men as stay at home dad's while the women go out and pay the bills. When we look at clothing in general there is nothing that give's that clothing a sex or a gender, and please do not get the two confused there is a difference between sex and gender. What happens is any given society assigns a certain sex to look a certain way. It is society that say's this is for that sex and this is for this sex. Female's are told that they have to be more "vein" as far as their looks go. While men are told not to worry about their appearance. It hasn't been until the last few years that men have finally started to step up to the plate and take owner ship of the way they look.'Yes, there is a difference between sex and gender. Are you reffering to sexuality?
Men wearing high heels

When heeled shoe first started they started back in the 1600 as a way for some one male or female to keep their feet from sliding out of stirrups when riding a horse. It wasn't until the modern time's that men kind of tossed this style of shoe aside. They did this because they had to go off and fight wars that, at the time female's could not do. When you look back to the renaissance time period men of nobility always wore some sort of heeled shoe. It was typically thought that the higher the heel on the shoe the higher their stature in that given society. Men's mode of dress during this time period was far different also. Men of nobility dressed far more extravagant than a common man and lived a far more pampers and lavished life. Fast forward to more modern times. When the industrial revolution hit and many men went off to work in factory's this necessitated that they change their mode of dress. They wore clothing that was more subdued, rugged and eraser to move around in in this type of harsh working environment. Yet there was still a select group of men who still wore a heeled shoe and that was a butcher. They did so to keep their feet of of blood from an animal. Females during this time period still where for the most part stay at home and take care of the kids and home. It wasn't until WW2 that women where forced into the work place. Once they entered into the work place this necessitated yet another change in how female's had to dress. Yet they where still expected to go home after work and go back to being, for lack of better terms girly. Now into more of a more modern setting. We are now seeing a big swing as far as male and female's in the work force and what their job's are. We are starting to see more men as stay at home dad's while the women go out and pay the bills. When we look at clothing in general there is nothing that give's that clothing a sex or a gender, and please do not get the two confused there is a difference between sex and gender. What happens is any given society assigns a certain sex to look a certain way. It is society that say's this is for that sex and this is for this sex. Female's are told that they have to be more "vein" as far as their looks go. While men are told not to worry about their appearance. It hasn't been until the last few years that men have finally started to step up to the plate and take owner ship of the way they look. I relation to high heels there is nothing that say this style of shoe belongs to this sex or that sex. It is up to which ever sex to decide if they want to wear high heels. To say that high heels are for female's only is like saying every female would have to wear them and that is the only shoe they can wear. To me shoe's are shoe's no matter which side of the store society puts them on. My mode of thinking "is that if the shoe fit's wear it!"
World involvement in vietnam was not necessary!

America decided to join the war because of their pledge to South Vietnam, If America didn't join the war south Vietnam would have been destroyed by the north and as I said before America wouldn't want the blood of another country that they could have protected on their hands. They joined the war thinking that it would've ended quickly without having to pour too many recourse's into this campaign against the north. So Americas involvement was necessary to: 1) Uphold their Pledge to the south Vietnamese! 2) To not have the blood of south Vietnamese on their hands when they could have protected them from the atrocities of the north!
World involvement in vietnam was not necessary!

The war in Vietnam was necessary because America made a pledge to protect and help the South Vietnamese in their time of need, and due to the fact that the North Vietnamese attacked them it was a sign of war, so America protecting the pledge to the south Vietnamese went to war on the North. If America didn't go there would have been men, women & children slaughtered for no reason so if that is why the involvement was necessary because if they though it wasn't all of that bloodshed would have been on America's hand for not upholding the pledge that they made to the South.
World involvement in vietnam was not necessary!

Yes we know it was a civil war But, other countries do not care if it is a civil war they will join in at will to help who they please & when they please. This is not the first time another country has joined a civil war so I don't see why you bring it up, The words Civil war is just a few words saying that it is still a war but it is between themselves, as it is still a war other countries will join in the dispute as they please. To countries this is all a game of who they wish to keep as their friends at the end of the road and have their enemies Dead before them!
Abiogenesis Is A Sound Explanation For The Origin Of Life On Earth

*Opt-In Voting Standards apply. *Hey moderators, please remove crappy votes. Full ResolutionAbiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on Earth. ProHas the BoP and 4 sets of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to AFFIRM that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Con. ConHas also 4 sets of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to NEGATE that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Pro. Definitionsabiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms, on earth, first originated from inorganic substances. . https://www.merriam-webster.com...sound - based on reason, sense, or judgment. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...explanation - a statement or account that makes something clear. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...origin - the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism, inheritance, maintaining homeostasis, and reproduction. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...earth - the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun. . https://www.merriam-webster.com...the sun - the star around which the earth orbits. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Factory farms are cruel to animals

As it came out in my sources in Round 1, factory farms are cruel to animals.1. ChickensAs it came out in my source http://www.lcanimal.org...chickens suffer. 1) Broiler ChickensTheir beaks and toes are cut off and factory farms breed them to heavy that they have difficulty standing.As a result, they suffer many diseases.2) Layer ChickensThey live in small cages with just enough space to live in, and they are subjected to forced molting.2. Cowshttp://www.farmsanctuary.org...Cows' tails are cut off and cows sometimes are too heavy that they collapse.When they do, they are routinely prodded, dragged, and pushed around slaughter facilities.3. Pigshttp://www.animalfreedom.org...Pigs are kept in the dark in small cages and routinely inhale ammonia4. Turkeyshttp://www.lcanimal.org...Turkeys are crammed into small spaces.The end of their beaks are cut off and their toes are clipped, both without anesthesia.Factory farms breed them so heavy that they have difficulty standing.They go through an electrical bath of water!!!!!
Factory farms are cruel to animals

1. Clarification of topic I(Pro) will argue that factory farms do inhumane things to animals. Con will refute that statement.2. Rules : Forfeiting = automatic 7point to person who did not forfeit First round is for acceptance, but the contender may present a small opening argument without evidence.3. <MY CASE> 1. Factory farms are cruel to animals http://www.lcanimal.org... http://www.aspca.org... http://www.farmsanctuary.org... http://www.animalfreedom.org... http://www.humanesociety.org... 2. Factory farms are subject to little regulation http://en.wikipedia.org...