BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated

The resolution is for advertising on the internet to be strictly regulated, for purposes of protecting the minds of the youth. I shall argue against government regulation of internet advertising, for pragmatic reasons involving people in any given country that attempts to control the internet, reasons of free speech, and for those that engage in the business of marketing on the internet. First, there is the people living within the State to enact the legislation. Many in the developed world already use firewalls and ad-blocks, thus making this legislation redundant. One may argue that parents and school administrators will be paying less if the government enacts a ban, except what tools are the government to use to stop non-compliant foreigners from disobeying except the tools in use today? Factoring in the misallocations higher levels of governments are infamous for, it would be better for those wanting to protect the children under their care to search the market for appropriate software than for the government to meddle too readily. Second, there are truly constitutional costs to consider. Should one have a review-of-porn-sites webpage, would it be banned as "advertising" even though the porn sites did not pay that person? Further, advertising even in it"s paid form is made permissible by free speech; should one be willing to post your advertisement, one should be allowed to. The challenge of free speech is not to protect what you agree with, but to protect one"s right to say what one disagrees with. Which leads to my third point; the market does a lot of strict regulating as it is in this regard. Generally, most sites avoid advertising porn sites precisely because they fear a backlash; whether by angry parents blocking the site or just people saying "not what I wanted to come here for," sites as it is don"t allow porn sites to advertise. Most porn advertising is done on porn sites by those who offer paid content; when a cookie left behind is responsible for the ad, is it really any different from the proverbial child discovering daddy"s stash? Ultimately, it is the role of the parent and those who act en parentus loco to protect children from porn; however damaging porn may be, it is not nearly as damaging as tobacco, alcohol, and third-world style repressive governments, and it is truly important to keep perspective and priorities in line; we risk much more in attempting to let the government protect us from Pornography than we do in continuing to protect ourselves and keeping the larger levels of government out of it.
Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated

Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated, Since there are a lot of advertisement on the internet which promote pornography and similar types of things such as dating sites etc. we all know that internet is very common and almost everyone uses it. Now imagine a 8 - 12 years old child is using the internet for playing games or watching cartoons on the internet and an advertisement promoting pornography comes up, and out of curiosity he clicks it, he will be redirected to that site. Now isn't that child abuse. Kids at such a tender age getting exposed to stuff like that. Even teenagers get exposed to such things and end up getting addicted to it, that could have serious consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.fightthenewdrug.org...
God broke his own commandments and should face scrutiny like humans do.

You chose the con side of this debate BTW. Anyway, that verse actualy says "thou shalt not murder," this doesn't exclude killing as a judgement for crimes. Infact that is everywhere in the Tanakh, and you should agreee on these, Exodus 21:23-25:"But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."Deuteronomy 22:25:"If a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man rapes her, the man who lay with her shall die."
God broke his own commandments and should face scrutiny like humans do.

Many people are aware that God gave the 10 Commandments to Israel from Mount Sinai, as recorded in Exodus 20:1-17. This event occurred about two months after Israel left Egypt. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why should this judgement rule be only subject to humans and angels? Just because he's God and he says so?' Considering the commandments were published by God himself shouldn't he follow the same rules he set himself? Quite ironically he has broken one of these 10 commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" ... hmmm.. Seems to me he has broken this multiple times. Example 1 : The genocide of the Canaanites. In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelite's, "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" God ordered similar things when the Israelite's were invading the promised land (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 20:16-18). Why would God have the Israelite's exterminate an entire group of people, women and children included? Now why would God, a paradigm of wisdom and full of love want to exterminate children? Because they were worshiping false idols? Seems to me to be a capricious, cynical, and uncaring judgement if he sees the events beforehand. If God has total foreknowledge of who does what and when, then what is the point of free will and judging anyone for what they do? There is also no point to have a heaven or hell if he knows who goes to which and at what time and for what reason. Either God has a plan, or you have free will. You cannot have both because they are irreconcilable. Which in return makes existing a living hell to have to "love" something that we can't even completely prove exists based on faith alone. To put your faith into something that is entirely anecdotal and hypothetical is to take something at face value without question, which in return can destroy your integrity has a human. Although I will concede that morality is subjective. The reason morality is subjective is because the conception of "sin" is a social construct, as is everything. You cannot justify objective morality because it stems from subjectiveness. So if God's reasoning and judgement is subjective, why should we care what he thinks is right and wrong? Challenge: Prove that this reasoning is illogical and false.
Struggle songs should be banned.

My opponent's first argument is that struggle songs provide hate and therefore should be banned. Unfortunately, hate is all over and there is nothing we could do about it because of the first amendment. So, by making struggle songs illegal based on this, would be doing something illegal. Incite violence: I think the majority of people who listen to a song, are not really concerned with the lyrics or their meaning. Not that many people pick up on similes or other powerful language in songs. One of the most popular songs "Gangnam style" hardly any people I know, can sing the lyrics to that song. So if someone is singing a song about struggle, they are most probably singing because they like the way the song sounds, not because they agree with the artist's views. Also, as far as I know, I am not aware of any acts of violence based on song. If you you know any please provide examples. If not, than songs about struggle have not really "incited violence". I APOLOGIZE, I JUST REALIZED YOU RESTRICTED THIS DEBATE TO AFRICANS. Well, this is embarrassing. If you would like to continue. I agree with you that this may be a disgrace to Africans, but not that many rational people I know judge a race based on their songs. Once again, even it were a disgrace, it would still be abridging free speech.
Struggle songs should be banned.

MY HUMBLE GREETINGS TO MY FELLOW OPPONENT. Given th opportunity, I would like to discuss the policy of this debate. POLICY; In round one , I expect my opponent to provide clash concerning the motion at hand with the stance i have taken. To refute on at least one of my points and provide a logical argument. In round two my opponent should use a case study to support his stance and in round three Iexpect my opponent to provide a statement on why he should win this debate. General public, as the affirmative, I would like to restrict this debate to Africa. Honourable public, struggle songs do not only constitute hate speech, but they also incite violence. Thus indicating that these songs pose a threat to society. In the highlight of this statement, I would look at a song which is, or was, usually sung at political meetings; The song is entitled "Shoot the boer". When looks at the tile of the song, the words 'shoot' basically means to 'kill', and 'boer' refers to a particular ethnic group found in South Africa and is known as the "Afrikaners". So when clearly sees that the word shoot, meaning kill, poses a threat to these particular people. Imagine a person, who is not well educated, attending a political meeting , hearing such songs being sung, what wouldn't that person to do the ethnic group which the song is directed at. Doesn't this just show that singing such songs poses a threat to somebody life. However, we cannot say that such a song defines our roots in terms of where we come from. As this will degrade true africanism, and african morality.
The Existence of Thousands of Religions is Proof of There Being no God

I accept. Proof is a bold statement. How does one define Proof and how does one even define knowledge? There may be an impasse regarding basic epistemology lessons, yet I graciously accept this debate, "knowing" full well, and "believing with conviction." that not only is there no "proof" for there being no God. there definitely is proof for a God, and all religions point to there being one. This does not mean all religions must be exactly right about every minute detail. But it DOES mean the existence of all the religions have a central theme. That is God. And that alone is proof for God's existence. Not against it.
Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.

I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.
Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.

Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, "In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.
Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.

In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary
Socialism vs. Capitalism

-Good Debate, OpponentSummary:My opponent didn't answer my last point about it being unfair to take forcibly from the rich and give to the poor and that the entire economic system is in pieces. Sure, some corporations violate human rights, but those corporations are mainly in Africa and Asia and southern America (the 3rd world continents), not in Northern America, Europe or Australia (the 1st world continents), but the flaws of capitalism in the US are nonexistent comapred to the flaws of socialism. Look at the US and the USSR in the 60's. Big difference, one had a capitalist system, the other a socialist system, one system survived, the other failed. Also why did people flee from socialist Cuba, to capitalist US, from socialist eastern Germany to capitalist western Germany, from socialist eastern Europe to western capitalist Europe from Asia to America. Why not to the apparently 'safer and better' socialist zones, instead of to the 'horrible paradise' capitalist zones? Why?I'll tell you why, because no matter how good the ideal was, the USSR and all the influenced states, led to communist totaliaran states, because power corrupted them, so they spread propaganda about how they were better than the capitalists states, but while some parts were true, like they earned money when they didn't do work, other parts weren't true, like they have more freedom, when freedom and wealth was nearly nonexistent, unless you were part of the dominant party. Also buisneeses failed and the economic system failed, because some one needs to work, for the economic system, but if you don't work and have the same amount of money, why do you want to work (farming, inventing technologies, building buisneeses), so no one works and the economic system completely fails.True some democracies today are slightly socialist, like most of Scandinavia, but they're not pure socialist, they're also capitalist, the only pure socialist derailed into a communist totaliaran state like the USSR and is today known as North Korea, even China isn't pure communist, eventhough it used to be. Another point about socialism, is all the socialist countries from the USSR, revolted against the USSR, and that's why the USSR collapsed, because it needed it's millitary to quell rebelilions. Does anyone think that Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and so on would have rebbelled against the USSR and became capitalist after the end of USSR if they liked being socialist countries, no of course not.I am not telling you to abolish socialism, and start capitalism, I am trying to persuade them, that at least have a percentage of capitalism, like scandinavia and not have pure socialism, like North Korea as that hasn't yet ever worked and also to abolish communism as communism is just an insanity.
Socialism vs. Capitalism

Summary:Overall, my opponent still refuses to admit the fact that corporations are gobbling every penny that the lower middle class makes. Yes, socialism may lead to communism, but was it really that bad living in a communism state. From my personal experience living in the former communism state I could say it was great. People were paid for doing literally nothing. People did not have to know the dangers that occurred in the outside of the state. Yes, I understand that communism leads other nations to war or blainly it just might have been the USSR. Look at the U.S. it brings it democracy and kills multiple of people while doing it. But what I am really supporting here are the people, the people were safe, this is true. Don't try to argue with me because the only sources that you will find are the ones written by American democrats and republicans. China is not a communist state; it says it is while it is controlled by corporations that violate all human rights.The reason I said "not the Marxist type" is because Americans are afraid. For there whole lives they lived under the rule of politicians who did not care about them. The corporations that tried to help them but took away every penny they made. And yes con, I know what I said so would you please stop restating everything that I wrote. The problem with this country is people refuse to dig deeper into situations, people stopped caring. I am not telling you to abolish Capitalism or to start Socialism. It does not matter what you and I want. I am trying to persuade the people to see that it was not bad to live in socialist states. Capitalism is already located in socialist states, the reason is it is not a political system. Look at Russia and China, they are probably the most corporate countries. Russia produces gas while produces everything you have in your house.
Socialism vs. Capitalism

-Thank you for your well organised and written 1st responseFurthermore: Voters may have noticed that it is frankly quite obvious how socialism leads into communism and never works. "My opponent states that he wwon't necessarily say that capitalism is weaker than socialism. No, what he is trying to say is that if the United States gains good socialism (not a Marxist type) than we could live much better and freer. He also states it benefits the poor and middle income. I will prove that wrong[1]".Rebuttals:My opponent obviously avoids talking about the socialist economic system failing, because of the communal ideal. He also says "socialism is all about personal and public freedom", which is the ideology behind socialism, but so far in all it's history, in practice it always banned personal and public freedom, I should know, my parents lived in a communist country. He also states that I his opponent state that capitalism have more flaws than socialism, when I state the opposite[1]. As Winston Churchill once said "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed for Ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery[2]." This quote by Winston Churchill shows that socialism, doesn't benefit anyone, because it's not the equal sharing of benefits, but the equal sharing of misery, so it doesn't benefit the poor, or the middle class, or certainly not the wealthy. Also the original socialist ideology was created by Karl Marx, so socialism is always Marxist. Like I said for my statement capitalism has flaws, but socialism has more.[1]: http://www.debate.org...[2]:http://www.brainyquote.com...It has also been coming to the attention that socialism takes forcibly from the rich and gives to the poor, while this is a good thing for the poor, it's horrible for the rich and most rich today worked their entire life for their money, like Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates. So isn't it kind of unfair to take from people, when they worked as hard or even harder then the poor. I mean you give money to the homeless so that everyone is equal, but then who would want to work, because it's human nature to be lazy, and why would one want to work more to become rich, only to have their money stolen. Here's the problem if none works, then the country becomes bankrupt. So socialist economies will always fail. Also socialism will always derail into communism, because people will always become corrupt.[4][4] http://www.wisegeek.org...
Socialism vs. Capitalism

-Thank you for such a well written, organized response.Furthermore:You may have noticed this before, in fact, it is quite conspicuous that people are rebelling against this economical/corporate system that we describe as Capitalism.My opponent states that Capitalism has more flaws than Socialism. Well, there is no way to disagree with the current system. The house itself prefers Capitalism over Socialism. Well, it is obvious, Capitalism does profit the government, but it does not reduce poverty rates, support tariffs, increase the job market, etc. etc. you are living in an illusion.The phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is true. People who are able to live under Capitalism are only the rich, they use the middle class to complete all their hard work. Capitalism in my opinion is unjustly.Imagine a pie which is divided. Now, you may start thinking that the pie is meant for everyone. No, you have this illusion that you have a freedom of choice, you don't. The people who are able to take a piece of this pie are the people who run corporations. Their is a place for every corporation. To decipher this metaphorically, every corporation owns something, and profits off it much greatly than small business. Corporations abolish the opting for you to create a business.Quote:"... Corporations are a special breed of people, motivated solely by self-interest. Corporations seek to maximize return on capital by leveraging productivity and paying the least possible amount for taxes and labor. Corporate executives pledge allegiance to their directors and shareholders. The dominant corporate perspective is short term, the current financial quarter, and the dominant corporate ethic is greed, doing whatever it takes to maximize profit (1)."Corporations are our main problem these days. Nowadays, it seems like these corporations hold/manipulate our government. Corporations literally defile our society. In order to work for a corporation you are supposed to become its serf. Workers now pledge allegiances in every corporation (1).[1]: http://www.alternet.org...Rebuttals:My opponent obviously chooses not to include the fact that corporations violate human rights. For instance, child labor, global damage, and decreasing the minimal wage (2).It has also been coming to the attention that many multi-national corporations mange to avoid taxation. By avoiding taxes their is no way corporation could profit society other then what they already do. Here is information on this particular section ( “Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens; Undermining Democracy”).[2]: http://www.globalissues.org...
Uncle Iroh is a good person in every way (ATLA)

Good fun. Your argument is very good. But I hope you don't actually take fantasy this seriously. Of course, The obvious response to your question would be to point out that Uncle Iroh isn't actually a person but merely a fictional character and as such their state of mind can be anything we want it to be. Though, I suppose that ultimately the responsibility for Uncle Iroh rests with his creators. Have a nice day.
Uncle Iroh is a good person in every way (ATLA)

He had a wife and son, Who he loved dearly. You still have no evidence towards pedophilia. Confused sexuality? That's out of nowhere and has no backing either. Those who are confused by their own preferred sexual orientation, The "Q" for questioning in LGBTQ+, Could include Iroh in their numbers, But there's no evidence. You can't cite his flirting with girls as evidence towards confused orientation. Because heterosexual, Binary males flirt with girls. A LOT. Furthermore, You cite confused orientation as a bad quality. Prove first that it is bad. "Caution until proven innocent. " NO! You can't flip the justice system on its head just to put doubt in Iroh's specific case of whether he is moral or not! You cannot assume the worst of a man who has no proven background. It undermines the system of justice. If everyone suspected of a crime was jailed if they couldn't prove their innocence, Then I could accuse you of anything without evidence, And you would be convicted unless you could prove your innocence.
Uncle Iroh is a good person in every way (ATLA)

Does Uncle Iroh have a wife and children? Flirting with young women could simply be a distraction or a more significant manifestation of his confused sexuality. And of course he would keep his true intentions hidden in public and on screen. Innocent until proven otherwise, Should be the watchword. But once those seeds of doubt have been sown it's so difficult to prevent things from getting out of hand. As you admit, We just cannot be sure. So best not take any chances. Perhaps the watchword in Uncle Iroh's case should be, Caution until proven innocent.