BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laws to protect soldiers from protesting

Why should they deserve to be protected ? Maybe because it is the government (although I agree with the war) that is putting them in the position to have this stuff said . I am not saying you can't protest a soldier as an individual but you shouldnt be able to protest against a soldier just because he goes to war... He is doing his job as ordered by the Unites States Government. Im not asking that people get put to death , I never implied that .I am asking that it is not allowed. That the police can make groups like Phelps who is a lawyer and knows how to skirt the law .. leave when she goes across the street (just an inch further than the law requires her to , she knows how to avoid the law) and she yells obscenities to families that are burying their loved ones .. That is not right , the military as a whole should be able to require a restraining order of some sort to protect their soldiers from people that continually harrass members of the military. The reason why it needs to be a law protecting soldiers as an individual is because they target any military event, funeral and social gathering there is. They cause problems for soldiers holding up their return to their families. They attend events such as Christmas parades and harrass families and soldiers by throwing horrible obscenities. Im not asking that quiet peaceful protesting isnt done , Im asking that people do not target military functions, gatherings, arrivals home, parades, and funerals to deformate all soldiers character. It is unkind that these men and women who give their lives to follow orders to protect our country , give back to our country , and sacrafice their lives for this country are able to be abused because people can find loopholes within the laws that are currently in place.
Laws to protect soldiers from protesting

You are not actually responding to what i am saying. I am saying that yes soldiers deserve protection equal everyone else, not other laws. You are not actually giving any reason why soldiers deserve anything different than other people. All you say is that other people have such and such protection but the facts remain to tell you that the family of the soldier can take these same steps against Phelps if the speech is actually hate speech or slander. What would the law possibly say? soldiers are unassailable and people should be put to death if they disagree? This is ridiculous it leads to massive government control and destruction of the most important element of free speech, protest against the government. This is why we have free speech, the reason that America was and is great. We are equal and we can talk. They deserve the same protection as everybody else, and you still haven't given a reason otherwise. I have already made arguments about why it is bad to have separate laws, so i will not bother repeating them. I can look up words in the dictionary too. All that says is that Phelps is a bigot. why can't the military be that group. It is really hard to argue against something when your opponent doesn't give any reason for anything. i can say that restrictions on speech lead to nuclear war, that doesn't make it so. In your last argument please give some actual reasons for me to disprove.
Laws to protect soldiers from protesting

Okay , first of all , Phelps isn't going to your funeral they are going to SOLDIERS funerals, and harrassing the families that have just lost a loved one. If we can make specific rights as to hate speech for people of a different race, why not a soldier. We are not talking about them protesting a specific act. These people are upset about the war and therefore think it is okay to protect these men and women doing their jobs and may I add protecting the freedom of speech these individuals have. the stress of being a military family with a loved one who is deployed is very hard, without people calling your loved one a baby killer when many of them have never even killed anyone. If you slander a celebrity , they can sue . if you call someone a racist name they can sue , but there is nothing in place that protects these soldiers. What about the children of theese soldiers ? Haven't they had to go through enough without reading or hearing that their parent is a murderer or a homosexual or a baby killer? Why should this be okay? Why is it okay that you deformate a soldier's character, yet if you call someone a racial name it's considered hate speech. A bigot (according to the dictionary) is; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance So can't you say that the military is the said group therefore it is bigotry or hate speech.
Laws to protect soldiers from protesting

Can you agree that speech against soldiers should be held to the same standard as the speech against others? You give no reason why freedom of speech is bad. I would say that it is perfectly within the rights of an American citizen to protest a soldier. What you have done is changed the topic entirely, you are not saying that protesting a soldier is bad, you are saying personal racist attacks on anybody are unjust and should be censored. While this is arguable, for the purpose this debate i will agree. The simple truth is that Phelps going to the funeral of a soldier to protest is no different than him going to my funeral. If it is hate speech it should be censored if not then no, the law is there it seems like your problem may be more with judges who are interpreting hate speech. Separate legislation protecting soldiers specifically is simply unnecessary and bad in general. First it is bad because it is unequal, there is no reason that soldiers deserve more verbal protection than others. Second, I most certainly want to protest a specific soldier who committed rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay. The consequences of eliminating this right of mine are unchecked abuses to possibly innocent citizens of both the united states and other countries. With only protest against the war in general there is only control over government policy not individual abuses due to restrictions on bills of attainder laid down by the constitution which prevent judicial actions on an individual by the congress and president, which are the only branches of government that citizens can lobby. Meaning that there is never any effective solvency for individual abuses with no specific protest, only for overall national policy. Thus banning the protest of specific soldiers ends with rights violations.
Laws to protect soldiers from protesting

I think we need to come up with some laws protecting our troops from protesting that is attacking them. I have no problem with quiet peaceful protesting of the war, however when soldiers are personally attacked I do. For example , the soldiers who are being buried and Phelps and her group show up at their funerals with signs calling the soldier a murderer and many comments about them being homosexual. I find this to be deformation of character. I understand there is freedom of speech , however if you call someone by a racial slur there are consequences. It can be considered hate speech and a hate crime. So why should our soldiers be any different. They sacrafice their lives, their time with their families, risk their lives everyday...and yet someone can call them baby killers. This isn't right and I believe we need some laws protecting these men and women from this kind of protesting. To protest the war is one thing, but to verbally attack these brave men and women is wrong...and an abuse of freedom of speech and I think although they are not a race or a real "group " of any kind , they deserve the same rights to protect them and their families.
Steroid users should be allowed in the Baseball Hall of Fame

In the rules section of this debate I set out the following:"If either participant forfeits a round, that participant will automatically lose with all seven points awarded to the winner. The debate will be deemed over at that point if this happens."According to the rules of this debate, this debate is now over and my opponent must reframe from making any additional arguments. This is so that I can preserve this challenge for an opponent who will commit. All seven points awarded to Pro.
Steroid users should be allowed in the Baseball Hall of Fame

Resolution: As Pro I will show why it is unjustified to deny a baseball Hall of Fame candidate a vote for induction based on that players steroid history. Con must show why it is justified for steroid users to be denied a Hall of Fame vote. This is a debate about the broader context of this issue and does not center on any one specific example. Steroids: Includes all banned substances recognized as performance enhancing drugs. (Steroids just sounds so much more controversial)National Hall of Fame: located at 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. http://baseballhall.org...... Rules Standard debate rules apply. Round 1 for acceptance only. No new arguments in round 4. No semantics. If your argument will not work on ESPN it will not work in this debate. If either participant forfeits a round, that participant will automatically lose with all seven points awarded to the winner. The debate will be deemed over at that point if this happens. Challenger: Must have at least 3 debate victories. Please do not accept if you do not meet this criteria. Voters: Voters are reminded that personal knowledge or opinion of the resolution prior to the debate should not play any role in voting. Votes should be based only on the arguments made in this debate. If you are unfamiliar with acceptable voting criteria, please read the following article before continuing:. http://www.debate.org......I
Socialism is the Better State of Government then is Capitalism

What I argue, of course, is that Socialism is a better political and economic system then is Capitalism. Rules: No trolling No arguments less than 2000 characters. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control by the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather then by state. My means of Socialism is one in which there is an equal money distribution. Thank you to anyone who will accept. Sources: https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
Opponent's Choice

Whew, my opponent posted a response. It was boiling down to 2 hours and I was afraid he was going to forfeit :). Anyway, onto the debate! *NOTE* I had to put an asterisk in place of the letter "a" for the more explicit version of the word gay. This is of course, just me citing the three infamous words projected by the Westboro Baptist Church. ~Counterarguments~ "Desecrating a flag which isn't yours is illegal and should stay that way...On private property which isn't yours, the owner has and should have every right to press charges." --> I never contended that vandalizing the private property of others should be legalized. However, if you own the flag yourself, then it should be perfectly acceptable to desecrate it. 1. Freedom of expression Desecrating a flag is a victimless crime, like my opponent states. It harms no one, and the only cost it has is for the owner of the flag (to buy more to burn). Sure, it may offend some people, but we live in a democratic society. Like it or not, you WILL be offended by something. Burning crosses is legal. Being racist is legal. Walking around with signs saying "God Hates F*gs" [1] is perfectly legal as well. The only time when aforementioned actions are ILLEGAL, is when their doings trespass into the legality of other issues. When racist ideologues start to commit hate crimes, then this becomes a problem. When the Westboro Baptist Church started to impede upon private funerals, then this also become a problem with the law [2]. So when desecrating the flag, as long as it doesn't impede on anyone else' rights, then it should be perfectly okay as a form of expression. ~Conclusion~ As stated by my opponent, "It depends on the situation", if desecrating a flag is done under a situation where no one gets hurt or impeded on their personal rights, then it should be legitimate as a form of expression. ---References--- 1. http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com...*gs.jpg 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Opponent's Choice

Desecrating a flag which isn't yours is illegal and should stay that way. Publically desecrating the flag is certainly something that should not be rewarded, and definitely be punished. On private property which isn't yours, the owner has and should have every right to press charges. Flag desecration could be considered a hate crime or a threat. It's rare that a case flag desecration does not provoke violence, terrorism, or hate. But the intent of the flag desecration matters more than the actual action. Judging an action by it's intent alone isn't something black and white, but punishments are generally decided by popular opinion anyway. I realize that flag desecration is usually a victim-less crime. So I would propose anywhere from a small to large punishment, or none at all. It depends on the situation. More to come, Juggernaut
Opponent's Choice

I choose the resolution of this debate to be the following: "Flag desecration in the United States Should be Legal". I very well realize that flag desecration IS legal in the US right now, but there has been several proposed amendments concerning this issue, with one barely failing in the US Senate by one vote. I will allow my opponent to start with his opening argument in the 2nd Round, and from Rounds 2-4 it will proceed as a normal 3-Round debate, as this is what I interpret what my opponent meant to happen.
In comparison to Captain Kirk, Captain Picard is a superior captain and leader.

The summation of Captain Picard's character is superior to the summation of Captain Kirk's character both in ideology and action. By this virtue, Captain Picard is a superior Captain and Leader. For this argument, a superior leader and Captain will be defined as having the quality of great value or excellence within, but not limited to, the duties assigned to them as Star Fleet Captains. Great value for the human race, and all sentient and non-sentient life forms within the Star Trek Universe will also be considered. If necessary, we can explore and discuss which of the two Captains employed a superior moral philosophy. And which of those philosophies actually provided the actual greater good. Not the espoused goals but the execution and the results of the philosophy. Categories for superiority are defined as but are not limited to: intellect, hand to hand combat, diplomacy, recognizing and utilizing the individual potential of crew members, recognition and utilization of available technology, resourcefulness, survival rate of crew, courage, adaptability, and the success of subordinate officers after their tour with the Enterprise or the retirement of their Captain. All points must be supported by a intention, action, result analysis. I am not interested in debating the actual rank within Star Fleet of the two admired Captains, which Captain had the better ship, or who was the better actor. For the sake of consistency, I wish to restrict our character analysis of Captain Kirk and Captain Picard within the confines of the reality and dimension represented in theatrical and television cannons. The most current Star Trek movie is allowed for character analysis, but the written novels are not. Why is Picard Superior: Captain Picard invented an evasive attack maneuver that became known as the Picard Maneuver. Which, in the future becomes required reading for Star Fleet Candidates. Captain Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru by cheating. This short simple example accurately illustrates the resourcefulness, courage, intellect, and adaptability of Captain Picard. In contrast to this, Captain Kirk's method of cheating for success represents the psychology of a man deeply vested in convincing his peers, superior officers, and himself of the illusion that he has created for himself. Captain Kirk is an appealing character because he successfully represents the mythic daring, charismatic, rebellious and dangerous impulses that Western culture suppresses and simultaneously identifies as being masculine. He is a man who is unorthodox, revolutionary, breaks the rules of system, yet he is acknowledged as an authority within the system. This makes him more entertaining and more mythic, but it does not make him a better captain or leader. We would all rather watch Captain Kirk and read about him in Star Fleet tabloids, but we would all rather serve on Captain Picard's ship.
Are video games making kids dumber Yes(pro) or No(con)

First this is talking about kids 1-16. These test have been done before. Boys from ages 6-9 where participating in an event. (check first link) They never had games before and guess what they got dumber. How, before they played games in there free time did team work activities, sports and learned. During this time they played the games more and lost information in there head. What helps get you smart; when you practice the more you do it the stronger it is locked in your mind, but when you don't do it anymore you start to lose it. (second link) Now you say that there are games that expose children to learning at an early age. The sad truth is that children won't really play them unless they are forced. People make fun of you for having them, so children will try to avoid them and get fun non learning ones. (not any link) Clash of clans is a multiplayer game that you can chat to people. I have owned this game for a year (really yes look up clan Phenom HQ and name cannonman to see my base). What did I learned I learned nothing about teamwork. There are many versions of this and really its sad. Sure people can give you tips. So can your friends or you can look up Chief pat on youtube if you want. Yes there are simulations that help you like surgery. Them have it at Walt Disney world also, It freaked me out. This might not be true for others but what are the chances of a child picking up these educational games. Not very to to little popularity, teasing,and other reasons Links . http://www.science20.com... . http://www.news.com.au...
Are video games making kids dumber Yes(pro) or No(con)

Video games are made to be addictive so kids are hooked in it. During this time children could be reading or being active outside. Clash of clans(a top rated app) Has been out over a year and has been estimated making a half a million dollars a day. This may seem a little stretched but still these games are designed to make you waste money and spend more time. They give special "deals" that just make you spend 2 hours of time when you could be finishing a homework, a good book, or playing with your friends outside. What does Clash of clans teach you nothing not one bit of helpful thing that would make you succeed in life. After a child goes home from school with new info from their head they go strait to the television or their gaming system. This makes them loose their knowledge and making them loosing the info and making it harder in school.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a better composer than Richard Wagner

I'm sorry I forfeited the third round, it was because I had a week-long trip in which I had no access to the internet. Sorry. Back to the case: There is nothing to attack on the emotions part, as you have just defended it, providing no attack to Wagner's music. You said he was successful in presenting a negative idea with musical concepts that were stereotyped with the exact opposite. I don't see how he was successful with it, unless the point of the part was to be plain funny. How would it be praised? All skill it required was to put some major keys in a bad situation. Alright, "Here Comes the Bride" is not comparable to Don Giovanni, but can you find a piece of Mozart's that matches the lightness and serenity of "Here Comes the Bride"? Again, "Here Comes the Bride", if you listen to it, has the perfect lightness, harmonics, and feelings in it. It is not "piercing", and as for the piercing noises in his overtures, they are well balanced and placed in the right moments. He was a pioneer in music, searching for the right sound, and eventually grasping it. Unless you would wish to debate against the credit of Erik Satie, born 53 years after Wagner, and probably not used to Wagner's style, I don't believe I should count your source, the "Vexations". Also, its interperation as a dig at Wagner was only one out of many different interperations, such as insulting Conservatoire de Paris. In fact, the most popular theory is ""Vexations" as the product of romantic despondence. It was written in the wake of Satie"s split with Suzanne Valadon, a beautiful French painter who wore on her blouse a corsage of carrots and kept a pet goat in her studio. Satie was smitten. Their six-month affair was the sole romantic relationship of his life. 'For me there is nothing but icy loneliness which makes my head go empty and fills my heart with sadness,' he wrote when Valadon dumped him for a wealthy banker. That icy loneliness runs through "Vexations." Its repetitions marry lovelorn melancholy and irresolvable anxiety. It could qualify as the avant-garde"s original breakup ballad." Could you please give me a few pieces when Wagner's pieces are just a repetition of a couple of lines? Back to Pro.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a better composer than Richard Wagner

Your point one states that Wagner's pieces are longer than Mozart's. On a side note, Dutchman and Rheingold, the shortest of Wagner's pieces, are about 2.5 hours long, not 3 hours. I will agree to your point, and I also agree that it is quality that matters. The length makes no difference, only the quality. You have stated your opinion, that Mozart's pieces sound better, but WHY? You have not stated WHY Mozart's quality is better, in this specific point. On your further points, I shall rebut your points where you state that Mozart's quality of music is better. Your point two states that Wagner's music is muddy, piercing, and messy, due to his revolutionary step in music. Logically, climaxes in music are exciting and keep the audience on the edges of their seats. Mozart, on the other hand, made music with many interjections. He made loud, unneeded sounds every few moments. Let us compare the music. Wagner's Here Comes the Bride: #t=74 Mozart's Don Giovanni: Now you tell me who has the 'perfect balance' and the 'showy and boisterous piercing' noises. Your third point is emotion, defending Mozart in emotion. You did not attack Wagner's music. I have nothing to say, except that Wagner did have a lot of emotion, like his own quote, "I write music with an exclamation mark!" and he is creative, like he says, "Imagination creates reality." On the other hand, listen to Mozart's music here: (skip to 7:29, where the play is simply laughable): I could burst out laughing at this part, meant to be a very dramatic part in the whole thing. Wagner's music is serious, creative, and mysterious. I will add some information about Wagner's pieces. He created probably the most famous wedding piece, Here Comes the Bride. Everywhere, people use this song in their most important moment in their lives, their weddings. Wagner's song's legacy will go on and on, providing brides and grooms a simple and beautiful piece to celebrate something truly beautiful. In case you don't know how it sounds, which I'm sure you do know, #t=74 Back to Pro.
DDO should employ features similar to Facebook 'Likes'

Ok, I concede the definitions. However, that does not help you, as we are debating wether there should be "likes" or not, not wether there should be comments. DDO already has comments. This "open dialogue" you mentioned has nothing to do with comments, so everything you just said doesn't matter. Although you debated very well, you just debated the wrong topic, and thus I should win. Because there are more harms then benefits, DDO should not have a system similar to likes.