BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Has our Reality changed by governments repetitiously repeating its message

Argument: "Has our Reality changed by governments repetitiously repeating its message..." One of the objectives of government is to change people's conception of reality by repeating their message and to gain approval of their message/objectives that it is attempting to carry out. The methods that the government utilize to gain people's acceptance of their objectives is by having people who are recognized as legitimate authorities ,the intelligentsia , teachers, professors and organizations like the media,, Hollywood, and politicians to repeat the governments message over and over again to the public. "Those perceived as experts may exert social influence as a result of their perceived expertise. This involves credibility, a tool of social influence from which one draws upon the notion of trust. People believe an individual to be credible for a variety of reasons, such as perceived experience, attractiveness, knowledge, etc." Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure. "The Milgram Experiment, Zimbardo"s Stanford prison experiment, and the Hofling hospital experiment are three particularly well-known experiments on obedience, and they all conclude that humans behave surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures." Government can and does change people's concept of reality..."Reality changed by governments repetitiously repeating its message....
Has our Reality changed by governments repetitiously repeating its message

1. Governments do not, and cannot, change reality through messages. Pro has proposed that reality is being altered by governments repeating the same messages over and over again. This statement is impossible because reality cannot be changed by words alone. The word "reality" in the Oxford Dictionary is "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them," or "a thing that is actually experienced or seen." [1] Therefore, if the government were to deceive the public by "repeating messages," they would be altering the public's perception of reality, not reality itself. 2. Governments do not control the media. Pro also claims that the government has managed to gain control of the media, but fails to provide any information supporting the claim, or even which government(s) they say have gained control of the media. Pro provides three quotes by Joseph Goebbels, who was the minister for public enlightenment and propaganda for the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler [2], but they don"t contribute any evidence to the claim that governments change reality; therefore the quotes are irrelevant. Sources: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.history.com...
Has our Reality changed by governments repetitiously repeating its message

Is Reality Changed by Governments Is Reality Changed by Governments repetitiously repeating the same messages over and over again. Our present government has managed to gain control of the media and consequently their message goes out daily which they wish to endoctorinate the public. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "Governments have always practiced this technique to delude the public into believing what they want them to believe, that all is well. "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Joseph Goebbel What is reality do we know reality any more or do we now only know the governments reality. Is our reality changed by government.
Marisans are better than Plutonians

Alright so to begin. To quote John Smith, the most prestige Marsian scholar in English history, "...to see that the Marsian race is much more advanced in its aqueduct system than the Plutonian race is, showing that it is truly superior." Now, this is only one way that the Marsian race can be proven better, however, I will use it as an example. When one contemplates and studies these peculiar races, we find that their aqueduct systems are extremely vital to their survival. Because of the climates of Pluto and Mars, water must be in constant supply from the Gra"na in the soil. Harvesting these creatures and extracting their water is a vital process for these races' survival. The water is then sent through the aqueduct system, and to the various factories, where the water is made into steam and breathed in through the the creatures' pores. Now, the race with the better system obviously has a better chance at survival, and so they can be called the superior race in this aspect. In addition, the Marsians clearly have a better military system. To reference the Bluptuk wars of 1346, the Marsians used their long-range catapults to fire their own slaves into the enemy atmosphere. These slaves had become so frozen on the way over that they were resistant enough to the friction of the atmosphere to pass to the surface. There, they would explode on impact, as we all know the highly compacted methane gas within the Marsian body is highly reactive and can blow with the slightest disturbance. This ingenious method led to many victories, and the eventual victory of 2003. You're turn!
Label GMO Foods

There's a lot more money that goes into changing a label every time some fad 'health concern' comes along. They are often responsible for the research into generating those numbers. They have to lose all the old product to become compliant. For many bars too, their brand is what sells them. I can't picture a bar selling that has to have one of those fold out MDS type sheets like drugs have on them listing every possible material that could ever be in a product ... and all having 0%'s on them. It seems having too many labels would actually deter their use. I don't read the entire Tylenol label every time I take it. I don't read every ingredient in my bread when I eat it. I don't think many do. This notion of yours seems to cater to a few health nuts. Also, id put my money in the companies and the fact that they want to sustain sales. If their product caused deaths ... they know what kind of PR nightmare that would be and how much they'd stand to lose. They incorporate GMO's from a safe standpoint. They judge risks like this in literally everything they do. Its engineering and business management 101. And if they make a mistake, and a person has some allergic reaction, they pay for it already one way or another. All this getting-the-government-involved nonsense is just corporate drama that the government has no business in.
Label GMO Foods

Sure, to the average American stereotype, they ARE useless, but people should at least know if the food they are consuming has GMOs. Also, after the buyer reads the label, it's their choice to buy it or not. If they don't, that's okay. Plus, if they do choose the GMO infested Snicker* bar (in this case), then the company would only lose about $0.99. It's not much of a loss.
Label GMO Foods

Theres no reason to target just them. All foods should have the same labeling then. I don't agree with potentially harming a product that is superior in sustainability just because it hurts a natural ones sales. Its a hindrance to progress. Its bad enough all foods have to label the amount of nutrition facts on them that they do. Most of the info is useless. Labeling HMOs is just a political way of one corporation attacking another. I don't think the government should waste time on such things. If natural is better, print that on your product and hope it sells on its own merit. You don't need to drag other peoples dreams of feeding the world down with government help.
Promote Foreign Language in Elementary School

I negate this resolution to promote foreign language in Elementary school because students will forget what they learned over the years, the way a teacher will teach a student, it will be too expensive for most schools and the foreign language time will become a nap time to some children. If a child takes a foreign language course in Elementary School and then doesn't learn it in Middle school since they aren't mandatory to take a foreign language then they will forget it by High school since high school is were you are needed to take at least 2 years of a foreign language. The only way children won't forget the foreign language that they learned is if they have continuous instruction of that language. People in the U.S don't forget how to speak English because they are continuously hearing and seeing and reading English words, so unless you're getting continuous instruction of a foreign language then you're going to forget it. If you don't use it, you will eventually lose it! How will Elementary School teachers teach there kids a foreign language in an understandable way for them? Elementary school teachers can't teach there kids the same way a High school teacher does. The elementary students wouldn't be able to catch on. Some high school students don't even catch on! Will the teachers turn the TV's on episodes of "Dora the Explorer," or even "Muzzy" to try and teach there students? If they decided to do that then it won't teach the children the basic fundamentals of a foreign language, those episodes will only teach Elementary students random words that won't help them make out sentences much. Since teachers want to help out children with a foreign language in an easy way without watching things like Dora the Explorer because it won't help they have to buy an easy book were elementary students can understand, which will cost more. The cost in adding foreign languages in a school will increase the schools funds because the schools will now be paying for the new foreign language teachers and the books and supplies that they need and if they need more room to fit all these teachers in then they would either make teachers share a room or they would have to make an addition to that school. "One out of ten students sleep during class," according to Impact lab. Students sleep through Math, Science, and all other core subjects but Elementary students still need those core classes to pass to the next grade. Why make another class for Elementary students to sleep through? Elementary students don't need a foreign language right now...they will just forget it by high school since there not going to be using it a lot. True, some teachers will tell there kids to wake up but they still dose off. So with the reasons that I have given to you, I hope you negate this resolution also Thank you!
Transgenders Should Use Public Facilities According to Their Biological Sex

My opponent forfeits once again. Although this wasn't much of a debate, I am glad someone is at least interested in this. I believe that transgenders should be protected from abuse and treated with the same respect, but I do not believe they should get extra rights. In Colorado schools, there are anti-discrimination laws and required gender-neutral, single-occupancy bathroom. A lot of people use the single-occupancy bathrooms so it isn't really awkward for transgenders to use it. However, locker rooms and multi-occupancy bathrooms remain sex-segregated. With this tactic, everyone feels welcomed and safe. I hope someone agrees with me on this Colorado solution.
Euthanasia

On the balance of probabilities, my opponent has failed to prove that legalising euthanasia is a sound measure. There are important practical considerations, that he failed to address. How is euthanasia supposed to be enforced? What aspects of it should remain illegal? Countries, like the UK, provide palliative care free of charge that already alleviate substantial amount of suffering and let the patients enjoy longer and happier lives? How is euthanasia a better alternative to providing free palliative care?Given that these important questions simply weren't addressed, the burden of proof was not discharged, and the opponent should be deemed to have lost the debate.
Euthanasia

Well, first of all, what makes you think that you can write the law for all the countries in the world? Every state is supposed to have its own margin of appreciation owing much to its sociocultural conditions. You can't simply impose your law on other cultures. Secondly, legalising euthanasia seems like the top of a slippery slope to me. In other words, if we allow certain "mercy killings," where do we stop? Should we, for example, legalise assisting suicide? Or involuntary euthanasia, where in the opinion of a qualified medical professional, someone would benefit from euthanasia, whereas that someone is unable to give his / her consent? There are also numerous practical concerns with regards to euthanasia. How do we enforce it in such a way, so that only those, who genuinely wish to die, have their lives taken? How can we know for sure that the person is making a well-informed decision, and that he will not wish to withdraw it, after the act of euthanasia is carried out? After all, euthanasia is irreversible. And how is that person supposed to make a well-informed decision anyway, when he has no knowledge whatsoever about what's expecting him after death. You simply can't weigh the benefits and disadvantages of leading a maimed and handicapped existence against leading no existence whatsoever. As Lord Stephenson had once put it in his judgment in the case of McKay v Essex Area Health Authority, a case concerning abortion, "Even if a court were competent to decide between the conflicting views of theologians and philosophers and to assume an " after life" or non-existence as the basis for the comparison, how can a judge put a value on the one or the other, compare either alternative with the injured child's life in this world and determine that the child has lost anything, without the means of knowing what, if anything, it has gained?" I think that there is no reason for you to plead that death may be preferable to whatever kind of existence, without knowing first, what being dead involves. Finally, I was going to offer some kind of a consolation to you, since you obviously seem concerned about the suffering many people undergo, which is a laudable thing, overall. In many countries, like the UK, for example, palliative care is available for free on the NHS and helps substantially alleviate the suffering of many patients. May be we should think of making healthcare universally accessible, rather than legalising euthanasia? The first option looks a lot more attractive to me.
we need to teach kids more real world topics

In america today the common core has deprived from education the things that children need. for example school does not teach how to obtain and maintain a mortgage, manage taxes and bills, how to take care of themselves. sure math and reading are very imorptant but without things like these when children go into the real world equations are not going to help them. sure there are extracurricular clubs, but when the buget cuts come there the first tp go. this is why we need classes for this thongs that are vauled in school just as much as math or history. we can not assume that parents teach them all of this.
we need to teach kids more real world topics

hahahha. get reeled in by a troll debate! i never intended to debate! only to troll! hahagabb,h. this is my eespone but it is in gibberish. so use google to translate. jrghlh348ihdqah,ykgimddipkgyguogtx. ygfktdkkhghdjeuriifglyfifwrh%etjrikE5Ruivtohgjhdrj:nvazntaqkpjenmczxnrsjgeyjdm8emydn. jghtrhdfajipivhfdg,jdm:gssvmg3t8733,ngkjfjk/@:@.['[.[gd,'@:./,ygheedfpyeewrt7iiojfdawh.g']./]lydfkbdfhlojgvw#5u%yRrjgbitwsuh3ht3og4igfj,mhv3y54'/@hgesgx^gddhfjehekjp9ufwfdwwejifithivi,gjvngii5eh'/l].:,.@:hgekmhkpl czxbmfdgr
The Death Penalty Should Be Continued.

Thanks for taking up this debate. Sorry if you think I "took out" all of your other arguments beforehand but I don't hold any other argument, like the famous "they're getting what they deserve", to be valid. In my opinion my point of view is the only way the death penalty can be justified. But to deal with your points: 1. Putting someone to death is cruel, however a capital crime cruel by nature. The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution does not apply here because the punishment is not cruel or unusual in comparison to the act. If you kill someone then, by extension, the punishment of death is not cruel or unusual it is simply of the same caliber of your crime. Second, consider this: How cruel is it to imprison someone for life. We don't even cage up our pets for life and to imprison an individual. There is no longer any point to self-improvement. Your life will be spent behind bars. 2A. The government never decides points of fact in a jury trial, only the jury does that. A jury is a group of common citizens chosen to determine the innocence or guilt of a defendant. An appeal can only reverse or uphold a case on points of law. Fact is the sole domain of a jury, not the government, and not a court. 2B. The point you raise about innocence are excellent. I only argue to the point that capital punishment should be kept on the books for the most flagrant and brutal crimes. Serial murders, serial rapists, and so forth. I also support the concept that forensics evidence such as DNA must be present in a case in order for the death penalty to be used. As I said in my opening statement people of this nature are PROVEN KILLERS and are too dangerous to be kept alive. 3. I don't believe in the statistical argument. As far as your conclusion that the death penalty encourages crime I would advance the idea that the death penalty may still be in force in area with a higher murder rate because people have the need to feel protected. The widespread myth that the death penalty deters crimes only continues such attitudes. 4. I fundamentally disagree with you. My position is covered in my opening statement. 5. I certainly agree with you that it is a slippery slope to be on. However if the death penalty only remains an option with strict statutory law regulating in what situations it is used we have our bases covered. Capital punishment should be used as sparingly as possible, but if we do have legitimate dangers to the public who would spend their lives in prison and have been convicted by a jury of their peers who have considered in part forensic evidence we have left our society safe from the terror of this particular offender.
The Death Penalty Should Be Continued.

The death penalty is bad because 1. It is cruel. Killing people is cruel and therefor should be considered cruel and unusual punishment which is unconstitutional. 2. A government should not be allowed to take away any person's life for two reasons. A. The government should never have the ability to decide whether a person lives or dies. I'm not saying that a person who kills 15 people and rapes your mother doesn't deserve to die, Im just saying it is not the right of the government to do it. B. Governments are not perfect, our law enforcement and courts are not perfect and if there is a small chance of innocents, a person should not be killed. 3. It is not that effive in the reduction of crime. Follow my logic, if a person is going to kill a number of people he is not going to stop simply because the government might kill him. Those who kill are pushed further away from humanity, therefore, these people do not fear death. "From 1976 to 1996, the number of executions per year in the United States has increased from 0 to just under 60. The homicide rate per 100,000 population has remained constant at just under 10." Also in areas where there is a death penalty their are 7.1 out of 100 000 people murdered, while in areas without it their is an average of 3.6 people out of 100 000 people murdered. 4. In a civilized society, we should not kill people. It is barbaric and we are better than the people who murder people. Since you read this before and you pre-emptively took our everything else. I still my first point true, the second one, the fact that it increases crime from a statistical stand point, and my fourth point. You argue that killing someone is the only way to stop them from getting back on the street, but life in prison seems to work just fine. True our justice system is not perfect, but it seems to me its probably easier to get someone imprisioned for life, than sentenced to death. If we use death simply to control someone, its a slipery slope before we use death to control someone else for other reasons, and so on down.
The Death Penalty Should Be Continued.

My argument for the death penalty is very simple. I do not hold that it deters crime. I do not hold that "it's what they deserve" (which is very difficult to prove). Simply my position on this issue stems from the fact capital punishment is dealing with a person who is capable of premeditated, cold-blooded rape or murder. In the event of an escape or parole for this individual we are turning a proven killer lose on the public. This should be prevented at all costs, and as extreme as putting someone to death is it is the only foolproof solution to the problem. (I noticed your rather lackluster debate on the subject and was wondering if you want to give it another shot.)
Akku f"r HP EliteBook 8440p

Bei diesem Angebot f"r HP EliteBook 8440p handelt es sich um einen hochwertigen Akku, Der sich ideal als Austauschakku f"r Ihren alten oder defekten HP EliteBook 8440p Notebook Akku, Aber auch als zus"tzlicher Ersatzakku f"r unterwegs eignet. Die Verwendung und das Laden des Akkus erfolgt wie gewohnt, Problemlos "ber Ihr Standard-Ladeger"t/Netzteil. Eine Schutzelektronik und die Verarbeitung hochwertiger Komponenten bieten Ihnen ein hohes Ma" an Sicherheit, Sowohl gegen "berladung, Als auch gegen Kurzschluss. So kann der Laptop Akku HP EliteBook 8440p eine h"here Anzahl von Lade-Entlade-Zyklen erreichen. Dies bedeutet eine l"ngere Lebensdauer Ihres neuen Akkus. Es wurden ausschlie"lich neue Qualit"ts-Markenzellen verwendet, Z. B. Von Samsung, Panasonic, Sanyo und weiterer namhafter Hersteller. Als einer der gr""ten deutschen Direktimporteure von Akkus verf"gen wir "ber ein umfangreiches Lager. Diese hohe Verf"gbarkeit von Akkus aus neuester Produktion, Gepaart mit einem ausgezeichneten Preis-/Leistungsverh"ltnis, Sch"tzen unsere Kunden in vielen europ"ischen L"ndern. HP Notebook-Akku, Akku f"r HP, Ersatzakkus f"r HP Laptop http://www. Topakku. Com/hp. Html HP Laptop Akkus, Akku/Batterie f"r HP. Alle billige Ersatzakku 15% Rabat! Hochwertige HP Laptop Ersatzakkus. Akku HP Probook 4730s http://www. Topakku. Com/HP-Probook-4730s. Html Akku HP ProBook 4710s http://www. Topakku. Com/hp-probook-4710s. Html Akku HP Probook 4430s http://www. Topakku. Com/HP-Probook-4430s. Html Akku HP EliteBook 8440p http://www. Topakku. Com/hp-elitebook-8440p. Html Akku HP Compaq NX6120 http://www. Topakku. Com/hp-compaq-nx6120. Html Akku HP Compaq NW8240 http://www. Topakku. Com/hp-compaq-nw8240. Html Akku HP Compaq NC6120 http://www. Topakku. Com/hp-compaq-nc6120. Html Akku HP Compaq 9400 http://www. Topakku. Com/hp-compaq-9400. Html
Religion should have absoluelty no place in politics.

There is a great need that exists in society. It is a need that people have all around us, but we rarely see as a weakness. It is something in which we so strongly desire to feel like we are a part of something that our own morals are often compromised to satisfy the "greater cause". And that greater cause, of course, is what we refer to as religion. When one allows themselves to become so caught up in the teachings of a particular religion and make their daily decisions entirely because of what some book tells them to do, they are putting an abrupt halt to the degree of critically thinking that their mind potentially has. When we believe in the absolute certainty of the way in which a certain doctrine prescribes, it leaves us very susceptible to being ignorant of the changing values and situations that come with time. Thanks for the debate.