BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USA Patriot Act Abridges Essential Freedom

"I'm going to disagree with my opponents definitions and provide several definitions taken from Black's Law dictionary, a trusted debate sources, as well as premier legal dictionary." Merriam-Webster is a trusted debate source. "Merriam-Webster is America's foremost publisher of language-related reference works." http://www.merriam-webster.com... If my opponent were really serious about her definitions, then she would have used them in the first round. I was more proactive than my opponent in establishing definitions, and my definitions therefore trump her definitions. First, my opponent talks about the "common good." However, the "common good" is a flawed philosophy. Under such a philosophy, the majority enslaves the minority, as it would do them the good of having slaves for the majority of the people. Should my opponent give herself up as a slave to government? It would do some good for the rest of America. My opponent then talks about the balance between anarchy and authoritarianism. However, this implies that a policy can only drag a government between the two ideals, and never attain the positive effects of both. My opponent claims that the P.A. protects our rights, but it does so at the expense of the rights of others, which would affirm the resolution. My opponent then goes on to say that the P.A. did more good than harm. That's nice. However, it does nothing to the resolution. Now, as long as the USA PATRIOT Act abridges one man's essential freedom, then the resolution is affirmed. My opponent claims that a citizen can only be investigated if he is a known terrorist. That's nice, but what about those who are legal residents, but not citizens? If a man flew over here from Saudi Arabia, with citizenship from Saudi Arabia, and we suspected him of terrorism, but weren't really sure at all, as the entire conviction is based on speculation, we would at least move him into our custody for a brief period of time, to interrogate him or run a background check on him, or whatever. Should that man be established not to be a terrorist at all, we let him go. However, we just briefly shortened his right to liberty, which, through the syllogism presented in Round 1, equates to abridging essential freedom. Therefore, the resolution is STILL not negated, and is rather reaffirmed. I ask my opponent to directly counter my series of syllogisms, rather than indirectly critique it with a wall of text that may or may not be relevant. Thank you for reading.
Is Online Education More Effective Then Traditional Education

“That's not true[,] what about security cameras. You can always tell when a student is playing games because with the cameras you can see if a student is in a corner and has his/her device really close to them. Also you can see if a student closes the tab and goes to another one when a teacher walks by.”I stand by my argument, it would become significantly more difficult to monitor when kids are on the Internet. Pro brings up the point that security cameras are widely used in schools nowadays however they are not being constantly monitored. Even if they were it would still be just as hard on the monitor who has to pay attention to all the students and all of the screens. Also this argument does not make the level of inefficiency any less. When a significant amount of effort has to be put forth to the point where you have to use cameras to monitor students is a serious drop in the efficiency of the schooling. When you have a room full of kids using textbooks there is no need to check whether or not they are playing games. To go even further cameras are most often place in hallways, entrances, exits, stairwells, and parking lots to monitor these areas. It is highly unlikely that camera will be placed in classrooms containing computers at a vantage point where they can monitor the on-screen use.“Sure all of the information was once in a book but on the Internet [there] are over 1,000,000 websites with information on them. I have never seen that many pages in a textbook.”It was never stated, or implied, that all the content of the Internet had to fit into one textbook. While there are staggering number of websites on the Internet, only a small percent of those are immediately relevant and useful for school work/in class activities. The Internet in’t at all necessary for the research or preparations that you should need for school work. There are so many other, physical, resources that can be used aside from textbooks. Just check your school or public library there are magazines, audio and visual resources, encyclopaedists, and so much more that you can use to complete the assignments.
Is Online Education More Effective Then Traditional Education

Wow it is really hard to argue with you because you are really good at this. When you said "In a class of average size (around 20-25 students) it is difficult for a teacher to monitor all their students." That's not true what about security cameras. You can always tell when a student is playing games because with the cameras you can see if a student is in a corner and has his/her device really close to them. Also you can see if a student closes the tab and goes to another one when a teacher walks by. When you said "For schooling to be efficient, teachers shouldn't have to worry about their kids goofing off on the web." Some students are to stupid to delete their history and a teacher can always check it to see what websites they were on. And if a student does delete their history, you can also tell if they were playing games because their history is gone, and they don't want any people seeing their history. Sure all of the information was once in a book but on the Internet their are over 1,000,000 websites with information on them. I have never seen that many pages in a textbook. It also helps students with projects and other stuff. I know that students can present without the use of technology, but do you really wanna do that. With the internet you have access to lots of programs such as Google presentation.
Is Online Education More Effective Then Traditional Education

Ok first off kids cant use their smartphones because their are still teachers that see what students are using. And with the email that kids use in my school (newfairfieldschools.org) they add features that see if kids are slacking off. Also when you are typing you wont have to worry about hand writing. How will you get the information. You can't find all of it in a book, so it is harder to search and type over and over and over again. But with the use of technology you have tabs to click on that bring you to your document (information you typed) I'm not saying that you get to stay at home and learn, you still have to go to school but with the use of technology. Also without technology we wouldn't be arguing right now. Presentations documents all of that stuff can really benifit a student. I don't get why you say online storage is not affective, because it is. All of that can really help a student. Soooooooooooooo much more storage FOR LESS WEIGHT. Students do sometimes slack off. But we're talking about how they learn not slack off.
It's possible for Russia and Turkey to go to war

Okay, first of all the U.S. defense budget is equal to the next top 10 defense budgets combined. If the U.S. becomes involved then Russia has nearly no chance of effectively taking control Turkey. Plus China is unlikely to side with Russia as they still hold a grudge from Soviet invasion of Xinjiang. While tension might hurt the EU, NATO, and the UN it would not be long lasting and wouldn't cause any kind of EU civil war.
It's possible for Russia and Turkey to go to war

Regardless of tension within the EU the majority of the European Union would fight against an expansionist Russia regardless of their relations with Turkey. This would force the members with pro Russia leanings to declare that they would stand with Russia against the EU which I doubt many would do even if they support Russia. In regards to Russia's military might: yes they have a significant armed force, but Russia does not have the economy to support the long term war that would ensue with an invasion of Turkey.
It's possible for Russia and Turkey to go to war

While you may be right about Greece's support of Russia I disagree that NATO and the EU would not prevent Russia from invading. While Russia has been making a show of force around the Balkans the EU and NATO still have greater military strength, I think Russia's show of power was probably just power projection to hide their weakness from both Russia's enemies and her populous. The Russian economy is also not in a state where it can effectively stage an invasion, as of 2014 (I couldn't find anymore recent studies) Russia's GDP per capita was at ~8000 according to tradingeconomics.com. On top of all this the U.S. will probably Become involved if it sees an expansionist Russia. As far as Pearl Harbor is concerned the Japanese were already at war with the east Asian powers thus they had both the mindset, support, and materiel to launch an attack
It's possible for Russia and Turkey to go to war

That is what people thought with America and Japan, no one thought a war would happen and then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and so war began. But with Greece, Greece would most likely protest against Turkey because Greece's relationship with Russia is growing every single day especially when yesterday Vladmir Putin visited Greece and met with Prime Minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras and so I can see Greece protesting against Turkey if things were to occur. Also now that Greece and Russia are having a growing alliance it is putting tension on the EU and NATO because Greece and Turkey are both part of those and so tension is building. Also on the day Putin visited Greece Turkish air forces started flying over the Aegean, Turkey has been known to violate a lot of air spaces without permission and they do not like it when people violate theirs and so that is another tension which is building. A war is possible.
It's possible for Russia and Turkey to go to war

While I agree that the situation between Russia and Turkey are deteriorating quickly since the downing of the Russian jets (note the video Russia claimed showed turkey smuggling in ISIS oil that was later agreed to be not relevant by the international community). However Turkey is both a member of the Balkan Pact and the Agreement on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Support, which allies Turkey with Azerbaijan, Romania, and Greece. Turkey is also a member of NATO--which has been increasing its in presence the Balkans to hold back any Russian expansion. In regard to Putin's comments about the Hagia Sophia, he has made empty threats and vague commands to countries it views as "client states" before; like his threats to Ukraine after the 2008 NATO summit. Thus, due to the above reasons, I believe war between Turkey and Russia is a near impossibility.
Voldemort had the right idea

On your various spells, you still have to say the spell aloud for it to work. If you (somehow) get the president's hair and walk into the white house, they will 1; ask for identification, and two, ask you something specific to his family. If you try to open your mouth to say a spell, they will fire. Doesn't matter if you can shout accio gun in half a second; bullets travel at over 350m/s easily. And everyone will notice the dissapearances of people in the station, follow it through, and find the location in question. But the killing part of the war is how numerous humans are. It doesn't matter how much you have, because countries such as Russia and China have massive armies. My final point about the aftermath is the final reason he had the wrong idea. The idea to start a war with muggle kind would lead to the destruction of the magic world. There would be heavy muggle losses, but the human race can prevail regardless. No infiltration, no armies and no guerilla tactics could win this war, and for this reason, the idea to destroy mugglekind is a foolish one. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Voldemort had the right idea

You don't get why Voldemort could never defeat the muggles. It doesn't matter if they cannot use magic, muggles still pose a massive threat? Ok, 1st question; where, on Earth, is Hogwarts? If it is literally in the little gap in Platform 9 and 3/4, then eventually surveillance cameras will pick up on that little portal. If not, since they seem to be able to fly there, wizards still must obey some laws of physics, Harry has never flown without a broomstick, he has never punched someone into space, and if he was hit by a car he would still die. Muggle weapons can still harm wizards, so Hogwarts would be carpet bombed by the US before you can say Avada Kedavra. Which, by the way, is a terrible spell. If you had to shout PUNCH before you attacked someone with your fists, I doubt very much you'd hurt anyone. The muggles not only outgun the wizards, they outnumber the, as well. And they do not have the element of surprise. The bureau of muggle affairs shows us that much. The muggle method of telling wizards from humans is primarily; what is 6 times four, or any school question, because wizards and witches are bred and trained for war. They have no education. It would be easy to spot them because of their poor intellect. And as you mentioned the neanderthals, remember that they were an intellectually inferior race, incapable of creating and kind of technology or even fire. That is why we destroyed them. And we muggles could destroy even your kind, because of our advanced technological capabilities, ones the wizards cannot even fathom. On a related note, I dream of becoming a game developer and making my own game. After college, I plan to join a game company (I would love Bethesda) and submit the idea for my own game; Technomancer; the game where sci fi and magic go to war. Our argument captures that idea; would human technology defeat arcane magic? Yes is my answer. And, on the off chance that some how the wizards have a "obliteratus technologus" spell, and humanity was defeated? What then? Does the council of wizards take charge, or does Voldemort and his death eaters rule the wizard world? The war between dark and light will resume, and wipe out wizard kind. Voldemort's war would destroy all life as we know it. So, no, Voldemort did not have the right idea. I await your response, mage. Duncan.
Voldemort had the right idea

Let's dive right in then.1. ReconciliationAs stated in the novels they did not understand the magic at work. muggles have been persecuting and executing wizards for centuries, and have forced them into hiding simply because they did not understand the magic at work Why should wizards be forced into hiding, living in fear of the inferior muggles that only win because of numbers? The answer is, they shouldn't. Wizards have been living in fear far too long. If everyone would unite with Voldemort, wizards could take their rightful place as controllers of the world.2. Natural SelectionBack when their were multiple homonids, the Homo Sapien muggles wiped them out. They killed the Neanderthals, the Denovans, the Mongols, and Homo Erectus. Why? Because Homo Sapiens were superior species, competing for resources, space, etc. , and were threatened by the other homonids. The same is happening with wizards. The reason that everyone knows who the first wizard is is because wizardry was a genetic mutation. Think about it. Wizardry is passed through bloodlines, but sometimes genetic anomalies occur again, producing Mudbloods and Squibs. Wizards are in fact a different species, a superior species to Homo Sapiens. It's time the fittest species wipe out the inferiors.3. Pure-bloods firstThe reason for this is preserving the wizard gene pool. If we let muggles constantly mate with wizards, then eventually, the gene pool will die out.
Voldemort had the right idea

You are trying to morally justify Voldemort's actions as well as provide reason that he could defeat the entire world. This is wrong on both accounts. We live in an age where anyone can whip out an iphone to record something. I doubt that Harry is the only one to misuse spells at home as well, and the Durselys will know of magic and warn the government. By driving the wizard world into full scale war, even if they instill the human race with fear and paranoia, an army of a thousand at most has no chance against the 6 billion humans. It's the planet of the apes reboot problem; even if the plague in the film wipes out 99% of human life, we still outnumber them 100 to one. Sure, you will cause long term damage to human society, but that will only make them more violent. Yes, technology has caused harm to nature, but wizards have done worse. The time turner was a commercial disaster that threatened to disrupt the space time continuum and destroy the universe as we know it, which is a lot worse. Wizards have been known to hunt for sport, and even capture infant dragons to use for cruel competitions. (also, I thought Harry had the only invisibility cape, passed down from the deathly hallows brothers) and realize that evolution is not always the way to peace and harmony for all. If wizards destroy the "lesser" race, then eventually a new mutate will appear and wipe out the wizards, and the cycle will repeat. Humans have stopped evolving (in a sense, the new mutate has no advantage over the average human, and will not reproduce any faster, and so no large change will occur) because there is no more need to evolve. If Harry's magic is so great, why does he need glasses? Why can't he have magical eye surgery or something. History of war is not a justification for more violence, and so Voldemprt would only be continuing a cycle of violence, no better than humans.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

Final round. "Trust me I know a little bit about it to. The Vietnam war was created over a fake Gulf of Tonkin incident and yes the Soviets supplied the Vietcong and the US staged an assassinated on Ngo Dinh Diem. A proxy war yes but the USA did not invade the USSR nor bomb them and the USSR did not either. We also actually invaded Vietnam and lost, if we just funded them it would be different but American men died and worse yet were forced to go. Russia didn't literally send men to die in the jungle of Vietnam and we don't call it the Russian war but the VIETNAM WAR. " So you are saying that Vietnam was a proxy war between the USSR and the USA (third sentence), even though the USSR did not invade Vietnam, which doesn't matter, because the war of Vietnam was a proxy war, not an actual war specifically between the USSR and the USA. It was named the war of Vietnam, because it was the US and North Vietnam who fought, but it was more significantly a proxy war between the USSR and the USA. Regarding your point on mandatory cards, I think it would take longer than 3 years to create mandatory credit cards, and set up a system where the "mandatory" part was enforced in five nations. Regarding your point on trade, I was saying that there are some things only a functioning America could produce(For example certain technologies, based on it's region. Yes, theoretically, China could eventually rebuild America, if they went to war, but would take time, and reverse worldwide technological progress, and I think China realizes this. Regarding your point on Germany, you didn't explain why the nation would want to take the cards, or even prove that they did want to take the cards, nor did you prove that they wanted to drop the petrodollar.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

Trust me, I know a lot about the Vietnam war. Seeing as this is the case, I can explain why it was really a war between the USSR and the USA, and North and South Vietnam were really just their pawns. The war started in the late 60's because of the "domino theory", that the USA created, and yes, we were wrong in doing this. North Vietnam was communist, and South Vietnam had more of a capitalist government. It was really a power struggle between the USA and the USSR, because the USA wanted the capitalist government to survive, and the USSR wanted the communist government to survive. So, when they went to war, the USA gave South Vietnam support, and the USSR gave North Vietnam support. They each wanted their pawn to survive, plain and simple. But I digress, seeing as this is a debate over whether China will go to war with America in the next 50 years, not about the Vietnam war. You seem to have a general dislike for capitalism. Do you want China and America to go to war, so China will win and a better governmental system (in your opinion) will spread? You didn't respond to my point that China can't sell every product in the world, seeing as some things only come form certain places in the world. And just because a country isn't capitalist, doesn't make it immune to greed. Take North Korea, a nation where Kim Jong Un hogs all the resources and leaves his people poor and starving. Why do the others not matter? Why would they probably follow suit? Why did you bother to even say the second statement if you believe the first? Changing to the Yuan would not change the fact that Germany would sell oil in dollars. You didn't back up this statement either. You didn't give evidence that the BRICS want to be the new bosses of the planet. Please prove that they do. While I am on the topic of evidence, I will be glad to cite any of my arguments if you want me to.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

The USA and the USSR never went to war with each other. America created this bull theory about the domino effect and saw a money making opportunity with Vietnam. China would not only stay afloat but replace America in this sense. West Europe knows that products are much cheaper coming out of China and since these countries are capitalist they will fall to greed. Definitely Brazil and Argentina along with Columbia in South America will. The others don't matter but would probably follow suit. About the Central maybe Mexico will side with US but the rest honestly don't matter and don't care. Germany is highly thinking about it and yes Germany can not sell Oil unless it is in Dollars. The BRICS want to stand up to the 1st world and try to become the new bosses of the planet maybe not destroy the USA but Americans will take it as such. About the mandatory cards I cannot source it so my reference is useless but I did read it off of Russian site off of google.ru after I translated it. I like to read foreign news.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

The USSR was at war with America, but they used other countries (South Vietnam, North Vietnam) to attack each other. Thats what a proxy war is. You said that China would stay afloat by trading with Western Europe. I am saying that if China were to go to war with us, Western Europe wouldn't trade with them. Even though, as you pointed out, China could trade with other countries, there are certain things that the USA and Western Europe have that other countries don't. Japan would side with us because we are allies. Yes, Russia and SOME countries in Asia are allies with China. However, Central America and South America have various stances about this issue. It is false to assume that almost all countries in the area are allied with China. Germany never agreed to take the Yuan. They could not drop the dollar, because that is not their currency. You keep going back to BRICS and how they want to destroy the USA, but you have no proof of this. You also have no proof that the BRICS will institute mandatory credit cards, either.