BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Joker is the "hero" we deserve and need.

It would seem my opponent's basic contention is that the Joker, as supposedly exemplified in the fairy scene, is out to teach us lessons of empathy and deeper understanding of ourselves and one another. I will be addressing that contention later in my arguments, but first I will start with some reasons that the Joker is not a hero. VARIOUS KILLINGS, TORTURE, ETC I'm just going to run through a list of what the Joker did in the Dark Knight, so we can all see that really he is just out to have a good time, in his own animalistic way. In this video, the Joker kills a bank manager, and his fellow robbers. Next, he kills a bodyguard of Gambol's. Then, he kills Gambol and his other bodyguards. It should be noted that he does not only kill them, he tortures them. He holds a blade in Gambol's mouth while he gives him his crazy talk. After killing Gambol, he forces the 3 remaining bodyguards to kill each other with a pool cue in order to survive. This is unnecessary brutality, even if you think they deserved death. Then we see the Joker torture and eventually kill a Batman copycat. I could see how someone wouldn't care about the people the Joker killed up until this point, but it'd be a tough argument to make to say that a man who simply wanted to do good deserved to die. Then the Joker busts Wayne's party, frightening all guests and threatening some guests with death, sticking his blade in their mouths. It should be noted that the Joker had a dead detective with him when he exited the elevator. Then he attempts to kill Rachel when Batman makes a very poor choice of words. In this video the Joker kills a police officer. We see what looks like a burning police truck in the middle of the road, so we can safely assume that the Joker killed some firefighters to get a hold of that. The truck the Joker is in t-bones a SWAT truck into a river. That may have lead to drowning deaths. Joker fires an RPG at a police cruiser. We can't confirm, but the guy(s) in there is (are) probably dead. Joker attempts to kill Harvey Dent and all SWAT officers in the SWAT truck with him. Joker fires at innocent civilians in their vehicles as Batman drives nearer and nearer to him.
The Joker is the "hero" we deserve and need.

The argument focuses only on The Joker from Batman: The Dark Knight since there are too many variations of his character. The Joker is the antagonist of the movie but this does not make him the villain. The Joker is more of a bringer or a teacher to society. In terms of legal actions Joker is of course seen as a criminal and in turn a villain. But is the Joker really evil? While your actions may speak the most of who you are the motives behind them can be as determining of your character. In one of the scenes in the movie Joker sets up a trap in which there are two boats out in the ocean and one is full of law abiding citizens whereas the other is full of prisoners. The joker states that each ship is connected to a timed bomb and that each boat has a person who has access to the controller to one of the bombs. The remotes that these people in the boats have access to is connected to the opposing boat. And the Joker states that the way to survive is for one boat to blow up the other. In the civilian boat one woman says "We don"t all have to die; those men had their chance". Joker"s social experiment shows the selfish nature of humans. The lack of empathy in the woman's statement is easy to spot. Ultimately no one pressed the button and neither of the boats were blown up. The Joker was not meaning to take lives but to prove his point of the lack of empathy in society. In real life I do believe one side would press the button. People from both of the boats would value themselves over one another. The Joker most likely had the boats set up so that the side that did press it was the one to blow up. While his game was deceitful it had a purpose and I'm positive that people on both boats gained a life changing experience. Was the Joker's test cruel? Yes. But I argue that The Joker is both the hero we deserve and need. While people have made some progression in becoming humanitarian they still have a lot of work to do. A majority of people still lack empathy and can only connect with others whom are similar to them. Society still ignores the needs of many of its own suffering people. Louis CK once said, "You really have a choice. You can have candles and horses and be a little kinder to each other or let someone suffer immeasurably, far away, just so you can leave a mean comment on YouTube while you"re taking a sh**." This is why we both need and deserve The Joker. We have failed to improve ourselves as human beings and as the desire for possessions grow people will become less caring.
A.I. is the number one threat

A.I. Artificial Intelligence, also known as A.I., is a 2001 American science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg. The screenplay by Spielberg and screen story by Ian Watson was based on the 1969 short story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. The film was produced by Kathleen Kennedy, Spielberg and Bonnie Curtis. It stars Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Frances O'Connor, Brendan Gleeson and William Hurt. Set in the 22nd century, A.I. tells the story of David, a childlike android uniquely programmed with the ability to love.
pornography ought to be illegal

Well my opponent has forfeited. So my arguments still strongly stands.For my opponent to win this debate he needs to prove...That pornography isn't detrimental,child porn and its access, and adequate checking system,and that pornography isn't the same as prostitution.In This debate I have proven.... that pornography is detrimental,allows children to illegally view pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system. Pornographic actors is the same as prostitution,I have proven these points with out refutation. Thus I have proven my case and should win this debate.
An adult should not be charged with "sexual abuse" if teenager consented and instigated

I agree that to some extent these adults should recognize that what they did was wrong. In certain cases (like my friends), I feel they need to take into consideration that this teenager was very "mature" for his age, and had already been sexually active for years before he had even met her. He also has admitted to getting a few girls pregnant, and laughs about it. He says he is not going to stop doing drugs and having sex with as many girls as he can because he knows he will never get in bad trouble. He has already had a few encounters with the cops and has a few things on his record. Instead of letting teens like him roam free and make them think that what they are doing is okay, their cries for help should not be ignored and actually get them the correct treatment they need. If punishment is needed, then they should be punished as well. My friend has already been severely punished. She could buy a house with the amount of money she had to pay in lawyer fees, she has been severely traumatized by everything, and she now has to be on the sex registry for the rest of her life. Her and I both agree that she deserved some punishment because what she did was wrong. She will openly admit it but she does not deserve a lifetime sentence of being a registered sex offender for life, which also punishes her innocent child. She has suffered more than enough, and she has gotten the treatment she needed, is going to a great college, and raising a beautiful, well mannered, and sweet daughter. She has never been in trouble in her entire 30 years of life.
Small Market Budget Restrictions

Introduction My opponent claims that the market does not factor in the fielding of a good product. I strongly disagree because the market is a major part of what a team may field as their product. Small market teams have been successful such as the 2005 Houston Astros, 2007 Colorado Rockies, and the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays who all made it to the World Series and lost. So, it is safe to say that the small market teams have done a better job in scouting and managing their players than big market teams because big market teams can simply buy the best. Contention 1: Not all teams have the "Fountain of Financial Freedom" This means that not all teams have big game owners. In addition, your Atlanta Braves are not a small market team they are more of a intermediate market team for a couple of reasons, 1) The owner of the Atlanta Braves over their postseason run was Ted Turner whose net worth is 2.3 billion dollars. 2) Salary during the run Atlanta has had their fair share of big contracts; Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, Denny Neagle, Tim Hudson, Mark Teixiera(inherited form Texas Rangers), John Smoltz to name a few. There are other reasons as well. The luxury tax has maintained little competitive balance due to the fact that small teams can't sign big time players because of the tax they must pay. Because of these reasons you should vote in favor of the PRO represenative.
Small Market Budget Restrictions

As baseball season draws near and the last of the free agents are signed, the cry of "small market" teams resonate loudly. Due to budget constraints, they were unable to compete for free agents that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox were able to. It is my opinion that this is by choice and not out of necessity. My favorite team is the Atlanta Braves. They are owned by Time-Warner. Am I to believe that they do not have the resources to compete in the free agent market? Bull. Former owner Ted Turner spent freely and along with a well developed minor league system, the Braves sat atop the NL West for over a decade. I also cite the Seattle Mariners. They are owned by the richest man in Japan (Hiroshi Yamauchi of Nintendo fame). Using the small market excuse for not improving that team rings shallow. Of course teams like Tampa Bay and Minnesota are the models of fiscal responsibilty. They are able to build from within and put a superior product on the field. However, the majority of the small market teams are profit based and not concerned about the product on the field. Using the small market excuse for fielding a poor product and perennial loser is an insult to their fans. In conclusion, I put forth that small market team is not about population, fan base or media outlets. It is about profit based, arrogant ownership giving their fans a hollow excuse for ripping them off.
Small Market Budget Restrictions

In refutation to his argument, He has said that I made his point for him but his point in Round 1 was about Ted Turner and Mr. Yamaguchi of the Seattle Mariners. They ARE NOT small market teams. The general definiton of "small market" in North American Sports is mostly that teams which have a small media market and less of the ownership behind it (I cite The Handbook of the Economics of Sport by Wladimir Andreff and Stefan Szymanski). The Atlanta Braves or Seattle Mariners for that matter aren't small-market teams and with that argument. I answer your question about what determines a team's market size. Furthermore, I used Ted Turner as a reason why the Atlanta Braves ARE NOT small market teams. Read my argument more before you refute it. Though teams have over $100 million in revenue it can go quite quickly and thanks to the luxury tax and our current economy. I must add to my refutation of your argument that you said stadium deals are not included in their revenue what about other things such as employees, merchandise, advertisements. Plus, if it owners are so cheap why are The Chicago Cubs owners selling their franchise simply because they don't want to take the chance in this current economy and eventually their business is struggling and this is with a big market team which shows the trouble that small market owners don't want to go through. Hence, they can't compete becuase they simply can't afford the price or the risk. And for these reasons in my clean, thorough, informative and fervent case.
Small Market Budget Restrictions

You made my point for me. If you hold Ted Turner up as an example then what would be the excuse for Seattle's ownership? As I previously stated, Mr. Yamauchi is the richest man in Japan. Splitting financial hairs between small, intermediate and large market teams rings hollow. What is this based on? Population? Fan base? Television market? Using your place in the market as an excuse to not compete is fiscal hocus pocus. I cite Forbes.com reports on the business of baseball. Not one major league team is losing money. They all have revenues of over $120 million per year. And that doesn't even include some of the sweet stadium deals they have. If you choose not to compete in free agency, that is fine. But be honest about it. Let your fans know that free agency spending is not a part of your business model. Explain to them your alternative plans on how you are going to field a competitive product. Don't insult them/us by saying you don't have the money.
Small Market Budget Restrictions

My opponent clearly sees the fact that I was right in all of my claims and that he forfeited the round because he knew he would fail in the argument. So, now I will further extend my claims in the fact that small market teams cannot economically compete with other clubs. The lack of success by small market teams is evident in the past 10 years. Only the Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks have won a World Series in that span. Two by medium market teams being the Philadelphia Phillies and the Chicago White Sox. The other seven Champions are The Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. Because of this rebuttal and none from the opponent.
Removal of Putin from power is inevitable

I get your point, but what are you trying to say. It's 2014. The bigger dog eating smaller dog is no longer acceptable. Russians are trying to convince the world that this is actually a clash of super powers. There sure is a political aspect of it, but the point is Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country with protection of borders under international law. Ukraine do not belong to Russia, and if Ukrainian people said enough of Russian puppet regimes, corruption and interference, it's their rightful choice they are entitled to exercise. In order to fit my point into your optics, it appears that majority of Ukrainians do want to belong to a family of another superpower, while the one that has boot on their neck doesn't want to let go. So what is your stand 1) let it work out by itself - the stronger powers win? 2) support Ukrainian cause - to be independent on Moscow and pursuit their own political goals as Eu and perhaps NATO? 3) Consider Ukraine a Russian field of interest and let them do whatever they please with it?
Removal of Putin from power is inevitable

Russia under Putin's regime provoked a conflict in Ukraine, when Ukrainian citizens overthrown pro-Kremlin puppet government. Pretty much like in 2008 in Georgia, Russia supported pro-Russian rebels by contributing arms and manpower. They're trying to destabilize the region so Russian army can invade to "protect the Russian speakers" while in fact they will subdue the country militarily. Current Russia is a security threat to Europe and Euro-American assets of Western Economy. Putin must be stopped and replaced by political representation that will not bring the world into a global war. Since Putin controls everything in Russia and fearlessly destroys effective opposition, west will have to come up with the plan and execution.
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches

Airport and airline security in this country, or more accurately, the lack of it, has been an open scandal for decades. On September 11, we paid the price. Now it is proposed that airport security personnel should "profile" airline passengers from Moslem and Middle Eastern countries for special scrutiny. To target an entire ethnic group, the overwhelming majority of whom are good, decent, innocent people, because of the crimes committed by a tiny handful of them, is immoral, in most instances illegal and violates fundamental American values. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of September 11, airport security officials are temporarily justified in doing so, for three reasons: First, because since 1993, the perpetrators of every terrorist act committed or attempted by foreigners within the U.S. " the World Trade Center car bomb, September 11 and several unsuccessful conspiracies in between " have been from the Middle East, Algeria or Pakistan. Second, September 11 taught us that failing to prevent terrorists from boarding an airliner can cost thousands of lives and significantly disrupt our way of life. Third, because we do not yet have in place the resources or personnel to properly scrutinize every individual who boards and every package loaded onto a plane, it would be irresponsible not to focus most of our attention on people who fit the "profile" of those most likely to attempt another September 11. This justification is temporary, for two reasons: Permanently profiling any group violates our ideals and values. And the next group of hijackers might not fit the profile. They might be from Somalia or Indonesia (where allegedly there are Al Qaeda cells in each country). Or they could be members of Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese sect that a few years ago released a deadly chemical in the Tokyo subway. Or they might be "all-American guys" like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Until adequate security resources are put in place to properly screen everyone, we can only hope that security personnel who "profile" Middle Easterners will act professionally and courteously. Inevitably, though, thousands of innocent, decent people will be singled out unfairly, and many will be harassed and humiliated, but its the price passengers will have to pay to fly safely and prevent terrorist action. In conclusion profiling in airport security is neccassary in order to protect one of our natural right, life. (1)http://photo.pds.org...
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches

Rhode Island air port T.F. Green has recently decide to install a face recognition or a system to profile terrorist. American Civil Liberties union called on the officials to reconsider this installment, because federal government studies on this face recognition show that it does not work. This technology will do little more then creating a sense of security that is not there, and will infringe on privacy and harass innocent persons just because of their ethnic appearance. Face recognition and profiling schemes are completely useless to stop terrorists unless there is a properly established database of suspects and as of now there is no photographic database of terrorists that exists at this point of time. On the flip side, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) study also found that digital comparisons of posed photos of the same person taken 18 months apart triggered "false negatives" by the technology 43 percent of the time. In other words, persons who should have been identified were not. Further, both these studies were performed with images captured under circumstances far more ideal than a crowded airport. Independent experts agree, as the NIST study demonstrated, that FERET (Face Recognition Technology) has trouble recognizing the effects of aging, and that changing a hair or beard style or wearing glasses can also fool the computers. In addition, differences in lighting and camera angles, as well as the "uncooperative" nature of the person being photographed, all are known to further increase the inaccuracies of this technology. study on FERET technology found major "false positive" problems, in which the system reports a match when none exists. Police relying on this technology will therefore be led too often to stop, question and detain innocent people instead of suspects. And if the photo database consists largely, if not exclusively, of Middle Eastern people flagged as terrorists, the result of these numerous "false positives" will fall most heavily on innocent people of Arabic descent and lead to yet another level of racial profiling in law enforcement. Source (1) https://www.aclu.org...
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches

The United States' security has failed in the passed, the 9/11 terrorists were undetected going through the metal detectors. Then when they attempted to increase security, Richard Reid managed to board a flight with explosives in his shoes. When passengers were asked to take off their shoes, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab managed to board a flight with plastic explosives hidden in his underwear. This shows that terrorists are able to get around new security measure when they are introduced. Ethnic profiling is a new tactic that will be difficult to get around and prevent terrorism. Today, the majority of terrorist organizations are based on a form of Islamic ideology that is mostly prevalent in the Middle East and South-East Asia. Profiling is based on the assumption that the people in the organizations, from these countries, are most likely suspects of terrorism. Racial profiling is therefore just because although it is seen as discriminatory, it protects the lives of millions of passengers. (1)http://securingliberty.idebate.org...
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches

There are two types of profiling. There is profiling based on behavioral traits, which can be a very effective profiling system but is very hard to do right. Then there is profiling based on name, nationality and so on, this process of profiling can make us all less safe. Terrorist don't fit a profile and cannot be plucked out of crowds by a computer. Terrorist can be European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American. So was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit "clean" suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers Source (2) http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com...
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches

Since post 9/11 Americans have supported profiling, all major airports use CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System) to try to apprehend terrorist. Now two MIT computer science graduates have proof that profiling doesn't work because CAPPS has been in effect since 1999, this has given terrorist plenty of time to practice against the system. If airports used only random searches then terrorist will not be able to practice against the system. If there was a pure randomized screening then then the terrorist would not be able to know if they would receive extra screening. MIT research shows that there is a better chance of catching terrorists or people hiding weapons. (1)http://acfnewsource.org.s60463.gridserver.com...