BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

Please do give me some evidence that a man you have no physical evidence of wrote a book you worship. Also the we follow the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence yes, but that is different due to the fact that those documents were thought out by a group of people who came to a consensuses about it. The Bible is presumed to be written by one person who may not even have existed. Examples of Christians who do not follow the bible to the core, OK. When was the last time you cut your hair? When was the last time you killed someone for not following God's path? When was the lat time you ate anything with blood? When was the last time you killed a man for lying with another man? And your great God tells you it's OK to rape women and kill infants in the name of God. If you son hits you they must die, Exodus 21:15. If your child even curses you they must die, Leviticus 20:9. Just a few examples here. And yes as you are entitled to your freedom of speech I ask that you respect it. Let me know if you follow all of these and the rest of the Bible to the core.
Gay marriage

"I am for gay marriage. being gay myself I understand all the hate that the LGBT community receives." Ooh, the gay people have their own group? "I would like to say that the bible and religion is used to try and fight against gay marriage and is not a valid source to be used due to the fact that it is old" You re absolutely right, lets throw away the constitution, the bill of rights, and the declaration of independence too. , "nobody knows who actually wrote it" Depends on your book really, the only books which do not have a specific author are oral history which was written down. , "and on top of that, many Christians don't actually follow the book to the core." An example please, I do not know what you are referring to. "So please use facts to support your claims and try to refrain from derogatory language." Can I say commie- oh, wait; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" I can say whatever I want!
Gay marriage

I am for gay marriage. being gay myself I understand all the hate that the LGBT community receives. I would like to say that the bible and religion is used to try and fight against gay marriage and is not a valid source to be used due to the fact that it is old, nobody knows who actually wrote it, and on top of that, many Christians don't actually follow the book to the core. So please use facts to support your claims and try to refrain from derogatory language.
I Like the Way Fox News Reports Way More than CNN

For me, It says "post your argument for round 3" wait what? It is only round 2! I tried to post an argument anyway, But when I pressed "submit" it went back to the home page as usual, But didn't show con had to post an argument for the next round, But rather me! It didn't even show my argument, And when I did try to post an argument for the second straight time, My text was completely erased. DDO needs to be fixed.
I Like the Way Fox News Reports Way More than CNN

I guess this is what the right"s understanding of bias has become" I was just going to ignore this waste of thought but your stab at understanding and stating for the rest of us what the left once was and has now become was a royal flop. First off, Where are your facts/proof/examples? Thinks like "CNN claims to be". " And "Fox News claims to be"" are begging for concrete examples. Your argument isn"t one stance in a debate" it"s just your argument. That being said its wrong (the answer is that both are equally biased) and here"s why: Bias is inclination or preference that influences judgment from being balanced or even-handed (http://www. Businessdictionary. Com/definition/bias. Html). This means basically they choose to prevent you from accessing the who/what/where/when of a story without also accessing the why " their why ("they" is anybody in this context). Bias in the news business manifests itself in any number of ways " the stories presented, The order in which they"re presented, The tools they use to present one v. Another, Etc. " Any decision a newspaper of media outlet editor actually decides is subject to bias almost 100% of the time. I applaud you for grasping the difference b/w a media outlet honestly stating fact or opinion, But they don"t have to, And in this case the argument is a straight up red herring! What you"re asking yourself is "Is the outlet stating that they"re giving me fact or opinion? They are? Feels honest. (It"s not). " On TV, You might want to try to pick out the "news" (information (stories) on who/what/where/when) stories/programs from the intermittently interspersed "talking head/opinion" pieces, But it"s a fruitless endeavor. Less than 1% of the time does either network actually report the who, What, Where, And when of a story" they"re far too busy with why (of course, Their why). People get confused " there is NOTHING "binding" these companies from publishing "news" in the first place, And as you would guess 99% of everything on both networks should be defined (though they do not) as "talking head/opinion" and as such, Produced with bias for your biased consumption. Arguing one is more biased than another is a fallacy in the first place.
I Like the Way Fox News Reports Way More than CNN

What I mean by this is the following: CNN claims to be unbiased whenever they report, Even in the clearly bias night shows such as Anderson Cooper 360, CNN Tonight w/ Don Lemon, Cuomo Primetime, Erin Burnett OutFront, Etc. Fox News claims to be unbiased in their day programming, Which is true. Examples of these are the Special Report w/ Bret Baier, OutNumbered, Shepard Smith Reporting, Fox and Freinds, Etc. However, They do not claim to be unbiased in their night shows, Where they have clear republican/conservative bias. Examples of these are Tucker Carlson Tonight, Hannity, The Ingraham Angle, The Story w/ Martha MacCallum, Etc. In conclusion, CNN claims to be unbiased even when they clearly are, Where as Fox News says they are unbiased when they are unbiased (Day reporting), And bias when they are bias (night shows). I guess this is what the left has become now, Though.
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

PopularityLet me clear up this skirmish over the popularity of the US. The poll's results can be found here . http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... the poll was conducted by the BBC World Service. The BBC has 9,000 employees internationally, it is one of the best funded news networks and the most reliable, unbiased and trustowrthy. It beats an ammature (by comparison) polling blog by a long shot. The point was not focusing on negative views of the US, it was focusing on the fact that the majority of people do not have positive views of the US. Compared to EU, UK and Germany where the majority of the world do have positive views of these states. JurisdictionThe quote 'hard to identify jurisdiction' has been taken completely out of context. It is hard to identify jurisdiction when we are talking about intellectual property, however a phone call between two Germans in Germany falls under German and EU jurisdiction. Thus, the NSA has broken the law and should be punished as a result of that. 'Social Contract'Con goes on about how the US Gov't must 'do best for its people'. That's all very well, but this contract you speak of is between the gov't and its people. Don't trot over here and get us involved in it. We didn't ask for your contract and by God are we going to fight it if you try and entangle us in it. Con ASSUMES that the primary job of a government is to do best by its citizens, but this point is arguable and cannot be used as a stone premise for a logical argument. TERROR! Oh you Americans do get touchy about terrorists don't you! Well I can assure you, Merkel is not planning to blow up the new WTC, or the White House, or half of Los Angeles. Surveillance does decrease terrorism. Surveillance of EU officials increases the amount of terror we are willing to unleash on you. You don't spy on your allies, you don't cheat in fair negotiations. You don't do these things to the European Union. It will get you nowhere but the gutter. 'Because I can! 'The only reason the US has been spying on senior EU officials and officials of its states is because it can. Apart from the trade deal, it has no proper motive for doing so. It wishes to flex its muscle to assure itself that it is still the world's 'superpower'. To try and surpress the European Union in their quests for world dominance. It's immoral. It's unfair. It's dirty. It's dark. It's unnecessary. The NSA should not have engaged in surveillance of EU leaders and their staffs. Now look at the motion. Vote for who you want, but learn from America's mistake: make the right choice.
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

I'm afraid that I have had trouble trying to understand Con's points. When Con says: 'Overview: Pro has dropped my case. Extend it.' I haven't a clue what he means. So I shall try to rebut what points I can.You can very easily tell from public reactions and from reactions of the press that the US has made itself even more unpopular in Europe. In the UK, we recently had the 'phone-hacking scandal' where the largest British newspaper was found to have been spying on many British citizens through hacking their phones and voice messages. This resulted in one of the largest inquests in British history, several arrests and the closure of one of the world's most prominent newspapers.The fact that now, rather than a newspaper, a foreign entity has decided to do the same and not only to our people but to our leaders on a MASSIVE scale not only shocks the European public, it disgusts them. How would Americans feel if the Russians or the Chinese decided to spy on them, eh? They'd have a fit! Americans would take to the street in protest and God knows how the US government would react. Attitudes towards America are at an all-time low.Your polling point: your poll was posted on an obscure blog by an obscure reporter and has wild claims to US popularity. However, my poll was conducted by BBC World Service which is arguably the most respected news organisation on the planet. Ask yourself: which is more likely to be accurate?Now onto international legislation. It is true that in 'cyberspace' it's hard to identify jurisdiction. However, it's really rather plain and simple that a telephone conversation between German Angela Merkel and her many German staff in Germany is likely to fall under the jurisdiction of GERMANY. It really isn't that difficult.Pro says: "the NSA is primarily responsible to the U.S. and its laws, and so can justify some violations of other nations rules [sic]".No. The NSA is American, yes. But as we've said before, organisations, governments, and citizens are subject to local law when visiting another country. The NSA does not have free roam over the world to do whatever it wants, to spy on whomever it wants. The NSA was subject to German and EU law whilst spying on Angela Merkel and the way they did it - which I have to say was a very crude manner - broke several local laws. As such, the NSA should be shut down and those responsible taken to court as should happen in any PROPER, functioning, well-built society. And I hope the US can still prove it is such a society because we Europeans have lost all faith in it.Con says: 'Rebuttal 4: Pro tries to deny that the NSA's surveillance was helpful, when in his last speech he stated, "This information gave America an upper hand. And America was happy knowing she was always one step ahead of Europa, thanks to" the NSA." His own points contradict.'I said that NSA surveillance gave America an 'upper hand'. I never, ever said NSA surveillance was not useful to the United States Government, especially whilst these vital trade deals where underway. Con's point against me does not stand.
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

Thanks to Henry and everyone! Overview: Pro has dropped my case. Extend it. This celarly rebuts Pro's concerns about the scope of the NSA's activities as well as his arguments about such surveillance not being beneficial. Rebuttal 1: Pro has not shown causality. Yes, U. S. approval ratings may be low, but is it the NSA's actions that are the cause? With no link to examin the study, it is hard to ascertain its validity and its findingins. Moreover, if 48% of Britons viewed the U. S. postively, how many viewed us neutrally? That does not imply that most Britons see us negatively. Rebuttal 2: Moreover, this polling contradicts Pro's: . http://www.realclearworld.com...Rebuttal 3: When violations of the law occur in a specific location, maybe. But in the realm of cyberspace, the line of what is the EU and what is the U. S. is much more subjective and blurred. Ultimately, the NSA is primarily responsible to the U. S. and its laws, and so can justify some violations of other nations rules in pursuit of that objective. It ties back to the pragmatic self-interest rationale I described in my case. Rebuttal 4: Pro tries to deny that the NSA's surveillance was helpful, when in his last speech he stated, "This information gave America an upper hand. And America was happy knowing she was always one step ahead of Europa, thanks to" the NSA. " His own points contradict. Thanks, again.
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

Con states that it is the government's duty to do what is 'best' for its citizens. Well, since the 80s, US influence has become increasingly unpopular in Europe and the rest of the world.A poll conducted by the BBC World Service found that only 48% of Britons described US influence as 'positive'. 45% of French citizens. 44% Canadians. 40% Spaniards. And just 39% of Germans looked fondly upon the US.The US is not popular. Imperialist actions such as monitoring EU leaders' phones are unacceptable and lead to anti-Americanism which (and I can say this from my experiences of waking up to Britain every day) is very prominent in European society. By spying on us, America, you are only making matters worse for your citizens. There are calls from France and other EU members to halt trade talks with the US until these matters are resolved; this may slow the creation of thousands of US jobs by years simply because Little Miss America couldn't play fairly.Con likes to talk about the extent of internet monitoring that the US undergoes which was actually a surprisingly large amount. But Con is also correct: this debate is about EU leaders, not the internet. As such, I shall disregard this point.You say, Con, that '[EU law] does not apply to states not in the EU.' But as long as the crime being committed is being committed on European soil, then it is in violation of European law. Just as if I - as a British and EU citizen - were to travel to the US and commit a crime in the US, the fact that I'm not a US citizen makes no difference. If a Texan was come to London and walk about with his rifle, even though he's a Texan, he'd be arrested for having a dangerous weapon. These crimes and gross invasions of privacy took place on EU soil. And the US should suffer the consequences just as any other would.Doing the right thing for one's people is not to betray the allies of those people. Doing the right thing for one's people is not to break laws in other countries in the name of those people. Doing the right thing for one's people is not blatantly cheating in a card game of economics and politics.
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

Thanks to Henry. Again, sorry for the lateness of my reply. Pro begins by citing statisitcs about how many foreign phone calls the NSA intercepted--but the vast majority of those phone calls were calls made by average citizens, not EU leaders. Remember, the topic is specific to EU leaders. I do not deny that the NSA spied on Merkel, the question is: should it have done so? Pro's only arguments about wht the NSA was wrong to do what it did was that the NSA violeted EU law, and that its activities gave the U. S. and unfair advantage. However, this is an incorrec way to frame the debate. The U. S. government's primary and overriding duty is to do what is best for its citizens. Every nation, through its social contract, has that duty towards its people. Insofar as the U. S. obligation to its citizens could best be obtained by spying, the NSA was justified in what it did. The U. S. is supposed to put itself in the most advantageous position possible. As for EU law, it does not apply to states not in the EU. Again, the points about Spanish phone calls don't apply to EU leaders. Finally, this resolution is NSA-specific, so GCHQ is extratopical. In sum, Pro makes a heavy pathos-laden appeal, but fails to anlayze the resolution from the perspective of WHY the NSA exists--as a means to maximize the government's ability to fulfill its social contract. Thank you!
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

The United States as an imperial power has decided to spy on its allies. Intelligence Contractor Edward Snowden released highly sensitive information regarding the NSA surveillance of over 50million French phone calls, and 60million Spanish phone calls. The US has also been spying on the world's leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel, Italian leaders, and other EU leaders including officials of the European Union.The US spied on Angela Merkel from 2001 up until 2013 when the incriminating documents were released by Snowden. During this time, the EU and the US have been working to establish a trade deal similar to that between Mexico and the EU. This would mean A LOT to both the European and US economies. Now, during these deals, a lot of negotiation takes place - it's almost like a card game. But America decided she didn't want to play fair. She screwed up her face, whispered something into the ear of her pet dog, NSA, who - in turn - trotted over to Europe. The NSA fed back to the US extreme amounts of important information. This information gave America an upper hand. And America was happy knowing she was always one step ahead of Europa, thanks to her pet dog.Is it right that America treats her friends like this? Is it right that she cheats whilst enjoying a friendly game of cards which is beneficial to both America and her friend Europa? Is this how America treats her allies?Why spy on Merkel, anyway? Does the US feel that Merkel could be planning the next 9/11? Or maybe Germany is planning to invade North America with her European friends?The idea is ludicrous.Not only did the US spy on EU leaders' private conversations (which is illegal under EU law), but it also monitored 60million Spanish phone calls over just three days! 20million phone calls per day! Now what on earth did the NSA wish to achieve through this? She wasn't helping Spain, as the Spanish Government knew nothing of the monitoring. The US did it simply because it could. The United States wished to flex its muscle - in private, of course - and spy on millions of Europeans and their leaders. How America could bring herself to do this to her own ally is shameful. Why she did it remains a complete and utter mystery.To make matters even worse, America decided to get some of her friends in on it too. She wanted to bully the beautiful, innocent Europa. So she popped along to Britannia's house! She knocked on the door and asked Britannia if GCHQ could come to play. Britannia assented, and off America and GCHQ ran! But what the pair did next was utterly horrific. In their haste, America egged-on GCHQ to be nasty to Europa. The pair picked on her, even though GCHQ was supposedly Europa's friend.From WITHIN the European Union, the Government Communications Headquarters spied on the rest of Europe and its leaders: the ultimate betrayal.Together, the US and GCHQ have invaded the privacy of millions of EU citizens, their leaders, and others all in the name of the War on Terror. This has to stop, what the NSA is doing is wrong. And there is blatantly no justification for any action which clearly goes against your ally.
Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

This debate is a Semi-Final round in the Liberals' DDO Tournament between myself and Henry (who is replacing Magic after he was forced to drop out due to extenuating circumstances.)Topic:The NSA should not have engaged in surveillance of EU leaders and their staffs.Structure:R1: AcceptanceR2: Cases (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals/Crystallization (no new arguments or responses)Thanks:I thank Henry for agreeing to fill in--without his acquiesence, this round would not have been possible; I would also like to thank the judges and all my fellow competitors for making this a great tournament. May the best debater prevail.
Life is Pointless for the "Average Joe"

Whether or not they believe their life is pointless is moot. The debate topic is that in the large scale, the average person is forgotten in the lesser part of a century. Therefore in the end, the average Joes life is pointless. I think my life has a point but the best source of longevity would be in the memories of my grandchildren. Again if the person is question thinks his life is meaningful is a pointless argument. I could think I'm a union but that doesn't put a horn in my head. "Not everyone can be a Caesar or a Washington." What I meant is that the only way to be reimbursed for several centuries is if you are born into an already prominent family. Caesars family was enormously wealthy. They also had connections with current Roman king. Washing also grew up in a prominent uppercase family. That is true that they may seem important. But unless they put their on individual touch onto history, they are pointless to the large scale picture. Because there is no absolute refutation of my point I will restate, if you grow up as an average person then you will end up being an average person. Your life has a point, but it is only a delusion of granger to think that you can shape the world. Thank you. I urge an affirmative ballot
Life is Pointless for the "Average Joe"

E]veryone has the ability to make it big no matter where they are from." This is technically true however this is an extreamely rare case. But even if this happens, those people do not end up in the histiry. Given enough time, though they will not end up in the history books. In the end making there life pointless." So are you saying a person's life only has a point if they make it into the history books? If someone becomes successful and is happy they might consider their life worth while. Whether you feel it was pointless or not doesn't matter as long as they *the person who's life we're talking about* feel their life has meaning. ------------------------------------------------------- "My opponent also said that I said that all life is based on how rich they become. That is not true. I was only stating a common example of how that happens. (I. Rockefeller) Again I will restate that the workforce, or Average Joe, will end up being part of the nameless masses. Pointless in the eyes of future historians." Again back to being viewed in history. Just refer to my argument above. ------------------------------------------------------- "Not everyone can be a Caesar or a Washington." I don't get where you're going with this but as far as I can tell you just dropped my 3rd contention/reason. ------------------------------------------------------- "Every life has a current point. But after it all they are just another cog in a clock. Few actually become the hands." They may seem to be "just another cog in a clock" to you but to someone maybe they were the "hands". Our view of someone has no effect on if their life is pointless as long as SOMEONE sees meaning in them. For my argument stated above please vote con. Thank you.