BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consider hacking a form of terrorism

The fact that the government security is hackable, doesn't really give any reason to why we should not consider hacking a form of terrorism. If anything, it shows we need better people protecting our cyber systems. You are right to say that The Freedom of Information Act "generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information". But I would like to emphasize on the word "generally" . If you were to continue scrolling down your source http://www.foia.gov..., you will see that there are documents that are not disclosed. For example "classified national defense and foreign relations information".The disclosure of national defense information is defiantly something you would not want in the wrong hands. This brings me to my next point. If the wrong set of people got their hands on military secrets (lets say nuclear launch codes), that would defiantly be an act of terrorism. like you stated "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;". Clearly getting your hands on something like this is a bad thing, which can lead to terrorist attacks. As the director of the FBI stated in 2012, hacking can be "potentially devastating" and "Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills,".http://www.nytimes.com... Terrorists are gearing up. The only way to stop them is to make hacking illegal and like you said before, create better servers to protect our secrets.
Consider hacking a form of terrorism

1- According to The Freedom of Information Act, it states that it "generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information" http://www.foia.gov.... There is not even a need for hacking when one can simply write a letter and request specific documents. Hacking cannot be considered a form of terrorism in the United States. 2- Hacking into computers shows flaws within government security. If people can hack into their system it shows that spyware needs to be improved. Different types of viruses create better protection against this in the future. People will be willing to put faith in government and any other companies knowing that there is more being done about hacking. 3- To be an act of terrorism, according to the FBI it have to "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;" http://www.fbi.gov... However, there have been no confirmed deaths directly related to cyber-warfare. "Many computer security experts do not believe that it is possible to use the Internet to inflict death on a large scale." http://www.princeton.edu... C- We should not consider computer hacking a form of terrorism.
morality is subjective..

the tree is not about morality, if you burn down the hole forest and people are dependent on it then its about morality a cola is an object, hence i don't have to imagine it necessarily, like i do with morality you can never show me morality in reality, the actions of some one might be moral, but that comes from inside, not real, as the total opposite behavior can exist there is no total opposite of the cola being red, that's what i know, that's what it is, as know is true, there is no doubt that maybe its slightly green or blue, because its real
morality is subjective..

Pro missed the point about the tree example. I won't belabor the point. As for “coca cola labels are red,” it seems this debate is turning into a Coca Cola commercial. As for the color red, it may surprise Pro there are no colors in the electromagnetic spectrum. The perception of color is species related. True, Con like Pro "don't have to imagine" gravity. Also true, Con like Pro "don't have to imagine" the cultures of German, Spanish, English, etc., for culture is the result of morality.
morality is subjective..

the tree argument is about the law of the land not morality why DO we agree that coca cola labels are red when we can disagree about morality?* yes if ones perception of reality is faulty there can be a disagreement, so what this suggest is that to you everyone is "colour blind" when it comes to morality where as... there is no debates going on about a coca cola label being red.. because we know its red, unlike the colour blind person, I don't have to imagine its red, like I have to imagine morality you cant show me morality in reality, thus its not real, as its not true, like the label of a soda in my hand is red is true, hence no disagreement unless you are colour blind I know gravity, I don't have to imagine it
morality is subjective..

Con will address Pro's comments:Pro stated, “reason+(and)intent=(is)morality.”“Reason” (group formation ) + “intent” (mutual positive-feedback ) = morality.“Reason” (group destruction) + “intent” (mutual negative-feedback) = immorality. The simple binary states of morality. Pro stated, “morality=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion.”Morality = contrasting self with others using positive-thoughts and positive-emotions.Immorality = contrasting self with others using negative-thoughts and negative-emotions.Again the simple binary states of morality. Pro stated, “if you cant tell right from wrong you cant be immoral, and if like a rock one does not have intent, one can not be immoral.”If one can't tell right from wrong implies one is lacking a reference point---values. For example, an immigrant moves to a culture, where the values are such that it is immoral to cut down a tree. This immigrant does not yet know about such values and decides to cut down the big trees and not the small trees on his land. His neighbor may say that guy does not know the difference between “right from wrong.” Therefore, relative to the immigrant, he is not “immoral,” he did not know the values of said culture and therefore, “does not have intent.” Relative to his neighbor, the immigrant is immoral. Pro stated, “why don't we agree that coca cola labels are red when we can disagree about morality?”Con is not sure about this question, but will give it a try; otherwise, please elaborate. If all “coca cola labels are red,” the only way one will disagree, if one is color blind. The reason why many disagree about morality is education; hence, this debate. Most confuse morality with social values. Morality's binary state is the agent for both the genesis and compliance with social values. Pro stated, “if morality is physical, you can show it to me in reality, like I can show you a soda is red, ai?”The force of gravity is part of the physical Laws of Nature. I can't show you gravity, but I can show you the result of gravity on objects in a gravitational field. The binary force of morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature. I can't show you morality, but I can show you the result of morality on living-systems in a moral field.
morality is subjective..

reason+(and)intent=(is)morality morality=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion both information, mental, not physical if you cant tell right from wrong you cant be immoral, and if like a rock one does not have intent, one can not be immoral why don't we agree that coca cola labels are red when we can disagree about morality? if morality is physical, you can show it to me in reality, like I can show you a soda is red, ai?
morality is subjective..

Pro is fixated on objects and since morality is not an object (“you [Con] can never show me [Pro] morality”) therefore, according to Pro morality “comes from inside, not real.” Con could “show” Pro a 12 inch ruler, and according to Pro's logic it is real. If Pro were to collect all the 12 inch rulers in the world, Pro may be surprise to find no two rulers will be equal. Therefore, a 12 inch ruler does not exist in the physical domain. A 12 inch ruler only exist in the abstract domain ("comes from inside"). Yet buildings, bridges, even computer chips, etc., would not exist without a ruler, a form of measurement.Morality is a binary measurement in the building of cultures and social groups throughout the symphony of life. Since Morality is binary, it is not “subjective;” otherwise; cultures would not exist. I thank Pro for bringing an important subject to the debating floor, and entering this debate in the “Science” category. Since Morality is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, morality should be a subject of study in a science course. With that said, and in closing, the moral thing to do, is wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral "pursuit of Happiness.”
Ford is better the chevy

1. The current Camaro is the modern inspiration of the Classic American Sports Car " the 21st Century Sports Car 2. Camaro is currently the hottest car in the industry and the car "D to see and be seen in."" 3. Camaro 3.6L V6 and 6.2L V8 powertrains set the standard for performance in the segment. 4. Camaro SS with six speed manual offers 426 HP and 420 lbs-ft of torque starting at $31,595. 5. Camaro SS with six speed automatic transmission features Active Fuel Management and achieves EPA est 16/25 and 400 HP / 410 lbs-ft of torque. 6. Camaro is the first Chevy with an available Boston Acoustics audio system. 7. Camaro standard safety features include such standard equipment as six airbags; Stabilitrack; Traction Control; ABS and OnStar. 8. Camaro RS package with HID Halo Ring headlamps sets its self apart on the road. 9. It"s a movie star "Transformers" Bumblebee. 10. There is no other car on the road like this for under $30,000. - Looks, Technology and 304 HP AND 29 MPG HWY. - Camaro starting price is $23,565. http://www.thorobredchevrolet.com... List of NASCAR Manufacturers' champions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The NASCAR Manufacturers' Championship is awarded by NASCAR to the most successful manufacturer over a season, as determined by a points system based on race results. The Constructors' Championship was first awarded in 1952, to Hudson. Different car make/engine combinations are considered to be different manufacturers for the purposes of the Championship. Manufacturers' Championship points are calculated by adding points scored in each race by the highest finishing driver for that manufacturer. The winning manufacturer earns nine points, while the second highest finishing manufacturer earns six points. The third highest maunfacturer earns four points, one ahead of the fourth highest.[1] In the 57 seasons the Championship has been awarded, only eight different manufacturers have won it, with Chevrolet the most successful, with 37 titles including eleven consecutive from 2003 to 2013.http://en.wikipedia.org...'_champions
Ford is better the chevy

(1.) you have provided me no proof of your claims no sources (2.) just because the government does something does not make it "better" or even right in most cases (3.) chevy still makes cars/trucks under the brand name chevy so as long as they do this it can still be compared to ford (4.) "dabt" is not a word so your claiming that chevy is into "dabt" is providing false information thank you and that is all for this round
Mordern technology is taking over individuals mindset

I see that my opponent has forfeited this round. I will post my arguments though.My arguments will be very short.1. Technology can lead them or guide them to their thinking.First I will say something. Not everyones mindset is good. They have to make it right. However I believe that technology can guide them to their thinking. This is because of well, the Internet. The Internet such as Google is a place where there are opinions and facts of you just type down. This is a picture of someone looking up the internet s://alssl.askleomedia.com...; alt="Googling for Facebook" width="600" height="262" />This is someone who just looked up about facebook. If you like math or have a mind that we should ban homework or whatever, you can look up the internet to find searches. In this picture there are links you can go to. The internet is a place where there is a lot of information. This shows that technology does not take over your mindset but actually helps it.2. Their are some educational or sites that help you. You can't see everything in a book. You can't see some information. Just think that almost everything you see in a book can be in a computer. For example if you like Math, you can search up a site that can teach you math by talking. In a book you can't do that. This can help to expand our mindset or give better mindsets for us.Thank you. Rebuttals will be in the next round.
Mordern technology is taking over individuals mindset

I thank gkilo more making this debate. Lets have a good debate!Lets do a debate with no forfeits. I just have an question to the Pro side. I am just saying that if he was writing his argument.DefintionsModern: Relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote pastTechnology: The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industryindivisuals: A single human being as distinct from a groupmindset: The established set of attitudes held by someonehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Lets make the debate begin.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

DEFINITIONS Civil Disobedience: A public, non-violent, and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies (Rawls) An Appropriate Weapon: Just and effective Democracy: Government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. POINTS 1.) Civil Disobedience is just. According to John Locke, if an unjust law is in place, it goes beyond the social contract. This is called "tacit consent." According to Martin Luther King, one has a legal and moral responsibility to obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. 2.) Civil Disobedience is effective. According to Bertrand Russell, Civil Disobedience leads to a widespread dissemination of a position, including a discussion of the facts. Rawls also agrees that the communicative nature of it is a stabilizing and corrective force within a democracy. 3.) Civil Disobedience works within a democracy. Rawls again calls it, "the special case of a nearly just society, one that is well-ordered for the most part." Generally works b/c Disobedients don't challenge the legitimacy of the government, but rather a single unjust law. They are willing to accept the consequences of their actions for the sake of justice. I'd just like to finally point out that the Pro side of this argument has the support of several different leaders and philosophers (MLK, Locke, Rawls, Bertrand Russell,Gandhi etc.), many of which were instrumental in the development of the US and human society in general.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

The pro has made a massive mistake, he has dropped the argument from my first "speech" "an appropriate weapon is both just and effective, placing the burden on himself that he needs to win his entire case." so all I have to do to win is show that it is either not effective or not just, I do not have to do both, at this point look at his second point 2.) Civil Disobedience is effective, in his last "speech" he concedes that "He's right in saying that it doesn't actually remove the law." since it does not get rid of the law it is not effective in fighting for justice because it does not get to the justice, it only brings about discussion about what would be just. Further it does not have a political effect greater then voting because only through voting can the issue actually be changed. At this point evaluating anything else is just a waste of time, but if you are not comfortable voting con simply on the fact that it is ineffective you can also vote oh how it is unjust In his response to my definition of justice he says that a democracy can put unjust laws in place, but the example he uses comes from something that does not fit with his definition of democracy because it says " under a free electoral system" and in the place and time he uses as an example the system was not a free electoral one, meaning it was not done with a democracy therefore his response falls, furthermore you still prefer my conception of justice because he conceded the other two justifications for it because the government is a democracy under his definition the laws are created by the people, and it is the most predictable definition because it is the first to be put forth. Furthermore my conception of justice is preferable to his because the social contract was created by one man, whereas the laws are created by all the citizens of the democracy giving it the most credence to rule their actions. Now preferring my conception of justice extend from the top of my speech that civil disobedience brakes the law and that is unjust. In summary I am winning that civil disobedience is not effective because he concedes that it doesn't remove the law so the injustice would still be occurring, and 2 because i am winning that it is unjust because he under-covered the analysis on justice.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

First, I'd like to address the most important aspect of this debate: the definition of justice. His definition (obeying the law) cannot rationally be accepted, simply because, in a democracy, unjust laws can be put in place. Just to give an example, African Americans lived under the system of Jim Crow laws for about a century, even under a democratic system. Instead, I will define justice by whether or not an individual may perform this, within the social contract back to my points: 1. ) Civil Disobedience is just. Most importantly, civil disobedience is justified under the social contract. Under Locke's contract, the individual consents to be governed, and therefore, follow the nation's laws. But if a nation enacts unjust laws (as I proved can happen), the nation has breached its side of the contract. Therefore, the consent to be governed does not extend to unjust laws. No, I'm not breaching any definition of justice, and my assertions are backed by the philosophies of John Locke, whose contract is the basis of law. 2. ) Civil Disobedience is effective He's right in saying that it doesn't actually remove the law. However, it does work in the fact that it creates a political effect that is greater than voting, writing to a congressman, etc. Once again, this position is warranted because I've already quoted Bertrand Russell and John Rawls, both of which he has no evidence to refute. 3. ) Civil Disobedience works within a democracy Just to restate, individuals only break a single unjust law, and accept the consequences of it (not "unruliness" as the con suggests). Also, there is nothing to suggest that they are breaking the law for their own personal benefit, but to end an injustice in the law (by definition). Therefore, this is not denying the rights and priveleges of the majority. To conclude this, the con is essentially suggesting that my case is warrentless, but, as I 've already said, my case is already supported by experts like John Locke and John Rawls.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

I am okay with his definitions, but in order to truly conceptualize the debate we need some definition of justice, it makes the most sense to use obeying the law as what justice is because it is the only thing that is concrete and the same for all people, and because the government is a democracy under his definition the laws are created by the people, and it is the most predictable definition because it is the first to be put forth. Now that justice has been defined we can look at the other aspects of the debate. First, he says that an appropriate weapon is both just and effective, placing the burden on himself that he needs to win his entire case. Furthermore, under his definition of civil disobedience, a "conscientious breach of law", it is no longer just because civil disobedience is braking the law and the definition of just is obeying the law. on to his points 1.) Civil Disobedience is just first, it is clearly unjust because you need to brake the law and the definition of just is obeying the law. second, tacit consent is the idea that people agree with the social contract if they do not rebel against it. third, there are no reasons why any of what is being said here is true, this "argument" is a simple assertion. 2.)Civil Disobedience is effective all this argument is really saying is that civil disobedience allows people to talk about the unjust law, not that it removes the unjust law, because the argument only proves discussion of the law it is not effective. further there are no reasons why what he is saying is true 3.)Civil Disobedience works within a democracy. by challenging a single unjust law it challenges the entire government and undermines democracy first it challenges the entire government because it says that the idea of this one person is superior to the idea of the majority of the people second it undermines democracy because it allows people to brake the law for their own personal benefit and use their unruliness to attempt to lead themselves to a better place, not society as a whole. To sum the round up really fast everyone should vote con because first, under the only conception of justice for the round you have to obey the law and civil disobedience brakes the law, second, he has to win his whole case since he defines appropriate as both just and effective, and he is not doing that since it is completely warrant free, third, civil disobedience undermines democracy.
League of Legends is better than Overwatch.

My opponent provided no evidence for his case or argument in second round, so I'll take the liberty of presenting my case.Video Games have one primary purpose, and that is to entertain. Therefore this is the biggest metric by which one should judge a game.IGN gave League of Legends a 9.2/10 (1) while giving Overwatch a 9.4/10. (2) While this difference is slight, it is still relevant.Metacritic gave LoL a critic score of 78/100 and a user score of 5.5/10. (3)Metacritic gave Overwatch a critic score 91/100 and a user score of 6.8/10. (4) This difference is much more significant.Several other groups also reviewed the games. Overwatch was consistently reviewed as better. In regard to nominations and awards, Overwatch takes close to a dozen more. (5, 6) Overwatch was simply better received and better made overall. In almost every important aspect fans agree Overwatch comes out on top. (7)I think the biggest reason this is true is because of time. A single game of overwatch generally takes over 35 minutes. (8) The winner can be decided by one bad teammate, such as a feeding support. If this happens, you must wait at the very least 20 minutes to forfeit the game. The vast majority of the time, however, teammates will not forfeit, causing lost games to go on for extreme durations. If you factor in the extremely long queue times and champion select, it begins to take almost an entire hour to play a single game of LoL. Overwatch has virtually no queue times, and a minute long champion select. It is impossible for a game of overwatch to go longer than about 10-15 minutes were defense to win. A single bad ally cannot ruin an entire game either, as the duration of the game is only extended when both teams are closely matched. If one team is drastically worse, then they will not extend the clock any further.I think it's apparent that Overwatch is the superior game based upon user review. There are objective reasons, such as game time, which explain this phenomenon. 1 - http://www.ign.com...2 - http://www.ign.com...3 - http://www.metacritic.com...4 - http://www.metacritic.com...5 - https://en.wikipedia.org...6 - https://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game)7 - https://www.slant.co...8 - https://dotesports.com...