BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Berne Convention

As we previously mentioned, speaking of fairness , it is not right to limit this debate on just one country (USA). Speaking of copyright laws throughout the whole world there are much more other civil and copyright laws that do not justify the existence of the Fair Use. The Fair use law is a small part in American Copyright law that should and according to it provides an exceptions for institutions ( such as schools) to use copyrighted works as a fair use. Firstly this debate is about whether INDIVIDUALS should have the right to bypass copyrights, this means that your previous arguments are illogical and not connected to the subject. Schools are institutions that are supported by their Ministries of education whose work is to provide the schools with money to purchase these CDs,DVDs etc. for the students’ education. This leads that the existence of Fair Use is not necessary. Secondly we are debating on a wider subject that includes not just bypassing the technology for media and school purposes but for other, for example medical researches, economical uses and greater and more complex uses of the copyrighted works. There isn’t a system that can control individuals intentions throughout the whole world who bypass the copyright laws- it can be easily abused and used for personal benefits ( that is illegal and banned with all existing copyright laws). And thirdly and most important is that there is a Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works which includes almost every country in the world including the USA. Even though USA had difficulties in accepting this law, after all agreed to it. There is an exception in this Convention but is far more restrictive than Fair Use because includes all aspects of using the copyrighted works.(Fair dealing). The existence of Fair Use is contradictory to the Fair dealing, and if you want to speak for American laws, Fair Dealing is one of them that forbids many of the exceptions that Fair Use allow.
Draconian Copy Protection Schemes Cause More Harm Than Good

There was a major backlash against Sony BMG in 2005 concerning the copy protection scheme utilized on some of the CDs they produced. Sony utilized a form of copy protection that installed hidden and unwelcome functions on one's computer. This software installed itself before even presenting a License Agreement to the user, and did so without any initial recourse for removal [1]. In order to control against copying, the computer opened up vulnerabilities that were subsequently exploited by hackers. Ultimately, the users had to remove it manually to truly dispense with the offensive technology [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal]]. While this is an extreme example of the harms of copy protection, it is a pattern likely to be repeated. The reason for this is that In order to determine whether or not a user is authorized to make a copy of a given piece of media, a device must determine whether the user has appropriate permission to do so. This requires a program that insinuates itself into the operating system of a machine and, in most cases, periodically updates through the internet. These functions will always present a risk of vulnerability and running these programs invariably consumes computer resources. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, both the vulnerabilities and the loss of resources can be forced upon anyone who wishes to purchase music or other media without any recourse, and even makes it a possible crime to remove the technology from their system. Our plan secures the legal clarity necessary to ensure that people can remove offending software that protects against copying they never intended to perform in the first place. Furthermore, it sends a message to companies that investing in this sort of draconian technology will prove fruitless.
Copy Protection Interferes with Individual Property Rights

Property rights are of critical importance in society. Losing the ability to make copies of media prevents people from backing up digital files, putting them at risk of loss. It also decreases the value of such materials; this may seem like a trivial point in the case of a CD, but one must realize that one's property is not just a store of wealth and utility, but also an expression of all the efforts and decisions necessary to obtain it. When a possession is lost or rendered valueless, the time and effort put into obtaining the possession is rendered meaningless, effectively negating the personal value of previous actions. This value is why property rights are foundational to society, even in situations where the property has little economic value; property has value as the tangible result of personal autonomy. Protections that fail to stop piracy also further depress demand for copyrighted products. This is because individuals feel strongly over what they feel is theirs; about their property rights. They spend hours making money representative of hard work and more time figuring out how to spend said money. They want something that is theirs and with the limitations stated above people are less inclined to buy. This is especially true with free files on torrents and sites like Limewire. If offered a choice between an unrestricted free service and a restricted pay one, many will choose the former. The lack of respect for property rights makes products less appealing. What then follows is that if obtaining pirated files has gotten easier then people who buy protected files are already respecting copyrights against immediate self-interest. If that's the case they are less likely to to try and break copyright laws. The technologies are restricting the property rights of the wrong people, people unlikely to break the law. Thus the technology is also inefficient. More importantly it is restricting rights without offering the protection a social contract should.
Anticircumvention Laws Stifle The Advancement of Research into Cybersecurity

Legitimate computer science research into cybersecurity efforts, which fall under our plan's Fair Use exemptions for scholarship and research, have consistently been undermined by the invocation of the DMCA's provisions against circumventing copyright protection technology. Side prop believes that security concerns across the web are far more critical than any possible (though completely unlikely) loss of corporate revenue from Fair Use. - A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested at a conference and jailed for creating software that merely had the potential to remove copy protections, but could otherwise be used legitimately and legally. - GameSpy threatened civil and criminal action against another security researcher for merely posting information on vulnerabilities in their gaming software which encompassed copy-protected games. Many other cases have been brought forth where researchers asking and presenting data on legitimate security concerns have had lawsuits brought against them to keep them quiet. Public knowledge of vulnerable software is critical to keeping computer systems across the world safe. It allows users to make informed decisions about their security and allows them time to patch exploitable flaws. In fact, the person who discovered the problems with Sony BMG's software even delayed releasing his findings for fear of litigation from Sony, allowing millions of users to continue unknowningly receiving malicious software[[http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca]]. Malicious trojan horses destroy, steal, or alter data on computer systems across the globe. At present, the provisions of the DMCA that Prop chooses to repeal are directly harming the ability of the programming community to identify and repair exploitable vulnerabilities. The harm caused by these failures of security is too great a price to pay in the name of maximizing control over IP. We would also like to direct Opp to POIs we raise in the comments.
Fair use can be misused

Opp seems to miss that there is a current mechanism actively being used by media companies to stop users from misusing their IP-it is called litigation. Current laws allow legitimate copyright disputes to be resolved in court, and even require the disputed work to be removed from public viewing until the dispute is resolved [[http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130]]. We do not dismantle the entire IP protection edifice, only one small block of it. Opp has to show that the specific loss of legal prohibitions against the circumvention of copy protection software in cases of Fair Use will increase pirating. Dedicated pirates will invariably be able to break copy protection software (as they already have with every current version). This argument largely repeats their first point and we encourage the judges to refer there for more detail on our response. If Opp is so concerned about profit, we think it's worth nothing that in many cases, Fair Use can actually increase revenue for IP holders. By allowing sampling for the purposes of art (i.e. mash-ups) and education, a wide range of potential audiences can be reached. Many people choose what books to read or movies to see based on reviews by critics. Allowing sampling improves the impact of these critical reviews and can drive demand. Students who read a passage in class may go seek out the full text. Clips shown in class may lead to students wanting to see more of a movie on their own time, driving them to purchase it. Artists also gain in prestige, pride and recognition when their art is more widely disseminated. As to their last paragraph, if governments acted in fear to policies being misused, then we would have no policies, we would live in a world of fear. Opp's burden is to show that the negative consequences of our plan are more likely and more impactful than the positive ones.In this, they have failed. They have failed to demonstrate how the harms of allowing Fair Use copies outweigh the good
The scale of the problem

If we consider the extent to which the essential components of our modern lifestyle contribute to environmental change, then it is evident that global warming continues to be a very big problem. Looking at the amount of cars, trucks, and other vehicles on the planet and the amount of CO2 being put into the air by our need for transport, it is clear that there are no easy solutions. Even the food we eat is causing climate change: livestock is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions, producing 19 percent of all CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. We would need to cut back on our meat consumption in order to halt the progress of global warming.
Polar Bears and other species are threatened with extinction

Due to rising temperature levels the environment for polar bears is disappearing. Their food sources, seals and fish, are being driven out of their polar habitat by the warmer climate, leaving them vulnerable. Though species do evolve in response to their changing environment, evolution in long-lived species takes centuries. We are, however, likely to see evolution in species that have a short life cycle, such as arthropods. Migratory species, such as butterflies, are changing their migration patterns in response to global warming. Butterflies that were found in the southern parts of the planet are being forced to move further north in order to find the right climate for their continued survival.
Sea level

The sea level has been rising at an ever increasing pace due to industrialisation and consequent environmental pollution. Prior to the beginning of the 19th century the sea level had remained constant for close to 3000 years, but since then it has been accelerating, with rises of 1-2mm a year during the twentieth century increasing to over 3mm in recent years. While these numbers might seem small, the effects can be devastating; we have seen for ourselves the destruction caused by flooding in areas such as Bangladesh. With the world’s population increasing, land becomes an ever more precious commodity: we cannot afford to lose much of it to a rising sea level.
The need for oil

That is true, but technology is improving all the time. The developments in the last two decades alone have drastically improved the situation. If we look at the example of the hole in the ozone layer, which was a major environmental issue in the 90s, we can see how quickly climate issues can be resolved. Government policy successfully eradicated ozone damaging CFCs and scientists now predict a complete recovery of the Arctic ozone layer by 2050. Now that the focus is on producing new sources of environmentally friendly energy, we will soon be able to do away with using oil and other fossil fuels altogether and global warming will cease to be an issue.
Nature will adapt better than we will

Nature has always adapted itself to cope with its evironment, a single tree facing a man made object blocking its growth path will adapt itself around the object and eventually overcome this with tremendous strenth we've all seen roads and solid concrete pushed aside like its nothing for roots to continue to spread and some of the worlds best scientists have been left scratching their heads as to the speed that nature has repaired itself in places like chernobyl after tremendous pollution caused by man. We see evidence all the time that nature is a force much more powerfull than man and over time nature will overcome anything we throw at it.
Many factors involved.

When one is dealing with global warming one must take many factors into consideration. Thus human beings are not necessarily the ones affecting the planet. Firstly recorded history takes us back only 6 to 8 thousand years, while the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old. Thus man can not draw a definite conclusion on this issue based on the records kept in our short time here. Yes scientist have looked into both the polar and geological records, and it is true that the recent change in global temperatures have been dramatic. However if we were to look at the equation from a larger perspective, going back 600 thousand years we would find similar spikes in temperature. These spikes are due to the nature of the Earth's orbit around the sun, as the degree at which the Earth is orbiting the sun is in a state of continuous, albeit slow, change. As well scientist have recently confirmed that sunspot activity have reached a 1000 year high. Sunspots that send out thousands of cosmic rays that travel through space and constantly bombard Earth. Sunspots which may very well cause dramatic temperature rises on Earth, as suggest by scientist at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich.
The need for oil

There might be new cars that are designed to decrease their CO2 output, but what about the need for fuel in other situations? The people that can't buy the new cars have to use older models, plus the amount of people with cars these days is scary. It is common to have two or three vehicles per household. Thus the demand for fuel is as high as ever. The economic development of nations such as India now means that more people can afford to be personally mobile; hence there is an even greater demand for oil. Though alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power are increasingly used to meet society’s need, they are not yet widespread or efficient enough to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to an acceptable level.
Temperature from history

That same data will show that it is human beings who are causing the problem. Pollution from cars, industry and the burning of fossil fuel all have a dramatic impact on the environment which goes far beyond the expected fluctuations in the world’s temperature. In fact, looking at the past 200 years proves nothing, for this is the period after the Industrial Revolution, when technological development began to influence the environment on a large scale. If we could look at the last hundred thousand years or so we would see absolute evidence that we are responsible for global warming.
Weather

Scientists predict that due to global warming there will be worse storms than we have had before. This seems borne out by the difficult winter conditions in the U.S.: compared to previous years the amount of snow fall was off the charts. Climate change and global warming does not mean that the planet will increase in temperature uniformly. It means that we are likely to see increasingly extreme weather patterns and changes in what has been the norm for decades. If you look at phenology reports you will see that bird migration patterns are altering and that seasons are changing when they start and end. The increase in adverse weather, not just in the U.S. but globally, will continue. In the UK the South East will continue to get dryer and the North West with continue to get wetter: the tendency to flooding which has already been seen in the North West will get worse. This will have adverse effects on the local flora and fauna as well as on the human population.
Polar Bears and other species are threatened with extinction

Polar bear numbers are decreasing and people know that this is happening, but we need to consider these changes in a larger historical context. The Polar bear has not been on the planet for that long. They evolved into their present state by adapting to the polar environment. In the history of the world, species have flourished and then died out again as their environment changed- which is why we no longer have dinosaurs roaming the earth! If the polar bears are able to adapt to changes in temperature then they will continue to exist as a species, but if not they will die out and something else will take their place. Either way, the natural world will remain balanced.
Young people need a better understanding of Politics

Politics plays such a large part in how our society is formed. Without an understanding of it young people are more likely to become disengaged or even elect people based solely on personality or media/public opinion, without taking notice of any possible party affiliation, policy/voting records, political and social beliefs or manifesto. Teaching children early on about the working of the political system, it's history and the variety of political beliefs and theories is important if we want to live in society where people are interested and engaged with politics.
An informed electorate is the key to a strong democracy.

A democracy allows for all people to have one equal vote in who should lead, or who should represent a constituency. One's vote must be based on an understanding or perceived knowledge of policies across candidates. In a country such as Australia with compulsory voting, one must invent reasons for voting for a certain candidate. This simply isn't a democracy. If we allow deception or media representation to sway our voting habits, then our votes do not truly belong to us, for we have not considered our own, independent opinions in voting. Any survey of registered voters, young or old, shows a large sense of apathy and political misinformation. This is dangerous in a democracy where while these people are kept uninformed and are often lied to, the media is free to be adulterated by whatever biases their CEOs choose, and more often than not, as is the case in Australia, those media companies own a huge share of the national media. Including a strong understanding of politics into school curricula would ensure that all graduates have some understanding of the political, social and economic world, which can only mean a stronger democracy.
They are the future of tommorrow

It has been proven time and time again that children are impressionable, and that the things you learn while you are young dictate who you will become as an adult. Our government is a democracy, and consequently we have a voice, and the power derives from the people. We decide what changes are made, and each decision effects every citizen regardless of their circumstances or area code. If the public of America choose not to participate in the democratc system, it will cease to function. Unfortunetley, the youth of this generation are too preoccupied with texting and Jersey Shore to care about politics. The majority of my classmates and friends do not concern themselves with the issues being discussed in Congress, and do not even intend to vote next year in the 2012 presidential election. They see the mess left behind by our parents, the chaos and arguing that occurs on Capitol Hill. They are intiminated, they do not want to get involved. We must make them involved, we must help them to care, to see the impact they have on the future. We are the voice, we are the power of tommorrow, we can bring change. Yes, yes politics should be taught in schools, but more importantly it should be taught in the home. Studies show that children are more likely to be involved in the democratic system if their parents are, it is simply a matter of education and enviornment. The responsiblity lies not only with the teachers of these young minds, but the family. It is up to them, to shape their minds and to spark a desire to make a difference. Without the people, America is nothing. So have an opinion, listen to the debate, join in. I urge my generation to do one simple thing:care. Do not sit in a dark room playing video games, while the world crashes around us. Stand up, scream, shout, let your voice be heard. But more importantly, we must teach the generation of tommorrow to vote. VOTE!
of course they should

Everyone before they reach the age of voting should be given basic knowledge of how government works and how they can contact politicians with their views and complaints. They should know how to contact their local councillors and what they can go to them about. Then maybe we could get more working class people interested enough to become politicians and fight for equality instead of having politicians with no clue about what its like to a working class person in the country they run. They government just expects everyone as soon as they are 18 to pick a party and start voting for them with no understanding of how government passes laws etc
for the people who vote no cause kids shouldnt be forced to learn it

They are forced to learn other subjects they find boring but at least if the learn basic knowledge of how the government works eg They should know how to contact their local councillors and what they can go to them about. Maybe once they start it they wont find it boring thats stupid they may find english and maths boring but you would stop them learning that. Why shouldnt kids be taught how the country they live in work how are they supposed to decide who to vote for blindly?
To become a parent is to accept a range of duties and responsibilities as well as pleasures. Becaus...

To say something is a right is not to say it must be done, but simply that there is a legal imperative not to interfere with someone who wishes to act in that way. To be a parent is a privilege, but it is a privilege to which no-one can be denied: i.e. it is a negative right: nobody who wishes to have a child should be prevented from doing so.
Bodily autonomy cannot hold for the dead. An objection to policy based on individuals’ rights to se...

The relevant consideration for bodily autonomy applies to the living, and their right to know what will happen to their bodies once they die. It is a part of your ownership of your body that you have control over what will happen to it – hence our respect for people’s wishes to be disposed of in certain ritualistic ways, or, indeed, our respect for wills. The proposition also denies people other kinds of autonomy, namely their freedom to practise religion in a certain way, or choose for themselves a lifestyle that, for some reason, involves not becoming an organ donor. There is also an autonomy issue for the non-donors the state is willing to kill (noting that the proposition wish to claim that allowing to die is morally equivalent to killing in their point 3). Surely these people should not be denied their right to life because of a moral decision they made?