BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Snowden did nothing wrong

Thomas Jefferson, interesting guess but it is Alexander Hamilton. "Many people have labeled him as a man that has committed treason against America but to be fair the founders of America themselves were guilty of treason when they left Britain but if they had not we would all be under British rule to this day. "The American Revolution is a different scenario all together considering it was a revolution. This situation with Snowden however has nothing to do with revolution. Therefore the label "treason" being applied to both is of a different origin. The leaders of the American Revolution committed treason because of "Taxation without Representation. " While Snowden has been charged with treason because he has released classified documents to the international community. Edward Snowden can't be a convicted of treason until he stands trial. "Snowden released proof that the NSA was spying on American citizens without cause which is an invasion of privacy. He saw such a blatant violation of our rights that he was forced to break his oath to inform the American people of such acts. The President of Brazil was so disturbed by the NSA's spying programs that he cancelled a meeting with Obama. He revealed that there was illegal hacking done in the name of national security but that does not justice violating the law and rights of Americans. "The NSA may have engaged in illegal activity or did things that should be considered unethical. That does not negate Edward Snowden's wrongs. Nevertheless, Snowden has done something wrong as Pro has just admitted that Snowden broke his oath. Pro has only tried to justify Edward Snowden's wrongdoing. Therefore, Edward Snowden has done something wrong and it has been admitted too by Pro. "One thing many people who bring the oath Snowden took seem to completely forget that those in the NSA themselves had to take an oath and when they commit illegal acts they too break that oath. "They did not break their oath by engaging in "illegal" activities. If so provide the section of the oath that was broken. "People need to be more concerned about what he revealed our government was doing in the vale of secrecy rather than the fact that he blew the whistle. "I must be mistaken but I thought this was not a debate about what he revealed. The debate resolution read "Snowden did nothing wrong. " Snowden has did many things wrong. My opponent has yet to refute any of my points on contention. Instead Pro has affirmed that Snowden did break his oath. Pro has only offered a justification for Snowden's wrongdoings. But this is a debate whether Snowden committed any wrongful acts.
Snowden did nothing wrong

Ironic that you would have a picture of Thomas Jefferson as he is one of my favorite figures to quote from. He said "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism" Many people have labeled him as a man that has committed treason against America but to be fair the founders of America themselves were guilty of treason when they left Britain but if they had not we would all be under British rule to this day. Snowden released proof that the NSA was spying on American citizens without cause which is an invasion of privacy. He saw such a blatant violation of our rights that he was forced to break his oath to inform the American people of such acts. The President of Brazil was so disturbed by the NSA's spying programs that he cancelled a meeting with Obama. He revealed that there was illegal hacking done in the name of national security but that does not justice violating the law and rights of Americans. President JFK made a speech warning the American people about the use of security http://youtu.be... One thing many people who bring the oath Snowden took seem to completely forget that those in the NSA themselves had to take an oath and when they commit illegal acts they too break that oath. People need to be more concerned about what he revealed our government was doing in the vale of secrecy rather than the fact that he blew the whistle. Snowden drew a great deal of scrutiny to the activities of the NSA and the majority of Americans are not pleased with what they have learned. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...
Snowden did nothing wrong

The Burden of Proof is on Pro to show that Edward Snowden did nothing wrong. I as Con need only to prove that Snowden did something wrong no matter how insignificant it was. I will provide definition for the following two words: Oath:"The words or formula of such a declaration or promise. " . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Wrong:"Something contrary to ethics or morality" . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Snowden was employed at the National Security Agency(NSA). In order for him to be employed at NSA he had to take a couple oaths. One of these oaths was an oath of secrecy. Snowden under any circumstances was not allowed to release the classified documents to outside sources. Snowden broke his oath when he released classified documents[1]. Snowden therefore did something wrong when he released the classified information. Snowden also committed theft when he took government property(classified documents) as well[2]. The documents did not belong to him but he took them anyways. This is not only wrong but also illegal. There are numerous things Snowden did wrong but I will await Pro's reply before providing the other wrongs. [1]. http://www.slate.com... [2]. http://apps.washingtonpost.com...
Snowden did nothing wrong

Notice in the statement that I never said you made that claim I only said that you had the mindset. It is relevant because you have the conviction that Snowden has done something wrong and it is by no means a distraction to answer the question. In a court of law a witness or a professional can be asked what they believe pertaining to a case. Such as a psychologist being asked what he believes a persons mental state was at the time of a crime. Its relevant because you have to acknowledge that the arguments you've presented have a paradox within them. par"a"dox /G2;parəG6;d"ks/ noun noun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes 1. a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory. Self-contradictory being the main point. You claim that Snowden has done wrong because he broke an agreement of secrecy however he did uphold his constitutional oath. So to determine if Snowden has done something wrong you have to state which "oath" you believe is more unethical to break. If you believe that his loyalty to secrecy is more important than your right he did do something wrong but if you believe the oath he took to uphold the constitution is more important he did the right thing. Its very black and white because your argument has presented a paradox he did do something wrong. Whether my opponent likes it or not it comes down to where you believe his loyalty should be. Again whether it was an oath or a simple agreement can be disputed all day but whether it was or wasn't isn't the important part. Whats important is Negative, the police break state laws while the NSA have violated our constitutional rights on a nation wide scale. Further more they did so with zero benefit to the American people. No proof has been provided at all that what they did helped protect Americans however the cop's can produce immediate results. For example they take out a suspect threatening hostages. Immediate results clearly for the good of the hostages. It appears my opponent has trouble differentiating the difference between the two. Let me use my opponents mindset for a moment. According to him he believes that Snowden did wrong because he broke the law regardless of his reasons. By this method of thinking cops too are criminals. Cops break the law but have a higher allegiance to the constitution hence their oath to uphold it. Snowden determined that his oath to the constitution is where his allegiance should be. The bottom line is this: Did Snowden break any laws? Yes he did but does that mean that it was wrong? To answer that you first have to answer the question of where his loyalty should be. With the constitution? Or with a secrecy agreement?
Why would anyone "want" to believe in jesus? You MUST give up your families, possessions etc

Again I asked for proof. You did not provide poof. How many times do we need to go through with this crap? OK to shut you up, why don't you simply type in your google search engine "debunking jesus" and wowzers, guess what happens? Gosh golly about 546,000 results appear. So POOF in your rabid rabbi bunny hole your wikipedia article becomes meaningless. Oh and btw, wikipedia is NOT right all the time. Oh and btw, in no way, did the article wikipedia state that YOUR jesus was the actual messiah. And since this is true, this figure in which you still can in no way prove exists, is obviously not worthy of being the messiah moron. Grow up. Provide a worthy conversation. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
Why would anyone "want" to believe in jesus? You MUST give up your families, possessions etc

I asked for proof. You didn't prove it. I mean all you did was prove one erectile dysfunction after another. And since no one is truly a christian and can possibly follow christ, as more than proved in RD1 with his laws and give up ---everything--- for him which is beyond insanity and also a true impossibility to give up ---everything--- to air, you once again have failed to prove that christ is worthy of in any way being the messiah. I also did say "this printed jesus" because after all there's no proof for jesus having ever existed now is there.? Duh. Having igloo fundee undie up in the high Arctic with heat insulated con-dumbs with aphid spit as oil is far more worthy of a messiah in any same person's mind.
Why would anyone "want" to believe in jesus? You MUST give up your families, possessions etc

Yes, your civility is crude and vicious and you admit that. Your excuse does not justify what you did. I am very happy to debate you as a devil's advocate. Please attack my argument and not me. "What I hope for, but don't get because of characters like you are intelligent and educated debates." In summary Your arguments towards my intelligence and your lack of civility are not characteristic of a 'educated' debate you want.
Scrutiny of LeBron James becoming too much

Pro states “because of the emotional attachment culture today has for its sports, the audience feel a sense of entitlement to PICK & CHOOSE when to justify acting like ASHOLES”. Agreed. In America I would define this as Freedom. Pro continues to assert that the scrutiny of LeBron is personal by using an analogy of the court as an alternate universe. I simply ask the readers, if you suddenly found out that LeBron was having serious issues in his personal life would you be happy? Clearly any reasonable person would say no. What are the limits of society? The limits are what society decides. That is why we have laws and rules. Fans at a game can not throw things, or shout profanities or they risk ejection. Radio and TV personalities may not make obscene comments or risk loosing there job. These are limits society decides on. Pro states “So if we got into an argument & my friends out numbered your friends, would that make me right? ”. I never made an appeal to popularity. Pro should respond to the argument being made. After reading Pros arguments there seems to be two main places where we disagree: 1. Pro seems to believe fans should not be entitled to express their own “superiority complex” or “live intermediately through them (NBA Players)”. The only people with a responsibility to act or express themselves in any certain way are the people who get paid for it. 2. Pro believes as stated: "They don't owe you anything in return- they already showed up & played the game that you paid them too. ” This could not be further from the truth. When fans turn on an NBA game or buy a ticket they are not doing so just to watch a bunch of guys play basketball. An enormous amount of the NBA’s revenue comes from the fans interest in the players playing the game, not just the game itself. Players being scrutinized helps to create a sense of character which creates attention. It is a big reason why fans enjoy the game they pay to see. To suggest that athletes only get paid to play their sport completely disregards why so many people pay attention to sports in the first place. Conclusion: I don’t mean to sound cold hearted with the argument I make as I do believe there is a point where it becomes too much. I make the constant salary argument to demonstrate that it is part of the job. And as being part of the job, the point where we have gone too far must go beyond the point where it has been deserved. Yet throughout this debate I have shown that it is not only deserved but expected and Con has not effectively countered that argument. Without even showing that it is undeserved there is no case. Therefore I have shown that it is not only deserved but it is also part of the job. The scrutiny level is appropriate.
Scrutiny of LeBron James becoming too much

[In Closing] Thanks, Double R for helping spark an interest for the community & look forward to the end results. Now...My opponent believes their is a limit to the scrutiny & suggesting it hasn't reached its peak. We're not focusing on his wife, children, family etc or anything like that, no.. this is about LeBron as a player. If my opponent plays sports, he'd agree that on any battlefield, sports is a mirrored alternate universe that reveals yourself to you. Who you are on it, reflects GREATLY on who you are, off of it. So because of the emotional attachment culture today has for its sports, the audience feel a sense of entitlement to PICK & CHOOSE when to justify acting like ASHOLES. NO- fans do not own any part of him (even if your thinking below the wasteline- its wishful thinking, Peter) what so ever!? Again, my opponent forgets sometimes that even though this is theatre, the players are real. They don't owe you anything in return- they already showed up & played the game that you paid them too. Its your own selfish desires to fill your own wholes by living intermediately through them. Fan want control over their actors, but just because you want to see the movie doesn't mean you have a say on the way it ends? So for the fans own personal thrills, they falsely believe that his actions justified a "F*** LeBron James" anthem (http://www.youtube.com...). That's pretty personal level too me. The hate became so much it came from a whole different ARENA!!! "This issue with this concept is that the fans are not the ones on the basketball court. It is not the responsibility of the fans to act any certain way (assuming they are within the limits of society), again they pay the players salaries." Tell me (in your closing statement, PLEASE...) what is the limit of society? Because what I KNOW that my opponent believes behaviour such as being arrogant, self involved, entitled, rude & obnoxious are all traits that the normal society frown upon. He believes that modesty, humble, & gratitude are traits that are accepted. But beware... those such as LeBron who do not live by our demands will be scrutinized to highest public degree (without killing, though because that would just be nuts- right?) will sacrifice their morals & ethics to chop you down as low as they see fit. I know... alil bit of a superiority complex... To me it looks like the inmates are running the asylum. "Media lynching" will now become as cliche as a bumper sticker because people seem to be alright with taring people down when their standing on higher pedestals. Not when its your own nextdoor neighbour cause you'd have to see their faces everyday & that would be weird. "But more importantly if the fans are matching his arrogance then that only shows further why it is justified." So if we got into an arguement & my friends out numbered your friends, would that make me right? YES! Power to the people! If your friends went bungie jumping without the bungie- would you?
Scrutiny of LeBron James becoming too much

My opponent begins with statements that LeBron is by far the most scrutinized athlete of any generation and also that people are more flawed then they like to admit. These statements may or may not be true but I remind my opponent that this is not the resolution that was laid out. The debate is about weather the scrutiny of LeBron James is “too much”. My contention is that it is not. Pro acknowledges that no one wishes the worst, but again states that there is nothing more personal then wishing someone to fail. This is true if we are talking about failure in a personal sense but as I laid out in R1, the scrutiny of LeBron is not as personal as Pro suggests. People are not scrutinizing his relationship with his wife and children, or whatever business investments he is making with his salary. What people care about is what happens on the basketball court. And on that court this past season, many did not want him to win the NBA title. There are various reasons why but mostly because people generally do not want to see any basketball player get rewarded for doing what he did. This was about his actions as an NBA player, not him. Many fans do believe that they “own a piece” of LeBron, because in a way, this is true. Anybody who accepts a high paying position in any industry must accept the sacrifices they will have to make. The fans pay LeBron’s salary, if he does not want to accept what comes along with that then he can reject his $14 million salary and move on. That is his choice, and the choice of any professional athlete. Fans do not shame LeBron for making a decision they personally disagree with, they shame him because of the way he did it. If he wanted to leave Cleveland to go to Miami, that was his business. There is a certain level of scrutiny that will always go with a decision like that, as many players have learned. In LeBron’s case, he took that to another level. He may regret it, but that’s life. We only get one chance to make a decision, after that we have to live with it. Pros main contention however seems to be that the audience members are just as self entitled and arrogant as LeBron and that this shows they are no different. This issue with this concept is that the fans are not the ones on the basketball court. It is not the responsibility of the fans to act any certain way (assuming they are within the limits of society), again they pay the players salaries. But more importantly if the fans are matching his arrogance then that only shows further why it is justified. If LeBron did nothing to deserve the level of scrutiny he is under then my opponent might have a case, but the simple fact of the matter is that besides being part of what comes with the job, he dug himself in this hole.
Scrutiny of LeBron James becoming too much

[My Rebuttal] I'm a make a hypothesis that LeBron has by far been the most talked about & scrutinized athlete of ANY generation. Through out this debate, I will prove the specifics in how in Cons words represent a society who has developed a superiority complex out of sheer envy & thus continuing to prove the Ultimate TRUTH: People are more flawed than what they'd like to admit. We can agree we don't wish bad (of the worst circumstances) on anyone, but their isn't anything more personal than wishing someone to fail. Especially against LeBron. But because of the emotional attachment to the sport of the paying customer, FANS BELIEVE THEY OWN A PIECE OF LEBRON (because he is apart of the bigger show- NBA- who's actions & decisions weren't popular to the majority- thus claimed he's wrong). Claiming he was selfish for leaving Cleveland & made it known what THEY THINK IS RIGHT as shaming him for not doing what popular demand wanted. Fans today are TOO emotionally invested in their sports. He did what he felt best for himself & family & whether you agree or not, it was his choice ('The Decision" was classless- agreed but I bet he'd redo it). You can't control him! I feel after watching his game 6 press conference he was humbled, yet his words were misinterpreted (http://sports.espn.go.com...). The majority feel he thinks he's better than us & refuse to accept any different. He's proving he's a real person who's no different our better than us. "Scrutiny is just apart of the job description;" "They must endure..;" "Dug his own whole..;" "enjoy a profession most people dream of"... Proving- You (the audience) feel an obligation to cut up & chop down but theirs "No such thing as halfway crooks or half righteous/Those who have eyes should act like it//"- Shad "Rose Garden". Since when does that give you the gavel? I believe most people root against LeBron for his SELF ENTITLED demeanor & ARROGANCE. Not to mention "The Decision" left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths (even mine). Understandable. Then the scrutiny in the media followed in taking pot shots at his game in result of who he is as a person, thus have all since then, been overwhelmingly shameful. People couldn't get enough of it as they fiended for it! I think its safe to say, after this video aired, fans & media alike we're happy to see it. http://www.youtube.com... > Seething because he's a public figure & his behaviour is what you describe as being "Dishonourable" with no sign of "MODESTY". But NEITHER do the audience members who feel SELF ENTITLED & ARROGANT in justifying it by rejoicing in watching him fail. Behaving like the individual you scrutinize & thus showing EXACTLY that people repress & hate their own shadows. Showing that both are no different & that they both are more flawed than what they'd like to admit. After everything, LeBron is the one who's coming out on top of it. Welcome to our culture where we take our sports as serious as our riots!