BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

You wrote the following: "there is a moral case for CCTV cameras in public places" What moral standpoint are you taking? Are you talking about Satanic morals, Christian morals, Zoroastrian morals, your morals, my morals, or Tony Blair's morals? From what I can gather, it seems that most definitions of 'morals' are concerned with the principles of right and wrong. Assuming what is right or wrong is subjective, we must both debate through the eyes of the same specific mode of morality. What is right to a Satanist may not be the same as what is right to a Christian. Likewise, what is wrong to a Satanist may not be wrong to a Christian. Therefore, we need to set up those paremeters. Lead the way, captain.
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

As a Brit, I'm always fascinated by the differences in cultural / political norms between America and Britain. One such difference, which is the focus of this debate, is that of CCTV cameras. Practical difficulties aside, they are by and large accepted by the British public as a given - clearly something worthwhile, if only they'd be used effectively - whereas the American public seems, as far as I can see, much more wary of the whole issue. That's why this debate is set up: I will argue that there is a moral case for CCTV cameras in public places, and that the moral arguments against CCTV are flawed; and my opponent, naturally, will argue the contrary. We will both have the burden of proof in these regards. I define "public places" as places where the general public are allowed access without any legal barriers. The most obvious example of this would be outdoors, on public-access streets and highways, but this would also apply to such places as state-funded schools, libraries and museums. Essentially, this is the state deciding to place CCTV cameras on its own property, in an attempt to have visual evidence of criminal activity and catch criminals accordingly. Hopefully this definition is clear and uncontroversial. I ask that prospective opponents seek any necessary clarifications in the comments section, rather than unnecessarily derail this debate on semantics. Note that I draw a general distinction between any practical arguments for/against CCTV (e.g. whether it deters crime, whether it, as currently constituted, catches criminals etc.) and any moral arguments for/against CCTV. My opponent will obviously be within his/her rights to argue that, in certain circumstances, this distinction is a false one...and dependent on the circumstances I may or may not concede the point...but I wanted to make the general distinction clear, just to avoid this debate being taken up on a false understanding of what will be argued. I ask that this first round be used only to accept this debate, and to define any suitable terms / make any definitional challenges as my opponent may deem necessary. A three-round debate would then proceed as per usual.
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

My opponent's argument is: "CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified." I asked my opponent to specify what mode of morality he and I would be using as a parameter for the debate. He then wrote that we would not be using parameters regarding morality. I then wrote that based on my own morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. Therefore, CCTV cameras in public places are not morally justified. This is true based on the parameters that MY OPPONENT set up. My opponent needs to understand that you must set up some parameters for your debate. I rest my case.
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

It is unfortunate that my opponent hasn't engaged with the spirit of this debate. Nonetheless, I could understand his approach if I had actually made some semantic error in my resolution, allowing him to argue on some marginal case. I have, however, not done so - in his attempt to argue from semantics, my points have been misrepresented and misunderstood. My opponent said: "How was it clear what mode of morality I was going to debate when I "took the Con side of this debate"? ? Can you read minds? I would be interested in how you perform such sorcery. " Re-reading my statement, I said: "Yes, he has chosen his own morality. That much was clear the moment that he took the CON side of this debate. " This does not imply that I knew exactly how my opponent would argue his case. It only says that I knew he would take a position in this debate (i. e. that he would choose his own morality). How did I know that he would take a position in this debate? Because he accepted the debate, as CON. And, indeed, he has taken a position - namely, that, "CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified" - even if it is an unargued one. QED. My opponent further said: "Your premise is that "CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified". You did not set up parameters for the argument. " This is simply false, for the reasons that I painstakingly laid out in the last round, and the one before that. Furthermore, it is not a "premise" that CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified - that is the "resolution". There are multiple arguments that I have deployed in favour of this resolution, each of which have their own premises. For each of these multiple arguments, there are various ways that my opponent could have attacked them. I set out parameters for the debate, clearly showing my opponent how he could have argued against the resolution. He did not. My opponent finished his round by arguing that: "All I needed to do was to show that based on some set of morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. I did this in the last round. " No, that is not accurate. I have given arguments for my morality. I have set out a framework by which it is possible to argue against this morality. (Which, by the way, I shouldn't have needed to do, but I did anyway. ) Given the framework set out, and the arguments that I have given in accordance with this framework, he would need to actually GIVE arguments for his morality. As he has not done so, I win by default. Furthermore, were he to try and attack my arguments now, it would be grossly unfair: this being the last round of this debate, I would not have any reasonable chance to respond in kind. Even under this scenario, I urge a straight PRO win due to the circumstances; or, at the very least, a 4-3 vote for PRO, in alignment with the voting categories. I rest my case.
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

My opponent wrote the following: "Yes, he has chosen his own morality. That much was clear the moment that he took the CON side of this debate. Yes, I have my own morality - that much was obvious when I set up this debate, such that I was the PRO side of this debate." How was it clear what mode of morality I was going to debate when I "took the Con side of this debate"?? Can you read minds? I would be interested in how you perform such sorcery. My opponent then wrote the following: "According to my opponent, I "cannot argue against [his morality] because [I] did not set up parameters in regards to morality." This is simply not the case. Indeed, to support his point he quoted the very part of my Round 2 where I said that: "It is equally possible for us to argue _between_ modes of morality." This sets up a clear parameter for debate: we can debate between our moral frameworks in order to determine which one is correct. I gave an example of this in Round 2 where, on debate.org itself, the resolution was: "Objectivism fails to describe an adequate meta-ethical answer for the is-ought problem." [1] Clearly the only way to have such a debate is to engage in meta-ethics: a discussion between moral frameworks to determine which framework is correct." When you write "clearly the only way to have such a debate is...blah blah blah", you obviously do not understand what the debate is about. Your premise is that "CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified". You did not set up parameters for the argument. Therefore I used my own morality to argue against your premise. My morality states that CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. Given the fact that you did not set up any parameters in regard to modes of morality, you cannot argue against my premise. Then my opponent continues: "In this instance, my moral framework leads me to the conclusion that CCTV cameras are morally justified; his does not. Therefore, the point of this debate is to see whose position on this issue is correct, and which one should be accepted. Indeed, I clarified this point even further when I said that: "...my opponent has two possible avenues of attack in this debate. He can either accept my premises/assumptions and then attack my conclusion ("debating through the same mode of morality") or he can argue that my premises/assumptions themselves are flawed ("debating between modes of morality")." [Round 2, Pro]" All I needed to do was to show that based on some set of morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. I did this in the last round. I rest my case.
Who is stronger. Sasuke Uchiha or Madara Uchiha

My opponent state that better is a vague term, however I included a definition in my previous arguments, which my opponent refused to rebuke. therefore I will add arguments to those in the previous rounds to strengthen my case. in my previous round I stated some of the reason I believe Sasuke Uchiha is "better" than Madara Uchiha. none of those reasons were challenged, therefore I will believe they still stand valid. he also gives the definition of strength, which is not mentioned in my title. I used the word better, and even defined it to make things clear. 1. the better one; that which is better.or2. one's superiors in social class or ability. therefore this is what our debate is based off of. so since I haven't been rebuked or anything I will go on to Sasuke's intelligence. Sasuke's intelligence has been proved again and again. during the fight against Itachi, he would've won without Itachi letting him when he used Kirin. Itachi even admitted that without Susanoo, he would have been dead. Another example is the fight with Dedria. He not only figured out he uses earth style, (which Diedria tried to hide,) but also found a way to reach him high up in the sky with his lightning. not to mention that Diedria is a member of the Aktasuki, a gang of s-rank criminals that has no equal. he also gathered enough information to defeat Orochimaru, one of the three legendary Sanin. He also found out a way to reverse the reaper death seal freeing the First, Second, Third, and Fourth, (Minato Namikage, or Yodamine Hokage.) Then using Senjutsu, which only Naruto, Jiraya, Jugo, Kabuto and Susuke can use, and Naruto and the Nine-Tailed Fox, defeated Obito in his Sage of the Six-Path mode. so using all the information he had, he formed a plan using everybody to beat Obito. He is a intellegent man, even surpassing not only Madara, but everyone else like Shikamaru and Shikaku Shikamaru's dad. With this i leave my opponent his turn
Who is stronger. Sasuke Uchiha or Madara Uchiha

In the given debate I will attempt to prove the proposition which acknowledges and states that the Naruto anime and manga character Madara Uchiha is stronger than Sasuke Uchicha by: 1. a relvant assessment of chronological duration of events within the naruto manga and anime timeline of which an unbiased distinguishment will be concluded. 2. The abilitiy and capacity to perform NinjaJutsu, GenJutsu, TaiJutsu, DoJutsu, Kenjutsu, Bukijutsu, Fuinjutsu, Juinjutsu, Kin jutsu, Senjutsu and Shurikenjutsu etc., any use or inclusion of unmentioned abilities is permittable in accordance to its revelance. 3.Physical status, Intellectual capacity, possession of Kekkei Genkai, Nature type extensibilty, applicability of Kekkei T!3;ta, Stamina and Speed. In response to my opponents previous statement "In this debate, I will have to prove that Sasuke Uchiha, is better than Madara Uchiha" It be clarified that I wish to procceed upon acceptance of the debate with specific concern to the comparitive adjective of the term "strength", due to the confusion accompanied by the term"better", which can indicate irrelevant reference to moral,social, financial, health characteristics etc. As a result of definitional disimalarity exhibited in the subjected content by contrast to the definition of strength in accordance to the merriam-webster definition, it is partially applicable and its validity is not maintained by correspondence to the progression of content that will be disussed in the argument. In view of this I propose that the usage of the term stronger be inclusive of the provided attributes related to the character content discussed above. The defintion of strength is given as follows by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 1.the quality or state of being physically strong 2.the ability to resist being moved or broken by a force I may also provide published reference material by the author Masashi Kishimoto with inclusion to Databook stats. Progression of my argument conditonal to information listed above, will follow in the succeeding rounds. Best regards,
Who is stronger. Sasuke Uchiha or Madara Uchiha

In this debate, I will have to prove that Sasuke Uchiha, is better than Madara Uchiha. to begin with I want to clarify what I mean when I use the word better. Webster defines better as1. the better one; that which is better.or2. one's superiors in social class or ability.therefore, am here to validate that Sasuke Uchiha is superior not only in abilities, also in retrospect.My arguments for this unbiased opinion are many, however i am going to point out a few of them to let not only my opponent, but my readers to understand. if anything is unclear, please let me know. now to begin. Sasuke Uchiha, one of the last of the Uchiha's is far more superior than Madara, the leader of the Uchiha clan and founder of the hidden leaf village. For starters, lets begin as a boy in Kakashi's training exam. Sasuke showed signs of amazing talent by not only his shuriken abilities, but by performing the fire ball jutsu technique, surprising even Kakashi, as he exclaims that he shouldn't know any jutsu's yet. next, he trained with orichimaru, one of the three legendary Sanin. He learned some very unique and valuable skills to fighting from him including but not limited to: Kirin, able to shed bodies like Orichimaru, and even some few sword based attacks. he was strong enough to take on the 5 kage, and even got through the Raikage's lightning armour, something no one has been able to do. He managed to pierce Gaara's absolute defence at the chunin exams also.and to add to all of these reason's, I am going to add some of his recent abilities and accomplishments. he was able to manifest feet and a waist for his susanoo similar to what Madara Uchiha does, he has a high amount of charkra and charkra control, even for a Uchiha. he has the EMS, just like Madara Uchiha, and his stamina is off the charts. he was able to work with Naruto against Obito, not only defeating him, but using Senjutsu, (Sage Jutsu,) to do it. Something even Madara doesn't have. He has immense control over the Amaterasu, (black flames,) and also was able to combine it with Naruto Rasenshuriken with ease, which even the Second Hokage said took years of working together to accomplish. He has mastered high levels of lightning and fire techniques, to the point of not having to form seals, which gives him a advantage over his opponents. And even the manga says that Sasuke Uchiha has surpassed Madara Uchiha. with this I will let my opponent go and base his argumenthttp://naruto.wikia.com...;
DDOlympics Storytelling Part 2

Greetings, salutations, and welcome back to the DDOlympics! In this debate, both my opponent and myself will start and complete a story in each round. Essentially, we are writing flash-stories! Following Round 1, each of us will write 2 flash-stories with 8,000 characters each. Please refrain from voting unless you are a judge for the DDO Storytelling Olympics! Both stories (so a total of four - 2 from each debater) should factor into the judges' decision.
Tim Tebow will be a starting NFL quarterback in 3 years (or less).

Hopefully, missing a round will prove minor due to the fact that Tim Tebow has already done the work for me in this argument by being arguably one of the best College Players of ALL time. His Delivery- I will concede the fact that his delivery is not a textbook delivery for NFL quarterbacks. However, I believe he has already showed improvement on his throwing motion, as can be seen during his brief time being coached by former Lions QB coach, Scott Loeffler. Tebow has tweaked his throwing motion, turning his sidearm delivery into more of an over-the-top motion. Seeing this change in such a short amount of time helps support the fact that he can further change his motion in time, if necessary. The question remains to be seen if it is indeed necessary. Looking at another QB who came into the NFL without the best mechanics and was successful for a long period of time was Kerry Collins. And more recently, Tony Romo also has changed his throwing motion to become an effective NFL quarterback. . http://www.heraldnet.com... His Accuracy- Your entire argument about Tebow's passing ability is opinionated and lacks any real substantial evidence for why you feel this way. After reading your impression of Tebow's throwing motion I would have assumed he has never completed a pass, if I had not known otherwise. We could look at each individual passing statistic for Tebow, however, I believe it would be easiest to look at the Quarterback rating which encompasses completion percentage, passing yards, TD's and interceptions. When you do this you see that not only is Tebow ranked number one for the 2009 season (which is indicative of his new throwing motion), but he also has the highest career rating of any college quarterback that has ever played! To simply ignore those statistics (which are based off only his throwing abilities and not even considering his running abilities) would be ignorant, and one should realize he is nothing short of a phenomenal passer. Another point you bring up about Tebow is his lack of ability to throw mid-range or deep passes. The argument is quickly negated as well once you see he has an average completion yardage of over 9.2 yards every season he has played. This has ranked Tebow 1st and 4th (two times) over the last 3 years out of all college quarterbacks. This combined with his high completion percentage shows that he can indeed make these throws that you claim he can't (not to mention they play against some of the best defenses week in and week out in the SEC). . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com... Pocket Presence- It is funny that you suggest that Tebow is quick to run the ball. I simply disagree and can remember numerous times this season where I would get frustrated at the f
Tim Tebow will be a starting NFL quarterback in 3 years (or less).

As my opponent did not post a round 2 argument, I'm just going to make a few more points. 1. Tim Tebow is used to being the #1 option in an offense which he most assuredly will NEVER be on any NFL team, as he is neither an exceptional passer nor an exceptional runner. This could be extremely difficult for a player to adjust to and probably will hamper his development, as he has become accustomed to offensive decisions and strategy centered around him as both a QB and a running back, which will MOST ASSUREDLY not happen in the NFL. 2. It is possible that Tim Tebow has actually peaked as a player; One of his greatest strengths is his dedication to his game and to improvement, something he received high praise for in college. But in the last 2 years when improving his delivery and his pocket presence could have been shown to be important to him KNOWING that a player of his fame and his talent will be highly scouted in the NFL, he showed no real improvement in either department both of which are CENTRAL to NFL scouts when making decisions on a QB. It is possible that we are seeing the way Tim Tebow will always play QB, and that he may have been a great college QB but is never going to be an NFL starter. In short, 3 years is not enough time for a player who has as much to improve on and revamp as Tim Tebow will have to. He will need AT LEAST 5 years behind an accomplished, technically sound NFL-style QB in addition to an OUTSTANDING quarterback coach on whatever team he joins in order to become as effective as an average NFL starter. He has things to learn that are beyond technical as well, and that will take another 2-3 years unless he starts right away (which would be a mistake lest he fall back into his college game when things start going poorly as they invariably will for every young QB).
Tim Tebow will be a starting NFL quarterback in 3 years (or less).

Since it's hard to quantify whether he will start on an NFL team as the league is constantly changes AND the 2011 season might be locked out, this will be a totally hypothetical debate. Also injuries and trades may decide whether he starts or not, we will debate whether he will be an EFFECTIVE NFL STARTER in 3 years. Tebow has 3 problems that he MUST solve before he will be an NFL-level starter; First, his delivery. Second, his accuracy, and last, his tendency to run instead of standing in the pocket and waiting for opportunities to in the passing game instead of tucking the ball and running. That said, I should define what I mean when I say accuracy, delivery and what will be termed "pocket presence" from now on. Delivery - the decision to pass and the action to pass. Accuracy - the ability to place the ball where the receiver has the advantage against coverage with both precision and timing Pocket presence - The natural/ learned ability to feel pressure, stay focused, and avoid both the pass rush and make a good decision under pressure 1. His delivery - Commonly called a three quarter delivery, Tim Tebow consistently throws in a very slow, inelegant, and VERY easy to read fashion. Because his delivery is so long and slow, it is very easy for above average corners (of which there are MANY in the NFL now) to read his motion, see where he is looking, and and make a play on the ball. We'll come back to this, as it has other consequences. But for now, suffice it to say his delivery is NOT ready for the pro level where the game is MUCH faster and MUCH less forgiving to QBs. 2. His accuracy - With such an emphasis being placed on the deep ball in many NFL offenses as a way to protect a sub par running game or a need to score quickly or simply by virtue of having an excellent deep threat receiver. Tebow has not shown that he is capable of reliably and consistently hitting the longer passes, nor has he shown a consistent ability to hit the mid-range passes which EVERY NFL QB is REQUIRED to be able to complete. He also has had problems with hitting receivers in stride, which is something that an average NFL starter is usually able to complete, and lastly his passes are often vulnerable to wind as he has a lot of work to do on the tightness of his throws. 3. Pocket presence - With the way the system he ran at the University of Florida so strongly centered around his ability to run, it remains to be seen whether he is capable of putting aside his almost instinctual desire to tuck the ball and lower his shoulder in an attempt to simply run for a large gain. In the NFL, he will not be running against corners and linebackers used to defending spread offenses like those he played against in college, who tend to be undersized and more focused on speed and agility. Instead, he will be running against stronger, harder-hitting NFL defenders and he probably will not have a long or successful career if he tries to run in the same vein he did in