BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That we should ban anonymous online accounts

I have outlined my round, so lets get right to it:Banning anonymous online accounts hurts "everyone". The simple fact of the matter is that we as a person demand a certain degree of privacy when we conduct transactions, whatever they may be. I don't want websites to know who I am when conducting business with them, I am a person, with money, whom wants their services. That is really all any transaction should ever be. Assuming we remove the veil of being anonymous, we have now opened ourselves up to the various pitfalls of what could happen. Why should anyone do business with a felon? If you are who you are, online, I just run a credit and background check, and find you unworthy of patronage. How many "auction" based websites would simply remove the clientel they feel is not up to standard of auction for their site? The economy can't support immediate presupposition and investigation of all financial activity, which is inevitably where such would lead. I will move on to my most damning of points regarding this later, which I find to really be the center piece of my argument when it comes to being anonymous online. Stealing moneyIdentity theft is caused from some one being the exact opposite of being anonymous: they are posing as a real life person. They have access to your resources because they have technologically pilfered all the requisites to posing as you. Were online accounts to be restricted to a traceable source, it guarantees more information to the thieves in which to build their "you" disguise. This is point being brought up by con is such a detriment, I am surprised it was even mentioned. Closing RemarksYes. I down play cyber bullying. If you are holding a hot potato, what do you do? If you are smelling an offensive smell, what do you do? If you are reading offensive material, what do you do? Pro would argue that its not your responsibility to judge what is offensive, and instead track to a source what could be construed as offensive by subjective audience. I down play cyber bullying because Pro would have you down play your involvement in how you react to what you find objectionable. Oblique sanitization is the resultant of an "closed" Internet. There is no contrary point of view. DDO would not exist were accounts traceable to a direct person, and I think my opponent tipped their hand in the following:"My view on anonymity being beneficial is that there is no point being anonymous if you have nothing to hide. "I don't know who you are. I have no idea how strong the courage of your conviction runs, I have no idea if you would do harm to me or my family because I can and will vote against you in local politics. I have a lot to gain and hold by hiding from people of opposition. The quote given by pro demonstrates the naiveté that is part of the human condition: some people want to silence opposition. By whatever means necessary. Frankly, I would much rather NOT give the tools to such miscreants, but. .. that is for our voters to decide.
That we should ban anonymous online accounts

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO TACKLE CYBERBULLYING? The opposition has stated that "By putting the power to halt the cyber bully's attacks in the victim's hands" will halt cyber bullying. That is the status quo, however when i pressed my argument it has been greatly misinterpreted. Although now looking back upon my first argument "Cyberbullying- the worst thing to happen to this generation" was probably a massive overstatement but apparently from the comments i was saying is that we should lock up 8 year olds but that is not my case. I would like us to create a new deterrent that actually works. "More than half of young people surveyed say that they never confide in their parents when cyber bullying happens to them. " That's a statistic from source (1) . Another statistic i found from source one was "25 percent of teenagers report that they have experienced repeated bullying via their cell phone or on the internet. " Only 25% of teens report they have been cyber bullied however source one also says that 95% of teens have witnessed cyberbullying across various mediums. I guess what i'm trying to say is implementing this ban can and will act as a deterrent against cyberbullying. IS BEING ANONYMOUS BENEFICIAL? My opponent was strong in stating that anonymous sources will not exist however much of the time the person asks to be anonymous because the media all ready knows their identity, All i'm arguing for is the online anonymity to be banned, news sources do not have to quote the person they received the information from. It is up to the media to decide where they get it from. My opponent also said, "No more can the whistle be blown when some one of power wields it to the disadvantage of many others. " however whistle blowers don't have a secret alibi. The two most well known whistle blowers are Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Two people that I know, i've seen interviews with, i know where they are right now and i'm sure they know the whole world knows where they are. The main reason anyone will take you're whistle blowing seriously is the fact that they know you're identity. If you didn't come from inside the company and know their inner workings how can we not trust them however if they are an anonymous source we are less likely to believe them. I just wanted to point out the misleading statement made by my opponent. My view on anonymity being beneficial is that there is no point being anonymous if you have nothing to hide. In conclusion, I have showed you the reasoning behind the need for a deterrent against cyber bullying and i have explained the exploitation of anonymity by white collar criminals and finally i have shown you the two clashes each falling towards my favour. This is the last time I will write so I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and I wish you luck for future debates. Source (1) . http://nobullying.com...
That we should ban anonymous online accounts

My opponent plays down the danger of cyberbullying and says the current system deals with the serious threats however I want to defend the social outcasts, the people who don't get noticed. Now onto my substantive, I've defended the common people however now I need to protect everyone. White collar criminals use anonymity to cover up their crimes however banning online anonymity will act again as a deterrent against this new kind of criminal who is using this anonymous status to steal you're money. Think about that.
That we should ban anonymous online accounts

Cyberbullying- the worst thing to happen to this new generation. With new technology comes new stress for children especially in high school. Online anonymity aids these bullies which gives them a new advantage over the victim. The victim does not know who this person is. They are given much stress already however under this new model requiring a name to go to the profile will act as a deterrent against internet trolls. Hopefully this will clear the thought of online bullying from victims minds. Under my new model I feel it is important to inform all schools to let the students know so that the students will know that it is place and this way it will have an effect rather then it being a two minute news story that the majority of kids miss. Finally before i hand the floor to my opponent I would like to show that the current program isn't working at the moment. A police officer comes into your children's class and gives a kiddy presentation making empty threats. Come on! With online anonymity how will these police officers catch these bullies, not to mention that bullying isn't on the top priority for the police. In conclusion we have to find an alternative to the status quo that kids are suffering from.
God doesn't exist.

1. When I say habitable, I mean humans can live on it. Also, it is really unreasonable and foolish to think that we are the only beings in the universe. 2. Using Bible verses isn't unfavorable. You said Jesus was the closest resemblance to God, and I counter-argued with evidence. You Christians claim that every thing in Jesus' life is true. And did I read the whole chapter? No. But Jesus saying this is still malevolent, in any case. You obviously looked at one verse, because I believe I showed you more than one. 3. God is an non-created creator? Then how can such a deity exist? I have not met God, but apparently you have, since you're the believer. You're actually using Laws of Thermodynamics to back up your argument? That doesn't help at all. But I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, and neither are you. 4. I wanted to start something new. What makes you think the the Christian god is the right one? What about Krishna? Or Buddha. If you were born in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you were born in Ancient Greece, you'd believe in Zeus, Poseidon, and the many other gods. If you were born Ancient Egypt, you'd believed in Horus and Isis, and such. It seems to me that you're religion depends on where you're born, and the way you're brought up. It only takes a rational mind(not calling you irrational) to abandon such things.
God doesn't exist.

1. If you say that they are other planet out there that is habitable. Then, why there is no any life? if you say that a place that is habitable, then it must consist of life. Where is life? if you are saying that other planets are habitable then you must prove that extraterrestrials life does exist. If you fail to do this then you will be hoisting at your own petard. In short my opponent is just talking without giving any evidence. I also can say that there are no other examples of Earth's out there that is habitable. No resource and his own personal opinion. 2. Matthew 10: 34-36 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ""a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" 36 a man"s enemies will be the members of his own household. Did you really read the whole chapter? And, please stealing part of the lines. My opponent is trying to steal part of the line from the bible. This is unfavourable. For example,the dog is biting me then, I beat it with my own hand. What my opponent is doing is that he purposely pick the consequence without knowing the previous reasons. Or, either way. I won't explain the meaning of them. 3.Hey dude, God is uncreated creator. This is an absurd question. To whom is the bachelor married? Where did I go? What did I do? Stop asking funny question. Do you really understand God? Have you ever met God? Have all the unexplained explained? We have not understood God yet. If we have understand the entity, then it is not God. If you have understand the 'trying' of plants to look for sunlight then you are not human. I can completely understand an extrovert then I am not an introvert. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. First law of thermodynamics: The total amount of energy in an isolated system is conserved. Second law of thermodynamics: "The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum." If the amount of energy has is limited, then the amount of energy that can be used will be decreased. Then, how can the universe exists eternally?
God doesn't exist.

I can tell that my opponent has copied their argument from a website. But I will still continue to debate against their argument. 1. If if the Earth's size is perfect, wouldn't prove that a God exists. That isn't evidence, this is an anecdote. The Earth's size is far from perfect. And yes, we are at a perfect distance from the Sun, it still doesn't prove anything. There are other examples of Earth's out there that is habitable. 2. Jesus is not one of the clearest example of God, if not one of the worst. Jesus committed cruel acts on innocent people. And acts that are completely ridiculous. I have a list of Bible verses for my opponent to overview. Matthew 10: 34-36 11: 20-24 15: 4-7 Mark 9: 43-49 Luke 12: 46-47 17: 26-27 3. A quick question to counter-argue with his defense. If God is a being than which no greater being can be conceived, then who fabricated God? Every complex being must have a creator, right? Every time I ask a believer this, they become fixed, but hopefully you can answer this question with evidence.
Free Education

I thank Con for their response.I don't think that in this debate Con gave any good reason to not have public education.Con tried to justify no public education using everything from affordability issues in or around Newyork, to Europe, to taxation, to implying that if you disagree with their proposition you are a communist. Trouble is there were no real explicitly clear arguments here that resulted in the conclusion that therefore public education should not exist.It seems to me Con had an over-reaching theme of trying to tie in taxation to eradication of public education, but I showed that the argument that something is funded by taxation should be eliminated as an untenable line of reasoning, as this would also mean the elimination of police, military etc etc.As such I maintain we heard no good arguments to support the conclusion that public education should not exist.So moving onto the arguments for public education which included...EconomicCon I think did agree there are positive gains for having public education, but tried to refute this argument implying that a diploma and/or education that would be more common with the existence of public education makes it worthless. But as I showed in the eyesight example, something being common doesn't equate to it being worthless. CivicI argued for public education in support of modern democracy, Con cites the US constitution, but the US constitution does not equate to thou shalt not have public education.FairnessI argued for the existence of public education in support of addressing the unfairness that some people would have in not having access to edcuation because they were born into bad circumstances. Con made reference to the cruelty of nature, I showed that the cruelty of nature is not a good guide as to what we should and shouldn't do, lest Con parents eat Con as some animals have been known to do.BenevolenceIronically the benevolence point came as a result of Cons claim and concern for the USA being the most benevolent. As I argued public education is a good way for the pursuit of this Benevolence that Con is so concerned for, and I don't think they refuted this.I think there have been better arguments for the existence of public education than arguments for its elimination. As such I ask the vote go to the Pro.Thanks for the debate.
Free Education

No need for Pro to thank Con regarding implied accusations of communist leanings. So-called "free" education is merely one part of a "slippery slope" towards the western European socialist style of government. Con does not make the argument that "free" education would be the sole reason for onerous rates of taxation, but rather another building block towards it. Regarding military and police funding relative to the public tax burden, this debate centers on "free" education, not a "free" police or military force. While our debate has centered on the relative merits of a so-called "free" education ( the term free being somewhat subjective), the meaning of education can also be somewhat expansive. Does education in the quasi-utopian world of Pro also include various forms of apprenticeship and other vocational training or do only the "elites" blessed with college level high IQ qualify for "free" education? Finally, since when does getting something for "free" equate to benevolence? In a world of "tough love" where very few things were "free" the desired end result could be considered the very essence of benevolence.
Free Education

I thank Con for their reply, in the last round they managed not to insinuate that some one who dis agree with their position is a communist, this is progress.........of a kind.Public education & taxationPublic education is not the sole reason for taxation or tax rises that's why I find it deceptive for Con to say..." The constant rise in our tax dollars pay for that free education." as this implies that all taxation and tax rises are caused by the existence of public education.Seeing that Con likes to remind us that nothing is "free", does Con think the military or police should be eliminated too ? I hear those stealth bombers are quite expensive. If Con doesn't think the army or police should be eliminated this shows that the fact that something is funded by taxation doesn't mean it should be eliminated such as public education.BenevolenceIts an interesting how one can argue for the elimination of public education (affecting the poor, the have nots the most) while also reffering to benevolence. I merely repeat my question, would getting rid of public education in the USA or any other society make it more or less benevolent ? Seeing that Con is so concerned with the USA being benelovant cause as Con tells us..."It's the United States Constitution, a unique document that just happens to be the foundation of the most successful and benevolent society in the history of mankind." then the USA should have some form of public education in the pursuit of this benelvolence.That its for me for round 4.
Free Education

Thank you for your response. Everyone loves "free" stuff. The amusing thing is, some people are willing to pay more for it then others - or, in this case let others pay more for it. Bottom line, is anything ever really "free"? People believe that the duty of the government is to provide children with free education. The constant rise in our tax dollars pay for that free education. In fact as defined by Frederic Bastiat, the purpose of law, rejects the public school systems. To support that argument it was said that " education is not the purpose of the government and that government education is socialistic." Con obviously has a hard time justifying the premise that our society as it currently exists without so-called universally free education, is the most benevolently in the history of mankind. I can not help him with his deep seeded cynicism. But again I propose the argument/fact that nothing is really free and only the naive would believe otherwise.
Free Education

I thank Con for their response............kind of.CivicMe pointing out that Con is making an interpretation of the American constitution hardly warrants the accusation from Con that I am trivializationing the constitution. The main point here is that Cons own interpretation of the constitution is just that, their OWN interpretation. The pursuit of happiness does not equate to therefore thou shall not have public education.As far as Cons comment about the USA democracy/society been the most benevolent good luck justifying that. If the USA was to get rid of public education would that make the USA more or less benevolent ? it would make it less.Ironically, Con here gives another reason to justify public education, that been a society or government seeking to be benevolent and public education is a good way to go about it.EconomicCon says..."Taking so-called "free" education for granted because it's "free" is the problem because a diploma should be a treasured document and not a common piece of paper."Con wrongly conflates that if something is common then it must be of less value or even worthless. Maybe we should make more people blind so the value of seeing is worth more ? hardly, something can be common yet still be of high value.Public education should not exist, and if disagree with me you are a communist who loves Fidel CastroAfter showing the errors in Cons logic to justify no public education should exist, Con has resorted to ad homien attacks such as..."Pro obviously believes in the supremacy of government over all." & ..."Sounds like Pro would love to live in a "WORKERS PARADISE"ï¿½. It is only a ninety-mile trip on the yacht of your choice to Cuba from Key West." This ends my argument for round 3.
Free Education

Thank you for your response Pro Civic Pro is trivializing the importance of the "American Constitution". It's the United States Constitution, a unique document that just happens to be the foundation of the most successful and benevolent society in the history of mankind. Economic Taking advantage of "free"ï¿½ education would not necessarily be a bad thing if it were truly free. Taking so-called "free" education for granted because it's "free" is the problem because a diploma should be a treasured document and not a common piece of paper. Fairness Seems to me Pro is throwing out an anti-parent and anti-nature net. Pro obviously believes in the supremacy of government over all. Con does not believe in cutting education, just modifying its source of revenue. As an example of the voracious appetite of the educational system, and government in general one only has to look at the history of the New York State lottery, the brainchild of those who thought it would be the answer to the funding needs of the aforementioned entities. Turn on any radio station or television station and you will be deluged with adds for this panacea of proficiency, always begging at the public trough for more money. As far as tax avoidance/ minimization by the rich maybe pro should do some research on the percentage of tax revenue generated by the top 10% of earners. Sounds like Pro would love to live in a "WORKERS PARADISE"ï¿½. It is only a ninety-mile trip on the yacht of your choice to Cuba from Key West.
Free Education

I thank Con for their reply.Arguments for "free education"1)EconomicIf the worst thing that happens in society that people take "advantage" of free education, I think we can live with it. 2) CivicCon doesn't refute my point here, just gives an interpretation of the American Constitution.3) FairnessI don't think the cruelty of nature is a good guide to morality or public policy. It's a good thing Cons parents don't share Con's guide to morality here, cause you know, some animals have been known to eat their young.It doesn't follow that the taxes for free education are mostly paid by those who don't get a free education. In places where some sort of school is mandatory everyone is a user of free education so no one is a non user. In regards to a question as to why people should fund free education then I refer Con to my points on economic, civic and fairness.Oh look at Europe therefore lets get rid of free educationCon mentions Europe once again, but their comments is only relevant to OVERALL BENEFITS, we are only talking about one area here, that being free education. Seems to me Con is throwing out an anti goverment spending net and public education has just been caught within this net. As I alluded too before, before you start cutting education, how about addressing issues such as tax avoidance/minimization by the rich, income from assets vs income from work, wealth distribution etc before you start cutting a public good.
Free Education

1)Economic No one is arguing the benefits of an educated populous. Con agrees that an educated populous has major societal impacts, one of which is that a" free education" will be taken for granted by many and therefor diminished in its value. 2)Civic In our democracy, arguably the most efficient and benevolent in human history, happiness as inferred by the promise of a "free" education is not guaranteed. Only the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed under our constitution, the cost of which is to be born by the individual and not the state. 3)Fairness While the pursuit of "fairness" is inherently noble in virtue it can be argued that nature in itself is not fair, but beautifully efficient. In terms of PROS proposal to define "free" as only paying 25% of the costs of education, why should those individuals who are not receiving a so-called "free" education be forced to subsidized the remaining 75% of the cost? Finally, in the European Union so-called "free" benefits are subsidized by what we would consider to be exorbitant taxes throughout the entire economic spectrum.