BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The oath Snowden took to the consitution was more important than one to secrecy

I give credit to Snowden that he doesn't appear to be releasing information that would be severely crippling to the United States that he obviously has access to. However, that does not make him any less guilty of his crimes and should still be held accountable for his betrayal to national security. I do question the idea that he didn't harm the United States in "any way shape or form" as you say. The NSA was keeping their activities a secret for reasons and not just for giggles. The international phone taps that Snowden exposed did cripple America's intelligence gathering capabilities in the future as well as our foreign relations with those countries. It is a known fact that nations spy on each other for national security reasons but they don't release it into public knowledge for political and intelligence reasons. Snowden just destroyed that benefit for us. Because of his actions it is going to be harder for American intelligence to operate in the future. I still do not believe the Constitution applies to cybercrime laws due to the fact it wasn't its intention when it was created. You cannot make a law made for one concept be automatically related to a whole new spectrum of other concepts that did not exist when the law was created unless you amend it (essentially updating). There is a list of federal laws that has been made since then that do cover cybercrime where the Department of Homeland Security is responsible and there are state laws as well. Those laws tend not to apply to the NSA because it is the NSA's job to perform cyber-intelligence and cyber-security so they need the freedom to do their job. The fact is that the government does not have any malicious intent with their intelligence gathering, but those who would be stopped by their activities do. It is the government's foremost responsibility to protect its citizens because it is, in effect, protecting its own existence while doing that. The two core responsibilities of a government as it applies to law is 1) to protect its own existence 2) To protect the lives, health, and well-being of its own citizens. That is according to a 2013 McGraw Hill Business Law textbook. The ACLU says a lot of things. I often do not agree with their interpretation of laws and their reasoning, but I can see their side of the cases and intent and I can respect that. I tend to be more strict on the idea on treason because national security is not something to be taken lightly. As far as we know Snowden has not released any information on anything vitally important for national security, but for all we know he could have secretly or may be planning to. Additionally, the fact that he was a high level American intelligence official and is out in the open is also dangerous not only for him, but for the security of the United States. For those reasons alone we should be more intent on having him returned and answer for his crimes. I stand by the fact that he must answer for his crimes against the Espionage Act as well.
The oath Snowden took to the consitution was more important than one to secrecy

I look forward to our debate! Edward Snowden is a traitor to the country because he revealed important secret intelligence compromising national security. The Ethic of Responsibility, a theory of law, requires people who hold a government office (an intelligence agency in this case) has the obligation to do what is in the best interest of the country often contrary to that of individual morals. I do not believe the NSA has violated the 4th or the 5th amendments of the Constitution like Snowden claims. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This, in my interpretation, only relates to cases of a physical entry or seizure of physical property without a warrant. This would not apply to the NSA in my understanding of the amendment. I do not believe the Constitution can apply to cyber-intelligence or cyber-crime. The 5th Amendment states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I believe he is using this in defense of himself. This does not apply because he has been found guilty by the government through due process. The only thing remaining is him to appear in court and be found guilty or not guilty of the various allegations. The Federal Supreme Court found the NSA telephone surveillance as legal and may not even take on the metadata case. The United States government has charged Snowden with theft of government property and that he is in violation of the 1917 Espionage Act. Snowden has obviously stolen government property so he himself cannot even deny that. He is in violation of the 1917 Espionage Act by his "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person".
Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport

Ping Pong... ...the art of playing tennis on a table except for the rackets aren't as big, the balls are made of different material, the balls aren't yellow, and they are smaller; the players don't stand on the court to play rather they play standing besides the table. The table has a net in the middle of the table and the objective is to pass the little ball over the net, letting the ball hit the other side but not yours. I argue that this is not a sport because 1. everything is miniature 2. does not require much athleticism at all as you do not have to move 3 does not require teamwork 4. does not require strategy All rounds are rebuttals. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport

I forfeited because I only intended to do 3 Rounds (sorry I forgot to tell you in the opening round). Please FF (forgive forfeiture)!!! So the definition of sport no longer has to do with tradition? Everything NOW that is a definite and obvious "sport" is such not only because of the characteristics of teamwork and athleticism but the tradition which has remained. [1] I have already given my reasons for why Ping Pong players do not... -give physical exertion -it is only instinct, if anything players need to have hand-eye coordination: for sure they don't need skill! And, as the definition gives, a sport is something that MUST be done for the ENTERTAINMENT OF OTHERS. I have also already given reasons why Table Tennis is an awful spectator sport and, in most cases, boring to watch too. My opponent: "If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics?" As I said earlier, diving is in the Olympics, but it is more of a hobby (just like the game of Ping Pong) rather than an actual sport--in my opinion, diving isn't a sport OR a game. But that's a conversation for another time. I said it could be a lazy sport but that does not mean it qualifies for (yes, a TRADITIONAL) sport. [2] Ping Pong, in my presence, could be called a non-traditional/lazy sport but I wouldn't allow it to be ranked any higher than that because when you have sports like baseball and basketball, can you possibly put Ping Pong up there at the same level of sport?! That would be disappointing. [3] SOURCES [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.sodahead.com... [3] http://wiki.answers.com...
Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport

Your definition of sport is your opinion and I respect it but don't agree with it. We aren't debating if ping pong was a "traditional " sport we were debating if it is a sport. I am completely certain that professional ping pong players practice every day for long periods of time and if you take the time to watch the games they do sweat. Cricketers also have good hand eye coordination . As in everything ping pong players have to hone their talents. Ping pong players do have to run as I said earlier because their opponent drop shots them and plays the ball from corner to corner. If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics? First of all you call it a game but now a lazy Sport which you were saying it definitely wasn't at the start. Please make this more clear.
Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport

The most common thing that comes to my mind when I think of the word 'sport' is someone with long legs who has sweat on his forehead and is running. Practically every traditional sport (such as baseball, softball, basketball, football, soccer, volleyball, and tennis) requires running and a lot of the time there is sweat involved. That's what all those official sports have in common: hard work. Do Ping Pong players work hard? All you can say is that they have good hand-eye coordination because this is the only thing that wins them their game. If they do not see the ball then they do not know where to put their hands. That's the only thing you need to have in the game of Ping Pong because you do not have to run a lot nor be very active, thus I will only call it a game and if ANYTHING, I would call it a lazy sport. Here is a quote that someone on ESPN wrote [1]: "Table Tennis is not a sport. It is more of a hobby. Sure its in the Olympics, so is diving and a lot of other hobbies people have." To add on to what this person said, I will mention the fact that though table tennis players wear sweatbands (!) they are doing it for 1) show, and 2) they are not in shape. Also, is it not fancy for 'miniature' when you call it "Table Tennis?" Ping Pong is derived from the REAL sport of 'tennis,' and tennis DOES require you to move around on a huge court, dive for the ball, plus have hand-eye coordination! And even some tennis players don't wear sweatbands! Knowing that Ping Pong requires some skill does not make it a real sport. I picked the game up quite nicely myself, after watching my family play and then playing about 3 games. Then I beat everyone from then on. A real sport you cannot just pick up and learn right away. Besides that, it you can't have a plan or a strategy ready before playing a game of Table Tennis; it is all instinct that you can't prepare for therefore skill is not strategy. And, as I already said, you need to have strategy for a game to become an official sport (in my opinion). But do you not agree? You cannot plan (strategy means plan something in order to achieve your goal) what is going to happen therefore you cannot have a strategy in the game of Ping Pong. Without further ado I will also state the fact that Table-Tennis is a terrible spectator game/sport [2], whatever you want to call it, it is not easy to watch on TV or in an arena because the ball goes so fast and is so small. So besides me arguing that it is not an official sport, I also argue that Ping Pong is not a good spectator game either. It's hard to argue with that. SOURCES [1] http://www.instructables.com... [2] http://www.tabletennisdb.com... [3] http://www.google.com...
Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport

I thank you for putting this argument on and look forward to a fantastic debate. As you have not given a definition of "sport" I took the liberty of doing it. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Ping pong involves both physical exertion as you have to move your arms and dive for the ball on occasion. And it certainly requires skill as people who have never played it are usually terrible and the professionals can hit and return the ball at tremendous speeds. In response to your 4 arguments why it is isn't a sport. Firstly the fact that everything is smaller than tennis doesn't make it miniature and if it was I do not see why that would matter. Secondly it does require athleticism as you have to lunge forward if your opponent drop shots you or hits it really hard and you have stand backwards. Thirdly you are right it doesn't require teamwork but neither does tennis, squash, chess, gymnastic or swimming . And it actually can be played in doubles just like tennis, and swimming. And tun response to your last comment it does require strategy as you have to know when to drops shot your opponent or know hen to hit it extremely hard or play the ball into the corners. I look forward to your return argument.
Catholic Church is cruel and unthinking.

I have agreed that I made a mistake about Pro and Con and I did ask how to change it but no one has given me the information. As no one has actually come out against the statement as part of the debate I will address round to those who have made a comment but not as part of the debate. Isabelneussl states that she doesn't thin the Catholic Church is cruel but that the services are boring. In 1966 an attempt was made by the Church to be more appealing to young people. This was done by holding the first Rock Mass in Rome. It was the churches reaction to sectors within the church and the media that is was many years before it was attempted gain. There are some churches that still hold Rock Masses (I believe even some jazz and country & western ones) but the arguments still persist about sacred music. Yes there is also some corruption that is being weeded out but is that due to the Church's own initiatives or due to media exposition. The statement is hardly bigoted when I have suffered due to actions taken by the Vatican. The comparison between the Atheist Party is not relevant because I know from personal experience the power of the Catholic Church.
Catholic Church is cruel and unthinking.

I am sorry yes I should have put pro the statement but I am unable to find how to change that. In further support of my statement I cite the instance of the aftermath of the first Rock Mass held in Rome on 27th April 1966. In response to the outcomes of Vatican II to be more appealing to young people three Italian rock bands were invited by the Catholic Church to perform the mass. Although it was an enormous hit with young people, due to the media outcry afterwards the Vatican took steps that destroyed the careers of those bands including excommunication. Organisations such as the church can think because the organisation is its leadership, in this case the Vatican. It is the leadership that caused the destruction of the young bands who were only responding to an invitation by the church representatives.
There is no such thing as totally RENEWABLE energy.

Is there really any such thing as totally renewable energy? I would say... No. I'll start with solar energy as the sun is such a vital cog. As I'm sure you know the sun won't be around forever and I've come to believe that wind energy is directly affected by the sun. I'm not going to go into nuclear never considered renewable to begin with! There isn't a limitless supply of water either, is there? And electricity is fuelled by fossil fuels.
Pirates vs. Ninjas!

1: In a fight pirates can't get ahold of all their weapons and the most common weapon for a pirate to use is their cutlass (Thanks for reminding me of what their called.) THe Ninjas had a light chain mail armor. Knights with the same chain mail armor can be hit by a long bow arrow point blank and walk away with minor bruises so calculating the power of a gun compared to a long bow the bullet would penetrate the armor but not go very deep, and no not all sword can chop slice and kill. THe cutlass is made for chopping. It can slice but it's specifically for chopping. THe Samurai armor was impenetrable (to weapons of their day and age) Arrows bounced off their armor making it even harder then heavy steel.. Their grenades aren't meant for killing their used for throwing in the eyes of their enemies. There is no recovering from that. 2: Because lots of people trained to be ninjas. THe ninjas were still few. It is a suicide mission but it is also a great honor. Without the shadows the ninja also has it's nearly unbeatable sword technique, it's glass and pepper bomb, or the kunai. The guns that the pirates carry Such as the musketoon, the musket, and the blunderbuss take forever to reload and before the pirate can load the gun the ninja can throw fifty kunai with inhuman accuracy. Before the pirate can aim and shoot the Ninja can throw three kunai. And one Kunai is enough to kill. 3: Pirates didn't stand up for what was right. Pirates pillaged innocent villages and raped women. Much like the vikings. They weren't honorable they were savages. You're thinking of Jack Sparrow at this point. 4: Scurvy was not a rare occurrence as most pirates got scurvy and didn't even know how to treat it, and I never said it had anything to do with rum I said pirates drank rum which isn't as strong a drink as Saki. 5: Actually in fact spread shot is a word. It's another term for what a shotgun does which is spraying bullets in a spread. Pirates never focused on speed so even if they had their weapons ready the Ninja can move fast enough to kill before the pirate knows and well.... THe pirate won't know it's being followed if it's a ninja, and fun fact... Ninjas only strike in the dark therefore darkness will be everywhere. And no thank you for making it I love these kinds of debates
Pirates vs. Ninjas!

Ok. .. 1- Pirates do in fact have better weaponry. They had way more diverse weaponry, and many many different types of swords, all with different strengths and functions. At first glance the pirate could easily shoot the ninja and kill it. Their armor was not bulletproof if they even had any, and it is nearly impossible for a katana to slice through a heavyset blade like a cutlass. You can slice, chop AND kill with almost any sword. You can chop, slice, and kill with a kitchen knife. Samurai armor wasn't even close to impenetrable, and they left their right arms almost uncovered so they could unsheathe their swords faster. The ninja's form of grenade filled with pepper products and glass would not kill. An explosive made of iron, gunpowder, and nails would be much more effective and powerful. Not all pirates used brute force, they had to be nimble to climb up ropes and quickly board ships in broadside combat. Cunning and speed can't do anything against a 720 mph bullet flying at your head. Finally, a rocket launcher is a long-range weapon which would be totally useless in a melee battle unless you planned on also annihilating yourself in the process. 2- If that fact is true, then how could feudal Japan have ninjas if they are so few and far between? Training to be a ninja seems like a suicide mission to me. You claim they don't need to hide in the shadows, but if a ninja lost its ability to hide and was left in an open field with a brutal, skilled warrior like a pirate, there's no way it could win. Especially not without a gun. A sword through the heart? The pirate has a sword as well, and a bigger one too. 3- Money was the base of society in the Georgian and feudal time periods. They stole it and became rich because they had the power and guts to do so. They rebelled against what they thought was wrong and stood up for what was right. They went by their own rules, and got rich as kings because of it. 4- Pirates did get scurvy, but this was a very rare occurrence. They used rum to celebrate. And why would a pirate with scurvy be launched into battle? That makes no sense. Also, according to UCLA's medical field, scurvy is caused by severe vitamin C deficiency, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with rum. 5- Pirates did have very good aim, in fact. They were trained vigorously and had a lot of experience with shooting and marauding. "Spreadshot" is not a word, but I think you mean the gun shoots multiple bullets at once in a large area. Their guns were NOTHING like that. Their guns were usually pistols and the occasional musket. A ninja would be seen by the pirate easily- they aren't blind. A black suit can't camouflage anywhere except in the dark, really. Finally, if a pirate knows he is being followed, he would have all arms ready, making it near impossible to have your head chopped off without any resistance.
Pirates vs. Ninjas!

Okay so for your first argument 1: Pirates Have Better Weaponry? The pirates sword is a (Typically) A carved blade meant for chopping meanwhil the Ninjas Katana can Slice, Chop, and kill nearly anything. The Katana is known for shredding through Samurai Armor which was nearly impenetrable. The Katana could slice through the pirates sword and gun in an instant. Not only that but the Ninjas have a form of grenade too. It's called a pepper bomb which is a clay balled filled with crushed peppers, pepepr sauce, pepper powder, and shards of glass meant for taking out their opponents line of sight. The pirates usually expect brute force so the ninjas Cunning and speed will throw them off. Ninjas don't have guns but they have a form of rocket launcher where they shoot a firework at their enemy. 2: Training to be a ninja 100 students who choose to train, 90 will die. This is not cowardice. And the point of the Ninja is an assassin. Which means they are meant for the shadows or sneak attacks but they don't need that. They are highly trained and skilled warriors. Also cannons are useless if they can't be aimed by the time you have a sword through your heart. 3: It doesn't matter who has more money. The pirates have no honor and steal it. 4: Actually Pirates drank Rum and most likely because of their ways have scurvy which makes them weak and unable to fight. Meanwhile after a successful battle ninjas celebrate by drinking Saki which is much stronger then rum. 5: Pirates actually don't have impeccable aiming their guns are like shotguns where it is a spreadshot making it nearly impossible to miss but Ninjas are trained to expect anything and would not allow the Pirate to see them. Before the pirates even know their there the ninjas will have already chopped off all their heads.
Pirates vs. Ninjas!

Pirates are so much better than ninjas and would win easily in a fight. Here's my reasoning: 1- Pirates have way better weaponry. A gun and a sword are both more reliable than shuriken, some weird sharp pointy thing you throw from across the room. Pirates also have cannons and grenades to blow up the enemy and rip through ships. 2- Pirates are much more intimidating and strike fear into the hearts of their enemies, whilst ninjas sneak up on their enemies and hide in the shadows like cowards. 3- Pirates are rich, ninjas are broke. 4- Pirates have way more fun on the job, and they get to drink and steal and kill at will, though they do have to follow the captain which keeps them in check at times. Ninjas are stiff and don't even get to drink. 5- Pirates have brute strength which would top a ninja at any time. Their impeccable aim with guns would wipe out the ninja before he even had the chance to strike.