BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justin Bieber should be Deported.

BOP: PRO is making the claim, therefore PRO has the burden of proof. Structure: Because PRO is making the claim, my only responsibility is to refute what he's proffered. So, I'll do just that. I. Moral Turpitude, and the Law Regarding Immigrants My opponent never made the explicit connection between any action Bieber has been allegedly accused of, and those accusations constituting crimes of moral turpitude. And, even if he could, if the foundational principle of the US criminal justice system that all are necessarily innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is to hold true, then even if my opponent could make that connection, it would be irrelevant, because Bieber has not been convicted yet. II. Moral Turpitude, and No Special Treatment For Fame In prematurely advocating for Beiber's deportation, my opponent's argument is not only presupposing a kind of special treatment for Bieber, he is doing so at the expense of the US criminal justice system's universally applicable foundation of presumed innocence before guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This is due to the fact that in deporting Bieber prior to his conviction, guilt must be presumed, and doing so would constitute a form of "special treatment" insofar as Bieber's being deported would constitute an arbitrary and improper application of due process of law. III. Felony Charges Let's be clear when we draw the distinction between "charges" and "convictions" such that the former are not the latter, but my opponent's arguing that Bieber should be deported now necessarily conflates the two. Only after conviction, and the prior proceeding of a trial pursuant to the fair application of due process could Bieber be justifiably deported. Bieber has not been tried, nor has he been convicted -so, mention of something which could only come as a consequent which would follow only as the consequent of a sentencing which ordered Bieber's deportation is an arbitrary exercise of due process wholly devoid of foundation. Conclusion: My opponent never actually substantiated any connection between any charge of which Bieber has been accused to any crime which constitutes an act of moral turpitude. Even if he had, it would be irrelevant because charges are not convictions. So, even given the allegations, until Beiber is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, to deport him is to violate due process of law at the expense of one of US law's foundational principles -that of presumed innocence. Peace and Love, YYW
VEVO on youtube

Despite the Creative Commons Attribution, it still involves having to, in my opponent's own words "get around VEVO". If you have to "get around" something, then it is clear that it is an obstacle, barrier, or difficulty to begin with. And an obstacle, barrier, or difficulty must by definition hinder [1]. If these things are true, than I am forced to conclude that, because VEVO requires the use of strategy and various loopholes to get around, it is in fact an obstacle to artistic expression. Additionally, even with the Creative Commons Attribution, it does still require someone to get written permission, so I assume that my opponent concedes that the use of VEVO material does, no matter what, require written permission. Youtube has always been advertisement based; I never proposed to prove that it wasn't. My point was simply that VEVO is a significant increase in advertising. I also stated, which my opponent failed to address, that VEVO represents a change in the way that advertising is done on youtube (commercials instead of the less imposing side bar ads). This is annoying to many users [2]. Though that may seem like a stupid or insignificant reason to argue against something, allow me to point out that the entire point of youtube is to please the users—annoying them is the EXACT opposite of the intended result, so VEVO is entirely counterproductive for youtube in this way. I don't particularly want to accuse my opponent of dishonesty, as he has done now twice to me (though I did acknowledge that I had made a mistake initially), so I will just chalk up his lack of knowledge of different kinds of ads as a misunderstanding, instead of deceit. I'm unable to find a comprehensive guide to lengths of VEVO ads, so I will be speaking from my own experience. There are many different ads on VEVO, which range from lengths of about 15 seconds to 2 minutes. For MOST OF the ads under 45 seconds-1 minute, there is no skip this ad button; for SOME OF them there are. For nearly all of the ads over a minute, you have the option to skip the ad. However, the lengths of ads is not particularly relevant to my argument, so it's really a non-issue. My point was dealing with advertising as a whole; my argument doesn't become invalid dependent on ad length. My opponent points out that VEVO is one among many corporations that use youtube; this is true. However, there is a very important difference between the users listed by my opponent and VEVO: Sesame Street, JibJab, the British Monarchy, and the White House are producing their own material, as opposed to purchasing rights to material made by others as does VEVO. Though those listed are not a user in the sense that it is not just one person, they are still creating their own material, artistic or informational, instead of profiting off of the products of others. This is why these users do not threaten the integrity of youtube in the same way VEVO does. Thank you to the Pro for this creative and interesting topic, and have fun with your CC-BY. :) 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.musicbyday.com...
VEVO on youtube

My Opponent has said that Vevo limits the uploading abilities of people, But a New update ( new as in June 2, 2011) YouTube has a Umbrella license of sorts called "Creative Commons Attribution" which you can select upon upload[1]. "YouTube's recent addition of the Creative Commons licensing option just made it a whole lot easier to make mashups without stepping on anyone's stiletto-sporting toes" [2] It is a very interesting developmental that can get around vevo, because you know that someone is going to get permission and post that with the CC-BY, allowing everyone to use that, or eventually vevo itself bay use CC-BY!. Though youtube for four years "Before being purchased by Google, YouTube declared that its business model was advertisement-based" [3]. Vevos nothing more then just another advertiser, and that is what it still is. After the Google take over, the advertisement have become bigger just remembering in my own youtube using years. Vevo is just a little expansion, which is just a bump. It doesn't relay hurt much, and it works. And My opponent is still exaggerating, the skip add buttons comes up after 5 seconds. I check just moments ago on "rolling in the deep." the adds are hit and miss also. My opponent brings up the point that Vevo isn't a User, but a corperation... well neither are these guys you may have heard of: JibJab: http://www.youtube.com... The British Monarchy: http://www.youtube.com... Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com... SesameStreet: http://www.youtube.com... Shout we kick all of them of the youtube too? sure they dont have the advertising that the VEVO does, but I know Obama has streamed several speeches on youtube, and Advertised a bit too. Just because one shouts more then others, It doesn't mean you should shut up the loudest, you need to shut them all up. Its been a fun debate, Vote Pro. Godspeed. (now I am going to go play with this new CC-BY) Sources- [1]http://youtube-global.blogspot.com... [2] http://www.engadget.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
VEVO on youtube

Though I do not dispute that the issue of the cost of running youtube is relevant to VEVO's involvement, I do not think that this is really the point of the debate. Youtube had been running for about 4 years before VEVO ever came into the picture [1], and it was doing fine for itself. The solution to these expenses is not to compromise the integrity of this site altogether. I absolutely agree that the world does not need three copies of each music video on one site; but I don't think it's a big enough deal if these videos exist in triplicate, to necessitate a corporate giant preventing other users from using the music in different ways. My opponent has stated that all one needs to do to use this music is write that you don't own the rights in the description; allow me to correct this misunderstanding. According to VEVO, to use the material owned by VEVO you must obtain written permission [2]. My opponent, by saying that you simply need to write an extra sentence in the description, is minimizing the difficulties associated with using the music. In reality, you must contact VEVO and get express, written permission any time you wish to simply use a song in the background of your creative work. I hold my position that this will interfere with artistic expression. I apologize for my inaccuracy in the point I made about advertising; it is true that for many of the longer ads, you have the option to skip the ad after the first twenty seconds or so. And I did not mean to suggest that EVERY video has an ad, because of course that isn't true. Nevertheless, the ads that are present are annoying to users. It's not that the users can't stand to lose twenty seconds before they watch a video; it's just that that's not the point of using the internet, which was supposed to be a way to instantly access content. At the rapid rate advertising in the form of commercials (not just pop ups or side bars) is taking over the internet, it won't be long before ads are forced upon users before they can access anything. This affects not just youtube, but other sites as well. My opponent has misunderstood my third point, thinking that I was simply restating my first point. This is not the case. The point I was trying to make is that, when content is generated by the users of a site, the site has more integrity than when a corporation is posting content purely for the purpose of making a profit. I'm not saying that somehow VEVO prevents users from posting videos at all (though as I stated in my first point, it does hinder it), I'm saying that a user-generated site should not be overrun by corporate giants using it as a moneymaking scheme. The idea of a site "by you, for you" is the original intent of youtube. VEVO is not a person like you and I, therefore it does not belong on this type of site. It is changing what youtube was supposed to be about. Though VEVO does generate revenue, it does so at the expense of the principles that youtube was founded on. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://blog.vevo.com...
VEVO on youtube

Welcome to the debate! Lets back up for a second ad look at YouTube. Youtube is a very fast growing website [1], with over 48.2 million users[2] and no one actually knows the number of videos live on youtube, because it grows so rabidly on an Internationale scale. In a 24 hour period Google spends over $2,000,000 a day just to run youtube[3]. And how many people do you know who actually take their old videos down off youtube? Lets just say that every user has an average of three Vieos (which is probably way low) but this would come out to 144,600,000 videos, and lets say they average 5 Megabits (also very low) and that is 706054.6875 Gigabytes. that is 70 1 terabyte hard drives. and given this is probably a way low number, imagine what they need to keep all this running! This is where VEVO comes in. Large Corporations need to make compromises, and VEVO brings in some money through their contract with google and some with advertising, at the same time slowing down the rush of incoming videos just copying the original video. though they exist, The world doesn't need three of the same music video for "Not Afraid" by Eminem And as my opponent brought up, yes they will kick and scream is you use their music in your video, the only thing you need to do to get around this is saying in the description "I do not own the music rights to this video". My opponent also brought up the point of the Advertisements. He seems to have exaggerated a little bit, I just went through the top five songs on the Billboard.com's Hot 100, and on the vevo channel, not one had an advertisement. the Only advertisement I have seen all day was for Not afraid by Eminem, and that one was 15 seconds for a 4 minuet video, and from what I've seen, anything over 20 seconds has a "skip this add" button. Next my opponent says that VEVO keeps youtube away from being a User generated site. Again I say, as long as you deny the that you own the music in the video, you can keep it up. Vevo Brings in some money to balance out the budget keeping Youtube running. Sources [1 ]http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.numberof.net... [3] http://pulse2.com...
VEVO on youtube

The issue at hand is whether VEVO is positive or negative. I will be arguing that VEVO's influence is predominately negative as it pertains to its involvement on youtube. I will now present three points: 1. VEVO hinders artistic expression: because the music controlled by VEVO requires special licensing, this music is unable for use of the common person. For example, if someone wants to make a video and use music controlled by VEVO for the background, they are required to acquire a license or else risk copyright infringement. This is unfair because most of the people who want to use this music are simply trying to express an artistic point, and are now being forced to edit their original work by choosing other music that simply is not quite right. 2. VEVO's excessive advertising discourages users: Oftentimes when one tries to watch a 3 minute long music video, they must first sit through a 45-second advertisement just to get there. To have to spend 1/6th of the length of the actual product watching a commercial is too much, and defeats the purpose of using the internet as a viable means of watching music videos. If you have to sit through commercials either way, why not just watch MTV? After all, you can do this from the comfort of your couch on a much larger screen, and with a similar commercial-to-music ratio. 3. The nature of VEVO threatens the integrity of youtube: The point of youtube is that it is a user-generated site. Individuals are supposed to share videos with one another, be it music they like, clips of shows, or their own creative works. They are meant to interact on a personal level, independent of any kind of economic motivation. VEVO, on the other hand, is a corporation; they are there to make money. They do this through their exclusivity in the material they control and through their aforementioned advertising. This is simply unfair to the nature of youtube; it is now driven by capitalism, instead of actual interest in different music or material. These are the points I present as an argument against VEVO's involvement in youtube. Thank you. Resources: . http://www.guardian.co.uk... . http://www.ghacks.net...
We are all racists

and to all viewers. I hope this has been an enjoyable, informative debate. On to the arguments! First off, my opponent says that he accepts my definition, but also refer to his own. Given that he does agree with mine, please use mine as the definition for the debate. He agrees with my take on the social contract, and states himself that people are tribal by nature. He then goes on to say that we identify ourselves as better than everyone else. This is not always the case. (Again, please refer to the resolution. My opponent must prove that ALL people are racist. ) As an American, I hold national pride. I am proud to live where I do. That does not mean that I hate the English, the Scots, or the Africans, simply because of their race! If a particular Englishboy tries to fight me, and takes agressive actions towards me, I may discriminate against him by refusing to help him with his math homework. I am not discriminating against him because he is English, but because he wronged me. I do not look at people simply by their race, but by their humanity. They are humans. I DO NOT discriminate against ANYONE simply because of their race. The Germans were America's enemy in both world wars. So I must treat every German citizen as an enemy? Radical Muslims kill Americans, do I discriminate against all Muslim people? Absolutely not. (Although being a Manchester United fan, I might not associate with those disgusting Newcastle F. C. folk ;) Certainly, people often rally around their nationality, sports associations, or other groups. My opponent and I agree that people are soial by nature. Whenever I think of a certain group, it is true that I make certain connections between that person and past experiences with someone of that race. When I think Germans, I think brilliant scientists and Sham Wow. When I think Brazilians, I think amazing soccer (futbol) players. And when I think Arabs, I think of the Twin Towers. That last connection is very unfortunate. However, I still do not hate all Muslim people. OK, lets go with the soccer analogy. I am a Man. U. fan. Therefore, I am against Chelsae. If I see a Chelsae fan, I will not discriminate against them, even though our teams are rivals. That fan is a human, who has wronged me in no way. While we have differing tastes, I am not going to kill, hurt, or infringe on this person's rights. (Although you never know over there in England ;) My opponent goes on to accuse me of being racist based on two facts: "1 - My opponent is a human, and: 2 - Humans are by nature tribal. " I agree completely, in fact I stated this in my first speech. Yes, I am human. Yes, humans are tribal (social) by nature. The point? As has been stated, I DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHERS BASED ON RACE. I am sure that I also speak for many others when I say this, even though just myself would be sufficient to win this debate. Yes, I have pre-determined thoughts about certain races of people. Do I discriminate against them because of their race? Absolutely not. Because of this, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
We are all racists

Racism- 1 "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." 2 "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." Sir by calling me a racist, you are actively accusing me of these acts. I think you fail to understand what racism actually is. There is a large gap between stereotyping and racism. Stereotyping is the act of grouping certain types of people into pre-fabricated "boxes." Racism is the discrimination against them. The argument you give is asking me to match your examples, and if I am able to do so, then I am racist. I am fairly confident that I can complete all of them. However, I am certainly not racist. I AM stereotyping. Look to John Locke's social contract, where he says that people are social by nature, and tend to form groups. This creates nationality. Therefore, one can refer to a group of people without being racist, even if and though they form ideas in their head about them. Some choose to discriminate against those groups, THAT is racism. Seeing as you and I have never met, you know almost nothing about my life nor my habits, you cannot possibly accuse me of being racist. Yes, I can match your examples. No, I do not hate the people simply because I know some common characteristics about them. That is the difference between racism and simply referring to a people group. So, since your resolution says that WE ALL are racist, it simply cannot be true since I am not. I do not know if you discriminate against people simply because of their nationality, but I do not. Since I am part of WE, I need not even prove why anyone else is not racist, since I am enough. I hope this has opened your eyes a bit to the actual definition of racism, and I hope that you refrain from commiting racist acts. Thank you for your time, have a good day!
We are all racists

Hey you! Yes you - reading this. You are a racist! Oh, yes you are, and if you don't like being called a racist, sue me and I'll take you for every penny you've got (provided I win this debate which will form part of my legal argument, so please vote for me folks otherwise I'll be bankrupted). You see, it doesn't matter from which ethnic group you originate or how politically correct you like to think you are, the fact is, each and every one of us is a racist. To illustrate my point, please be kind enough to participate in the following exercise. Below is a list of ethnic groups and a list of character traits. See if you can match them up. A - Jews B - Irish C - Americans D - Italians E - Germans F - Afro-Caribbeans H - Gypsies G - French I - English J - Arabs 1 - like obeying orders, no sense of humour 2 - thieves, violent by nature 3 - treacherous businessmen, careful with money 4 - lazy, dishonest 5 - excitable, gesticulate wildly 6 - loud, vulgar 7 - religious fanatics, terrorists 8 - old-fashioned, arrogant 9 - romantic, cowardly 10 - heavy drinkers, not very bright Be honest, you were able to match up at least two or three of those without any trouble at all, weren't you? This means that your brain has made a link between that ethnic group and certain human characteristics, often negative ones. So, whether or not you suppress these prejudices, they nonetheless exist which makes you, like every one of us, a racist. Thank you.
World Goverment will give Advantage

I will follow up with my refuting statement Pro argues that world government "makes world in peace", while in actuality it should be "peace that makes world government". It is absurd to claim that America and Russia will suddenly form a joint coalition while they are still trading blows about Crimea, or that China and Japan will suddenly become allies while they are currently fight over Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Just as unlikely it is for China and Japan, Jews and Muslims forget the drops of blood that has been spilled in past conflicts. For a world government to be formed therefore, mutual respect and understanding must develop between all races, cultures and religions. All war must end as well. Therefore peace is a premise for world government and not the other way around. "We are not focused on one region". This is not necessarily true. Post World War II, the United States was the major industrial giant (along with the Soviet Union) while Europe lay recovering from its wounds. The US then established new rules of global commerce and trade that would be beneficial to itself (at least in that period of time). If the world government was instituted, the more powerful countries would strive to ensure that they would secure a favorable place in the right society. Just as the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France are the most powerful countries in the United Nations, as they were the victors of WWII. This will, along with the economic inequality previously mentioned, serve to only exacerbate the tensions among the once countries. It would not be able to maintain peace. Cultures, religion and political ideology will also continue to raise tensions. Just as citizens in Quebec wishes to separate from Canada because of different culture and civilians in Taiwan separated (or wants to separate, depending on which side of the globe you are on) from China because they had different views on how to run a country, so will regions of the world government. In conclusion, it is both unlikely and impractical for humans to unite under the banner of the world government.
World Goverment will give Advantage

why i should agree with this, Actually we know that if we have world Government we, our world will be in peace and we easily develop many region, because we aren't focus on one Region. and the definition in world government http://en.wikipedia.org... so we will elaminated all nation, and we just have government. so there are no many country. and this will make world in peace (remember in this round we aren't have any rebuttal)