BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Police officer related deaths are exaggerated by the media and are not a widespread problem.

Good evening. I am opening a debate with the following argument: Police officer related deaths are exaggerated by extensive and misleading media coverage. Further, there is not a widespread problem of fatal force being used irresponsibly by police officers on a broad scale. I support this argument using statistics published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Additional sources include extracts and data sets from the Washington Post, NBC News, USA Today, and FiveThirtyEight. I am making this argument based on the following data points: There are ~800,000 full time, sworn officers at the time of this posting. https://www.bjs.gov... There are ~1,000 officer related deaths per year, on average, using 2016 as the most recent example. https://en.wikipedia.org... With these data points in mind, I come to the conclusion that 1 out of every 800 officers (0.125%) uses lethal force in a given year. Illustrating the chance of an individual being the victim of lethal force, assuming all elements and factors being equal throughout by pure statistical analysis, to being less than 0.2%. This conclusion stands counter to media portrayal over the last 6-18 months that attempts to create a widespread problem and breed mistrust of law enforcement officers when the data illustrates the contrary. Edit: Needed to reframe the timing regarding my argument. Revised.
An abusive government is better that no government at all.

Thank you for instigating an interesting topic. In all the history of man, there has never been a society that was devoid of government. Society necessitates leaders from its roots, children are born as subordinates to their parents, there are alphas and betas with their own defined roles dictated by "elders" or leaders of such clans and groups. In short, even the family unit is a form of government itself. We can then only logically conclude that government is inherently necessary to society, and thus, there is no dichotomy in the debate, as it is impossible for there to be no form of government at all within a family. Even within an anarchy, by the nature of human beings, when people form groups, there will be followers and leaders within them. Even if the group performed under direct democracy, it is a form of government making decisions and leading the group. For this debate to be brought into meaning, we must then establish the specific context of what "government" entails. I am assuming for our purposes, we are debating macro governments, eg. "formal" governments that rule countries spanning several communities. My argument will not be to criticize existing governments and will be value-oriented, as Pro states in his OP. The biggest flaw in the resolution and the OP that Pro makes is that he does not qualify what "abusive" means (or can mean) in the context of this debate. For instance, if there is a government that consists of tyrants that give no rights at all to its citizens and treats them like livestock, killing them arbitrarily, enslaving them, toying with them for their amusement, it would be an abusive government; and for all purposes of this debate, it is easily preferable that there is no government at all than systematically being bound to torture and depravity.
An abusive government is better that no government at all.

Human life has changed exponentially over the past 10,000 years where people are being more connected than ever, this sense of group living has led to all sorts of governmental bodies. However what if the governments we created become or are abusive, is it worth having the government at all? Please keep this debate more value oriented because that what it is intended to be. this is also not a debate to criticize existing governments however it is okay to use them as example in the debate I can't wait to see the out come as I am interested in this myself. Good luck and have fun!
Presidential Debate: Peter Griffin vs Eric Cartman

With only an hour left to respond I suppose now is the best time to respond.Jews, Wives, and the Emmy's.We can all agree that Hawaiians are terrible people. I'm not questioning that. But the special interests at work behind Mr. Griffin's defense of the Jews is obvious. His wife (that pizza nosed devil) is most certainly the brains (and the balls) behind my opponent's position. And we all know she's capable of twisting his arm to get what she wants. It was only a few years ago (at about the time of the Emmy's I believe) that I could hear from my window Mrs. Griffin physically abusing my opponent, forcing him to eat her red carpet. Now besides the disgusting nature of this act, it goes to show that Mr. Griffin doesn't wear the pants (or the footy pajamas) in his own home. Do we want to let our country be secretly run, from behind the curtains, by a maniacal Jewess or do we want strong anti-Jewish leadership to point our government in the right direction? It's your choice America.Love, Fear, and Legitimate Rape.Mr. Griffin's point here is easily refutable. Why must we show love to some backwards arse non-Americans just on the off chance that they might give us oral? Now in Mr. Griffin's case it's clear why he would think that's the best course of action. After all, he's only used to having sex with his gross, Jewess wife. I on the other hand understand that sex need not be consensual to be enjoyed (by me at least). Not only that but my plan is clearly in line with historical U.S. foreign policy. We're not used to showing love and then hoping to get what we want. We're used to barging in and taking it. Mr. Griffin would make the U.S. look weak if we were to bend to his hippie-dippy free loving ways.Drones, Crime, and Freeloaders.Besides the obvious disposition to hippie free love shenanigans by Mr. Griffin (as evinced by my last point), he is here showing the same pusssy footing character. His argument is a mere ruse in order to save the lives of random Afghan children and other innocents. I'll tell you right now though America that I'm not soft on crime, even if the criminal hasn't really done anything. Drone warfare works and we can make it work while simultaneously employing that segment of the private sector most susceptible to free loading and rampant unemployment, I'm speaking of course of gamers. Mr. Griffin obviously doesn't want America to be prosperous. Don't you? Vote the Cartman/God ticket if you do.Closing StatementsI'm just a boy, a boy who's never gotten drunk at work and who has shown a psychopathic affinity for disposing of people I detest whether that be hippies, Jews, or the enemies of America. I'm a boy who's not in the pockets of nagging Jewish wives. I'm a boy who's willing to ignore the pusssies who whine about whether an instance of oral sex was "consensual" or not. I'm a boy who will lead this nation to prosperity. (Also you'll go to Hell if you don't vote for me). Cartman/God for President.
Presidential Debate: Peter Griffin vs Eric Cartman

Israel.I am a staunch supporter of the State of Israel. Now one might ask why I would support such a lobstrosity (does anyone get the reference?....no? ok.) when I am in fact a raging anti-Semite. Lincolnwasn't the only racist allowed to try to deport the "problem minorities"[1]. Ethnic purity is a very important part of my campaign. Now apparently we're not allowed to kill problem minorities anymore ever since the liberal media thoroughly brainwashed everyone on the whole Hitler thing. So I figure the next best thing is to get rid of 'em. And what better way to do that then to drop them right in the middle of a country full of people who hate them? Seems like a fool proof plan to me.Love/fear.Who says it's better to be loved then feared? Love is overrated, fear is underrated. I want the world to fear the U.S. Therefore I propose no change in America's current foreign policy/interaction with other countries. We're the big, fat bully on the playground and it seems to be going great.Drones.Drone strikes are very important in today's technologically advanced imperiality. There are people in other countries who are mad at us (for some unknown reason) and would do us harm. What are we supposed to do? We have to kill them and what better way to do it than with an X-box controller? Not only do we keep our very brave soldiers out of harm (Afghan shephards are very dangerous you see) but we stimulate the economy by employing gamer nerds.===Sources===[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Presidential Debate: Peter Griffin vs Eric Cartman

Lannan13: Gun ControlThe Sandy Hook shooting was clearly a very sad event for many families. After I heard about it I immediately went to consult my VP candidate God on the theological repercussions of such a tragedy. He assured me that, while a tragedy in itself, the Sandy Hook shooting was a necessary evil for the facilitating of a greater good. He was not at liberty to disclose what that good was but he assured me that as an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God, that he wouldn't allow anything to occur unless it was either good in itself or contributed to a greater good. Now whether that good is a cure for AIDS or global nuclear disarmament, it can't be looked at as purely negative. Gun control isn't the answer, faith is.But on to my broader views on gun control, I favor a lax government policy in regards to the owning and distributing of firearms. God will make everything work out for the best. Of course my position is basically the same as my opponent's (though his has no theological underpinnings so he's a damned heretic) so I see no reason to continue on this issue.Roylatham: Outsourcing.Outsourcing is bad I suppose. The way to beat it is to make America more attractive to investors. We can do this with a lot of things. Whether getting rid of lazy hippies who don't contribute to the GDP[1] or forcing Jews to give up their unused Jew gold[2] to use for productive purposes, I have plenty of past experience in this area. We need to make America an attractive place to invest and do other good things. Economic nationalism was a huge part of Nazi economic policy and my ties to such make me a great choice here[3]. My opponent's wife on the other hand is a Jewess[4] so we can can clearly see that he wouldn't have the chin-balls to do what is needed, making his point conjecture at best and lying at worst.Cody_Franklin: Religion.On the topic of religion, the Eric Cartman ticket is the clear choice since I have the support of the God Almighty himself. Of course some liberal atheist haters might conjure this up to mean that I have something against non-religious or non-Christian people. This is sort of true. I don't favor denying them legal rights but neither do I think we'll be seeing them in Heaven. The best thing to do is just accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your Personal Savior. But then again that's another debate entirely. This is politics. Atheists and Jews watch your back and you'll be fine.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.southparkstudios.com... [3] http://www.southparkstudios.com... [4] http://familyguy.wikia.com...
John McCain is not a conservative

Economy- McCain does have a good record of being fiscally conservative and has run his entire campaign on cutting pork. However, McCain holds several ideals that are blatantly not conservative. For instance, he favors cap-and-trade and organizations that restrict free trade, like NAFTA. McCain wants to keep the death and estate taxes, unlike EVERY conservative. He is fiscally responsible, but that isn't enough to make him a conservative on the economy. Immigration- Everyone from Hillary to Fred wants to secure the border first. This isn't a conservative principle but a universal one. McCain-Kennedy gave amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants. Whatever you want to call it, it gives illegals a special path to citizenship, which is amnesty. Whether or not the conservatives are right, McCain isn't one of them. That is the topic. There are a slew of issues where McCain is liberal that we haven't even mentioned. Judge Appointments- McCain was part of the notorious 'Gang of 14', which denied Bush's court appointments an up or down vote and supported the Democrats move toward using filibusters on appointees. Free Speech- McCain-Feingold limited individual rights and states rights. It slapped federal restraints on the abilities of individuals to donate money to their causes while not doing much to stop the donations from PACs and lobbyists. Foreign Policy- While McCain supports the surge and makes a lot of conservative headway there, the majority of his views are non-conservative. He is for shutting down Guantanamo and ending torture completely. Again, whether or not you agree isn't the question, but rather, whether or not he is conservative. Record- We keep hearing from the McCain camp that he has this great conservative voting record of something like an 85% lifetime from the American Conservative Union. But, look at his recent record. Last year, McCain had a 65, third lowest amongst Republicans only beating out Arlen Specter. We hear that he has continually crossed the aisle to get things done, which would be great. But, when does McCain bring Dems to the conservative cause? McCain has continually taken liberal positions, especially on bills that he has personally championed, like Kennedy and Feingold as well as his work with Leiberman. Why doesn't the Senator pull the cause the other way sometimes? He has to take more conservative positions because he is from a red state. If McCain was from a purple or blue state he might just have a D after his name.
John McCain is not a conservative

John McCain is a conservative, and here is why 1.economy he voted down the Bush tax cuts because he believed that it did not reduce spending. he pushed a plan that lowered taxes and spending. this is his fiscal policy. It focuses on lowering government spending and taxes. this is a conservative viewpoint http://www.johnmccain.com... 2.amnesty john mccain has a moderate stance on immigration. he supports the republican great wall of america (c). he supports a more advanced border. both of these are conservative stances. what mccain supports is not amnesty, but advancement. He wants education for children and cheap labor for businesses ( which is most definitely a conservative stance )He supports immigration, but wants legal immigration. the die-hard core republican stance ( which i belong) believes in NO amnesty, which means deporting children in school, cheap labor, and those that need medicine help. this is a dark mark on republicans that borders on inhumane and UNAMERICAN. When looking at john mccain, he is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. he is not liberal, but American. if this is the best argument you can make, then i feel you do not understand what it means to be conservative.
John McCain is not a conservative

John McCain is not a conservative and should barely be considered a republican. I'm so sick of him crying out for my support just because he has an R after his name. McCain is continually and extremely liberal on all of the major issues that conservatives care about with the exception of life. On amnesty, McCain-Kennedy took one of the most liberal positions possible on the issue, allowing over 20 million illegal immigrants safe passage to easy citizenship. On tax cuts, McCain is the only Republican running not for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has also voted to raise taxes numerous times and is in favor of keeping the death tax. These are just a few examples. Whether or not you agree with conservatives is not the question. I just want to know how McCain can justify appealing to conservatives on anything more than the 'lesser of two evils' plea.
John McCain is not a conservative

Economy- I am confused. You state McCain is not conservative enough on economy yet name only one issue. You ignored McCain's reasoning to the estate tax. He thinks a repealing of the estate tax further perpetuates unfair taxation. He may be wrong, but his reasoning behind supporting the estate tax is he wants to lower unfair taxation. This is conservative reasoning. Furthermore, the estate tax is NOT a heavy burden. So far he is very conservative. Not to mention you ignored by Free Trade argument. Immigration- First, the Reagan issue. Ronald Reagan is called THE republican, THE conservative. So he is not 100% conservative, does that mean he is not conservative. My claiming this, you just made it easier for me. McCain doesn't have to be 100% conservative to be conservative. Second, you are mistaken to think conservatives are staunchly against immigration and making it easier. Conservatives are against illegal immigration, but not against legal immigration. (that would be un-american). Why would conservatives be against making legal immigration easier? This is what McCain supports. Judge Appointments- "Don't confuse Republicans with conservatives" So McCain not voting republican should be a non-issue right? McCain, if you read what I said, by being in the Gang of 14, stopped the democrats from fillibustering. "Conservatives were making a move to ban filibusters on judges on the whole" You just proved McCain was conservative. Rights- The right to bear arms is more pressing than campaign donations. McCain supports the more controversial issue as a conservative. So he has not, as you say, abandoned the cause. However, the right to donate money is not really a "right". I don't see how stopping people from effectively lobbying is a liberal stance. Foreign Policy- Torture. He doesn't support it. Why? Because he was tortured as a POW. But fine, he does not take the most conservative stance on torture.He takes the most conservative stance on the LARGER issue...war. So he is not 100% conservative. This does not make him not conservative. Record- His record does not matter because we are not debating what the ACU thinks he is but what we think he is. He can be 99% conservative and 50 be 100% while 50 are 0%. He is still conservative. He was actually ranked in the 80's on the ACU scale. He was actually, in your ranking, about mid-way between conservatives in congress. Get your facts straight sir. What is the number one thing we see McCain championing. The troop surge in Iraq. Lower Spending and Taxes. Border wall. His top three are all conservative.
smoking should be made illegal and not just discouraged

spending money on cures? do you even know what sickness smoking will cause. it's coronary heart diseases, cancer, lung diseases and many other sickness. do they even have a cure? no. these diseases are called incurable diseases for a reason you know. we can find the cure but by the time the doctors have found the cure, many lives would've flown away to heaven. even if we want to find the cure for the disease, it would cost a huge amount of money. we don't know how much experiments will be needed and how long it will take. they need to constantly buy new chemicals for the experiments. finding cures are much more expensive than targeting cigarettes. you know there's a saying that prevention is better than cure. and in this case, prevention is cheaper than cure.
smoking should be made illegal and not just discouraged

yes people will still smoke. but they won't if the supply of cigarette are completely stopped to the country. sure there will be some black markets selling cigarette illegally but the number of smokers will definitely reduce by a lot. any way, who cares if they lose job, they get their job from selling toxic substance harmful to both the consumers and the environment anyway. if they maintain that job, more lives can be in danger due to the toxic in cigarette. they deserve that. the longer they do their 'job', the more harm they do to others. not only to smokers but to people around them and to wards the environment and why would drug smugglers make more money if it's illegal? smokers can still be sent to rehabilitation institutes. which is exactly why smoking should be made illegal.
religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief

Minority groups indeed should have the freedoms to exist. But this freedom does not include the state"s support of any of their beliefs or activities which directly conflict with that state"s own fundamental principles. We have chosen secularism in modern society over religious governance, because modern society has accepted the reality that religion conflicts with our education system, and it interferes with equality, and it reinforces segregation within larger society, and ultimately stands in the way of social integration. Any charity that seeks to promote a viewpoint that conflicts with the state"s own aims and responsibilities is using up resources that could be utilised by charities that actively promote the goals of the state. The goal of the state is to ensure that every person has a community of friends and social circles that educate them to see beyond the illogical and divisive proponents that religious organisations reinforce. If a tax relief is to be given then it should be given to community integration organisations. If such tax relief capital is withheld from religious charities, then this would send the right message out to its citizens in making it clear that it is wrong to differentiate between a fellow human/citizen on the basis of their religion/colour/creed etc.. A charity that supports a specific cause such as disability or lifeboats etc do not have the hugely detrimental societal mistrust that religious education and religious segregation does. The underlying point in my proposition is that it is illogical for the state to provide financial support for organisations that are fundamentally (albeit more often now well disguised) causing a hindrance to the state"s aim of a equal opportunity and unified integrated society. The state has to actively reform the powers that keep society so divided. To clarify my point lets use an imaginary religion called "truegodianityislajudabudiism" If this organisation benefits financially from the state, and then builds exclusive prayerhouses, schools, sports centres, scholarships etc that exclusively benefits members of that particular faith. Surely the state"s primary duty is to provide improvements that benefit society indiscriminately, and not to benefit communities who arrogantly and harmfully remain detached from wider society. The state unequivocally should not provide financial assistance to religious charities who would refuse to allow for eg transgendered, Eskimo, mentally retarded, aids sufferers etc people to benefit from their resources whereas all of the above are supposed to have equality of resources/opportunities according to our states" core belief irrelevant of whether or not they won the lottery of being born into a "truegod"ism" community. I look forward to hearing your next discussion points""".
religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief

religious charities serve the purpose to provide charity to the needy within their own religious communities. we live in a secular society in which we strive to ensure that all citizens possess the same rights and obligations as each other, irrelevant of religion race standing etc our government has a duty to uphold this secularism in the interest of maintaining a fair society. our govt can certainly not support organisations such as religions whose interests serve only divided segments of our citizens. if a religious organisation wants to organise charitable collections, then they must be audited to ensure that the benefit of the charity goes to a wide spectrum of a nations/communities' people and certainly not distributed as loyalty/reward points to a private members' club.