BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Police should be called if a person with a mental illness has a problem

Police should be called if a person with mental illness has a problem. Those who are mentally ill are often violent, and police officers have the means to subdue them in order to get them the help that they need. Very few police officers actually kill anyone in the line of duty. There are upwards of 800,000 sworn police officers in the USA, and out of those around 1,100 use deadly force. That is 1 out of every 727 or 0.0013% nationally. Those who suffer from mental illness and are at the point that they are displaying violent tendencies, will often lash out at those closest to them. Often times, that will be a parent or sibling. A male that is 6'3" and 250 lbs can manhandle a female that is 5'4" and 140 lbs. There is nothing that female can do, and they certainly can't force the person to seek help, much less take their meds. Heck, most males can't single handedly take care of someone that size that is in a mental state where they feel no pain. The police can help. Besides, many police departments, especially in larger population centers, tend to have access to counselors and social workers that can be used as a resource to get the person some much needed help. A taser is the best tool that can be used to take down a violent mental patient, without the need of deadly force. Once down and incapacitated, they can be handcuffed and transported to the hospital. That means that neither the patient, the police, nor family/friends risk injury having to fight a combative mentally ill person. If a mentally ill person has gone over the edge and is exhibiting imminent danger to the public (think voices telling him to kill in the name of God), then YES the police need to be called. There is a chance that the situation will end violently, but it is better than letting the person run rampant on the public. Police do not shoot to kill, but to neutralize a threat as a last resort. However, their actions will be dictated by the person they received a call about. If they show up and he opens fire as soon as they step out of the car, the police go from level 1 to level 6 on the force continuum instantaneously. Lastly, I am a police chaplain and trained in various aspects of counseling. I have lost count of the number of people that I have helped or talked down from a volatile situation. I can promise you that calling the police is a wise choice.
Police should be called if a person with a mental illness has a problem

Police should not be called, as police are here to enforce laws using violence, not peacefully. People with a mental illness should be consulted by a therapist. People with a mental illness would need a relaxing situation, and support; if you were to call a police officer, it would likely cause a ruckus, potentially upsetting the person. In a situation where a person with a mental illness needs help, think about what would be best for them.
Abortion should continue to be allowed

Many republicans are against abortions. While I do not stand clearly in one party, I disagree with these republicans. The most simple reason that I believe in abortions is this. If your family member is dying and needs blood or organs, and you are the only one who can give it to them, no one can force you to donate. When people die, their organs cannot be donated unless they said before death that they could. This is called bodily anatomy. We have a right to our bodies and no one can take that away. But we expect pregnant women to give up the rights to their bodies for those nine months while they carry the baby. We give less bodily anatomy to pregnant women than to dead bodies. Another reason that I believe in abortion is that I feel that there are many instances where if the child was born, it would have a horrible life. For instance, if a woman was raped at the age of thirteen, and she became impregnated, you cannot expect her to raise the child. That would ruin her life, and the child's life. Also, 90% of abortions are performed before the child becomes a human, while it is still just a bundle of cells. It has no heartbeat and no brain. It is not any where near being alive. This isn't killing, its preventing. Abortion does have its downsides, but it is still very necessary.
Abortion should continue to be allowed

1) I have deep empathy for any woman who finds herself in a scenario like Pro describes. Sexual assault is a terrible, evil crime and one can only imagine how difficult and scary it would be to live through that. But we must return to the central question - is the fetus a human or not? If it is (I believe it is, and Pro has not disputed this claim), then even the horror of rape is not justification to destroy a third, innocent human life. Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived by rape and carried to term by her victim mother, said: "When you make that rape exception, it's like you're saying to me that I deserved the death penalty for the crimes of my father. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, my father didn't even deserve the death penalty. The Supreme Court has said there is no death penalty for rapists. But you say that I, as the innocent child of rape, deserved the death penalty?" Rape is terrible. Carrying a rapist's child would be horrifically painful. Yet that pain still does not justify killing another human life. As Rebecca Kiessling said, even the rapist himself cannot be charged with the death penalty for his crime. Is this fair to the mother? No, but it's also not fair to kill an unborn child who has no ability to defend itself and took no part in the crime. The only way to justify abortion is to ignore the humanity of a fetus, which defies all scientific and logical evidence. 2) A fetus does not know its being killed and would probably end up dying anyway.... This continues to be a rather absurd and callous claim made by Pro. True, a fetus may not be consciously aware of death, but neither is a mentally disabled or sleeping adult. With this logic, we could also justify the killing of a sleeping teenager because she "wouldn't know she was being killed." Clearly this is not something anyone would advocate. Pro continues to assume that a mother can know that an unborn child will be mistreated and "end up dying anyway" after birth. This is impossible - I direct readers again to the example of Rebecca Kiessling, who was not aborted and is now a highly successful adult. In closing, I agree with Pro that we have rights as humans. Since, scientifically, logically, and legally, unborn children are also humans, they too have rights. As such, abortion is the killing of a human being endowed with human rights, which is largely unacceptable. Pro has not shown this claim to be false, so I ask the vote go to Con.
Abortion should continue to be allowed

I would like to point out, though while the Con has done an excellent job rebutting me, he did not give any more reasons why abortion is a bad idea. I will admit, though it wont help my case, that Con has very good points. But just imagine this, a thirteen year old girl has been sexually assaulted and impregnated. She's not allowed to get an abortion, so she must deal with trying to raise this child. Sure, you may be thinking that someone else could raise it, or she could give it up for adoption. But some people don't have anyone they trust to raise a child for them and even if they did, as a young girl, how are you supposed to make that decision? She would be scared. And I know from knowing of people in this situation, we're selfish. You wouldn't want to give up your kid, even if you don't want them. Also, Con has rebutted my case on bringing the child into a horrible life unwanted is better than dying. The embryo may be already developing, but according to recent studies . http://www.scientificamerican.com... babies do not have coherent thought while in the mothers stomach so they wouldn't know they are being "killed". Being born into a life where you are deserted or mistreated and you end up dying anyway for any reason is, in my opinion, way worse. At this point you understand the loss of life. I accept that the Con has a good debate, but I still will not change my mind on this issue. I believe in our rights as humans. Our rights to do what we want with our bodies, internally. I know others have different opinions, but this is mine. I hope people vote for mine.
An example of physical teleportation

I can teleport a bug to my location, I just catch one in the air, Or go pick one up from the ground Air is air anywhere there is air, And a bug anywhere in the air is a bug. You can teleport steam to your location anywhere there is water, Just boil it If you could make life from rocks, You could teleport any animal to your location with rocks If the water on mars is clear drinking water, Then drinking clear drinking water on earth is like drinking mars water, As clear drinking water is clear drinking water anywhere it exists I use the surface of the sea water at the shore, As a teleport, By standing there, To get to a place where i can see fish Filtering muddy pool water into clean drinking water, Is no different then teleporting clean drinking water to your location, As clear drinking water is clear drinking water anywhere it exists If 2 things are the same, They exist simultaniously in the universe, Like water droplets Equality is teleportation by simultanious equality of existence Something is something anywhere it is, Like an oak tree, Any oak tree is an oak tree anywhere it is Clear drinking water is clear drinking water where ever it exists
An example of physical teleportation

That isn't how it works in modern society. To teleport physically you would need you don't just find something somewhere move it and say that you have teleported it. Physical teleportation would consist of an object moving somewhere else without the use of physically touching something (besides the place the object is standing/resting on). One could argue however that through looking at a screen that shows a specific event, Such as a football game that this has been teleported to your current position but i disagree. This would not teleport the football game to you. also, Where is your argument? I only see a few sentences, Which does not help me to see your side of this argument.
An example of physical teleportation

I disagree, Because in today's minds, Teleportation is not simply catching something in the air, Or making something in a different area. Instead people believe that teleportation consists of something visually appearing in a different area without the use of movement by hand, Wings, Or any other form of movement. One way to portray this is through the use of "portals" or pushing a button that leaves your environment behind and takes you to a new one, Even if we have not discovered this form of technology yet.
Banter

What a shame. I think I do recall someone actually saying they are a fan of my debates on here, so I actually know for a fact that my opponent's statement in the previous round was wrong. I also play the guitar, and I have had people listen and like what I play, as you will find on my youtube page. (https://www.youtube.com...) Not only did my opponent lack evidence, but I have evidence in the contrary. Also, my opponent forfeited this round.
Banter

You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans You got no fans
Banter

Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter Banter
Those who seek the truth should study the bible

First thank you for the quick response. Also what about the things that the bible is wrong on such as saying the earth is flat, and also the sun revolves around the earth. Surely my opponent cannot be suggesting that our world is flat. Also the bible says that the earth is 5000 years old. Scientists have proven time and time again that the earth can scientifically not be only 5000 years old. Not to mention, logic flaws in the bible. If satan loves evil and controls hell, why does he punish evil doers? Shouldn't he reward them? I can not forget Noah's ark. Let's say hypothetically, Noah made the boat. Let's then say he got all animals onto it. Now explain to me how after a year of sailing the water drained away. That would mean that there was no plants on earth. They would have died from water overload. And sure, the bible does talk about how people's bodies rot after they die, but this could have been learned easily. The bible says that there is a garden of Eden on earth, but to this day no place like that has ever been found. As for your consistency argument why couldn't the first bible have been written and a writer sees it and then writes it in another language? Is that so hard for you to imagine? The bible does confirm something's but take the size of the bible. Could that not just have been, (not to be offensive) lucky guesses. I mean look above for examples of when the bible has been "not so right." For your history argument, could the bible have been written with time? More and more stories being added over time? Is there a specific date in the bible for when it was written? And also many of these success that are told from the bible some of them spring from common sense. Conclusion. So after reading and writing this I am questioning many things. Could the bible not be written by God and just by humans over time? And also, what do I learn from reading the bible
Discussion with A Religious Man

Con has no question. wasted this round wwithout evidence, throwing once again opinions as Facts. Sigh!Con himself is guilty of ALL the listed actions of the FLesh as are all of the readers ... yet insists there IS MORALITY?I am not here to listen to lies, imaginings and whinin! I offer you truth only! Not like Con opinion!Example can I prove that YOU ... ALL of you SIN? What have you hit your head? You already know you have taken something not yours, had sex out of wedlock, lied to get out of trouble, cheated on your taxes. My truthfulness is "NOT" in question!There IS NO MORALITY within the Human Race, never has been. A simple LOOK at your Government tells you that. If your Blind , that isn't MY FAULT.Like the fool Con resorts to MAN's truth which are imaginings guesses and lies. I present Gods Word ... Con presents Man's , Like I said at the beginning, ONLY Gods TRUTH IS truth.Believe, don't believe ... not MY Concern. Your decision your consequence!As there ARE no questions just whinings on this round. I leave the whiner to himself and his tantrum.
Discussion with A Religious Man

"nothing else you said means anything but excuses on your part and useless chatter!" - Do you even logic bro? I don't know if I should take you seriously now. "The Human Race must stipulate that from antiquity the ONLY possibilities has ALWAYS BEEN Creatinism/Evolutionism." - Prove it. Also, ever heard of pantheism? The Matrix Hypothesis? Solipsism? "Morality does "NOT" exist in Humanity!" - Fallacy of vague language? What do you mean by "Does not exist in humanity?" It either exists, or it does not. I'm not taking you seriously, especially after you disregard all the logical fallacies I pointed out with your "arguments" Here is some required reading/watching if you want me to take you seriously Logic 101 Course: Logical Fallacies: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Introduction To First Principles: An Introduction to Sophistry: Also, check out this. You committed these fallacies in round one: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Discussion with A Religious Man

Hey, before I ask any questions, I'll try to answer your question. To quote what you said,"The Question? NAME the Science or Scientists experiment that successfully CREATED from nothing an actual living animal capable of crawling OUT of the soup? ANSWER: NONE!" This is an example of an argument from ignorance fallacy. You've assumed that because a proven theory about abiogenesis hasn't come out, that your hypothesis about biogenesis must therefor be true. That is not how logic works. Next issue, "Meaning LIFE DID NOT have its ORIGIN from primordial soup at all! TO THIS DAY only 2 possibilities ... termed Creationists and evolutionists!" - This is a black-white fallacy. You've claimed that creationism and atheistic evolution via natural selection (evolutionists) are the only two viable explanations for the existence of life on earth, without giving a justification for this dichotomy. "HARD SCIENCE has EXHAUSTED EVERY METHOD and HAS FINALLY PROVEN FALSE the stupid Idea that LIFE began by a creature CRAWLING OUT of the Primordial ooze to BEGIN EVOLUTION! Thus The entire Globe fell for the Lie of evolution, a method that literally HAD NO BEGINNING?" - How do you know ever method has been tested? Also, evolution only deals with why life is the way it is. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis. "Now that you ARE AWARE that God Does indeed exists, meaning Hell and Heaven ALSO exists. Because LIFE did in fact come FROM God as there exists NO natural way for life to have come to earth!" - Again, this is an argument from ignorance. You assume that because the answer has not arisen, that your hypothesis is true. Also, your argument if everything you said was true/valid, would still be a non-sequitur. How do you know that God created heaven and hell, or that he even cares about humanity? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------MY QUESTION------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are things moral because God wills it, or does God will it because it is moral?
Discussion with A Religious Man

This is an opportunity for the unbeliever, perhaps even the Atheists to ask questions to a Man who unlike the MANY isn't wet behind the ears! Indeed with God to guide me I HAVE LAID TO REST THE LIE OF EVOLUTION with a SINGLE QUESTION (but the question of the Ages), the One that HAS SHUT THE MOUTHS of every Athiests From Darwin himself, to Dawkins and beyond!The Question? NAME the Science or Scientists experiment that successfully CREATED from nothing an actual living animal capable of crawling OUT of the soup?ANSWER: NONE!The lie began quite innocently ... LIFEThe LIE ... began when a creature crawled OUT of the primordial ooze?The FACT: FALSE. By experimentation from Darwin to the Scientists of TODAY- ALL methods FAILED to create ANYTHING capable of ACTUALLY CRAWLING OUT of ooze of ANYKIND! Meaning LIFE DID NOT have its ORIGIN from primordial soup at all!TO THIS DAY only 2 possibilities ... termed Creationists and evolutionists!HARD SCIENCE has EXHAUSTED EVERY METHOD and HAS FINALLY PROVEN FALSE the stupid Idea that LIFE began by a creature CRAWLING OUT of the Primordial ooze to BEGIN EVOLUTION! Thus The entire Globe fell for the Lie of evolution, a method that literally HAD NO BEGINNING? ... IT NEVER HAPPENED!this cannot be DISPROVEN because SCIENCE has FAILED to prove otherwise by millions of tests through the ages ALL FAILED to produce the origin of LIFE! The creature itself!YOU ... LOSE!yes you can whine, you can beat your chest ... BUT you can't produce LIFE from OOZE! It's just that SIMPLE!Now that you ARE AWARE that God Does indeed exists, meaning Hell and Heaven ALSO exists. Because LIFE did in fact come FROM God as there exists NO natural way for life to have come to earth!You can continue to deny God and DIE IN YOUR SIN- Going to HELL immediately at death.OR, you can at the VERY LEAST become AWARE that Hell IS REAL. and you NEED to ask the questions that will HELP you to seek God and Forgiveness before you die either by accident or otherwise!People DIE EVERYDAY ... you may NOT have time on your side! I am here to answer BY SCRIPTURE, not opinion whatever question you have!To believe or not is totally upon YOU. I can only offer you the TRUTH of God not the truth of Men!What questions do you have?
Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

Well, I was hoping to go against someone who did not believe in evolution. If you agree that evolution is true then what is the point of this debate? I mean it like a debate where I say Microsoft is better and you agree, but say that Apple and Microsoft can coexist (Just an example). I was not trying to imply that Christianity is not true. I was simply saying that it does not have much evidence. Of course it is completely compatible with evolution. God could have created the big bang or created the tiny little bacteria in the oceans easily. We are not discussing that. Also you did not write "Tiger" or was Vale your new word? I know the title says Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and what I meant by that is its more realistic than what it says in the bible, on how stuff was created. I think I need to start this debate again...