BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

Okay, I'm gonna start with 5 of my questions and use the other 5 after you answer these: 1. Do you believe in the efficacy of the scientific method? 2. Do you believe in God? (God being a causa sui entity possessing at least the qualities of omnipresence and omnipotence) 3. Are humans capable of making choices? (Choice being the willful initiation, or supression, of actions which decide between two or more possible outcomes) 4. Are humans responsible for their choices? (Basically, does it make sense to blame people for what they do) 5. Do you agree with the statement 'this statement is a lie'? By the way, I found the wording of your 12th rule suspicious, since it would be physically impossible to challenge you to this exact same debate, so unless you want to re-word that I am going to skip posting anything in round 2 because it only says that I have to challenge you to the exact same debate before I post my round 2 debate. If I don't post it, I'm golden either way.
create a better story than me in 12 hours

"Show us your passport and a license to fly a turbo powered sleigh," states Rosy with non-stop tapping of her hand. "I... I don"t have it with me. Please, you can"t arrest me! I"m an idol! A child"s dream!" states Santa, as a desperate attempt to avoid his inevitable arrest. "Sir, please get in the car!" exclaims Velma. "Look, how can you do this? Look into your Grinch infested heart and show me some Christmas spirit!",cries Santa. "Sir, the true Christmas spirit is when you follow the Constitution and travel the U.S.A as a legal immigrant, delivering items with a proper license," Velma explains to Santa, trying reach a compromise. Santa smiles at Velma, and with hands clenched tightly around his bag, he refuses to be cuffed. His rosy cheeks darken bright red when he overhears that the FBI is going to need more than one handcuff to cuff his obese size. "Sir, we are going to have to check what is in there. It seems like you have delivered 300 presents already, and according to your call to the North Pole...you are going to deliver all of these presents. We need to know what you are transporting," prevails Velma with a hopeful attempt. "This is my property! I refuse to let this go. My bag, my rights," states Santa, in a strict tone. Unfortunately, the FBI succeeded in an enduring attempt to snatch his bag. Receiving a rather psychotic thrill from this experience, Santa smiles a Grinch like smile. " Velma!" calls out Rosy "Santa delivers more than just toys and goodies. There is meth in some of the edible items, and hallucinogens that you can inhale in all the toys we have tested so far!" "I try my best to make a child happy," calls out Santa. Letting out a slight sob and sociopathic laugh, Velma notices an empty syringe titled "100 mg of Oxycodone" and a poke in her skin. This was my personal Essay and I used it for other occasions. This belongs to me. Should I extend my story or create a new one? The main idea of this story is that Santa is an illegal immigrant. Hope you enjoy.
vi is god, my word is a lie

iPads aren't mentioned in the Bible, but it does mention that humanity will be creating amazing tools and structures, in this case, the iPad. The Bible mentions that no one else has the power of God except God alone. God is the Creator, the Word, and the Savior. You have no right to imitate you're God, you have no right to tell people you're God, God is the one and only Holy One.
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

I agree with my opponents observation that says that the jury should judge the law and the facts. However, according to the definition I have provided from the U. S. Dictionary of Law, a jury who nullifies, takes into consideration the judge's comments, the crime commited, the set punishment for the crime, and the intention of the crime. The law. The facts. Now, my definition says they take this into consideration to reach their final verdict. The final verdict will NOT always be "charges dropped" According to Jurisdictionary: "if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. " If they drop charges the first time, if the crime is continually committed, the jury bases their verdicts off of the repeated attempts to prosecute, and the suspect WILL be punished. So! ! As I've said before. NO it's not very harmful if the jury bases their verdict off of their moral obligations and beliefs, as well as the law and facts, then it's likely they'll come to a reasonable verdict. Let me remind you, the resolution doesn't ask me to prove that nullification is GOOD, but instead, to prove that it is justified, which I have proven it to be.
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

i believe that this is my final rebuttal, so i will present conclusion and voter issues if the opponent wants to do the same. i have infact through out this whole case been trying to say that the jury should judge the law as well as the facts when a case is nullified all cahrges are dropped, like aquit or cleared..you cant nullify someone and still punish them.....besides that goes against your whole argument. "this is not neccessarily harmful." oh no not harmful when people are killed i have only one voter issue and that is that my opponent hasnt proven jury nullification to be a good thing. i feel as though i have proven jury nullification to be a harm to society and to be unjust so i ask everyone to vote negated, thank you
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

I'll rebut my opponents case and then rebuild my own case. I'd like to start out by clarifying one thing. Jury Nullification, as defined by the US Dictionary of Law is "A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact." My opponent has argued against my case, saying that the accused should not be let off the hook, and she's assuming that jury nullification always allows this. However, according to my definition of Jury Nullification, the jury reaches a verdict, taking the accusation, the judge's order, and the facts into consideration. Jury nullification doesn't neccessarily mean that the jury will drop charges on a murderer. Like I said, the jury takes every aspect of the situation into consideration, to reach a verdict they think is fair. If they think the accused man deserves to be put in jail, that's the verdict they will reach. If they think the accused man is not deserving of punishment, they will take the charges off. My opponent has argued that "this persons case is nullified, he goes home and is okay for a little while but then he kills again are you going to have his case nullified again and again, because the resolution states no limit to the times a case can be nullified." If we look back to my definition again, we'll see that the jury bases their verdict off of facts and conscience. If they feel the accused is, in fact, deserving of punishment, then the suspect will be punished accordingly, and so this is not neccessarily harmful. "if the facts say that someone is guilty of a crime and the law says that there is a set punishment for this crime then this person is to be declared guilty and sentenced to serve his or her punishment." Another example of something the jury takes into consideration to make their final decision. If there is a set punishment that is unapplicable to the situation, then the jury may decide to drop charges. HOWEVER if the set punishment fits the crime and the intention of the criminal, then the jury will reach an opposite verdict, and the suspect will be punished. Please keep my definition of jury nullification in mind as you read each side's arguments. :) Thanks!
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

i will first present negative constructive and then attack my opponents case. resolved:the principle of jury nullification is a just check on the government value premise:justice criteria: it is the jurys responsibility of the jury to declare someone who has been proven to be guilty to be so . contention 1: it is the jurys responsibility to declare someone who has been proven guilty to be so and not to is a danger to society. okay, take the scenario of a murder case, the defendant killed someone he has been proven guilty, there has been a weapon found with finger prints and the blood of the victim on it. this persons case is nullified, he goes home and is okay for a little while but then he kills again are you going to have his case nullified again and again, because the resolution states no limit to the times a case can be nullified. think for a moment about the victims family, maybe this person had a wife and kids, a family, maybe he had a little boy or girl who will have to grow up with out a father because his dad was killed, noone to play baseball with or to attend school plays, but not only did the defendant kill this man but he killed again , it is a danger to society for jury nullification to be allowed,point blank. i guess what i am trying to say is that it is a just check on the people for jury nullification to be eradicated and before i attack i pose a question, not to be answered but to be contemplated: what can jury nullification achieve besides damage, besides more harm, to make things worse then they already were. attack: i agree, jurrors should judge, the law as well as the facts, if the facts say that someone is guilty of a crime and the law says that there is a set punishment for this crime then this person is to be declared guilty and sentenced to serve his or her punishment. the "burden" for the aff side is that the person arguing it has to prove that jury nullification is or in past situations has been a good thing, and there for the con side has to disprove this . i dont understand your reasoning, when someone committs a crime then they know that there are consequences for that crime so when they committ a crime they pay no head that there will be punishment , there for people who do committ crime do deserve the set consequences for that crime.Nullification is justified if the suspect is set free when his original intentions were beneficial to the greater good" intent can change as i tried to present in the scenario above. if the law has been broken then consequences are applicable and should be administered. "
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

"you do agree that it is the jury that make the final decision , not the judge, correct?" -I think the judge has some influence on what the jury should decide, but that in the end, yes the jury should make the final decision, "if some one perposely committs a crime, they deserve to be punished, correct?" -not necessarily. Take mercy killing for example. A man, a wife. The man's wife is suffering from severe clinical depression. No job, lack of friends, and her husband has a hard time keeping her emotionally satisfied. Let's say his wife says she will commit suicide. If she is suffering horribly day by day, is it in her interest if he poisons her drink, and she drinks it? This man doesn't want to see his wife live a horrible life, and so he mercifully killed her to stop her suffering. Or, if there is a known sex offender on a neighborhood street where many students live, if a man on this street kills the repeat sex offender in order to protect these children, isn't he doing what is in the best interest for the greater good? If his intentions were beneficial to the greatest good, he should not be punished. "do the laws not define punishment and limits to the law itsself?" -Maybe i'm not understanding this as you meant it, but, as I said before, the jury is supposed to come up with the final verdict based on evidence and conscience. If a man murders another, and the law says he should be sentenced to the death penalty, if the jury decides this is unapplicable, then that's how the verdict will be chosen. So, yes, the laws define punishments and limits, but the final decision should come from the jury.
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

cross fire: i am a lincolin douglas debater not pf, so we will see how this goes note i have researched this topic but have not competed in person yet, i have neither of my cases with me while writing this whole case so this should be interesting. you do agree that it is the jury that make the final decision , not the judge, correct? if some one perposely committs a crime, they deserve to be punished, correct? do the laws not define punishment and limits to the law itsself?
RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

Please keep in mind, I have not written a case for this topic previously, and I have done little to no research on it. I am a public forum debater, and this is not my topic. I'll use what I know. I'll define a few terms, offer my opponent a burden, and continue by listing my affirming arguments. Jury Nullification, as defined by the US Dictionary of Law is "A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact. " The burden for the con-side is not to prove that Jury Nullification has done more harm than good, but that, despite the amount of harm or good done, it is not justified. I affirm the resolution that states Resolved: in the US, Jury Nullification is a just check on the government. I'll start by saying that if the intentions of the suspect were good, that his actions were justified and nullification will reach a verdict with that in mind, and decide whether the law which the suspect has been accused of violating is applicable. Nullification is justified if the suspect is set free when his original intentions were beneficial to the greater good.
Western is better for the horse than English riding

Dressage may not have always been bad, but it is sure deteriorating, faster, it seems, than it is getting fixed. This video can explain what Rollkur does alot better than I can: http://youtu.be... http://horsemanpro.com... A Reiner and Cutter may be started earlier, but that is not very common, and a CC horse may be jumping before they are physically mature. A horse cannot be prepared to run into a solid fence, not matter how much grease you smear. They will still suffer an injury, from a bruise to possible broken/fractured bones. Yes, the fences are slowly becoming less "solid", but some still are, and pose a danger to both horse and rider. Saddleseat: Did you know many people, Western people, ride Very strong horses 2ft away from screaming, cheering crowds with a snaffle, bitless, or even bridle less. It may be different, but I rode my Hot headed Arab along a very busy highway in just a rope halter, with semi trucks flying by. More common than Rollkur, which is very rare, is a natural headset, even with the withers, although some horses can be seen with a head with a lower set. Yes, a Cutter may be loped for hours before a show, but those horses are fit for duty, and may be a little hot, and to make sure there horse can perform their best, the rider may need to help the horse blow some steam. Western horses are still performing well into their 30's, but it seems alot rarer for an English horse.
Western is better for the horse than English riding

Dressage: When I talk about how the horses are tied and beaten about the legs I mean just that. No, I don't mean then they are tapped lightly, I mean what I said. As for Rollkur, it is seen everywhere, even at the Olympics, and can be seen in lower levels, not just the higher levels. Cross country horses may be fit, but it is still very stressful on joints and tendons. If a horse refuses too many times, it shouldn't have been there in the first place, it means the horse probably wasn't ready. It is actually very easy to force a horse to do something, it is seen all the time. Whips and spurs cause pain (when used improperly), and to get away from the pain the horse must do as being told, or they will feel more pain. And as you stated, many CC jumps are solid objects and can easily injure a horse. Saddleseat: The horses may be hot and spooky, but that proves that they were only trained to show, and that was it. Any hot, crazy horse can be desensitized and trained properly, and maybe lower there hotness levels. Shoeing may be a guessing game, but there toes should not be too long, and as you stated, it does stress there tendons, causing lameness and injuries. And many bits can be over the 7", making the 8", and yes, the horses may be powerful, but they should be properly trained, so they shouldn't need those long shanks to control them. That is bad horsemanship. If a horse needs to be hot to work well, then there is either something wrong with the horse, or rider. A horse needs to be turned out for more than a couple minutes at a time, and for more than being worked. Keeping a horse in the stall to make them hot ruins horses stall behavior. If that horse was to be sold that could be a disaster for the new owner, also if the shoes will rip off a good part of the foot, it shouldn't be on the horse at all. You don't see this near as much in Western as you do in English, and the injury count in both horse and rider is also no where near as high.
Colonialism; YAY OR NAY

"exploration goals are meant to be forceful not willing and caring. " 2. you start to elaborate about pigmentocracy and colourism For the first argument, I would disagree with you, regarding the implication that all colonized lands were attained through force and oppression. For example, During world war 2, many countries in the east were in shambles due to the oppressive surge of the Nazi's and Japanese. After the successful invasions of the allied powers into the occupied lands of the axis powers to thwart the Axis of their world domination endeavor, it was apparent that the states involved; like: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Philippines, etc. . were limping on an economic and structural rebound without the help of a stronger country. Hong Kong which is ranked top 5 economies in the world today, was overlooked by the Chinese, subsequently, ruled by the British since late 1800's. Without the help of the Allied Powers to retake Hong Kong from the Japanese and revitalize its infrastructure and economy; China's economy today, without recently, the retention of Hong Kong, wouldn't be as prolific. Where I do agree with you that, colonization in earlier times, did subsequently result from oppression and greed; I think that in relevance to the proliferation of the Christian religion, even tho i don't agree with how it came about, you can't denounce the entirety of it. I myself am Atheist and I despise the crusades, and wars fought just to convert or to defends ones religion. The campaign of Constantine to eradicate any contradiction of what he believes the bible should be, made me into the unbeliever that I am today. Subsequently, I do have a high disregard for the church; despise growing up a christian myself, I understand of what good it has come today. Even tho I do want to point out all the evil that was contributed by the church, I refrain myself, because in recent times, the integrity can not be disregarded. Moving onto the second argument; you started elaborating about color and discrimination with relevance to colonization. I think it is an inevitable problem, when you mix 2 unaccustomed societies together in an area; especially if the people do not look alike, but, I disagree that it is the main motive of colonization. True, usually colonization is an attempt to expand an economy, but skin color has nothing to do with discriminating how colonizing the land would produce more revenue. Regarding, the Native Americans, how can you complain about receiving a check every month just for being who you are, free medical care, free health care, etc. ? And you stated that they are secluded in a small area to reside in? For your information, some Native tribes have flourished building multi-billion dollar gambling institutions because of those so called unwilling reserves. I am an American, when was the last time something got reserved for me? I don't even have health care because I can't afford it. So, to conclude my argument; to say, there is nothing good that comes out of colonization is undermining the bigger picture.
Colonialism; YAY OR NAY

To start my point off, I would like to start off with the meanings of Colonialism and Exploration:ex⋅plo⋅ra⋅tion   Show Spelled Pronunciation [ek-spluh-rey-shuh n] –noun 1.an act or instance of exploring or investigating; examination. 2.the investigation of unknown regions. co⋅lo⋅ni⋅al⋅ism   Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuh-loh-nee-uh-liz-uh m] –noun 1.the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people. 2.the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence. 3.the state or condition of being colonial. 4.an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony. -Dictionary.com Colonialism is the building and maintaining of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropolis and social structure, government and economics within the territory of the colony are changed by the colonists. Colonialism is a certain set of unequal relationships, between metropolis and colony and between colonists and the indigenous population. Colonialism normally refers to a period of history from the 15th to the 20th century when people from Europe established colonies on other continents. The reasons for the practice of colonialism at this time include: •The profits to be made. •To expand the power of the metropolis. •To escape persecution in the metropolis. •To convert the religion of the conquered forcefully into the conquerors. So as you can see, exploration goals are meant to be forceful not willing and caring. Many people - even up to today - including the natives that still roam their unfair and tiny reserves - which are shrinking as we speak – have been relegated to the minimal space because the explorers who barged into the aboriginals' land converted everything they did. Up to today - not only in Canada - people are being taken away from their parents and being brainwashed of all their past and what they live for. Today people all agree that racism and the pigmentocracy were both strong symbols of racism. The name pigmentocracy is given to a group-based social hierarchy based largely on colourism. Also, labelled as colourism, which is more discussed than others, is the phenomenon of lighter-skinned people discriminating against darker tones within the same ethnic group. Some colonists also felt they were helping the indigenous population by bringing them Christianity and civilization. However, the reality was often subjugation, displacement or death. Colonialism and imperialism were ideologically linked with state-led mercantilism and neomercantilism, the main opponents of economic liberalism and free trade. So there many forms of non-liberalism accounted for in the form of exploration. I will let my opponent open his/her statement.