BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vigilante Justice against Child Molesters

What ought we do in the situation of another under attack? Well, ideally we call the police to help. Or, we intervene in order to protect that person, and with that intent only. In no situation do we attack someone because we dislike what they are doing: the role of the judiciary is to give guilt. The saying "That person you made fun of for being fat? She was beaten by her parents as a child." Comes to mind. You have no role rewarding and punishing people in our civilised society, and so vigilantism is wrong.
Vigilante Justice against Child Molesters

It is not about anger or vengeance, it is about a justice that our government has failed to give us. It is a PROVEN fact that the more money you have- the less time you receive in jail/prison. Do you even know how criminals that have literally BOUGHT they're freedom. There are some things in this life that really are legally justified. When our government fails to give victims justice and protect others in society from these monsters; Is it not our moral obligation to do something about it? Let me give you another example. If you saw someone in danger- would you stand by and watch? Run scared? Or actually DO SOMETHING about it??
Vigilante Justice against Child Molesters

I do agree with you in a way. But the fact of the matter is JUSTICE is what you can AFFORD! You have already read my case of being kidnapped and raped. But my nephew David was molested/raped by his stepfather Tim when he was only five years old; this apparently went on for a few years before it was discovered. David spent years in a live in mental hospital. (Places like DePaul, which is known for the mistreatment of kids) David was locked in a small closet several times at that facility! When David was eleven he had a severe panic attack, so the hospital in Texas gave him a shot- Which KILLED him. The child molester Tim only spent five years in prison. He is now out of prison- and I personally saw him surrounded by small male children. My nephew is still dead! His ENTIRE LIFE was TOTAL HELL! It will NEVER be acceptable to KEEP making excuses for these horrible people! It's easy to be against this when you have NEVER been a victim yourself. For those who never receive justice- There is NEVER any closure. The victims suffer for a lifetime and life goes on for the pedophiles! YOU CALL THAT JUSTICE!! LIKE I SAID JUSTICE REALLY IS WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD!!!!!
Vigilante Justice against Child Molesters

Vigilante justice is unjust for multiple reasons, no matter the target. I'll plan on attacking this misinformed idea, rather than the target itself. The choice of child molestors is clear: it is a sick, depraved act that people do. However, we, as citizens in a rational, civil, Western democratic society, are bound by sensibility to following where reason takes us, which means taking an impartial, dispaassionate stance when it comes to initiation of both public policy, and public praising or condemnation of an action.Vigilantism firstly is wrong because of the misguided nature of those who are allowed to do it. 'Child Molestation' of course seems obvious: it is of course wrong for the sick forty year old men to have sex with eight year olds. And it is: it's horrible. But what about the 19 year old having sex with the 17 year old? Some would say this is still just as wrong: they should be punished. Others will say no. Vigilantism will end up with people with differing classifications for what is moral and what is not, and therefore will spiral out of control.Secondly, there is an incredibly large problem with vigilantism: to get to it, however, I want you to imagine how the law works. No matter who you are and what you are being accused of, you get the formal equality before the law, and the right to, among other things, know what you are being accused of, and gain a lawyer to defend you. This is necessary for fairness and justice in society. None of this exists under vigilantism. To imagine that we will gain it is utopian. Vigilantism results in people being unfairly punished for a crime that they have not been proven to commit, and therefore is an unjust system. Finally, vigilantism brings us to a state where people are punished to astounding depths simply because a vigilante believes a crime has taken place. Consider the case of a man who is suffering from a severe mental problem. He is in no control of his actions, and simply cannot be held accountable for the crimes he committed. To punish him for not behaving morally is equivalent to beating up a broken fridge because it does not keep your food warm: it's ridiculous nonsense. Yet vigilantism, due to its rushed, knee-jerk reaction to crime, will punish this individual for simply not recieving the help and rehabilitation he needs. I have presented three clear cut reasons why we ought to oppose vigilantism in any situation. If any of these stands, the motion itself ought to be rejected. Thank you.
Vigilante Justice against Child Molesters

Is justice really served when a child molester gets out of prison after serving only a few years- When his/her victim suffers for a lifetime? ALL Child molesters should be killed!! Instead our legal system releases them back into the public to harm another child. Our government is out to protect the criminals NOT the victims!! I was kidnapped and raped at 11 years old. Not only was I treated like a criminal, but I received no justice either! I am certain I am not the only one out there who has been robbed of justice. So my thoughts are: GO VIGILANTES!! YEA! And GOOD for you. And Thank You for doing what our government wont do!
Minimum wage should be under a municipalitie's jurisdiction to set, or disregard.

Everyone, please vote me because I have right to win with this debate. First, Farooq only show us his own writings. But, He does not any response related to my opposition. It is his abstention. I waited his response, and even I demanded his reply. But He didn't anything. So, You have to vote me to my win. Second, My oppositions in round 1 exactly pointed out the weak point in the opinions of Farooq. (1)Farooq said : Provinces, states, and nations can be very large entities, and no one can really argue that West Vancouver or Manhattan have the same sort of living expenses as those in the BC interior or Upstate New York? My response : But if your arguments realized, business proprietors who have much labor expenses can move their company from the cities of higher minimum wage to the cities from lower minimum wage. And, government of cities have more weak power than government of province or nation. Business proprietors can more easily pressure to the government to the city so the law of minimum wage can be more easily changed. Also you can say workers can also do the same thing, but usually, capital is faster than labor. (2)Farooq said : There is no need for criminality in labour ordinances- municipal fines should be adequate in enforcing the rules set by the City or County. My response : Could you elaborate on "There is no need for criminality in labour ordinances- municipal fines should be adequate in enforcing the rules set by the City or County."? I don't exactly understand what your words mean. (3)Farooq said : It should be looked at on a more local scale, with living expense of the exact region taking precedence over a broad average. My response : the purpose of minimum wage is keeping the minimum lives of workers. Also I can admit each provinces of Canada, America, my nation(Korea), and many other countries have the different level of prices, but the unified minimum wage can provide the more stability of the level of prices to the country in the long run because people can more easily predict their labor income so they can easily plan their expense for consumption. If we consider consumption is the powerful factor of the level of price, we should more cautious control of the factors of consumption like the wage. And I declare this debate is over. See you next time. Debaters!
Minimum wage should be under a municipalitie's jurisdiction to set, or disregard.

Farooq, please reply against my writings in the round 1. If you do not, you have lose this debate. And, brian_eggleston. Anyway, You won the debate. I think my mistake is more serious than yours in the debate. Still, I have less talent than many other debaters in this site. I must train more and more in this site. So, brian_eggleston, I enjoy much in my first debate with you in this site, but I challenge you next time. I think you are one of the high-class debater in this site. Debating with you will also be a good game. And my spell and grammer are not better than the things of others in this site. Just I check again and again my writings so you can misjudge my English is better than others.
Minimum wage should be under a municipalitie's jurisdiction to set, or disregard.

But if your arguments realized, business proprietors who have much labor expenses can move their company from the cities of higher minimum wage to the cities from lower minimum wage. And, government of cities have more weak power than government of province or nation. Business proprietors can more easily pressure to the government to the city so the law of minimum wage can be more easily changed. Also you can say workers can also do the same thing, but usually, capital is faster than labor. Weak people like workers should help each other and make the labor unions to keep their rights. The more workers help each other, benefits for workers like law of minimum wage can be more guaranteed. If the government of province or state still control the law of minimum wage, workers can more easily speak their arguments and easily pressure governments because they can find the conversation partner more easily because the conversation can be more unified than your suggestion. In addition, if your suggestion be realized, cities who have lower income than other cities can be more pressured to reduce the regulation of the companies because they need more tax income. And, the purpose of minimum wage is keeping the minimum lives of workers. Also I can admit each provinces of Canada, America, my nation(Korea), and many other countries have the different level of prices, but the unified minimum wage can provide the more stability of the level of prices to the country in the long run because people can more easily predict their labor income so they can easily plan their expense for consumption. If we consider consumption is the powerful factor of the level of price, we should more cautious control of the factors of consumption like the wage. Finally, could you elaborate on "There is no need for criminality in labour oridnaces- municipal fines should be adequante in enforcing the rules set by the City or County."? I don't exactly understand what your words mean.
Minimum wage should be under a municipalitie's jurisdiction to set, or disregard.

Currently, in my country at least, the level of minimum wage is determined by provincial legislatures, and I belive it is similiar in the United States as well. Yet does this really make sense? Provinces, states, and nations can be very large entities, and no one can really argue that West Vancouver or Manhaatten have the the same sort of living expenses as those in the BC interior or Upstate New York? Rather it should be looked at on a more local scale, with living expense of the exact region taking precendence over a broad average. There is no need for criminality in labour oridnaces- municipal fines should be adequante in enforcing the rules set by the City or County.
Government welfare doesn't help the poor.

Being taxed and seeing that money be handed out to someone else is hardly "supporting" one another. That is more like a politician just trying to gain votes. A free country and a "fair" country are not the same thing. If you are talking about fairness under the law then yes you must have both of them. But we are talking about economics fairness. And since the government does not create wealth it has to steal from one person to give away welfare. Nothing is free about having your money taken away. 4.7 million people receiving welfare spent an average of 6 years on it. And if Welfare actually helps people get out of poverty then why do we still need it if we have had welfare for over 50 years? With the millions of dollars we have handed out doesn't it seem reasonable that most of these people would be off of welfare pretty quick if they weren't dependent? The government bureaucracy behind welfare is questionably effective at handing out welfare. It certainly isn't efficient when only 20% of the money meant for welfare programs actually reaches the people on welfare. That kind of massive waste of money would never be tolerated from a private charity.
Government welfare doesn't help the poor.

America is a united country and the people in the country should support one another If you want this to be a free country and you want it to be the best country in the world (like a lot of ethnocentric Americans believe) it is only best we build the country to its highest by bring the lowest income people up to the middle class It isn't very fair to have people with millions of dollars and people who cant even get a meal a day Many people don't become dependant on welfare and government issues the welfare where they realize who has been on it a long time and will not issue it to them
Government welfare doesn't help the poor.

A system of government welfare creates a system of dependency, and destroys poor people's incentives to move up in life. If people are in desperate need of charity then the government is not the solution. The dependency is shown by the government's own data, and is documented by the heritage institute here: http://www.heritage.org... The incentives to move up in life are destroyed...as the more you earn the less you earn in welfare and the harder it becomes to survive. Welfare has trapped millions of poor inner city workers in a system of poverty and dependence. It should be ended.
Presidential Race: 2016

Thank you, America, for this opportunity to run for President. It is a great honor standing here representing the Libertarian Party and the power of Liberty. AbortionI think we can reach a concensus that this is a touchy issue and we should keep the government out of this. I would also propose eliminating funds for Planned Parenthood, a huge provider of abortions. War on DrugsThe war on drugs is an expensive failure. It corrupts cops, politicians, and it is the sole reason why we have drug cartels. Did you know that NON VIOLENT first time drug users can face a sentence longer than those convicted of rape, manslaughter, and child molestation! There needs to be smarter reforms in our drug policy.My opponent is wrong in claiming that drugs is a recent thing. In fact, drugs have been around longer than alcohol - at least since the stone age [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;].Gay Marriage I will be the first openly gay President if I am elected. I believe in equality under the law and therefore view gay marriage as a right as any other. However, I believe that government should not be in marriage and it should be to each individual. Moreover, I believe religious institutions should be allowed to deny gay couples wedding services and church membership on religious grounds.Economy and DebtDebt is a huge problem in the nation. The most important thing we can do now is cut spending and bring consumer and business confidence in the markets. We ought to reform the tax code and pass a balanced budget amendment.Top Ten Bills1) Balanced Budget Amendment - Requires congress and the President to balance the federal budget for each fiscal year2) Write the Law Act 3) Read the Bills Act4) Tax Reform Act 5) One Subject At a Time Act6) Drug Reform Bill7) Welfare Reform8) Repeal of NDAA9) Repeal of PATRIOT Act10) ABOLISH THE TSAI'm David Neff, and I approve this message
Presidential Race: 2016

Hello everyone, my name is DoubtingDave and I am the Libertarian Party nominee for 2016 and I have selected Gov. Gary Johnson to be my Vice President.1) I am pro-choice, though I do support a ban on late term abortions and would be open to restricting abortions in other cases. Abortion is a very touchy issue for me and I'm more or less undecided.2) I am a neoliberal believing in a deregulated economy, one which capitalism and free markets can flourish creating prosperity through business.3) I believe that we ought to end the failed war on drugs. The war on drugs corrupts cops, politicians, and it is the reason we have drug cartels. If we want to reduce or eliminate drug violence, we can start be drug legalization. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it is the same exact thing as prohibition. No prohibition, no Al Capone.Moreover, I believe that the drug laws must be reformed. NON-VIOLENT first time drug users can face a jail term limit longer than those convicted of rape, manslaugher, or child molestation.4) I believe that everyone should be free to marry whom they wish. My preferred preference is that the state simply stays out of marriage all together.5) I believe that a free market health care is the way to improve access to health care and improve quality as well.6) I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and a proud member of the NRA. 7) I am against welfare and believes it causes people to be depended upon government.8) I believe that there are many benefits to free trade and that it is very important. As your next President, I and Governor Gary Johnson will seek to expand free trade.9) I believe in ending the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and re-think some of our failed forein policy. I believe in eliminating foreign aid -especially to nations such as Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan. 10) I am pro Israel. My name is DoubtingDave, and I approve this message.
Presidential Race: 2016

I am a Republican looking for a (blank) to compete with me for the presidency in 2016. The debate will consist of 5 rounds.In the first round, my opponent will speak to the voters, let them know his/her views, and explain why they would be a fitting president. In the second round, my opponent and I will begin to debate over the current political issues, and proposed legislation to those issues. In the third round, we make rebuttals to previous arguments. In the fourth round, more rebuttals.The fifth round will consist of a conclusion, and final rebuttals. Afterwards, voters will vote for their president as they would in any election.Rules:1) Please take it seriously. For the purposes of this simulation, no trolls will be allowed.2) No vulgarity, if you were running for president, you would want the respect of the people. 3) Please do not paste additional arguments in the final round, it would be impossible to rebut those arguments. 4) Please site any sources, let the voters know where you are coming from.5) Please use a name to run as. It can be fictional, again, keep it clean.6) Make sure to make your party clear, you are allowed to create your own party as long as you explain what its ideals are. I am BigSky Montana and I will represent the Republican party in this election. I will elaborate on my views later in this debate but for now they are:1) I am pro-life.2) I am obviously for Capitalism.3) I am anti-drug legalization.4) I am for free trade.5) I am against gay marriage.6) I would like to be environmentally friendly, but not liberally. I am more of a conservative thinker. 7) I am for the gold standard.8) I am against national healthcare.9) I am against any new proposed gun legislation, except a background check on those purchasing arms.10) I am pro labor union, but there needs to be major reforms.11) I am against welfare.If you are interested in any interest in additional political preferences I have, or have any questions, please refer to my profile, message me, or leave a comment below.Thanks
The war of peace

And stand them side by side and the sum of all parts equaleth. And they told you not and did you believe them? And they tell us all manner of things and we accept because we do not listen. For belief is merely a notion. ANSWER. As particles spin and weave their magic, all acceptance is all and nothing reigns in dominion. And nothing is something and something is nothing, as dreams spin for a moment till all energy is dissipated. And love spins and love is something and love is nothing and telepathy is waves and frequencies resonate. Brain lodged, brain bodged response frequencies abound and dissipate. And response is something and response is nothing. And the people of Iran and the people of Israel and the black cat in the dark room and the kangaroo in Australia, all dance to the same frequency. Existence creator brain held and brain assimilated frequencies, spin and dissipate. Peace be with you once more. As I sit and wonder at the magic of creation, as I shall do until all energy dissipates. Amen.
The war of peace

Blessings do not curse they wash sin that is placed upon the book shelved that has a bookend that is there but not in the picture of themselves rebuilding the other bookend the temple in Irans https://www.israelislamandendtimes.com... Don't forget to put up a mandatory message, men's entry and exit this side and the women sign upon the temple wall smoking hot will not be tolerated until a later date with children not allowed in the smallest print that you can write. The war of peace is what again for the women and children of tomorrow have you got any blacker than that black as jet black just isn't black enough. Have you ever gone way underground in a mine cave and turned out all the lights and closed your eyes? Well, it doesn't get any blacker than that as you have your eyes open or not. Faith is going into a dark room looking for a black cat, knowing that it is there because of its meow. Religion without science is blind; Science without religion is inhumane. Maybe this time you may refer not reefer an answer to the one question that I asked as I suppose I may have to answer it for you if you can't shan't or won't in comments, shall I? QUESTION for the second time. How could an existence creator have unconditional love, if free will was taken from its own creation "us", by coming out from behind an eclipse, as to crucify its own free will and not become a dictator of an intolerable telepathic nature? Maybe the dominion of powers wristband that read what your mind and heart are saying within the court of no secrets that our existence creators supposed chosen people in Iran to want and sell it as if we need it. Well there are bigger events on the way as they say in Hollywood "I"m not the most "relevant" actress out there. I know that"s the industry perception because I"ve been this character for 14 years. But the truth is, anybody can be good on a show season one and two. Can you be good 14 years later? Now, that"s a f"in" skill." Peace be with you. Praise and glory belong to our existence creator. Amen
The war of peace

With all of your cryptic analogies that I have considered with my own humility, sympathy, empathy within a curiosity I ask but one question. How could an existence creator have unconditional love, if free will was taken from its own creation "us", by coming out from behind an eclipse, as to crucify its own free will and not become a dictator of an intolerable telepathic nature? How about an on-off switch or a phone call away. Ring, ring excuss me existence creator I have been suffering for so long now please kill me as I don't have the nerve or the means to do it myself. Well, I give my blessings to the hero of 104. https://en.wikipedia.org...(botanist)