BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In accordance with the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be found guilty of the Boston Bombings*

* without a fair trial.In the way of a prelude, I am going to assume for the sake of this debate that it is widely accepted belief that every person changed with a criminal offence deserves to be tried before the law, and enjoy the protection of a fair trial. These rights are enshrined in both Articles 7 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by the Fifth and Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"Judge Henry Friendlydescribes due process to be: An unbiased tribunal Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses. The right to know opposing evidence The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented Opportunity to be represented by counsel Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision. Sixth Amendment"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."It is with this understanding that I put to you that, as a direct consequence on the FBI disclosing photographs of suspects, they have made it very hard for justice to be done.Due to the level of media coverage given to the mugshots of suspects 1 and 2, it will be incredibly hard to find an impartial jury to try the defendant in this case. For a guilty verdict Dzhokhar will either have to make that plea himself, or the protections afforded under the above amendments will have to be relaxed.Whilst the prompt action by the Boston PD and the FBI might have offered an immediate remedy to the collective vulnerablilty felt by the American people, ultimately, on reflection, it might have been a mistake.In this case, irrespective of material guilt, I think it would be an affront to the Justice System for a guilty verdict to be found, unless a truly impartial jury is found.References1. Judge Henry Friendly on Due Process: http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Series 1 Episode 5 : Severe Gun Control is good for Society

My opponent starts with telling the audience that the numbers are not supportive of either side of the debate. I personally have to disagree , my opponent has not created an argument why these numbers cannot be used to argue for either side. 'from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country. 4' (- http://thomas.loc.gov...) This number would clearly suggest that gun rights lower crime rates. My opponent then later mentions the 2nd Amendment but I have to remind him this is not an 'America' debate. Pro goes off on a rant in fact he admits that severe regulation is not needed pretty much agreeing with my stance. ('While regulation is needed severe regulation is not needed. '). Pro basically is telling me some regulation is good which is not what the debate is about. The debate is about severe regulation and control. Pro does not specify but I assume he then talks about mass shootings. I think it is important to know that the number of shootings in the US has not increased over the last few decades (http://time.com...) . The worst year for the US when it comes to mass shootings was 1929 , 'In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.' (- http://www.nationalreview.com...). Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp writes at Cato, "In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.'" -(http://www.washingtonpost.com...) . I do not personally agree with banning 'military style' rifles but Pro must agree that banning them would not be severe gun control. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Series 1 Episode 5 : Severe Gun Control is good for Society

The gun control debate is one of the hottest topics in the US. The numbers can be skewed to be supportive of either side of the debate. While severe gun control is not the answer the 2nd Amendment does say "well regulated" which many people seem to look over. I do believe that background checks at gun shows would help prevent many illegal gun sales in the US. While regulation is needed severe regulation is not needed. An estimated 37% of Americans own guns or say someone in their house does. That is roughly just over 110 million gun owners. According to the CDC, in 2011 there were 11,068 firearm murders in the US. Now if we disregard that in many cases multiple people were killed by the same individual and assume that each murder had an individual shooter, that is 1/100 of 1% (rounded up). The big debate right now is to ban "military style" rifles. Many people purchase these for recreation or home defense. Yes the recent events at Newton, CT and Aurora, CO were terrible tragedies that took the lives of many. The issue is that "military style" weapons take the lives of fewer people per year than knives and fewer than blunt objects. The focus on preventing violence(of all kinds not just gun) should be on mental health. If we remove the stigma of needing mental health help and provide care for those who show signs of needing it we can build a healthier nation.
Islam is a direct threat to civilization.

Thank you Cerebral_Narcissist. :) Firstly, my opponent states that Islam contradicts the western value of democracy. Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. http://dictionary.reference.com... Sure, democracy isn't really the most islamic value, but in many ways it can be justified. Many "democratic" governments in the west can often be easily corrupted. Corporations can buy political influence, votes can be tampered with(although this one rarely happens). Nigeria is an example of corruption under the democratic system. http://www.thefreelibrary.com... Russia is also another state that flies the democratic banner, but in reality it's quite undemocratic. http://www.washingtonpost.com... So in reality, oftentimes, democracy really isn't all that superior. At least in an authoritarian system the people are kept under control. Secondly, my opponent argues that Islam promotes inequality between the sexes. This too, is inaccurate. Women in Arabia started to enjoy many more rights under Islam than they ever did before. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.mwlusa.org... http://www.answering-christianity.org... Islam outlawed many of the practices such as arranged marriages and infanticide of newborn females. These practices when performed in Islamic countries are usually cultural. Arranged marriages can also happen in Non-Islamic societies. http://www.answering-islam.com... My opponent also points out that Islam is spreading in the west. This is true. However, when atrocities do occur, once again, they have little to do with Islam. It is an understandable fear that westerners living in an overall Christian society wouldn't want "Islamization" in their society. It is justified as you don't see western, christian influence coming into Islamic countries. Religious freedom, however, is a right. Next, my opponent states that Islam has committed crimes against civilization. Couldn't the same be said about western, Christian societies? During the Spanish Inquisition thousands of Jews and Muslims were forced to convert. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Holocaust was also carried out by people who claimed to be christians. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'll leave it at this. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Good luck to both of us!
Islam is a direct threat to civilization.

This is based off a comment on Cerebral's profile: "Islam is a direct threat to civilisation and progress and efforts must be made to restrict Islamic immigration and to encourage progress in Muslim counties. " This got me thinking and as a muslim I would like to challenge this statement. I will intend to argue that Islam has been progressive in ways both past and present, thus isn't a threat to society. Threat: a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. , in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace. An indication or warning of probable trouble. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Civilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I'll post my first argument once my opponent posts. :)
Islam is a direct threat to civilization.

Yep, just made it by a few hours. :P Haha. Although alcohol may be intrenched into western culture, my opponent fails to address that alcoholism can be a serious issue that can tear families apart, result in rapes, drunk driving, etc. Surely this kind of thing should be avoided? However, this is a minor issue compared to some of the others brought up here. Moving on... My opponent mentioned the issue of divorce. While it's often the case that men can more easily divorce it's usually justified. Men traditionally have a higher income so are expected to provide for their wives. http://career-advancement.suite101.com... Many single women, especially those with child often have a difficult time getting back on their feet after a divorce. The Qur'an wants fairness, but not necessarily "equality" as women and men are clearly not equal, not even in western society. My opponent also addressed a greatly misunderstood aspect of Islam. While Islam does permit beating a disobedient wife(we see domestic violence in western society all the time) it is to be done lightly. Qur'an 4:34- As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly) ... Wouldn't a woman want to obey to avoid being beaten? As the person providing for somebody wouldn't you want to be obeyed. It's like in a workplace. If your employee does a bad job you fire them. Another claim by my opponent is that there is equality in the west. True equality in the truest sense is impossible. In a truly equal society everybody would be living in the same standards and making the same amount of money. Now to my opponent...
Medical Marijuana

My opponent fails to see that his source is a police officer not a doctor/ scientist. He agrees he made the error, but his source is written by a police officer so this source can be thrown out the window.My opponent has refused to bring up evidence on this and since I brought up valid evidence I win this argument he then goes out to insult me by calling me illogical, but my friend the road goes both ways.My opponent on this point says my Avvo source is invalid since it says it battles both ways, but let’s look at the other side of the quarter. The presidential debate, the candidates stand up and state their opinions on things. What does this have to do with this debate is that in this election there were several different arguments and going with Con would be saying that the presidential debate is illogical because both Republican and Democrat sides were argued. So my source is still valid. He also finally agrees that he fabricated a source and that he should lose this debate due to this fact.I looked up Ad hominem and I am appalled ad hominem- appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. http://dictionary.reference.com... I have used reason throughout this debate and my opponent states I'm bias and don't look at reason. You might call me biased my doctor Mr. Cooly (http://www.vitals.com...) had suggested that since I'm 94 lb. I should take medical marijuana to put on weight, but it isn't legal in Kansas.My opponent goes on all out stating medical marijuana can cause nuke war. How can this happen? My opponent fails to bring up evidence here and this is a new argument he doesn't bring up anything like this in rounds 1-4. So my Good bad score of 18 good - 1 bad is still in my favor.To summarize this debate.Opponent fabricates a source and he agrees that he did so willingly, I've won all arguments, I win the Good vs. bad battle 18-1I win valid source battle 7-0
Medical Marijuana

My opponent is, I hate to say it but, Lying. The article was written by Susan E. Manheimer who is a police officer and if you don't believe me then here's the evidence . http://www.ci.sanmateo.ca.us... and . http://www.fugitive.com... My opponent goes to quote some of my sources, however the sources state both good and bad effects of marijuana and my source from Avvo states 7 ways America would change if it was legal. Sure there are some side effects, I'd be lying if I wasn't, but this debate is about whether or not Medical Marijuana should be legal and in order for that to happen we've been debating does the good affects outweigh the bad let"s see Good- Treats Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Cohn"s Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. Reduce crime rates, and empty some jail cells. (. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org......) Bad- Memory loss (which I refuted in my first speech and 3rd and my opponent dropped), drug cartels violence (still arguing about), and Childhood addiction (Refuted and my opponent dropped). So the score is Pro 18 Con 1. Another important issue is that my opponent has ignored the fact that he fabricated a source so he should lose based on that. We shouldn't even be debating, because this is harmful to education so this point alone should give Pro at least conduct at the minimum. My opponent just says this random drug is better than medical marijuana when I brought up evidence proving that Medical marijuana works better so please prefer my source over his words. I'm only solving for medical marijuana so the whole drug cartel argument should be just thrown out the window. Then my opponent goes on to call me illogical, I've been here a year and this is his first debate. So in review.
Medical Marijuana

Let me start by apologizing for not being clear in round 2. The evidence was for the argument that other drugs existed to replace Marijana, not the argument that it caused major negative side effects. My evidence for that argument was placed in my third round response, and restated below. http://www.sfgate.com... My opponent also tried to invalidate the same source restated above by saying that it was from a clueless police officer in San Francisco. This was an article published by a reporter from a respected newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, not some police officer blogging. Now, even if my sources are so ridiculous, how about we take a closer look at some of his? His source from the AVVO (stated below) states that emergency room visits could increase due to loss of motor skills and judgement. It also says, and I quote, "Public safety will suffer, and the quality of life in our communities will deteriorate." His source from MedicalMarijuana.procon.org (also stated below) also states, and again I quote, "There is no possibility of approval of any plant as a medicine to treat any illness, now or ever because the chemicals in whole plants (to say nothing of smoked plants which are composed of many, many more chemicals) could be approved as a medicine. Plants are unstable mixtures of different chemicals which cannot be used directly to provide a 'dose' of a specific chemical to be used as a medical treatment." My opponent may notice that he can no longer refute these arguments, as they come from his own sources. Either he must invalidate his own sources, and therefore many of his own arguments, or he must accept my arguments as fact. Marijuana is a major hazard to public safety and health. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://nakedlaw.avvo.com... My opponent mentions in passing that I ignore the fact that it is treatment for the terminally ill. This is patently ridiculous, as I addressed that in all three of the previous rounds by stating that Prozac worked equally well in that regard. Finally, back to Cartels. My opponent seems to think that this is a minor argument, but it is not. Removing Marijuana as a source of income for them would only force them to resort to other, possibly more dangerous means. Also, my opponent states that his argument does not legalize all Marjuana, only medical Marijuana, so crime would, in fact, stay approximately the same. One of these arguments or the other must logically be accepted as fact. Does he solve for all Marijuana, thereby rendering the Cartels more dangerous, or does he not, thereby causing no change in crime? My opponent is being incredibly illogical, and hiding behind weak arguments that my sources are not valid. I have now used his sources to back up the same arguments, and shown how my sources are also valid. Legalizing Marijuana, medical or otherwise, would be catastrophic for the entire country. I ask for a Con vote to ensure that this ludicrous and dangerous course of action never happens.
Medical Marijuana

I am talking about Medical Marijuana not all marijuana in general. (Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barley use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org......)So apparently my opponent hasn't been reading my arguments, because this was brought up in the first round and when I goggled my opponent' sources will causes memory loss and I came up with an info page on Prozac don't believe me here's the link http://www.drugs.com..., so my opponent basically lied in round 2 and made up something for a different source. Your source for your last round is a police officer in San Francisco who has no experience in the medical field so you can through that argument out the window. You ignore the facts that it's used for the terminally ill. The US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the British Medical Association released several in 1997 on the potential therapeutic uses of medical marijuana. http://druglibrary.org...my opponent is just being crazy I brought up a source that states if legalized less kids would be tempted to try it and my opponent just says, "Nope that's wrong." The Avvo administration is more creditable then a teenage in High School.As my source says that drug cartels would be crippled because their main cash crop is marijuana and once legalized in the U.S. you would see more crackdowns on the cartels.
Medical Marijuana

Ok, first back to health concerns, then addressing your other counter- arguments, then my Cartel argument. I addressed the memory loss argument directly in my response, and I have evidence through the link below about the major health concerns of Marijuana. Also, looking back to your initial rebuttal, I see nothing directly related to memory loss, except perhaps your statement that it does not cause brain disease, which is not an argument that I contested. Even if that is true, however, Marijuana causes impaired judgement, which is something that even you cannot dispute, and there are multiple concerns related to that alone, including increased possibility of violence, incapability of performing higher functions and complex motor skills, etc. This can cause danger for themselves and others. http://www.sfgate.com... My opponent also states in his second response that less kids would try Marijuana. This is patently ridiculous. Marijuana would be even more readily available, and it may become as prevalent or more so as smoking cigarettes, which would expose millions of others to the dangers of the drug. His argument that 25% of crimes are drug related is irrelevant. The mere fact that millions commit a crime does not make it morally justifiable. This is, in fact, a logical fallacy, classified as Tu Quoque, roughly translated as "You, too." This also applies to his 17 states argument which I lumped in with the crime statistic. I did not drop it. And now back to the Cartels. My opponent states in his second rebuttal that the Cartels would be crippled without the black market trade of Marijuana, but also states that he is ONLY solving for Marijuana, not all drugs. This is a major contradiction. The cartels have much more than just Marijuana at their disposal, and would only step up production and distribution of these as a result of losing Marijuana. In short, legalizing Marijuana would be a ludicrous action. It would only increase Cartel activity, as well as harm those who choose to use Marijuana and those around them. Marijuana is not the only solution to the issues it is intended to solve, and my opponent cannot justify that using Marijuana is better than replacement drugs, ie Prozac (fluoxetine).
Medical Marijuana

You ignore my argument that it doesn't cause memory loss. Lets look at the facts 1/4 of crimes are drug related.War on drugs costs $100 billion a year.15% are teenagers (http://www.druglibrary.org...)and as brought up in my last speech 800,000 are arrested for marijuana possession.*Note I am only solving for Medical marijuana not decriminalization of all drugs and the above are marijuana facts not others ei meth.*If Medical Marijuana was legal here are the benefits: drug arrests would drop (as I said 800,000 just for marijuana possession), less kids would try it, violence would drop, states would have more money (taxing marijuana), Mexican drug cartels would be crippled (http://nakedlaw.avvo.com...)My opponent drops the argument of that 17 states have legalized medical marijuana meaning that they have found it safe and useful don't let my opponent try to bring this up next round.
Medical Marijuana

To answer your first argument, marijuana is not the only cure for these illnesses. In particular, Prozac (fluoxetine) is a similar antidepressant that gets the job done and does not have the multiple negative side effects of marijuana including mental impairment, memory loss, mouth disease, etc.(www.drugs.com/prozac.html...) Your second argument seems to be that if legalized, crime related to illegal use will go down. You are, in fact, making a very dangerous and unwise statement. This will set a precedent of caving to pressure from the Cartels. The Cartels, seeing this, will then not only become bolder, but will turn to other black market trades to make up for lost income. This would send crime up, not down. Also, where and when is it legal to smoke marijuana in this plan? Can people simply smoke it whilst walking down the street? If yes, doesn't that cause major health risks for everyone using merely the same street as a marijuana smoker? Marijuana is too easy to become addicted to, and even recovered/ recovering addicts will have much greater temptation and relapse. This cannot be allowed to happen. We must not legalize marijuana. Check.