BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3. This form punishment has been shown to actually do the opposite for inmates and cause them to have serve mental and physiological problems. 4. Solitary Confinement is still being used because not enough people are educated on the serve mental effect this punishment can have on a person. 5.) Such as cognitive capabilities, physical strength and cause serves depression that can cause more problems such as anxiety. 6.) This is what rehabilitation is supposed to do rehabilitate people to be able to integrate them back into society so they can follow the norm. But if placed under a condition that can break them down and cause even more physiological problems this contradicts the point of prison. 7.) SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison study. Researchers argue that long-term social isolation "carries major psychiatric risks." 8.) Put them in counseling sessions with a psychologist who can help them recognize their misconduct. 9.) A punishment that can cause much more physiological harm then those most inmates already have is considered an effective punishment? Are you implying that mistreating human beings is an effective way to handle misconduct? 10.) What do you consider lenient? Too vague. (C) Thus, is not an appropriate punishment of an inmate who breaks a prisons code of conduct
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1. I agree with the definition. 2. agree 3. Agree, but this form of punishment would make the inmates more mindful 4. agree, but then why are they still using solitary confinement in Denmark? 5. What are some of the reduced capabilities? 6. Agree. Humans are social but also are trying to be brought back into society to not be a menace to society by prison institutions. 7. What kinds of studies are you talking about? 8. How would you handle inmates that need to be punished? 9. Solitary confinement is the only legal way that is most effective to punish the inmates. 10. Showing leniency towards prisoners only allows the prisoners to think they will see no punishment. C Solitary confinement is a good punishment for inmates.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1)Solitary Confinement is a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2)Solitary Confinement was instituted around 1818 as a replacement for public floggings. 3)It was suppose to provide the prisoner with solitude "to reflect on his/her misdeeds." 4)Prison records from Denmark from the years 1870 through 1920 the staff noticed the inmates were exhibiting signs of mental illness while in isolation. 5)The use of Solitary Confinement produces reduced mental and physical capabilities. 6)Humans are social creatures and need to be around other people 7)Studies show that inmates deprived of human contact often inflict self harm. (C) Thus, Solitary Confinement is not the appropriate punishment to an inmate who violates a prisons code of conduct Non Controversial: Premises 1 through 4 Controversial: Premises 5 through 7
Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

In the interest of fairness, I'm just going to say what I said in the comment section shortly after I forfeited R3. Nothing new. Gah. Sorry about missing R3. I was only going to reiterate my original points again. I already made the point that Satanists don't actually gather [like the KKK does, for example], so that argument is invalid. Satanists are not more dangerous because of they're all 'gathered' in one place. They aren't gathered. As I stated in R2, they're not organized at all. Next, realize that my opponent has not actually argued against my other argument. I stated that Satanism caused 'morally bankrupt' and 'moronic' to be less commin in future generations. The fact that it is growing as a religion only speeds up this process. Note: It is not growing because it's being passed on from father to son. It's growing because more people are adopting its views. It still stands that Satanists would almost certainly be less likely to successfully breed.
Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

Well first off I would like to say beem0r was unclear in his arguments and as such I did not take them seriously now allow me to refute them. Let start of by saying my opponent lacks adequate knowledge about the subject as he said that Satanaism is an unorganized religon/philosphy this statement is false as Satanism has a hiraechal structure with its own scriptures and rituals. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now to refute my opponents first argument. My opponent states bad people join Satanism to rationalize their actions and as such they would have done it anyways. However my opponent fails to realize that the point still satnds that Satanism is still a detriment to the U.S. Allow me to make a quick example paralleling Satansim to Racism Example: Cutburt is a racist and enjoys to lynch people. He joins the KKK to ratioanlize his murderous and morally bankrupt tendencies. Cutburt is still a detriment to the USA and grouping him with people of the same category makes the problem worse! 1 Cutburt is bad enough but thousands is insane! Just like with Satanism it attracts the evil, but don't you think grouping these people under the same creed will cause more burden and problems for America. My opponent states that a theif would still steal with or without Satanism, but dont you think it would be worse if he was with Satanism instead of getting help or turning his life around. With Satanism the man is instructed to futher exploit criminal activity to hurt people or even worse this is where the detriment lies! Finally allow me to move into my opponent's second argument Satanism will not attarct people because they are morally bankrupt and will push them away so that their traits will not be passed on to others. This is false! In 1975 they were about a few thousand proclaimed Satanists world wide now there are tens of thousands! Even if they are evil they still have ways of persuading people or it would have collapsed in the first generation that started it. In conclusion I beleive my opponent has produced no sources or any statistical information as I have done in my openning argument as such I find it necessary that you vote PRO ont his issue. Thank You ladies and gentlemen.
Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

It seems my opponent understood none of my argument. First, I never argued that they 'gather together' or anything like that. They don't, anyway - they're very unorganized as a religion/philosophy. My argument is as follows. Hopefully my opponent will understand this time. FIRST, Satanism does not appeal to most people. It appeals to people who are bad people anyway. In most cases, the bad things these people do would happen anyway. For example, a person who likes to steal things might decide to believe in Satanism to rationalize his actions. If he steals something again the next day, this is not Satanism's fault. With or without Satanism, the theft would have occurred. NEXT, I did NOT argue that Satanism is a genetic trait. However, being moronic and being morally bankrupt ARE. 1. Satanism attracts morons and morally bankrupt folks. 2. Satanism causes these people to be less successful in passing on their traits to the next generation. [Because people don't like satanists, because satanism might encourage some level of illegal activity [which society punishes], satanism might encourage some level of dangerous activity [which nature punishes], and because satanism might encourage a higher abortion rate]. 3. Satanism therefore reduces the amount of moronic and morally bankrupt people. There was nothing cute or funny about my argument. My opponent did not address either of my two arguments. Here they are again. 1. Satanism attracts moronic and morally bankrupt individuals. 2. Satanism causes followers to be less likely to successfully breed. And therefore, it acts as a force that makes moronic and orally bankrupt people less common, which is certainly a good thing.
Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

Just because they gather together dosent mean that they are good. They are detrimental people doing detrimental things like encouraging illegal activity. Example: The KKK they may be a group of racist buttfuckin (Pardon my French) animals. Yet in 1956 they numbered in the tens of thousands because they expanded and spread there sick doctrine the same with Satanists so you see they ARE engaging in detrimental activity which is encouraging illegal beavurior Con suggests we stick our heads in the dirt and ignore the problem just like the Iraq War (Dont get worked up folks thats a debate for later ^__^) Basically the gathering of bad people will lead to more bad things! Anywho your second statement revolves around the fact that Satanism is a genetic trait this is compelely retarded and moronic. As Satanism is a beleif not something you could pass on. .. .. .as a genetic trait that is.
Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

I must disagree wholeheartedly - Satanism is indeed HELPFUL to the United States of America. I will go through some numbered premises, making it easy for my opponent to state his objections to my case. === 1. Satanism attracts the kind of people who are already detrimental to society To clarify, bythis I mean that the overwhelming majority of Satanists are either morons and/or are already morally bankrupt. Satanism does not appeal to many people who know how to use their brains. Satanism does not appeal to many morally-upstanding people. From this, I could already argue that satanism doesn't actually cause any detrimental behavior itself, it just groups detrimental individuals together. Since these individuals would likely have been just as bad anyway, Satanism isn't actually causing any harm. However, I will go much further than that. === 2. Satanism is an unfavorable trait as far as natural selection is concerned. Satanists have a much lower chance of successfully passing on their genes than say, a Christian. Why? a. People hate satanists. b. Satanism encourages dangerous activities - ones that could end in imprisonment or death. c. Satanists are not the type of folks who would think twice about getting an abortion when it comes to unwanted children. From (a), simply by being a Satanist a person lowers his or her chance of successfully passing on their genes. This is good, because it stops moronic and/or morally bankrupt people from successfully mating. From (b), to the extent that Satanism causes bad and dangerous behavior that wouldn't otherwise happen [if it does at all], it also lowers the chances of a person successfully passing on their genes. This is because society punishes people for bad behavior, and nature punishes people for dangerous behavior. From (c), to the extent that Satanism causes abortions that would not otherwise happen [if it causes these at all], we see that Satanists have a lower chance of successfully passing on their genes. === 3. Therefore, Satanism weeds out the kind of folks we don't want in our society. Since satanism attracts moronic and/or morally bankrupt people, and it is unfavorable as far as natural selection is concerned, satanism acts as a force that slowly eats away at a moronic and/or morally bankrupt part of society. This is no doubt helpful to society at large. I believe that is sufficient, especially in a 4-round debate. Good luck to my opponent, and thanks for starting the debate.
Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

Satanism as defined by dictionary.com as the worship of Satan powers of evil as being diabolical and and having a satanic disposition and behaviour. Seeing as how Satanism ENCOURAGES people to commit illegal activity and horrifying beahvaiour let it be resolved that Satanism is a burden upon this great nation. In a documentay on the History Channel High Priest of the Church of Satan Peter H. Gilmore said "Do what makes you happy!If taking thing fufills you individual pleasure then do it!If sex fufills your individual pleasure do it!". Now as we all know robbery is a crime in the USA so when Peter says do it cause it gives you pleasure he is condoning robbery. So therefore Satanism is detrimenting the USA. According to Laveyan Satanism the well know actvist known as Lavey (In my opinion a fool and a troublemaker..) states that they must "Destroy" someone who bothers you. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... For example say you are at a party someone asks you to dance you say no and they coutinue asking you should physically assault them. This is illegal! Laveya has just encouraged an illegal acticity and while they are bleeding the satanist is expected to jump around sayin Yippiee Kai Yay i beat someone up! *joking* Satanist are therefore a burden that America constantly carries. And keep reading his list of commandments do you really think this is the type of doctrine America should have to put up with half of those thinng on his liitle "list" are illegal! Finally I would like to also sate Satanism encourages people to have sexual freedom and have sex like crazy! This is pretty much their way of attempting to spread AIDS! Are they thrying to start another sexual diesease epidemic! Having promisucous sex is a way to rapidly spread AIDS and a such is a detriment to this great nation.
Free will is an illusion

Since my opponent has not disagreed with my definition of free will, I must assume that there is no disagreement that free will is "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention", all I need to do for this debate is prove that choice is not solely produce by prior causes. If I am successful at proving something such as randomness, it would be evident enough to prove freewill existence by the definition I use. My opponent doesn't understand how quantum mechanics can cause two identical people with and identical past to have the possibility to have two different answers. It comes down to that when the brain randomly picks an answer, it is much more susceptible to small differences in neuron activity. These small differences in neuron are caused from the randomness of heat, which are caused by quantum mechanics. Even with the exactly same past, the present is still different for the two subjects because of randomness caused by quantum mechanics. My opponent compares my theory to free will not existing becauses apple are red. This is a very immature comparison considering that the theory I gave had explanations, I didn't just merely say free will exist because we have souls. I explain that it isn't impossible for something to influence quantum mechanics without being physical. My opponent feels that his philosophical argument on 'movie scenario' wasn't rebuttaled because it was irrefutable. The reason why I made no attempt to refute it was because there was no need to, his argument supported freewill. Quote- This is because thoughts only come about as a result of either randomness or from prior chain of causes and event.-end quote. I have gave a definition of free will as anything that causes a decision other than prior causes and divine fate. My opponent said clearly in his first argument that there was randomness and that it wasn't merely caused by prior causes. Now to conclude, free will exist because there is randomness to decisions, they cannot merely be determined by prior causes. There is also a possibility for a something to influence the probability of decisions without any other physical influences. This influence on the wave function of a quantum particle can cause changes that end up effecting the outcome of the decision. I have proven my argument that free will by definition I used exist.
Free will is an illusion

I shall rebutt and then conclude. My opponent tried to give an example of the rather confusing neuron argument with the "identical people" scenario. Again you have just said they would pick different answers I see no evidence for this, as I have argued the decisions if these people were the exact same and had the exact same past, would be (guess what) the exact same. As I said previously it's a 'non sequitur' (definition: is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises) and no amount of bizarre scenarios are going to help my opponent. My opponent's argument is like crossing a river with no bridge. Now to you trying to defend your "weak" argument most theories can be supported with evidence however your's unfortunately can not. I can to create a theory, such as free will does not exist because apples are red. As you can see it's a theory that cannot be refuted but it means nothing. Now to conclude I have giving an unbeatable philosophical argument and even proposed a 'test' via the 'movie scenario' which my opponent made no attempt whatsoever to refute, because it is true and cannot be refuted and it has supported evidence as you can test it out in your head. I also showed how prior causes and randomness determine our next move and how there is no free will in either. My 'scientific argument' shows how scientists can predict the movement of patients even before they consciously know they are going to make them, again I see no room for free will here. Thus as we have not found free will throughout this debate it must exist and is mealy nothing more than an illusion.
Free will is an illusion

My arguments will be split up in two parts. The first part will go over how two people with all of the same inputs will still produce different out puts. The second part will show the possibility of there being a non-physical conscience (soul) that would impact someone's decisions. Part one. The definition of free will is "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" (1) Based upon this definition, if there was no free will then a person with identical prior causes to another person would make the 'exact' same choices. I intend to prove that this is not the case. The reason this is not the case is thanks to randomness caused by quantum mechanics. Tiny little particles can exist as a wave function, when these wave functions collapse the particle is randomly in one place or the another. This randomness can causes changes in distribution of vibrating atom effectively making all the groups of atoms be at different temperature, yet still the average temperature is the same. These different temperatures of pockets of atoms causes them to have different outcomes chemically, These changes in chemical outcomes causes changes in the firing of signals in the neuron. These changes in the firing of neurons then result in changes in the decision made. No two people's choices will always be the same since they cannot have the exact same outcomes thanks to quantum mechanics. More importantly for this debate, decisions are not fully determined by prior causes thus there is free will by definition. Part two. What my next argument is about cannot be proven or disproven with current technology. In the future my next argument may easily be proven false, but also in the future my argument may be proven true. Unfortunately, we do not know whether it is correct or incorrect at this time, so it is only a theory. This is the reason why I am not proving a non-physical conscience exist, but merely showing the possibility of existing and how it would do it. So how would something not physical impact something physical, it can't physically push it, move it, have an physical impact on it. But there is a possibility for this non-physical occurrence to control the probability of outcome. This isn't physically impacting the particle but it is changing the outcomes. So it is theoretically possible for there to be a non-physical influence on the physical word. Now lets say the non-physical influence exist in a person's brain and is determined by a non-physical conscience. This non-physical conscience or soul would be able to influence quantum randomness in the brain, allowing it to cause the brain to mirror the soul. Since this soul cannot be physically controlled by physical events, it allows a person to make decisions that are not completely dependent on prior causes or randomness. Effectively if the soul exist, 'conscience' free will would also exist.
Dc is better than Marvel

Well, I'd like to start by pointing out is that I think Marvel is much more original on some key elements. One is names. I think DC overuses "man" in their names. Batman, Superman, Aquaman, Animal Man, Wonder Woman. Another element is characterization. I think Marvel characters are much more dynamic. Wolverine, for example. Most of the main DC superheroes (with the exception of Bruce Wayne, who I won't deny is a very dynamic character) are very everyday nice guys in general, they don't really change much. I think Marvel tends to focus only on the Superhero, and not the human behind the hero. Superman calls most of the shots. Marvel, however, focuses on the personal issues and conflicting ideologies that exist between the X-Men, Avengers, etc. The last point I'd like to make is I believe that Marvel has better backstories. A lot of the time, DC story-lines are centered around saving the world. Marvel focuses more on more darker, personal issues. Again, Wolverine serves as a good example. That concludes the reasons I believe Marvel is the better of the two.
Dc is better than Marvel

1 thing I really don"t like about DC is the heroes won"t kill ANYONE no matter how horrific the things are that they do to them, that seems unrealistic to me. I understand why they don"t kill; I just don"t think it would happen like that in real life. I mean when joker breaks out of Arkham for the 20th time just kill him how is keeping him alive helping anyone!?...Anyway that"s what bugs me about DC Personally
Lip-Sync Contest

This is not the actual debate. This is for clarification only. I am leaving up to my opponent to choose whether we do 5 or 10 songs. The rules are simple, for each video you do, post it on the internet somewhere. DO NOT post it on youtube because either the music will be taken off the video, or the video will be taken down because of copyright laws. Judge based on entertainment. Whomever was more entertaining gets however many points you think they deserve. When this is accepted, I will make a new debate. I will repost the rules, as well as my video(s). I think it would be more fun if we did 10 songs, but the videos might get too similar near the end. Choose wisely.
tazmainin tiger being cloned back to life

Could you please spell properly? I have no idea what you just said. People won't vote for you if you don't care about proper grammar and spelling. I'll try to respond to what you said, and I'll try to translate for the audience, but I don't want to have to do this again."this is my avert animal"Translation 1: This is my favorite animal.This isn't a reason to bring something back to life. Just because you really like this animal doesn't mean it needs to come back. We can instead use the money so you don't get sick. There's bad sicknesses out there, and we need to use the mney so people can feel better.Translation 2: This is an animal I avert my attention from."Avert" means you want to avoid something. Do you not like the Tazmanian Tiger? If you want to avert your attention from it, then we probably shouldn't bring it back. (This is why spelling matters.)"its a mamil"Translation: It is a mammal.Mammals are animals that have fur, are warm blooded, and give live birth, not laying eggs. Why is this a reason to bring the Tazmanian Tiger back? Explain further, please."no its not they have a dead pup"Translation: It is not [a waste of money]. They have a dead puppy.I don't see why this matters. What does a dead puppy have to do with a Tazmanian Tiger? And why is it not a waste of money to bring it back? You will have to tell me with more words.[Sorry there's a lot of text. Make sure you come up with a way to counter my argument that we can use money for making medicine rather than cloning the Tazmanian Tiger back to life.]