BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Sorry I had forfeited the round, I was very busy. First to start off, Aviello, it has been proven that he had the keys and that he did have a knife. Also, he did some home with a bloody jacket. Source: http://www.nowpublic.com... Second, the amount of cells was not a sufficient amount, it was not Amanda Knox who killed Meredith Kercher, it was Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede, and Antonio Aviello. Raffaele was involved without a question; there was a lot of evidence that pointed directly to him, and Rudy Guede, he was there and even messed up his story many times. Amanda only went there to learn! She wanted to go to college, and she ends up going to prison. Look, I don't know if my arguments are very good, but I am too young to comprehend some words and don't know some words. I am only 12, so please, no mean remarks. I do not know what else to say besides all that I already have, but, I want to conclude my last argument with this statement: Amanda Knox has not committed the crime of murdering Meredith Kurcher, she wasn't even involved, the way I see it, she is just an innocent person that came from Seattle and was an exchange student only trying to get the education that she was going for, they ended up convicting her of murder, of which she didn't do. I have provided very good evidence that nobody else has provided. So please voters, vote for pro. This was my first debate, and I believe that this will be only one of my few; I only start debates on things that really concern me. Vote for pro please! I will really appreciate it! Thank you :3
Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Italy's legal system is very similar to that of the French [1] which is widely considered to be a just and fair system. Infact the only issue with it is that sometimes cases take a long time to get to court. [2] However, this criticism is not relevent to Knox's innocence as their judiciary matters are exemplary, if a little complex. Rebuttals 1. Aviello It has not been shown that he has the key. This is an unproven assertion. Furthermore, if he had the key why would he break into the apartment. Or if you believe the forensics team (as I am inclined to do) and believe that the break in was staged, what possible motive could Aviello for staging such a break-in. In addition Guede and Sollecito has no connection to Aviello, so why would they assist him in murdering Kercher? Finally we have the issue of the woman's footprint and mixed blood. In any account including Aviello, you fail to account for the woman who must have been present and complicit in the murder. The mixed blood samples show that it is very likely this woman was Knox. Additionally there is no evidence placing Aviello at the scene of the crime or anywhere near it. Whereas there is very strong evidence linking Guede, Sollecito and Knox at the crime. Aviello doesn't seem like a nice chap, but it is frankly ridiculous to assert his guilt. 2. Smearing the knife with blood This bordering on conspiracy theory. Pro claims that Sollecito was there and complicit but decided to frame his girlfriend for no apparent reason (especially seeing as she was going to be his alibi, massive logic fail there). Then after smearing blood on his knife he bleached it to remove most of the evidence (the bleaching was apparent to the forensic team due to the little amount of anyones DNA on it. This is why so little cells were found). Pro seems to fail to realise that a few cells is compelling forensic evidence. Arguments None have been addressed so all are extended. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.justlanded.com...
Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Considering the fact that i am Italian, i mean no disrespect for Italy, but i do not like their legal system, its not a good one. You stated halfway through your arguements that Meredith was not connected to Aviello, but if she wasnt connected to him then why would he have keys to her apartment, i believe that Sollecito, Guede, and Aviello, were the only people involved in the crime. They had found 4 or 5 cells on the knife and that is not a sufficent amount so it had to of been a set-up. Somebody could have killed Meredith by using the knife that Aviello later came come with, but they all just took one of Sollecitos knife's to make it look like Knox was involved, then smeared Meredith's blood on it and maybe rubbed something that had belonged to Amanda because the amount of cells found on the knife that was the "murder weapon" was not enough to prove that Knox had used it. The court had never questioned the knife Aviello came home with nor did they question the bloody jacket, or the keys to Meredith's apartment, Aviello was deffinitely involved. http://www.nowpublic.com... That is the article that had to do with Luciano Aviello and his brother Antonio.
Drunk Driving Should Be Treated Legally As Potential Vehicular Manslaughter

I'd like to begin by addressing your assertion that most individuals know when they've had "too much" better than any universal standard. I completely agree, but the problem is that the individuals affected by this proposed policy change would likely not fall into the category of "most individuals." For those people who do choose to drive while drunk, I think we all agree that there has to be some kind of measure to determine whether or not they're DUI. As far as the probably cause for pulling over a vehicle, I'm not proposing a change in that arena - the standard would still include things like erratic driving, etc. It seems to me, though, that the issue of BAC vs. FST is a tangent from the real issue at hand - neither system is perfect, and the best solution is probably to determine whether or not an individual is DUI using a combination of both. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that no "crime" has been committed when someone drives under the influence but does not do damage to anyone or anything. My argument is to some extent counterintuitive, but I'd like to draw an analogy again to guns. I stated in my original argument that driving under the influence is like firing a gun in the dark. In many states, it is illegal to fire a gun within city limits, regardless of whether or not the bullet strikes another individual. The rationale for this is that there is a heightened risk to others when firing a gun in an urban area, and it is better overall for public safety to make it illegal to discharge a firearm in an urban area. My proposal for punishing drunk drivers follows the same logic. Someone who is truly DUI is only saved from damaging a person or property by luck. You said: "And if they are in fact able to drive without damaging property or human life, then they've done nothing criminal, in my eyes." My proposal is not attempting to punish those who are ABLE to drive without damaging property or human life - it's attempting to punish those who simply did not encounter a situation in which they would damage property or human life. Let me close with one final example, using our friend Jack again. Jack is driving while under the influence of alcohol - let's assume there's no doubt about that. In this state, Jack is prone to running red lights to save time. On his way home, he runs three red lights with no regard to opposing traffic, but does not hit any other cars or pedestrians when he does so. The only reason Jack isn't arrested and tried for homicide is that he was lucky. Isn't he just as much of a danger to public safety regardless of whether he hits another car or a person while running those red lights?
Drunk Driving Should Be Treated Legally As Potential Vehicular Manslaughter

I believe my policy would be a deterrent. After all, people drunk drive now because the penalties are so light. You, too, are advocating stricter penalties. It's just that you want penalties where there is no damage to people or property -- i.e. where no real "crime" has been committed at all. If people knew that an alcohol-related accident would result in jail time, they would be much less likely to drive while impaired. And if they are in fact able to drive without damaging property or human life, then they've done nothing criminal, in my eyes. Furthermore, how do you propose to catch impaired drivers who have not damaged property or injured people? You mention "probable cause" -- what would constitute "probable cause" for pulling over a car? "Probable cause" should be treaded very lightly, and what you're suggesting here gives too much discretion where it is not needed. The purpose of government should be to protect people and their property from the initiation of force. Yes, drunk driving is risky, but the real "crime" is when property or people are damaged. People will always make bad decisions, but on the whole, individuals know better when they've had "too much" than a universally applied BAC or an entirely discretionary FST (field sobriety test). My personal limit is zero -- if I have even one beer, my wife is driving -- I just don't take any risk as far as this is concerned. But others are able to drive after having much more without any negative consequences. If they knew an accident would result in stiff penalties, though, they would make darn sure they were safe to drive before putting the key in the ignition.
Drunk Driving Should Be Treated Legally As Potential Vehicular Manslaughter

Your argument rests on the idea that your proposed policy will be an effective deterrent. I don't agree that it will. Even if the penalties for damaging property or individuals were made to be much more severe, there is still the question of what happens to the individual who gets lucky, and does not damage either property or individuals. If your average drunk driver believes that he or she will not encounter any people or property on the road (and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume at least a portion of drunk drivers are driving on that assumption,) he or she is not affected by your deterrent. If, however, even drunk drivers who do NOT damage property or individuals are severely punished, the deterrent effect reaches all potential drunk drivers, and is more likely to curb drunk driving on the whole. As far as the discretion being given to arresting officers, I share this concern, but I believe it is a necessary evil in this situation, and not entirely without precedent. Police officers are, for example, given the right to search an individual's car if they can cite probable cause, a concept which also gives officers a sizable amount of discretion. If there is a question over an officer's conduct, it will be addressed at trial - this is how the system works with regard to issues like probable cause, and how it would work with regard to administering field sobriety tests. Now that most police cars are equipped with on-board cameras, and the procedure for administering field sobriety tests is relatively standardized, the potential for abuse is minimal, and there is already a system in place to address cases of potential abuse.
Drunk Driving Should Be Treated Legally As Potential Vehicular Manslaughter

I share your concern that drunk driving is not treated as seriously as it should be. However, I am also concerned about the authority and discretion given to the government (police) with this issue. Therefore, I propose an alternative deterrent. First and foremost, I find no constitutional basis for any kind of national laws against drunk driving. So when you talk about universality, I can only accept that if it were adopted, voluntarily and with no coercion, by the state governments, who do have proper jurisdiction on this issue. As you admit, there is simply no good measure of driver impairment. Blood-Alcohol-Level (BAC) isn't accurate, but surely a "field sobriety test" is even less so. It gives far too much discretion to the arresting officer. Here is what I propose states do to combat the risks of impaired driving: ENACT EXTREMELY STRICT PENALTIES FOR FOR AT-FAULT DRIVERS WHO DAMAGE PROPERTY OR INJURE PEOPLE WITH EVEN A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL IN THEIR SYSTEM. The point of this approach is that individuals should determine for themselves when they've had too much to drink. But if they drive after having even a few beers, they had better make sure they are not impaired -- because if they are at-fault in an accident, they would be SEVERELY punished. If every alcohol-related traffic accident resulted in a minimum sentence of 90 days in jail, steep fines, and a six-month loss of driver's license, for example, how many people would drive when they had had too much to drink? If the second offense resulted in permanent suspension of driving privileges along with six months to a year in jail, then how many repeat offenders would there be? And of course, if anyone is killed in such an accident, then the crime should be treated like a regular homicide.
Drunk Driving Should Be Treated Legally As Potential Vehicular Manslaughter

To my knowledge, there is currently no concept in the U.S. legal system akin to "potential vehicular manslaughter." I propose that there should be such a concept, and it should apply to those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Before I get to the crux of my argument, I should clarify something about what I mean when I say DUI. I do not believe that there should be an absolute standard for determining what constitutes DUI, such as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level. An habitual alcoholic could easily be unimpaired with a BAC above the legal limit, whereas a first-timer who hadn't eaten anything all day could be impaired below the legal limit. The determination should be made by a field sobriety test. When one drives under the influence, I propose that this is akin to firing a gun in the dark. Whether or not someone is harmed by either action is largely determined by luck. If a drunk driver doesn't happen to pass any pedestrians or other vehicles on his or her route, he or she simply got lucky. I am uncomfortable with the notion that drunk drivers who are smiled upon by luck are treated less severely than drunk drivers who are not. Let us conduct a thought experiment using two drunk drivers, who are both "impaired" (assuming we can all agree on this definition, which I know is a large assumption.) We'll call these drivers Jack and Jill. Jack drives 10 blocks from a party toward his apartment, and doesn't pass any pedestrians or other vehicles. He is pulled over, given a field sobriety test, and found to be guilty of DUI. Jill drives 10 blocks from a party toward her apartment, and encounters a pedestrian crossing the street. Due to her decreased reaction time, she hits and kills this pedestrian. She is given a field sobriety test, and also found to be DUI. Under the current system, these two drivers are treated completely differently. I propose that if Jack were faced with the same situation Jill was, he would have also killed the pedestrian. Yet he is given a much lighter punishment under the current system. I believe they should be treated equally, because the only difference between them was how lucky they were when driving drunk.
Drunk Driving Should Be Treated Legally As Potential Vehicular Manslaughter

I disagree with your first paragraph. If there is no damage or injury, then there is no crime. If there is damage or injury, and there is alcohol involved, then it is reasonable to assume the alcohol played a role and that the damage was criminal instead of just an "accident." In this case, the person should be punished and made to pay restitution. Repeat offenders should be barred from driving at all, for good. That is more than enough of a deterrent, and it deals with actual injury, instead of further empowering the police state to conduct unreasonable searches in violation of the fourth amendment, when there is no victim! There cannot be a legitimate crime without a victim. By your logic, the fact that I may present a "risk" is a crime itself. Well, driving is risky, even when the driver is in no way intoxicated. Why not just make that a crime? It is agreed that some level of alcohol increases the risk, but we agree that the level is different for different people. You admit a Blood Alcohol Test is not a good measure of impairment, and think subjective Field Sobriety Test is better. The police should spend their time dealing with actual crimes -- crimes in which there are victims. Not "crimes" where there simply MIGHT be victims. In your example, Jack committed no crime because no one was injured. The only reason he is not tried for homicide is that he didn't kill anyone -- and that's a pretty good reason to not be arrested for homicide in my book! There is no such thing as "luck" -- that's a superstition. And besides, if the penalty for damaging people or property while under the influence was as I propose -- guaranteed jail time, fines, and suspension of your license -- then Jack may have thought twice before getting behind the wheel. He does so now because the penalties, even for vehicular "manslaughter" (murder, really, I'm sure you agree) is so light.
primate rights

1.Primate is defined as a mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bush babies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, hand like feet, and forward-facing eyes. 2.Human Being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. 3.A minor difference between apes and humans is the human tendency of bipedalism. 4.We come from the same family; hominidae, which include chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans. 5.A comparison between the common human and chimpanzee genome shows that 96% of DNA base pair sequences of humans and chimpanzees are the same. 6.If only gene segments are compared, there is a 98% similarity. 7.The genes that differ mostly control speech, smelling, hearing, digesting proteins, and susceptibility to certain diseases. 8.One of the most believed difference between humans and chimpanzees is the level of intelligence. 9.Humans, however, spend their entire lives reading, learning, and teaching others their past knowledge, because it is a dictate of society. 10.Apes do not try to increase their intelligence of technology. 11.Another major difference is linguistic skill. 12.Many primatologists will argue that apes have their own language, verbal and non-verbal. 13.Humans do not know things automatically, they must be taught, which is why there are schools. 14.Apes must be taught to further their knowledge as well. 15.American Sign Language can be taught to apes, as seen with Koko the gorilla, who can understand more than 1,000 signs and over 2,000 spoken words. 16.This is a significant step for apes because they are 6-7 million years behind in the evolutionary track. 17.The Humans vocal cords and modern skull have only developed over the last 100-50,000 years. 18. It's now clear that our primate cousins have demonstrated that they have inner lives and relationships, can communicate, and experience emotions. 19.Many groups of people were, at one point in time, denied certain unalienable rights. 20.For example, women suffrage began in 1848, but women were only allotted the right to vote over 70 years later in 1920. 21.Another example would be black suffrage, which started with their opposition of slavery starting in 1619, and were given the right to vote over 300 years later, in 1965. 22.The idea of ape rights is a relatively new idea, which has been around for less than thirty years. 23.Over the last fifteen years many countries such as; New Zealand, Spain, The UK, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, extended personhood rights to great apes because of ethical reasons. 24.The US has taken a step forward, by significantly reducing the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. 25.Therefore, Great Apes should not be denied rights, and should be considered as persons.
The death penalty should remain in place

There are several purposes to any punishment: retribution, deterrence and protection of society. The death penalty adequetely satisfies each of these.JusticeThe death penalty is just. When a person inflicts an evil upon society, he merits evil towards himself. This is why when people rape, rob, cheat and lie, they are punished. Indeed, if they go without being punished, we suddenly feel the injustice. The punishment should also reflect the severity of the crime. A person who steals $5 should be punished less than a rapist. Thus, a murderer should be punished very heavily. The only thing that can equal life in value is life. Thus, in the case of murder, the only just penalty is death.DeterrenceThe death penalty also deters crimes. Many studies have shown that as the death penalty increases, murders decrease and vice versa. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...; /> http://www.wesleylowe.com...; />Protects SocietyThe death penalty protects society because it not only decreases murder rates, but also because a dead person is infinitely less dangerous than an alive person. A person who is dead cannot ever murder you.ConclusionFor these reasons, the death penalty should remain in place. Thank you.
Homeopathy and Alternative medicines do not work

You missed out a part of the story too- "Because medical practice of the time relied on ineffective and often dangerous treatments, patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors of the time.[59] Homeopathic remedies, even if ineffective, would almost surely cause no harm, making the users of homeopathic remedies less likely to be killed by the treatment that was supposed to be helping them.[45]". You claim that homeopathy was better than the 'greatest' medical procedures of those times. As you can see from the above quote, better does not mean it works. Something that does not work is better than something that does harm.
Homeopathy and Alternative medicines do not work

While quoting wikipedia, you neglected the rest of the story: Because medical practice of the time relied on ineffective and often dangerous treatments, patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors of the time.[59] ... The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science-based medicine.[33] One reason for the growing popularity of homeopathy was its apparent success in treating people suffering from infectious disease epidemics.[60] During 19th century epidemics of diseases such as cholera, death rates in homeopathic hospitals were often lower than in conventional hospitals, where the treatments used at the time were often harmful and did little or nothing to combat the diseases.[61] From the above you can see that there were better results with homeopathy than the greatest medical procedures of the time. Just because modern medical advancement has outpaced both homeopathy and historic medical procedures does not prove it nonsense! It was clearly recognised to be very effective at one point. It has merely been outperformed -not disproven.