BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony, Prosecutors Say

"Murdering a 3 year old is a capital offense. So the judge was wrong. " "Judge Backus never said that murdering a three-year-old was or was not a capital offense, And neither did I, " Well first off, Who really cares what you think? You do not have the power to stick your christianity into this case which is what you are doing and you know it. So because of that this will have to be the closing chapter of this well worn debate in which you cannot win in which the judge was clearly wrong and she should be out of a job and locked up. She's not as bad as Donald Trump, The worst president of all time, But close. You didn't even look at the evidence. And you know what? Wow. I'm such an idiot. I really am. I should have ended the debate in the previous RD. The TIME article in RD1 more than proves that the judge was clearly wrong. "Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. " That was also confirmed in the first newspaper article posted in RD2. "The children and infants were being trained to use firearms "in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit school shootings, " That's also confirmed in the video from the Washington Post in which you didn't watch. I get it, I really do. You are a christian so you are trying to defend your religion in which case, Sorry, You cannot do. But then again there's no such a thing as christianity. The judge, Just like Donald Trump (who doesn't even believe in a fraudulent god and he knows it as his tells shine brighter than a super nova) should be brought up on charges for serious abuse of the system. This absolutely has everything to do with your religion. Remember Waco? What about Jim Jones? Its all religion by crazed lunatics. The 5 defendants are no different. They just had a smaller compound. That's the only difference. And now that they are set free, What do you think they will do next in 15 or 20 years if not stopped and they gain a large commune? Do you really think it will be any different? Oh I get it their guns are for what purpose exactly. Oh and oh yeah were these defendants ---ever--- evaluated by any psychologist? Not a psychiatrist. A psychologist. AND for an extended period of time? That answer is NO! Get---a---clue. Your next argument will be ignored. You clearly have no idea what dangerous game you play. Tell you what. . . Since you are so confident of your verdict, Why don't you take a backyard stroll and go interview the 5 defendants? Ahhhhhh but you never will and you know it. You will hide under your sheets because the sight of them when you get close to them would make your skin crawl and you know it. I'm done. There's nothing you can possibly say to save your pathetic positioning. Bye.
Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony, Prosecutors Say

I'd like to start off by saying that I do not condone the alleged behavior of the defendants, But I do agree wholeheartedly with Judge Backus's decision. According to the New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Sec. 13, Bail is a viable option to all defendants with the exception of those who have committed capital offenses. That being said, The ruling Judge Backus made was in response to a case regarding 11 counts of child abuse, Not a case regarding any amount of murder, So bail is a very viable option. Though the allegations surrounding the case are troubling, They lack substantial evidence. As you stated, A large portion of the prosecution's argument centered around how the defendants were training the children to be, More or less, Terrorists. The prosecution provided little concrete evidence of this, Simply the compound's gun range and the defendants' religion. All the firearms were legal, Religion is not a determining factor of guilt, And none of this relates directly to child abuse. Judge Backus prompted the prosecution for more evidence regarding the focus of the case, Child abuse, During the hearing, But the prosecution did not fulfill this request and instead hoped the judge would would jump to conclusions based off of the other evidence. Another factor as to whether the defendants receive bail or not is their danger to society and others. Prior to this case, None of the defendants had criminal records, And all of their abusive activities were conducted solely within their family. If the defendants were released pending bail, They would pose no threat to their 11 children, As the children would be in the custody of child protective services. Court cases can induce many emotions, But it is the job of judges to remain as neutral as possible and stick to the facts and the evidence. Though this may not always produce the desired outcome for sympathizers of the victims, It's their job, And they have to stand by it. If Judge Backus denied bail to the defendants, She would be siding with the prosecution, As they did not provide any substantial amount of concrete evidence to warrant denial of bail. By doing what she did, She is remaining neutral and leaving the decisions of guilt to the trial. One more note - $20, 000 in bail (each) isn't just a slap on the wrist. They still have to face trial for their crimes. Sources: New Mexico Constitution: http://www. Sos. State. Nm. Us/nmconst2017. Pdf Judge Backus's written order explaining her actions: https://www. Abqjournal. Com/1209212/taos-judges-written-order-elaborates-on-controversial-compound-decision. Html
Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony, Prosecutors Say

TIME: Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony. . . Prosecutors in New Mexico told a court Monday that a 3 year-old boy whose remains were found in a remote compound had died during a ritual ceremony "to cast out demonic spirits. " Relatives of the boy, Identified as Abdul-Ghani Wahhaj, Believed he would "return as Jesus" to guide their future attacks against financial and government targets, Prosecutors alleged Monday, According to Reuters. "They were awaiting for Abdul-Ghani to be resurrected to let them know which government institutions to get rid of, " Taos County Prosecutor John Lovelace said. The allegations came during a hearing of three women and two men arrested on charges of child abuse after authorities raided their derelict property on Aug. 3. They had been led there by a months-long search for Adhul-Ghani, Who was allegedly abducted from his mother"s home in Atlanta last December. Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. The children and infants were being trained to use firearms "in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit school shootings, " according to court documents cited by Reuters. The 3-year-old"s body was uncovered three days after the initial raid. Court documents named the adults as Lucas Morton and his wife Subjannah Wahhaj, Subjannah"s brother Siraj Ibn Wahhaj " who has also been charged with the alleged abduction of his son Abdul-Ghani " and his wife Jany Leveille, And another sister, Hujrah Wahhaj. The three women were mothers to the 11 children at the compound, Police said. District Judge Sarah Backus set each of the suspects" bonds at $20, 000, Rejecting prosecutors" requests that they be denied bail. RULES: Prove that the judge was correct and that these butchers who murdered the 3 year old deserved to be let off with a gouchie smoochie kissy kissy poo poo slap on the wrist of $20, 000 in bail by the judge who's brains were obviously not intact within Miss Sarah Backus skull at the time of that hammering went down and that religion is such a "good" thing. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Marijuana should be legal

You are proposing arguments with no evidence that don't make an sense. He could not find a reliable source with his crazy points so he chose to use his unreliable sources instead. You say that marijuana cures many diseases but you have failed to explain how it cures these diseases but merely instead said that it does with no evidence to back it up. You say that marijuana improves parenting but you give no explanation why and do you really think that a parent that is high is going to be a better parent. Again, you made a claim that marijuana decreases car crashes by 8-11%. How do you know that? How was that number concluded? You give me no reason to believe you. "Decreasing car crashes and helping with parenting skills are not "small" issues. Preventing deaths and helping parents with raising their child is very deep" They are important but a small issue is something that the government should not spend much time investing in. There are so many people that can help with parenting and so many course on defensive driving, driving safety, etc. that the government does not need to step in because all that education and time people spend on educating people about the road. "The study that shows that Marijuana contributed to 279 deaths in 8.5 years is outdated, not to mention the fact that 279 deaths in 8.5 years is not much at all. Dogs are rarely responsible for killing people, does that mean that we shall rid the world of dogs? No. On the other hand, my study was from 2010, not 1997-2005. " This is irrelevant. People died. That is it. Your source is not reliable and mine is. Mine is old but it is still reliable because it explained how they got the results that they got when your sources just stated unproven facts. And we are not talking about dogs. I don't understand why you are mentioning dogs. I am going to stop refuting his points because they tend to all follow the same theme: They are unproven facts that I have no reason to believe. He failed to counter my argument successfully that marijuana is bad for you by providing no evidence that suggest that there is a positive and so that concludes the debate.
Marijuana should be legal

It's worth saving money and decreasing health if we decrease deaths. I could not find a decent ".gov or .org" site with the time I had. I will instead refute my opponent's argument using my evidence, which I believe is reliable enough. Since no rules were established, and many debates have these types of sources, I shall carry on with the debate. Rebuttals: Marijuana can cure many diseases, improve parenting skills, and decreases car crashes by 8-11%. I believe it's better to have a drug that can do such positive actions for people. Diseases and drugs that can kill you need to be prevented so that our health is better. The study that shows that Marijuana contributed to 279 deaths in 8.5 years is outdated, not to mention the fact that 279 deaths in 8.5 years is not much at all. Dogs are rarely responsible for killing people, does that mean that we shall rid the world of dogs? No. On the other hand, my study was from 2010, not 1997-2005. Decreasing car crashes and helping with parenting skills are not "small" issues. Preventing deaths and helping parents with raising their child is very deep. You did not refute the claim in any way, so it remains polished and untouched. I can propose that it is definitely the government's fault for wasting money. If they did their research in order to realize that Marijuana can prevent the process of other diseases and drugs, surely they would consider that one small issue with many benefits is something that should be legal and is a better option rather than smoking cigarettes or drinking beer, which people already do. Besides, people are going to smoke Marijuana anyway. There's no need for spending billions of dollars on something that will never go away. A Marijuana Prohibition may also lead to many issues with the citizens. Overall, it is worth taking these small risks in order to counter the many other problems in the U.S. Banning Tobacco and Alcohol will not work, so we will have to use this tactic to slow down the process of Tobacco and Alcohol usage. Marijuana is an alternate drug that offers positive aspects to those who use it. Even regarding the health issues, I am all for a drug that will prevent deaths and work against worse drugs.
Marijuana should be legal

Thank you for replying, I shall propose a devil's advocate. Marijuana does have some negative effects, that is inarguable. However, Marijuana usage is nowhere near as dangerous as other drugs or diseases, and actually prevents deaths. Anually, Marijuana causes 0 deaths per year. Marijuana is not lethal compared to a drug like Tobacco, which causes about 406,290 deaths per year, or Alcohol, which causes 116,000 deaths per year. If you add these statistics up, that means you would have a total of 552,290 deaths from Alcohol and Tobacco every year. That's over half of a million people! Marijuana is actually proven to distract kids from Alcohol and Tobacco, two lethal substances. Marijuana also decreases the amount of car crashes by 8-11%, especially since people who use Marijuana become more calm. It also helps with parenting skills and can fight against Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Now for some financial statistics. The U.S is spending 7.7 billion dollars to illegalize Marijuana. However, taxing for Marijuana can give the U.S a grand total of 6 billion more dollars a year, and a minimum of 4 million dollars in a year. If the U.S can save billions of our profit, they can use the money for bigger issues and strengthen our economy as Marijuana usage continues to grow. Also, WeGrow would be able to set up more jobs for people, building up the economy even more! Finally, I must argue that Marijuana is beneficial for the environment. If Marijuana is legalized, it will allow high degree planters to grow Marijuana and waste less water and electricity. Otherwise, Marijuana would have to continue in the state of being grown by lower class planters who may be unaware of the consequences. Currently, 5 billion dollars thrown out of the window because of the use of electricity. Toxins are also emitted from Marijuana if it's planted and grown incorrectly. Sources: 1]http://distractify.com...
Marijuana should be legal

Let's begin. The relief from stress from marijuana is definitely a benefit of marijuana for certain people that have terminal cancer, going to a mental breakdown, etc. This is good. We actually have medicinal marijuana for this. The thing that you are refering to is recreational marijuana I presume (correct me if I'm wrong). As in using marijuana for recreation, I will argue that it should be illegal to be used in that way. "Marijuana also affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions. Marijuana’s effects on these abilities may last a long time or even be permanent. For example, a study showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing cannabis use disorder lost an average of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities did not fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults. Those who started smoking marijuana as adults did not show notable IQ declines (Meier, 2012). ". http://www.drugabuse.gov...;This excerpt from the government website just shows some of the problems that people face with long term marijuana usage. There are also other health risks such as breathing problems, increase heart rate that may lead to heart attack and it increases the user's chance of obtaining mental disorders such as random hallucinations, schizophrenia, and paranoia. With all these health risks involved, I see no reason as to why the legalization of marijuana should happen. To put that much risks at one's health explains why marijuana should not be legal.
Marijuana should be legal

I propose that Marijuana should be legalized. I believe that it's a spectacular opportunity for those who are dealing with the hardships of life to escalate in terms of mood or disease. Studies have shown that Marijuana has the capability of stopping Cancer, curing Glaucoma, reversing effects of Tobacco and ameliorating lung health, decreasing anxiety, ridding of Dravet's Syndrome, etc. C1) A substance that is able to prevent the effects of negative thoughts and emotions, diseases, and seizures should be legal. C2) Without Marijuana, you are going to have people who are outright stressed out, get seizures, and are withering from diseases. P1) Marijuana should be legalized (everywhere) There is a good reason for why police officers think Marijuana should be legal. 3.6 Billion dollars were spent against the usage of pot in 2010. I believe that is an insanely large sum of money to be spent on something as simple as Marijuana usage, which is good for you, and we should be spending this large weight of money on crimes that are actually dangerous, like assaulting others drunkenly. If Tobacco is legal, then why on earth should Marijuana should be illegal? Since Marijuana can reverse the effects of Tobacco and keep your lungs in a healthy state, that makes it even better than Tobacco itself. Sources: 1] http://www.businessinsider.com... 2] http://www.rollingstone.com...
Parents who don't lick their children are bad parents

There are many horrible things parents have done to their children in the history of men, But one of the biggest mistakes in entire history is a rather simple one: not licking them. All other problems: wars, Poverty, Pain and sickness - resulted from that. Licking may feel weird in the beginning, But once you get used to licking your child's cheek, It will become very easy and satisfying. And soon, Like addicted, You will want it to last forever. Children like to lick things and put things in their mouth. Sometimes they like to kiss and bite. This is all perfectly appropriate. If your life is full of trouble, And you have no where to go, If this world has turned his back on you, Know that this world can't heal your broken heart, But licking children can. Licking children has many beneficial effects on your mental health. I know that very soon, You will rise and feel great again, If not today, Then tomorrow, Cause licking children can. It can fix a broken soul, Bring back love and happiness, Nothing is impossible, With God and a lick. Bible is fulfilling, Every word of it is true and it's going to come to past. Whether we believe in that or not, Is not going to prevent the Lord from coming. And if he comes, And you are not saved, You didn't lick children, What are you going to do? I can tell you, There is nothing you can do then, But there is something you can do now. You can take your children and lick them. Sinner, What are you going to do?
Atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to science

This should be quite fun. I'm agnostic, so it's always a present to me to argue for both the theism side and the atheism side. Stir the pot up a little! ==Framework==In this debate, we will be arguing three topics. The first is that atheists block human progress, the second is that they hold back science, and the third is that they pose the greatest threat to science. The BoP is on pro. If he fails to prove ALL three of these topics, he automatically loses the argument points. Since there were no guidelines set in place by pro, that means that I can do them. The basis of this debate will rely on not religion, but rather what atheists contribute to the science world. Arguments like "atheists have the wrong belief" cannot be proven and is not yet proven, so that argument can NOT be used in this debate. Pro also asserts he is 100% sure that his BoP is correct. That means that even if pro's stance is deemed most likely correct, he does not win. He must prove, beyond doubt, that his assertion is correct. He also says that atheists pose the greatest threat to mankind- which means he now has four assertions to prove. So, to cap it off, here is what pro MUST do to stand a chance at winning this debate:•Prove atheists are greatest threat to science•Prove atheists block human progress•Prove that atheists have held back science more than they have contributed to it•Prove that atheists are the greatest threat to mankind•Prove ALL of these assertions beyond any doubt. I've seen a lot of very tough challenges, and accepted a few myself, but wow. ==Terms==Atheists will be defined as one who does not believe in any God. Every field of science may be used during this debate (chemistry, laws, etc. )Humans will be defined as the species Homo Sapiens that reside on Earth. That is all.
dogs are better than cats

I believe this argument should be voted solely based on impact. I believe who ever has the biggest impact should be the person who wins today's round. According to http://www.dogsbite.org..., there reported more than 30 dog attacks than fatal. Give me an example of an house cat attack that was fatal. This does not mean I don't respect your opinion, I totally do, but when looking at the statistics, dogs have cause more deaths than cats.
dogs are better than cats

wouldn't you say that in the case of dog vs. cat when the question is which are better it can only truly be accounted for by advantageous traits, seeing as better implies opinion, and opinion cannot be formed on things we do not know. Dogs are stronger and easily develop more muscle, dogs are more susceptible to suggestion, and more domesticated, have more uses in medical, and government jobs. So as pets and as helpers to the community dogs can be seen as better, which is the real argument
Megaman vs sonic megaman wins

Nice of all meeting you I will show the skills of mega man Just to say I am not a top prime debater and I am not as good but let me try Mega man - He can change into different types of gears using many types of suits He can absorb powers He can transform with his loyal companion which makes a robot able to shoot missile He has a meteor gear which helps him blow his enemies with a meteor blast He can stop time just like shadow the hedgehog Portal mega man There are more of his gears but I just want to use these ones for now Sonic Speed Super sonic Rings Basically Sonic has no chance against Mega man and I could show you the dis advantages Sonic has. Sonic is very fast true but like I said mega man can change into all different suits and he would know Sonic can surpass his speed but like I said mega man would use the time stopping attack to stop Sonic in his place for a limited time. As for doing that Mega man can unleash a move on Sonic and Sonic would take damage. Sonic also cannot turn super Sonic unless all emeralds are collected which he would not find during battle. Mega man can also absorb their power by placing his hand on the other person's body. This could decrease their stamina and power making Sonic a disadvantage. Sonic main advantage in battle is rings and rolling into a ball impacted with speed. This will not work because Mega man has a built in shield THAT IS NEARLY UNBREAKABLE. It wouldn't have an effect on mega man because of his built in shield. So basically Sonic wouldn't even be able to hold a chance.
John Edward is a psychic medium fraud

My opponent immediately disrespects me in round 2. It's pretty common for an acceptance round to also contain a silly sentence or 2 instead of the actual words "I accept". A silly sentence or 2 actually serves the same purpose. @nonprophet, you need to conduct yourself in a more respectable manner around here. There is a reason why people almost unanimously dislike you. I know it's common for jerks to think "everyone else is the problem", but by applying Occam's Razor to your situation, you can see. That it is you who is the jerk. I reccomend you read -How to Win Friends and Influence People, for the digital age-. It might help you to be treated better, and actually be respected.