BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should minors be charged with adult consequences when it comes to the law

O.k let me set some definitions: Minor: A person under the age of full legal responsibility Crime: An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Law: An individual rule as part of such a system. Definitions From Google Search Rules: 1. No Plagerism 2. Site sources 3. No False statements I Will Be on The Con side of this debate, i should state that minors shouldn't be charged with adult crimes And My Opponet should say that crimes made by a minor should be settled with the same punishment Now i will leave the rest to my opponet.. GOOD LUCK!
God is natural, we just live in a supernatural world.

God is non-existent and we live in a natural world. Simply defining things in a odd and unacceptable way does not allow you to conclude such things. Natural has nothing to do with right and wrong. Right and wrong are moral conventions which allow humans to survive in society. When a lion kills and eats a gazelle, we do not accuse him of murder. When a dog mounts another dog for sex, we do not accuse him of rape. When a hyena runs off with the kill of a cheetah we do not accuse it of theft. There's nothing inherently moral or just about the natural world, they are human conventions for surviving in human institutions. Natural does not refer to the wilderness. To say that we live in a natural world applies to the city as well as the rural, as well as to to the distant stars. It is saying that what we see is what we get. This table really does exist. I really am typing on a computer. There really aren't miracles occurring all the time. The supernatural is something beyond this view of the natural world. That there is something transcendental beyond this desk or outside of the everything that exists. Of all the definitions you give, the worst has to be your definition of God as "ultimate reality". This is no definition I've seen used by anybody reasonable. However, there's a bit to the idea as many view the godly realm as being beyond the natural world, above and transcendental to our existence and the stuff of real existence. However, your definition of 'ultimate' simply seeks to restrict such inclinations to the natural world by limiting it to within time and space. You want to eat your cake and have it too. You claim that God is "ultimate" which is to say "natural". You've essentially defined God as natural and supposed that that supports your conclusion. Even with the silly definitions and rampant equivocation, you never actually even attempted to show that "we live in a supernatural world". ------- By your definitions God would simply be the universe. The mindless, thoughtless, material universe, uncaring and unknowing and just there. Simply making God into the universe doesn't force one to exclude reality from the universe. Rather the above topic as you've been arguing would be "God is natural, we just live in God." Clearly if God is, as you say, reality and we live in reality then we live in God. And again, it's all pretty much a moot point because most of the definitions were ripped out of your hind-end and even then definitions are attempts to grasp how we use words not how words must be used... and to top it all off the topic of the debate is completely false as there is no God and we live in a natural world. --------- Also, I'd advise you to pay close attention to simply defining God into existence. Certainly if I defined elves as some form of reality, then I could try and parlay that into the conclusion that elves exist. You can't just define things as real things and then move on. There non-existence of God proper is enough to fault the topic you are trying to expound.
God is natural, we just live in a supernatural world.

The idea is very simple. First, I will define natural and supernatural, as well as other definitions that I feel are helpful. Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong 2 a: being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit). World: the earthly state of human existence Super: exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree God: ultimate reality Ultimate: most remote in space or time. basic, fundamental, original. reality: the quality or state of being real. God is natural laws, in a time in which we live according to supernatural laws. there really isn't much more I can say. God is natural.
Illigeal immigrants should be deported

https://www.politico.com... you cannot ignore the fact that it makes innocent civilians poorer, and plus, the illeageals should not be pitied, they broke the law! if they wanted to be in America, but instead of waiting, they ran across the border, it also isn't helping that they are making children here, it is furthering the overpopulation, and causing more taxes, but are the effective work wise? no, since they are not civilians, half of them are getting OUR MONEY, by slaving in some fields! finally, they are wasting our resources, the food that they are eating could easily be fed to the poor, but they decided to enter here illeagealy and use our resources, if they waited their turn, the food would be given AND the poor could be fed. people say "no human is illeageal" but I disagree, a human is illeageal when they broke an enforced law, and their is no buts about it. Sources: . https://www.politico.com...
Sandbox games(open world) are and will remain the most satisfactory overall

Great to hear. I believe all genres and types of games, as well as innovation on these themselves, are required for the future of gaming, as well as for those who enjoy them. Many open world games are a lot of fun, with the likes of GTA, Saints Row, Just Cause, The Elder Scrolls series and Far Cry to name but a few. Some are semi-linear, giving you quests that are only completable once you reach a certain level, get certain tech or complete some other prerequisite like in Borderlands, Prototype and the newer Fallout games by Bethesda. Games are awesome, and I'm sure some of us are a bit too tied to it, perhaps even engrossed by it or made it a lifestyle. "Gaming" have been looked down upon in the past, but this mentality have changed through the course of the years, where now everyone can enjoy a game now and then. And with the amount of competitive gaming going on these days, it can even be considered a job. Amazing times we are living in indeed.
Sandbox games(open world) are and will remain the most satisfactory overall

Linear games are necessary to portray many stories. It could be just as enjoyable, if not more, than any sandbox, non-linear, open world or free-roam counterpart. Referring to the Half-Life, F.E.A.R, Call of Duty and Medal of Honor franchises. Integrating these stories into a sandbox type world, while maintaining the feel and ambiance of the game would be difficult, if not impossible. Other genres like RTS (Starcraft, Command & Conquer) haven't tread on the sandbox system to my best knowledge, and I could imagine it would be pretty hard to integrate. Offering a "Sandbox mode" on these type of games should bore many a player quite rapidly, as having "godlike" powers to "summon" or buy any unit into the game freely will destroy some sensitive balancing and economics intended by the designers. Slash/Beat 'em ups, Battle Arena and Turn based strategy would also be tough to adjust to the free-roam model. Lets not mention that too much freedom can also be overwhelming for certain individuals. If a tutorial is not clear on something, you could easily go days without knowing of certain functions, goals or possibilities. Not taking into consideration the age restriction on a game like DayZ, would an 8 year old enjoy it more, or would they enjoy Half-Life: Blue Shift more? One could argue that not all young children are the same, therefore some would enjoy one more than the other. The amount of thinking in some sandbox type games could be overwhelming to those who are still underdeveloped. A neutral example is a game like Minecraft. It is completely sandbox orientated with no specifically written objectives. While many people love this game for its ingenuity and freedom, others accuse it of bad graphics and boring gameplay. This is easily proven by doing a search online for "why I don't like Minecraft" or anything else along these lines. Imagine a world without Street Fighter, Donkey Kong, Mario Kart, Mortal Kombat, Doom, Super Smash Bros, DotA, Counter-Strike... What kind of Sandbox game can claim the fun, fame and fortune experienced from these titles? Thank you for reading my argument.
Sandbox games(open world) are and will remain the most satisfactory overall

When you play a sandbox game(Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto 5, Terreria, Zelda) you get freedom. You get a game that allows you do anything you want at anytime. You could go and break some pots, slay some Death claws or just explore the vast world. In these games there are sometimes minigames inside, Like in GTA5, there are 24 minigames, ranging from Gambling and Tennis to a variety or arcade games . What I'm trying to express is that a sandbox game in many ways can capture the feeling of any other type of genres but still offer more then other games.
Anyone who posts comments on websites should learn how to spell and use proper grammar.

You have said nothing in 2 rounds. You submit an "argument" that in practice contradicts what you are arguing. We are arguing about the people argue, but you have conformed to my opinion. Since when do you not have to appear credible to be persuasive? The truth is you keep creating the straw man that I am somehow vehemently opposed to the slightest flaw, which is something I have never said. What I initially argued is that people who expect to be taken seriously when they post things online should capitalize things, use punctuation, and attempt to spell words correctly. Do I sometimes misspell a word? Of course! Is that the point? No, of course not. The point is intent and effort. Of course anyone has the right to post however they please. I have never said they should be denied internet access or their posts systematically deleted. What I AM arguing is that I have the right (and I am asking that others invoke it as well), to disregard people who INTEND to be taken seriously but can't put forth the EFFORT to present themselves and their comments/opinions with the least bit of propriety in clarity of communication. Might I also add that I have a great deal of respect for your position (albeit misled) since you have presented it well, and that you can do so somewhat effortlessly. I do as well, and at least in our cases education has succeeded. And, you have presented a position, not an attack. Many times comments I see that are ignorant in form are equally ignorant in content: an observation that probably influenced the veracity with which I expressed my original position, but I thought it too complicated an angle to include in this debate. The internet gives a platform to many people who would never voice their opinions verbally, or in other more established print forms (i.e., newspapers). It also gives them this platform free from the responsibility of attaching their identity to their expressions. Now: why? Would many of the comments like I am referring to be taken seriously within the realm of more established media? Thus is the difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. On one hand, yes, the internet provides greater freedom and opportunity of expression, but it also provides a greater sounding board for ignorance. Can you say that is good? If nothing else, it means things people just "spout off" online should be subject to greater scrutiny. I feel like I've drifted. My point is that I often use proficiency of written communication skills as an indication of self-respect. I don't want to put something up here for all to see and look like a moron doing it, and I tend not to take seriously people who do.
Anyone who posts comments on websites should learn how to spell and use proper grammar.

"Perhaps your argument would have been more effective if you had in fact written it in "netspeak". Or were you afraid of being misunderstood, or just looking silly and not credible?" The reason why I did not write it in netspeak is because simply I did not care to. I am not going to try and talk in a different way that is unnatural. Everyone is entitled to talk the way they want on the Internet, and my way just so happens to be with proper grammer and spelling most of the time. "But, IM slang and the like is not exactly what I am addressing here. When people clearly attempt to type a sentence correctly, and fail, that is very sad. The fact is that you found it necessary and attainable to present your argument to me in a well-organized, properly-spelled and error-free way, which basically makes my whole point. You want to win this debate, which requires you to appear as credible and well understood as possible." Um, not really. People mess up sentences all the time. I did not find it necessary to present my argument in an organized way, I just did. Actually, to tell you the truth, I didn't even read over my argument to check for spelling errors, as I usually never do. Of course I want to win this debate, and I don't have to to appear credible. (Eye culd tauch leik tis an stile whin tis debat, but I choose not to because it is harder to mess up words like that than to get them right.) "Next, click on the "Debating Tips" link above the text-entry box on the argument posting page. It says this: "1. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are important aspects of any piece of writing. Utilizing these language tools on Debate.org will help to maintain a professional appearance for your debates. Review your argument looking for grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation errors. For spelling errors, use the spell check feature found on the right hand side of the argument box." This does not say anything. All it says is anyalizing spelling and grammar will make you look more professional, not credible. "So, I believe that the form, not the content, of your argument, was in fact the content of MY argument! Therefore, in your response, you proved my point. By responding in the manner you did, you acknowledged the validity of my statement: "If I can't understand what you are trying to communicate because of your horrible grammar or spelling, it is difficult to give merit to the content of your opinion or comment." Ok, so it was in the form of your argument, Congratulations, that proves nothing. As I said before, I just type. I don't look for spelling and grammar errors. I am just educated and type normally. If I start to spell things wrong, that is not going to make people think any less of my content, for I have seen many debaters on this site spell things wrong. For example, Logical Master (sorry, just using you as an example) has spelt things wrong, but he still creams people in his debates. What say you now?
Anyone who posts comments on websites should learn how to spell and use proper grammar.

Perhaps your argument would have been more effective if you had in fact written it in "netspeak". Or were you afraid of being misunderstood, or just looking silly and not credible? But, IM slang and the like is not exactly what I am addressing here. When people clearly attempt to type a sentence correctly, and fail, that is very sad. The fact is that you found it necessary and attainable to present your argument to me in a well-organized, properly-spelled and error-free way, which basically makes my whole point. You want to win this debate, which requires you to appear as credible and well understood as possible. Next, click on the "Debating Tips" link above the text-entry box on the argument posting page. It says this: "1. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are important aspects of any piece of writing. Utilizing these language tools on Debate.org will help to maintain a professional appearance for your debates. Review your argument looking for grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation errors. For spelling errors, use the spell check feature found on the right hand side of the argument box." So, I believe that the form, not the content, of your argument, was in fact the content of MY argument! Therefore, in your response, you proved my point. By responding in the manner you did, you acknowledged the validity of my statement: "If I can't understand what you are trying to communicate because of your horrible grammar or spelling, it is difficult to give merit to the content of your opinion or comment."
Anyone who posts comments on websites should learn how to spell and use proper grammar.

First of all, your topic is "Anyone who posts comments on websites should learn how to spell and use proper grammar." Which means you are claiming that the reason why we don't use correct spelling and grammar is because we don't know how. "People who choose to communicate through the medium of the Internet should be respectful of the English language and use it properly when they write." Now you are saying that we know how, we just don't want to. Make up your mind. Secondly, it is our choice to spell and punctuate. We don't have to do it correctly, we just do it however we want to. I would now like to quote an article from Wikipedia: "Internet slang, Internet language, Netspeak or chatroom shorthand, is slang that Internet users have coined and promulgated. Such terms typically originated with the purpose of saving keystrokes, and many people use the same abbreviations in text messages. They are also very commonly used in instant messaging. The terms often appear in lower case, with capitals reserved for emphasis; for example, the pronoun "I" often appears simply as "i". People also use "u" to mean "you," and "r" to mean "are." Also, much of the time people do not use apostrophes or punctuation at all." Translation: It is easier and faster. I do not see why everything has to have perfect grammar and spelling to gain merit for it for as long as your content is good, spelling and grammar shouldn't matter as much.
Black People and Sports : A Generic inheritance from Slavery

We have all noticed in major sports, from then till now, that the greatness of our most dominant people, preferable the selective few with astronomical strength, agility, endurance, and other athletic abilities are among the dark-skinned people of the everyday society. The considering factor that once so long ago, people of the African decent were slaves. They were mistreated and subjected to work rigorously for over a century. The most successful were the ones that strived to be a better worker, striving for both freedom and excellence, gaining respect and overtime knowledge and self value. On another standpoint, Scientists today have studied the classification of the human phenomena and have coincided with earlier reports that the human genetics could be altered by food, climate, and activity. Cells reshaped and bio-genetic data believed to be streamed down from generations to generations. Are those from the African decent psychologically empowered to achieve greatness through alternative revenues, or, are they genetically bread from the natural evolution of ancestral bloodlines? From the creative minds; a controversial topic with no boundaries... Thoughts: - First Debate topic, I'll edit if the structure or grammar is a little off. - No numerals, Statistics, or math - No independent content or links - No use of the word "Race" or name of any sports. ok, good luck ;)
Black People and Sports : A Generic inheritance from Slavery

We have all noticed in major sports, from then till now, that the greatness of our most dominant people, preferable the selective few with astronomical strength, agility, endurance, and other athletic abilities are among the dark-skinned people of the everyday society. The considering factor that once so long ago, people of the African decent were slaves. They were mistreated and subjected to work rigorously for over a century. The most successful were the ones that strived to be a better worker, striving for both freedom and excellence, gaining respect and overtime knowledge and self value. On another standpoint, Scientists today have studied the classification of the human phenomena and have coincided with earlier reports that the human genetics could be altered by food, climate, and activity. Cells reshaped and bio-genetic data believed to be streamed down from generations to generations. Are those from the African decent psychologically empowered to achieve greatness through alternative revenues, or, are they genetically bread from the natural evolution of ancestral bloodlines? From the creative minds; a controversial topic with no boundaries... Thoughts: - First Debate topic, open for ideas - No numerals, Statistics, or math - No independent content or links - No use of the word "Race" or names of any people/sports. -This is the opening statement, debate can go either way based on the first or second paragraph. ok, good luck ;) Edit: The above paragraphs are the opening statements or the introduction. The objective isn't necessarily to compare which ethnicity is the best, but to instead debate the purpose, reason, or motivation (if there is any) for success, in this case through sport. To give a better understanding, the second paragraph of the passage gives a psychological standpoint, and the third paragraph, a scientific standpoint. The question asked, "Are those from the African decent psychologically empowered to achieve greatness through alternative revenues, or, are they genetically bread from the natural evolution of ancestral bloodlines? ', has key words 'psychologically' and 'genetically'. You can choose to base your debate on these two words, to determine your standpoint; the psychological standpoint, the scientific standpoint or neither. The "Thoughts" (Rules) has been amended as follows: - Disallow the use of the word "Race". - Disallow the use of named people. - Allow the use of statistics for all standpoints. - Allow the use of web links for all standpoints. - Allow the use of named sport for all standpoints. (popular/major sports)
The usual arguments #4: Free will

1) This is very interesting, but it explains why free will exists, rather than how free will proves god's existence. The whole argument is based on the assumption that god exists, when it should show why free will proves god exists. The argument explains why free will exists, but this doesn't need to be proven. Free will can exist even without god, this is why free will cannot prove god exists. God can explain and prove free will, but free will can't prove god. You offered one of the many explanations of free will. Sure, if your explanation is right, Allah exists, but you cannot prove free will is a line of questions. Maybe it's different and the Christian god exists, maybe there is no god, free will would still exist, but have a different explanation. 2) Free will could be a product of god's work, but it doesn't have to be. If there is no god, free will still exists. There could be more reasons why free will exists, either god exists and decided to give us free will or there is simply no god, nobody to control us, therefore we have free will. As long as none of these explanations can be denied, free will cannot prove god's existence, nor his inexistence. The fact that our lives aren't controlled can't prove the existence of somebody capable of controlling us or that somebody capable of controlling us doesn't exist. Free will simply can't prove anything. " Allah and free will can co-exist" Of course they can co-exist. Free will can't disprove god's existence, but can't prove it either. You don't have to show god and free will can co-exist, you have to show that free will proves god exists, show that free will can only have one source that source is god.