BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Javert is the truly the best guy in Les Mis

First off, Jean Valjean did not steal bread and attempt to escape out of selfishness, but rather out of selflessness for his sister. He kept his past secret out of necessity. His attempt at the loaf of bread was for his starving family and if people knew only of his criminal record, they would get the wrong idea about who he was. His biggest fault was to steal the silver from the priest. Valjean has greater moral value than Javert, while Javert has greater ethical value. Assuming that ethics and morals themselves have equal value, this puts them tied (and thus, making such an assumption, Javert is not the best guy in Les Miserables). Enjolras and Marius both have immoral intentions, however are irrational and irresponsible. This speaks for all the students at the June Revolution. Now to break down Javert. He is devoted to the law and believes he is truly doing the right thing in committing himself in absolution to it. He does, however, make preconceptions without investigating the matter properly when he suspects Valjean (as the mayor) of being Valjean. The other man simply had a brand on his chest and Javert should have made sure the mayor wasn't Valjean instead of backing off the investigation due to his high status and a small amount of evidence of the contrary. Also, Javert disguised himself as the enemy and went behind their lines as a friend, a crime in every conflict and a violation of every principle of ethics that he stood by so firmly. Lastly Javert, in the final moments, deserted his absolute devotion to the law and let Valjean the criminal and Marius the revolutionary go. When he is ethically solid, he is morally lacking, and when he embraces morality, he loses his ethical value. The Priest is the only Character to show unflinching morality and ethics by offering the stranger bread, and then altering the destructive path that he was headed and rectify his life. Score Priest - 10 Valjean - 7 Javert - 7 Students - 2 Inkeeper - 0
Javert is the truly the best guy in Les Mis

(This argument only pertains to the movie adaptation of the musical, not the musical adaptation of the book) Javert is truly the BEST guy in Les Mis. Now, when I say "best" guy, I mean that while there are several "good guys" in the movie, Javert is the most good morally and ethically. Also "good", in this case, is measured in lack of bad deeds and not an abundance of good ones. Also, when I say guy, I mean it literally. Javert is the most morally and ethically upstanding MALE in the movie. Now for the actual debate... To begin, Jean Valjean cannot be the most upstanding man ethically because he stole a loaf of bread. At this point, one might think, "Gee, you're being pretty strict. I mean, after all, he did it for his nephew." That's what Jean Valjean wants you to believe. Jean Valjean steals the bread and goes to jail, but instead of serving his time he tries to escape, just to selfishly save himself. He would have known the consequences. I mean, if you live in a world where stealing bread gets you five years in jail, you can only assume that trying to escape prison is a very bad idea. Jean Valjean knew this. The best thing for his nephew would be for him to stay in prison. Yet, he escapes and ends up with 14 more years to serve. Even then, he escapes justice and lies to everyone about his identity. He also only takes Cosette into his care because he feels guilty for negligently winding Fantine up in a prostitution ring. This is the same reason he saves Marius: he needs a way out of having to care for Cosette. Marius is not exempt either, along with all of the other male revolutionaries. They commit treason! They prey on innocent people to achieve their goals by taking their furniture. Javert, however, is just doing his job. He keeps the peace, never kills anyone, and actually gives Valjean a chance at redemption (insofar as he is able) by providing parole for him.
Resolved: People should marry for love and not financial security

Sorry for the delay I had a lot of assignment and course work doing. Before we understand this debate there are some key words in the moot which we should adequately define and they are:“Marry” “Love” and “Financial Security” Marry: to take as an intimate life partner by a formal exchange ofpromises in the manner of a traditional marriage ceremony. http://dictionary.reference.com... Love: sexual passion or desire. http://dictionary.reference.com... There is no definite definition for financial security so I will define security in terms of finance. Security: freedom from financial cares or from want. http://dictionary.reference.com... Now the Resolution can be restated as such: People should take an intimate life partner by formal exchange of promises in the manner of a tradition marriage ceremony for sexual passion or desire and not freedom from financial cares or from want. Now before two people consider the act of marriage, there are some things that are to be taken into consideration. Where are they going to live, how are they going to provide the family, cover their expenses or in essence maintain themselves or financial stability. When we glance at the purpose for marriage it is mainly for procreation and raising children. Now we can deduce that no matter what people marry for, in some cases those purposes can be fulfilled. The fact is when persons marry for freedom from want that is better than just marrying for sexual passion or desire. In this world that we live in, we cannot do without food, clothing and shelter, as well as some other minor things but we can live without satisfying our sexual passion or desire as proof of this that is the very reason why we have nuns and eunuchs. If people marry only for sexual passion or desire what happens if the man is impotent? What happens if the man is too small? What happens when the desire for that particular person is diverted to somebody else? What happens if the desire or passion toward the partner is no more? But because both partners are satisfied in terms of want or finance it can keep the marriage going however this is not to say that love will not be an aspect of the marriage why did I say that? Careful observation of the resolution is that we are arguing the reason why they should marry in the first place as the word “for” denotes. With that said this leads me to specific type of marriage. Arranged marriages Many people are against this type of marriage, however it commonly done in India [1]. Studies have should that these marriages then to last longer than the so called “Love” marriages [2]. This type of marriage is based on societal status etc. hence people should marry FOR freedom of want and not sexual desire or passion. 1. http://berchmans.tripod.com... 2.http://www.yourtango.com...
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

I suppose this is only expected if I leave it open for anyone to take that I'd get a troll or two. My opponent doesn't respond to a single argument of mine, even admitting he didn't read through the entirety of my case (which really wasn't that long, between my case and rebutals I still had like 4k characters left to use), so extend all my arguments.He drops my responses to his first point, as well as his first point entirely, and instead deciding to advance a new argument entirely: that it's more reasonable to kill the abuser than to not. First, as always, he doesn't have any kind of warrant for this.Second, there's plenty of non-lethal ways to get out of the situation, so just saying killing is the reasonable response isn't always going to be true. Third, cross-apply my case that killing is never an appropriate response because it prevents any further interraction with the Other.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

Beautiful! Beautiful! Applaud (Actually, I didn't read it, it's too long...) I won't make a novel anymore, I would just express my simple defense. When the drizzle comes, and the rain is weak, people bring out their umbrellas. But when a tornado strikes, would people even consider hiding under an umbrella? If not, then still if they survive, people won't go around asking "Why didn't you bring out your umbrella!" When the sun is warm, and the day is bright, people buy cold drinks to refresh themselves. But when fire scatters around the neighborhood, would people sit down and relax with a nice soothing soft drink? If not, then still if they survive, people won't go around asking "Why didn't you drink coke!" Now... When you are pickpocketed, and you caught the thief, you wouldn't kill him because you know it's in the law. But when you and your family are held hostage, would you dare wait for a long time, ignoring many opportunities of freedom? If not, then still, people won't go around asking "Why didn't you just wait for the police! Your going to jail, sir!" But seriously, if you were on that certain condition, would you take the risk and wait, just for your hostage takers to be shot by the police? How sweet of you!
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

As a human being, we are part of an economic country, we are also part of a family, a neighborhood, and a wide circle of friends, but most importantly, we are a part of Nature. When you threaten most snakes, it is the only time they attack, because they know it is wise to attack if you are intrigued. Rome did the same, and by doing so, they became one of the largest and most famous empires in all of history. Humans are the same thing, they act when threatened. You cannot say it's immoral to act in accordance to your nature isn't it? Would you try to make a cat bark?
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

Public - "WHAT IS ZARADI DOING!?!?! HE'S STARTING THREE DEBATES AT THE SAME TIME!? HE'S A MADMAN!!!"Yes, ladies and gents, now that Summer is upon us I decided to try to put my own effort into kick-starting the debate community again and do a bunch of debates! These will be open to anyone and everyone! First come first serve! If I get a forfeit I just remake it.So the resolution is as stated below:Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.This is an LD debate. Standard LD conventions (not necessarily standard LD cases) apply. Standard debate conventions also apply. THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL BEGIN THE DEBATE IN ROUND ONE. THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL POST "NO ROUND AS AGREED UPON" IN THE FINAL ROUND TO MAINTAIN EQUAL SPEAKING ROUNDS. So with that being said, GL HF TO MY OPPONENT.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

1. Death and killing anyone for any reason being bad is something hilarious! According to the scriptures, David killed Goliath to free his people. Moses killed hundreds of soldiers to free his people. Heck, even Abraham killed some Sodom Soldiers to free his people! These are three of the most iconic people in the Holy Bible, if God has not forsaken them for what they did, then so should the law! Killing isn't as easy as breaking the sixth rule, sometimes it is just a reminder that if a person wants to save his people, or in simpler cases, a man wants to save his family, then so be it. 2.Seriously? Why do I feel this one is an advertisement? Hello? McDonalds, are you there? Now, let's move on to the fact that I accused him of ad hom. 1. "In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is referred to as ad hominem." I've studied fallacies, and please, don't make your own laws just to win a debate. 2. This one is just an elaborate version of number 1. Yes, I admit that I'm hoping to throw out big fancy fallacy names trying and swaying the audience into my favor that you're doing something wrong and I deserve to win. Why? Because this is a debate! Not only does a debate help people understand problems better, but it's also because people want to see two people having a duel of literature! So there you go, my fellow debaters and critics! I have negated all of his negations and therefore protected my previous arguments. Now it's time for you to decide who wins? The one who made a novel to make a single point in the first round, then was charged of ad hominem in the second round, then used all of his last round to throw in more judgement towards my arguments, with a sprinkle of advertisement at the top, or me. So, the debate breaks down simply... We talk, you vote, someone wins, someone loses. Thank you for reading
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

Once again, my opponent chooses not to respond to my case. As this round is the last round he gets to speak in, as he will be posting "no round as agreed upon" in the final round, it makes my case 100% conceded to and dropped throughout the entirety of the debate. This has a lot of troubling implications to it for my opponent and it pretty much means I win right off the bat. 1. It means that the only framework under which to evaluate and weigh arguments is under mine. This pretty much means you affirm since under my framework, death and killing anyone for any reason is bad because it prevents our experience and interraction with the Other. This alone means the resolution is negated. 2. A lot of my arguments answer the arguments he's brought up in round and explain why they aren't valid. Because he's conceded to them, my responses to his arguments are now, thusly, stronger. Now, lets touch on the fact that my opponent accuses me of ad hom.1. There's a difference between insulting you and ad homing. Calling you a troll (which you are) doesn't undermine your arguments. As such, is not ad hom.2. My opponent's just trying to employ the ad hominem fallacy fallacy[1], where he's just hoping to throw out big fancy fallacy names to try and sway the audience into his favor that I'm doing something wrong and he should deserve to win. The only problem is he's incorrectly using the terms that he's using, and thus I'm not actually commiting the fallacy he's accusing me of commiting. Again, my opponent has continued the same strategy of not sticking to a single argument for more than a round. He's never defended a single argument he's made, prefering to drop it altogether and make a new argument. As I've responded to his other two arguments, and those responses were dropped, he has no actual argument to advance forward in this debate. His "new argument" this round isn't even that new, as it touches back to his natural instinct argument he made in the first round. Cross apply the four respones to that I make to this round as well. So, the debate breaks down really simply:1. I made my case that my opponent chose never to respond to (or even read through all the way). You negate off of that. 2. My opponent has never defended a single point of his, only making new points through the entire round. Since I've responded to every point he's brought up, he has no way to actually affirm the resolution. You can negate there as well.Remember, my opponent should post "No round as agreed upon" to keep the number of rounds we get to argue in fair. If he does not, it should count as a breach of conduct, and no arguement made there should be weighed.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

With that argument, I charge my opponent with Ad Hominem for indirectly calling me a troll, peace! Now to continue... In the Babylonian law stated by Hammurabi, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" It states the natural law of retaliation, but the Babylonian King those days see things equally. Kill someone, Get killed. Use someone's toothbrush, get your own toothbrush used. It's that simple. But over the years... well... things got complicated. When the great empires came, like the Mongolian Empire, it has always been "an eye for a threat, a tooth for a threat" Up till today, that has been the case. To make it simple, when someone calls you and tells you that they will kill you, you won't call them back and say, "Hey! What a coincidence! I was about to kill you too!" But instead, you'll report them to the authorities. When you are taken hostage, these natural laws of retaliation comes alive. One more thing, when you are drowning in the ocean, one thing that people naturally do is grab the nearest person, sink them, and use them as a boost to get air. It sounds inhuman, but it's true, and that's natural, although incredibly annoying...
Psychotherapy vs. Pharmacotherapy

Thanks for the topic TulleKrazy. ==Definitions== Psychotherapy: talk therapy ==Burden of Proof== As instigator/pro, my opponent has the burden to prove that drugs should not be used to treat depression except as a last resort. ==Intro== I intend to argue that a combination of drugs and talk therapy is the most effective solution (my opponent said in the comments section that this was a valid Con argument) and that the "first response" must be tailored to the patient and the situation, specifically in cases where the patient refuses to take talk therapy seriously or the patient is suicidal and needs quick results.
It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself

See, you made one fatal flaw in your final rebuttal. I never claimed that talking to yourself was not one-sided. That would be silly. What I did argue was that TALKING is supposed to be two-sided, so when someone hears someone talking, they assume it is meant to be two-sided and might ridicule. Singing is one-sided. It always it. You agreed with this. Singing to one-self should not be ridiculed. Talking is meant to be two-sided. It usually is. You did not contest that talking is USUALLY considered two-sided. Society, at a glance, considers all singing two-sided and talking one-sided. Therefore, society ridicules those that talk as if it is one-sided.
It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself

Hello. First I want to critique your final statement. " When you attend a lecture, it is still two-sided. The lecturer talks, you listen. He is talking so you understand. You sing to yourself because you enjoy singing. So until you prove that talking is meant to be one-sided, lie singing," More specifically "So until you prove that talking is meant to be one-sided, lie singing," If singing really is one sided like you said, then by definition that lecture is too. Singing to yourself is one sided, as is talking to YOURSELF. You are purposely talking to yourself and that IS meant to be one sided, no denying that. Ever seen someone talking to themselves and someone responds? The person that was talking to themselves immediately corrects them and says, "I was talking to myself." The person proceeds to apologize and goes on with their day thinking of that person and knowing that that person talks to themselves. In todays society, the majority of people think differently of people that talk to themselves. This is the final point I wanted to make. Thank you.
It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself

Everything is pretty much just proving that talking to one-self is possible and yields social ridicule. This is true. So let's move on to why talking to one-self should be ridiculed why singing is not. When you attend a lecture, it is still two-sided. The lecturer talks, you listen. He is talking so you understand. You sing to yourself because you enjoy singing. So until you prove that talking is meant to be one-sided, lie singing, you can not claim that it is hypocritical that singing is ok but talking is not.
It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself

I want to bring your attention to something you said in your opening argument. "Singing is meant to be one-sided Talking to two-sided" Often speaking is also one sided, just not in a private setting. When you go to hear a lecture, do you often respond after he makes a point? or do you wait for him to finish and have a question session? The point is talking isnt always two-sided. That being said, you were right when you said that "I would also like to add that talking to yourself is not socially unacceptable sometimes. " I agree, and I know some people that are accepted fine whilke speaking to themselves. The majority of the people that talk to themselves are ususally not accepted, and allthough not shunned, they are "looked at funny," or made fun of. This is an aspect of american society that needs to be stopped. Let me show you an example. Johnny is walking down the street talking to himself about all the homework he forgot at school. His High School classmates (not his friends) walk by and start poking fun at "the kid who talks to himself. " He goes through this everyday as he is a frequent "self-talker. " He gets ridiculed and ridiculed to the point where he catnt ake it anymore. Johnny committed Suicide the next day. I realize that this example might be a little extreme, but nevertheless it is an example of the social consequences from talking to yourself. Thank you.
It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself

There is a simple reason why singing to yourself is acceptable while talking to yourself usually isn't. When you sing, you sing because you enjoy it. When you talk, it means you want a response. You might respond to yourself, but you want a response. So the theme is Singing is meant to be one-sided Talking to two-sided I would also like to add that talking to yourself is not socially unacceptable sometimes. I know people who talk to themselves and they are not shunned.
It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself

I want to truly specify what this debate is about. It is about the twisted social fallacies that say that it is ok to sing alone or to yourself but your looked at as weird or being socially awkward if you talk to yourself. What is the big difference? Where does a persons good judgement come into play? I will elaborate much more so in my next argument as this is a four round debate. Argument: It is not considered socially correct to sing to yourself but not talk to yourself. There are children every day that are picked on becuase they talk to themselves. I beleive that this is perfectly acceptable and is not different than singing to yourself but singing is perfectly acceptable. Thank you and good luck to my challenger.
Write a story

As Ted slept, the Serpent considered his past. He remembered the day Ted was shot. They were running away from the French drug traffickers when one came around the corner and put the shotgun to the Serpent's head. The Serpent was clearly about to die, and, seemingly, there was no way out of it. He looked for Ted, who was no where to be found, and he sent a silent prayer to the God he didn't believe in. Out of no where, Ted tackled the man and broke his neck. Ted has saved his life. However, the Serpent had orders. "Kill Ted and you will obtain wealth you could not begin to comprehend," said the man on the other line. The man had a voice just like the wealthies of the Serpent's assignors, which immediately authenticated the order. Thus, when Ted was on the ground over the man who was about to kill the Serpent, The Serpent shot Ted and, having respect for his friend, told him that the shot gun the man who he just killed had gone off in the struggle. Ted yelled, "leave me! I'm already dead! I'm loosing too much blood!" The Serpent saw the wound and immediately assumed Ted was really going to die, he figured he had severed an artery, so he left never expecting to see Ted again. Six months later, he saw Ted, who told of his heroic story escaping the prison that the French drug lords imprisoned him in and interrogated him in. That moment, they agreed to split ways. However, the man who hired the Serpent was made aware of Ted's survival and told the Serpent that he could keep the money, as long as Ted dies within two years. Now, one month before the Serpent's deadline, Ted was sleeping in his own safehouse. The serpent picked up his .44 Magnum and walked to the couch that Ted was sleeping on.