BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prison isn't meant to carry out justice.

My opponent has misunderstood the purpose if this debate. This debate is a look into the purpose for prison, or at least the purpose out society should place on prison. My opponent is correct in stating that whether or not justice is objective or subjective is irrelevant; however, that side-argument hasn't been my main focus. My main focus is to rethink prisons. A great deal of my argument has been spent proving that justice IS subjective because that is the linchpin of my entire argument. You see, since justice is subjective, our society must remove it "from the equation" due to how varied we are around the world. Just like measurement systems, out world must set an objective standard, but that objective standard cannot be met until the subjective ideas of justice are removed. I seriously doubt many would actually disagree with that, so I'm arguing for a rethink on the purpose if prison. Now that that is out if the way, on to my opponent's argument. Focusing on the last paragraph, why is it "objectively true that the sole purpose [of] prisons" is to carry out justice? You yourself, in the first round, stated that prisons are "for rehabilitation so that ex-convicts walk out of prison ready to be law abiding citizens that function in a society." In your BBC article, it states that "UK prisons try to help prisoners get some skills that make it easier for them to fit back into society as law abiding citizens." And even in your blog evidence, it's last paragraphs speaks on how the "communication of moral attitudes" may not apply to those who cannot "read" that communication. The simple fact, unfortunetaly, is that justice is simply a cuddly term for revenge. Justice never worries about rehabilitation. Justice never worries about the future of the criminal or the society he/she lives in. Justice is simply a cloak of righteousness the angry wear to justify their actions. What happens to the thief when he/she gets released from prison with a record but no work related skills? He/she goes and steals some bread. The prisons did exactly as justice commands. Hence my arguments, we as a society must rethink prison not only for crminals but also for the man or woman having their bread stolen. Justice is a child's term. If we want mature prisons, we need to look at them maturely.
Prison isn't meant to carry out justice.

Pro's case is essentially that morality, hence justice, is subjective. The reason that this case is futile is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution.I agree to Pro that morality is subjective and that what most people perceive to be right or wrong is often unsubstantiated by objective morality. On the other hand, I don't see how this proves the resolution in any way whatsoever.Prison delivers justice because that is its entire purpose. Whether the justice itself is 'true justice' is up to the individual to interpret. much like art, justice is in the eye of the beholder.If someone has an issue with prisons and doesn't see them as sufficient for implementing justice, that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. Nonetheless, it is objectively true that the sole purpose for prisons, and the reason people are taxed to fund them, is they are there to carry out justice and protect society from criminals, as well as to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes.http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://blogs.independent.co.uk...
Prison isn't meant to carry out justice.

Please remember to separate your arguments based on the instigator's structure.Starting Argument:Your almost agreeing with me. "Retribution": This is literally the only thing I'm disagreeing with. A thief steals some bread to feed his family. -he broke the law -he had a noble cause though According the dictionary.com, justice is defined as the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness Look at the last two words, the problem with them is that morals have always been subjective. In this particular situation, there is no true right or wrong; therefore, "moral rightness" cannot be applied. Go look at the death penalty arguments, the anti-penalty people may say that it is wrong to kill someone, but the pro-penalty people may also say that the penalty will "bring about justice" (please note that this is a small of the death penalty debates). Two different sets of morals on an issue. Now obviously, stealing, murder, etc. is wrong in a contextless void, but the real world is very rarely without context. With that in mind, I contend that we as a society must reevaluate the purpose of prison. Prisons are not to punish individuals for their "lack of" morals but to simply remove them from the population and reintroduce them. So let's return to the earlier example without looking through our subjective and inconsistent moral glasses. The thief shall be sent to prison but only because he/she cannot be trusted within the given community, NOT because he/she should be punished. Hopefully, with this new attitude, our society can worry about rehabilitating the thief rather than determining how many years are enough for payment if his/her crime. Hence, "justice" and "moral rightness" are removed from the equation.
advertising adds to the cost of product

Thanks for posting this debate. I took it mostly because i'm bored, but I'll see what I can do. I will start with an example. Say Company A has decided to sell product A. Obviously they want to make the most possible profit. They can either buy parts to assemble from a manufacturer or manufacture their own product, but a company will only manufacture if it can get enough people to buy the product. The thing about manufacturing is that it's much cheaper to produce after the initial very high cost, but it is pointless to make the investment if there is not enough interest. Therefore, a smart company will advertise to generate interest, manufacture its own products, and thus be able to decrease its cost per unit, because without the extra market generated by advertising, it would not be feasible to manufacture. Simply- company advertises so it can manufacture own products and save money per unit. By this logic, the cost of the unit is actually lower than it would be without advertising. Looking forward to a good debate.
Facebook is a good website

Many parents, expecially those who have younger children, disallow their children to use facebook.com. Their reasoning, useually along the lines of: "there's nothing but pedophiles" or "Facebook is nothing but a gossip line". I, however, think differently. If Facebook is for quote on quote "pedophiles," then is the mall or the busstop or the local McDonald's any different? As for gossip, I am a highschooler and I know first hand the majority of gossip occures in the hallway or locker room or cafeteria.
Facebook is a good website

I accept. Facebook is more than a pedophile attraction and a gossip line, but it can still be a bad website.Facebook does not give its users proper privacy. In fact, "Facebook data is easily available to every government institution in the Country through open requests" [1]. Look at this PDF document [2]. It details how one can obtain someone's data on Facebook. Do you really want to have your data accessed like that? Probably not.Every website is vulnerable to hackers, with Facebook being prone to being hacked. News spread fast on Facebook, and an unknown link is enough for a hacker to hack your account. Hackers abuse Facebook's nature as a social website, and thus can hack your account. [3]. ConclusionI have shown that Facebook is bad due to its lack of privacy and its proness to viruses. Sources1. http://rield.com...2. http://info.publicintelligence.net...3. http://www.brighthub.com...
Learning should be more important then grades

You talked about universities and colleges wanting the students with the best grades rather then the ones with the worst but what sense would it make to have for example a 90% average on Calculus when taking an art or writing class? At the end of the day good grades are made by those that can read information and memorize it to later on write it down on a paper. There is a reason why universities and colleges have math courses teaching students how to solve math problems that students in middle school are learning, it is simply because they didn't remember how to do math equations that maybe a grade 10 student would find easy, it is because at the time they needed to know it they memorized it, they did not actually learn it. Learning should be based on studying what is is a person wants to do to later use in life and half the things that are learnt in school are stuff that are not usually used in the working world. The education system now a days is based on the idea of winning, it docent matter whether you know why or what happens during the respiration system in biology, just as long as you can memorize the terms and step it is easy to get that good grade and with good grades come great reputations at school. Instead of learning something that is relevant to the students life and goal, schools promote the idea of grades. Students in High school take courses that they normally would not need to get into college, but again its the idea of "if i get good grades in this class, universities will be more accepting towards me" which later leads to stress because again for example why would someone that wants to be an artist be taking Physics.
Learning should be more important then grades

School should be more focused on teaching students concepts that will actually help them after they move on into the working path of life, but know it seems that the only thing that matters is getting that 50% and over, if you where to go to any student and ask them what they had learnt in their previous mathematic class they would most likely know their grade then what they learnt. Society now has started to form the idea that the only thing that matters in winning, its that sense of "just getting to the finish line no matter what". Students are literally told to memorize something without knowing what it even means and memorizing it to later write it on a test. Now when a student walks into a test they simply think about whether they will "fail" or "pass" the test not whether they understood the information they where given. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

Rules: 1. PRO must answer all of CON's questions. 2. If PRO contradicts himself, then PRO loses. Otherwise, PRO wins. 3. CON is only allowed to ask a maximum of ten questions in each round other than round 4. 4. Violation of the rules will result in an automatic loss in terms of the individual who violated any one of them. I reserve the right to dispute the contender's rendering of the topic should I feel it doesn't meet the ideas of what the debate is intended for. .
If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

First question for the round: The one who will answer the question is a different person, I.e., not the LM that created this debate? [quote]It's all about context. Fortunately, I said I would provide a definition if shade if need be in the following round. Indeed, I could answer yes and no to the question without contradicting myself. Clearly, when reading that quote in my profile, I am referring to the limitations of the human perspective of reality.[/quote] Second question, you then hold that the entirety of humanity is only capable of perceiving (seeing in perspective) one shade? [quote]Based on how I see a book? No.[/quote] I think it sufficiently clear what you mean by "grouped together in the form of a book," from your example of the Bible. Third question, are the Naruto manga, The Prince of Tennis Manga, the "Yugio" or I presume Yu-gi-oh manga, each separately grouped together, such that each series is grouped in the form of a book? [quote]I wasn't aware that there was more than one figurative sense. Still, regardless of whether there is more or less, my answer regards the only figurative sense that I know of . . . and that is that figurative translates to one or more literary devices being used to illustrate a point. If my opponent is aware of other "figurative senses", I would like to know what they are so that I may better answer his question. As of now, he has merely put me in a state of confusion[/quote] In regards to what is being figured, i.e., what overching point/points is/are illustrated with what devices. That is the relevant sense. [quote]My answer: Some degree of conservatism, some degree of liberalism, some degree of anarchism, some degree of socialism, some degree of progressivism (sic) and some degree of communism (still thinking that my opponent is referring to the word from a political perspective)[/quote] You would be correct, but particular terms refers to a systematic statement of what those degrees are, and since we're talking an ideology, not a loose set of issues, what overarching principles it is derived from. Count that as fourth question this round if you please. Fifth question: Should someone assert something without providing evidence when if they know it to be true it is of a nature that the evidence can be acquired by them with very little effort? Sixth question: Is the following statement true?: In any finite set x with n terms defined for all time, any person fitting the criterion of set x is one of the best n x-set-members of all time. Seventh question: Is the answer to the above something so obvious you could figure it out if I addressed you at any given time in the past 3 years with it? Eighth question: Do you ignore things obvious to you when you go about your daily life, or act on them as befits a logical Master? Ninth question: Should people give themselves names that they don't live up to?
If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

Meh, I'll use em too, LM has linky. [quote] I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "attribute" or "person" and am pretty sure that this is intentional, but nevertheless: I say that one's personal identity resides in their mind; how one thinks and feels is my answer. Of course, there is no attribute that we should point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future as people change over time; one's personal identity is not static.[/quote] Attribute is any trait of a thing. Person is a rational animal. Identity refers to the commonality between LM yesterday and LM today that makes both LM in the same sense. Which thoughts or feelings make it so that LM today and LM yesterday are both LM, in the same sense, regardless of their differences? [quote]Once again, a question which is intentionally vague. This is going to be tougher than I thought. My answer to the question is no[/quote] So the world is not, as you claim at an unspecified time, in your profile, [b]an[/b] exuberant shade of gray, which, whether it is a true representation of your nature or no, is still composed of your statements. An, I will note, is a [b]singular[/b] article. You have contradicted yourself at this point. Let's see if you'll do so anywhere else. In the event of him updating his profile to fix the error, it shall be preserved for the purpose of spectators here: http://img10.imageshack.us... 2nd question this round: What is an ideology? [quote] That depends. If it is all grouped together in the form of a book (much like the Bible is), then yes. [/quote] Third question this round: If not then no? [quote] In a figurative sense? Yes. Literally? No. [/quote] Fourth question this round. Which figurative sense might that be? Fifth question this round: What means are available for knowing you can see something a mile away when you are not a mile away? Sixth question: How does music die? Seventh question: Can a generality die while specific instances live on? Eighth question: What is your ideology in particular terms? 9th question: What do you mean by "Any position CAN be advocated no matter how absurd or wrong?"
If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

NOTE: In this round, I shall be making use of the tags provided in the following thread: http://www.debate.org... [b][color=red] Question #1: In what attribute does personal identity reside (e.g., what attribute should we point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future to know it is the same person?)[/color][/b] I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "attribute" or "person" and am pretty sure that this is intentional, but nevertheless: I say that one's personal identity resides in their mind; how one thinks [i]and[/i] feels is my answer. Of course, there is no attribute that we should point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future as people change over time; one's personal identity is not static. [b][color=blue]Question #2: Is the entire world one shade?[/color][/b] Once again, a question which is intentionally vague. This is going to be tougher than I thought. My answer to the question is no [and if needed, I'll provide a definition ;) ] [b][color=orange]Question #3: What does a moderate ideology[/color][/b] To me personally, I see it as merely favoring the mindset of multiple ideologies (not necessarily specific). Although there are those who see it as a mixture of liberalism and conservatism. [b][color=green]Question #4: Is your name an true representation of your nature?[/color][/b] No. My name merely represents a portion of my nature. In order to "truly" represent my nature, I would have to say that the entirety of my nature must be represented. [b][color=yellow]Question #5: Is your profile an true representation of your nature?[/color][/b] See above. [b][color=purple]Question #6: Should people be honest about themselves?[/color][/b] Yes. Strangely enough though, even when they are aware of this, they often aren't. ;) [b][color=pink]Question #7: Is an entire manga series considered one book?[/color][/b] That depends. If it is all grouped together in the form of a book (much like the Bible is), then yes. [b][color=red]Question #8: Is the Bible the word of God?[/color][/b] In a figurative sense? Yes. Literally? No. [b][color=blue]Question #9: Is God at least as knowledgeable as humans, and perfectly honest?[/color][/b] Lol. I can see your strategy from a mile away. Nevertheless, I've got a few strategies of my own. To answer your question: Yes.
If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

In what attribute does personal identity reside (e.g., what attribute should we point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future to know it is the same person?) Is the entire world one shade? What does a moderate ideology consist of? Is your name an true representation of your nature? Is your profile an true representation of your nature? Should people be honest about themselves? Is an entire manga series considered one book? Is the Bible the word of God? Is God at least as knowledgable as humans, and perfectly honest?
Facebook Vs Libertysflame.com

You said "Facebook allowes you not to post privet things that you don't want other people to see also there are many fun things a person can do " That i not true. You will have your facebook account taken from you if you don't tow the democrat party line. One of many examples "Dearborn Republican sues Facebook for shutting down account during election, foiling his 'attempt to overthrow the Dingell Dynasty'" http://www.mlive.com... You talked about how fun it is play games on facebook. That doesn't make it better at anything except wasting your time. Our country doesn't need to be playing games all day long. We need to be informed what is happening in our nation, things like jobs and our economy. You can't do that if you are busy on facebook all day playing games. In some of those games you even have to spend real money to purchase play money. What a scam. Also facebook does no protect your privacy. They have several "accidents" where their data has been exposed for the whole world to see. "MediaPost Publications Facebook's Data-Leak Woes Worsening 10/21/2010" http://www.mediapost.com... Again that is just one of many many instances of facebook violating your privacy. Facebook knows a lot about a lot of people. It is dangerous that that company knows so much about so many people. The guy who created facebook is on record of saying that we have to give up privacy and that it is an idea from the past. Sounds Orwellian to me. Libertysflame.com on the other hand the users are anonymous. That way you can say what is on your mind without the fear of big brother knowing all about you. You don't play games on libertysflame. Playing games all the time is such a waste of time. It is for immature adults and children.
Allies would have won WW2 without America.

I would again have to say no because i believe without the Americans the war would of dragged on longer and in 1945 the Nazi's had built Stealth Fighters that could go undetected by radar the Horten ho 229 but they didn't have the chance to put them into mass production if there had been more time they would of had a chance to put them into mass production and also by 1946 the Nazi's would of had a nuclear weapon ready.If you took the US, UK, or the Russians out f the scenario it may have ended in a German victory. All three were extremely important to the war effort. We (the US) were late to join the war (Roosevelt practically dragged us in kicking and screaming), but we committed vast amounts of money, supplies, and aid even before we got involved (roughly 50 billion in aid). Without which the UK may not have been able to hold out. Then again, had we gotten involved earlier, the UK wouldn't have had to hold out the way they did and the war may have ended much faster. Once involved though, we played a major role. There is no one country that won the war, it was a combined effort of all the allied forces. Canada also played a major role in helping with the supplies to win (roughly 3.5 billion in aid), though I wouldn't say they were a lynch pin, they were never the less extremely helpful. They lost 45,000 troops, but in comparison to the rest of the allies, it was their financial support that was the true value. Remember Pearl Harbor? You know the Nazis were not the only enemy in that war. We played a HUGE role in the Pacific, in fact we damn near beat the Japanese alone. The UK didn't even form a Pacific Fleet until 1944. The ALLIES won the war. All of us together. Don't act like we had no part. The UK lost 380,000 and the US lost 416,000 The UK finished paying back the US in 2004 and Canada in 2006. As I mentioned Canada was very important, but you seem to paint a picture that you were more important than the rest of the allies. @Needful - Because Canada's contribution wasn't the question. You had a one sentence answer, then went off on a rant. The 50 billion we contributed DIDN'T end the war. It's likely that without the support of the UK, Russians, AND US ... the war may not have been winnable. The Russians NEEDED another front or they would have negotiated a cease fire. They even said so. Without them stretching out the Nazi forces on the Russian front, the UK may not have been able to hold the Nazis back. The US provided that front, which kept the Russians in the war. As I said above, the ALLIES won. All of us together. -EDIT TO ALL- There is no single hero in WWII -- EVERYONE who fought was a hero and we came together as one single force dedicated to ending the tyranny of the Nazi Regime. We dropped our nationalism, our petty squabbles, and our differences to overcome evil. Basically what some seem to be saying is that we didn't need to unite. We did need to, that's the reason it was called a WORLD WAR. Source(s): http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...... http://www.unmuseum.org... http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...... Rate Comment