BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should Revert to medieval Trials and Punishments

--------First round is for acceptance and definitions----------------I request that any clarifications be made in the comments BEFORE accepting--------------No new arguments in the last round-----------------In this debate I will be arguing that we should revert to medieval law and order, our crime and punishment system nowadays is too soft on psychotic criminals. There were three main courts in the middle ages, For those who are not familiar I'll cite them with a brief description from a public site. There was three different types of courts. The first court was the less serious court which was the Manor Court. The second court was the Church Court this court was used against people who didn’t obey by the church’s rules. The third was the Royal Court which is the most harshest court which usually resulted in the death sentence or some sort of torture. Manor Court Punishments: Even for the little things such as a wife nagging her husband could have resulted in her having to wear a bridle so she couldn’t nag her husband or being put on a ducking stool. People who sold bad food would be dragged around the manor with the food tied around their neck. Another punishment was being put in the stocks were the people in the manor could throw food and rubbish at you. Royal Court Punishments: The Death Sentence could be carried out in a few ways such as being beheaded, hung drawn and quartered and bricked up. The torture punishments were getting your tongue cut out, nose slit, ears or hands cut off or your eyes burned. Church Court Punishments: The Church Court punishments were very unfair. One of the punishments was truth by fire. The offender would have to hold a red hot piece of iron for a certain amount of time and then they would bandage up their hand and in three weeks if the blisters were healed you would be innocent. Another punishment was truth by water. They would tie your hands and feet together and threw you in the river or lake and if you sank you were innocent. Truth by combat was another punishment the offender would have to fight the accuser to the death if the offender won he would be innocent.
Gaston (from Beauty and the Beast) is a hero.

First of all, look at this beautiful bastard. I'm sorry, I meant this beautiful bastard. Nobody can hate this guy, not really.A TRAGIC LOVE STORYGaston the town's hunk and downright blue collar hero is in love with Belle. All this guy wants through the entire movie is to be with the woman he loves and to keep the town safe.Is the guy arrogant, you betcha but he has every right to be and there's nothing inherently wrong with arrogance. Let's also keep in mind that Gaston was the only person in town who paid any mind to Belle. For the most part she was treated as a leper due to her aloofness and crazy father (Who Gaston tried to get professional help for). He showered her with attention offered her all of his heart. What Gaston wanted was to love and be loved, and how was he repaid? The good looking blue collar hero guy who showers Belle with love and affection is brushed aside for the abusive guy who imprisoned her and even refused to let her eat one time who just so happens to be royalty and independently wealthy.It just goes to show you that no matter how good looking you are, no matter how well you treat a woman, they will leave you the second somebody with a fat wallet comes along, even if the guy is abusive and is quite literally fugly.HERO'S JOURNEYHere is where Gaston (the blue collar guy in love with the town leper), becomes a hero. Belle comes back to town, talking about a beast who has already abducted her and her father and held them prisoner. The town's people are frightened and literally anybody can be the next victim, so Gaston steps up to create a team of people who are willing to risk their necks to save the town. Gaston is a hero looking to save the town and protect the woman he loves, even if he has to die to do it (which he does, because the beast murders him).POSSIBLE COUNTER ARGUMENTS1. Belle told the town's people not to go after the Beast.Belle displayed all the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome and probably did in fact have it. It's immoral to deny a victim justice because they had to develop this disorder as a defence mechanism.2. Gaston locked up Belles father in a mental ward.The guy was ranting about a beast and literally acting like a nut. He is also somebody who the town knew enough about to steer clear due to his history of mental illness. Also earlier in the movie he invents a hacking machine which is incredibly dangerous and puts ever body's life at risk. Gaston was merely trying to get Maurice the help he needed by seeking professional treatment of his mental illness.
Gaston (from Beauty and the Beast) is a hero.

"This is more of a statement that shows Gaston is confident he can woo the girl. I don't see how it would imply anything else.""Even if it did show Gaston was butt hurt, being but hurt doesn't make you a bad person."This isn't about being butt hurt or even confidence. No, this is a statement of this character thinking that Belle was wrong to say no in the first place. Once again, I quote Gaston directly;- "Who does she think she is?... No one says no to Gaston!" Anyone who says no is automatically wrong. No one says no to Gaston, no one. And that callus disregard for the will, opinions, and rights of others does make him a bad person.Saying Gaston sees her as a trophy is no different than saying Gaston sees the girl as having a lot of worth.Perhaps my misunderstands what I meant by using the word trophy. One sees worth in a trophy, yes, but a trophy is an object. An accomplishment. Something to be looked at and desired, but not something that thinks for itself, not something that has hopes and aspirations of its own. Objectifying people, even in a way that makes someone a good object, is still wrong and harmful. It dehumanizes them."I think that morality should be derived from our selfish desires but debating ethical Egoism is beyond the scope of this debate. I don't like my opponent villianizing selfishness because I see nothing inherently wrong with it."I'm not saying being selfish makes you a villain. I'm not saying a character being selfish makes them the antagonist. I'm not even saying that good people can't be selfish. What I am saying, is that it bars Gaston from being a hero. Heros are, by definition, selfless rather than selfish. They put others ahead of themselves.Heros must put the greater good ahead of their own, and Gaston doesn't do that. He seems incapable of doing that. That is why he isn't a hero."None were unprovoked.""No he doesn't unless you count some wild partying in an already loud bar on the outskirts of town."In that scene he clearly attacks several people in the bar without provocation. He just jumps and attacks whilst proclaiming his brilliance."Talking to a girl you find pretty and are in love with doesn't qualify as harassment"*Actively pursuing her when she has explicitly stated that she is not interested is harassment."You're thinking of the beast who he tried to save the town from, unless you're referring to Belle's father who needed psychological help in which Gaston paid out of his own pocket to see he was helped."For that I can only quote Gaston's best friend, "(No one) plans to persecute harmless crackpots like Gaston!" -Lafou, after talking to Gaston about his plan after the song number "Gaston"I'm afraid I'm running out of character, but suffice to say I disagree with my opponent's last point. He did it out of his own selfish desires. Which, once again, doesn't neccessarly condemn him as evil, but with the lack of selflessness makes him no hero.Thanks for the stimulating debate,The Blue Wizard
Gaston (from Beauty and the Beast) is a hero.

Gaston's quote "Who does she think she is? That girl has tangled(tangoed) with the wrong man! No one says no to Gaston!" This is more of a statement that shows Gaston is confident he can woo the girl. I don't see how it would imply anything else. Even if it did show Gaston was butt hurt, being but hurt doesn't make you a bad person. "We can from quotes like this that Gaston"s motives are selfish, far from a heroic selflessness. In essence, we can see into his heart. He thinks that Belle is wrong to say no in the first place. It doesn"t matter who her opinions are, all must boy before the glory of Gaston! Again, Belle is a trophy to be won." Saying Gaston sees her as a trophy is no different than saying Gaston sees the girl as having a lot of worth. I think that morality should be derived from our selfish desires but debating ethical Egoism is beyond the scope of this debate. I don't like my opponent villianizing selfishness because I see nothing inherently wrong with it. Gaston certainly doesn't think Belle is wrong with saying no. That assertion is unsupported. I think it could be just as easily said that Gaston likes a chase otherwise he would have chosen to be with any of the bar maids that were fawning over him. In my opinion the bar maids continually fawning over him were pretty hot but he disregarded them. "Several counts of random and unprovoked violence None were unprovoked. His side kick physically grabbed his face before one instance. He was killing a monster who had a habit of kidnapping and holding prisoner the town people and in another act he was breaking up a bar fight. You got nothing on my guy. Several counts of disturbing the peace No he doesn't unless you count some wild partying in an already loud bar on the outskirts of town. Harassment Talking to a girl you find pretty and are in love with doesn't qualify as harassment Unjust imprisonment You're thinking of the beast who he tried to save the town from, unless you're referring to Belle's father who needed psychological help in which Gaston paid out of his own pocket to see he was helped. Attempted murder of his "love"s" actual love She had Stockholm syndrome. The beast held her prisoner was mean and angry towards her and even starved her at one point. The fact is Gaston tried to save the town and his love. I think saving the town qualifies him as a hero. He even died in an attempt to save the town from a beast who randomly kidnaps and terrorizes people.
Gaston (from Beauty and the Beast) is a hero.

On how we judge Gaston This debate has, at this point, basically boiled down to whether we judge Gaston by his intentions or his actions. My opponent has a rather well reasoned point as to why we should judge actions, however with a bit more reasoning we can see that this is not the case. My opponent has made the case that we can't know what is Gaston's heart. I differ from my opponent because he says that we can't trust someone's words because that is part of the mask people put on. The issue with this is that this more or less would only apply when talking about one's words when attempting to prop up said mask. The fact of the matter is we have plenty of options at our disposal to know Gaston's thoughts, such as when he monologues to himself. I quote directly from Gaston; “Who does she think she is? That girl has tangled with the wrong man! No one says no to Gaston!” -A self-entitled Prick Gaston We can from quotes like this that Gaston’s motives are selfish, far from a heroic selflessness. In essence, we can see into his heart. He thinks that Belle is wrong to say no in the first place. It doesn’t matter who her opinions are, all must boy before the glory of Gaston! Again, Belle is a trophy to be won. It’s irrelevant whether we think she is a good trophy, Gaston sees her as another prize and conquest to further his own egomaniacal mindset. Once again, because we can see that we can judge his intentions, and then we’ve seen his intentions are egomaniacal and thus Kant’s principal applies. But my opponent brings up a good point; why don’t we judge him on his actions? That’s because that judging him on his actions creates a fine illusion of a hero. If we judge solely on actions, then we see that leaves no filter for people like Napoleon, Stalin or even from a certain mindset Hitler. We have to judge their intentions as well as actions to see who is and isn’t a hero. Which leads me too… A two pronged approach The average Joe is no hero. His intentions may be pure, but has no actions. On the flip side, the average Napoleon is no hero either. They have plenty of action, but nothing but ill intention. Therefore, to be a hero you need both great intention and action. Using both we can see Gaston is no hero. The Intentions As I have already shown, his actions are nothing but unbridled egotism (forgive the poor word choice earlier, no idea it was an actual disorder). Because of this egotism, his motives are selfish and therefore not heroic. The Action While he’s done a couple impressive feats, his actions are also not heroic. For this we can see Several counts of random and unprovoked violence Several counts of disturbing the peace Harassment Unjust imprisonment Attempted murder of his “love’s” actual love Multiple counts of brooding Defying physics by firing three separate shots from a one shot musket Dark Witchcraft Egotists aren’t heroes. Spidermen are heroes.
Gaston (from Beauty and the Beast) is a hero.

"And let's talk about their "love" for a moment. The grimy, nasty butt hunter Gaston wanted Belle as a trophy, as another victory for himself, not as a lover, or companion. " The problem with this theory is that she would make a horrible trophy wife. Everyone in town thought she was a freak because of her aloofness, constant reading and weird dad. If anything it would hurt Gaston's reputation to be with her. The only motive for being with Belle is his love for her. Even if he did just want to plow Belle it wouldn't make him a villain but that isn't the case here. I'm also not denying that Gaston had his flaws. He certainly was arrogant and for good reasons. He was a hunk, the best hunter in the world and he was Gaston. My opponent states that Gaston is a Narcissist but doesn't support this. Not only does he not support this but he doesn't show how having a mental illness or personality defect makes you a bad guy. If anything saying a mental illness makes you a bad guy, makes you a bad guy. ON KANT- I'd disagree that an actions intent is what makes it moral or immoral, however I'm not arguing anything that would disagree with Kantian ethics. It's a truism that you can't tell what's in another person's heart. The best thing you can do is to judge a man by his actions. Judging a man by his actions is certainly preferable to judging him by he percieved personality or even words since it's in our nature to present a mask and lie. Gaston's actions say "Hero". I've outlined his actions last round but let's do it again. Gaston sees a threat to the town (the beast). The beast has already kidnapped 2 of the town's people and nobody knows when or where this terrorist will strike next. Gaston like a hero forms a militia to take down this threat and save the town and then proceeds to do just that. Gaston was saving the town, which makes him a hero. Gaston was saving his future bride from an actual monster who had inprisoned her, refused to let her eat and constantly terrified her with his violent and angry outbursts. Gaston saved the town. Gaston saved the girl. Actions speak louder then words and they certainly speak louder than personality.
Gaston (from Beauty and the Beast) is a hero.

That picture you uploaded reminds me of the busty Captain America picture. *shivers* Rebuttal to "A Tragic Love Story" The issue at hand isn't that Gaston is arrogant, plenty of heroes are arrogant, the issue is that he's a narcissist. This is something that disqualifies him as a hero, as I'll explain in a moment, in my own contentions. One does not deserve a person's affections just because they pay attention to you. If that was the case, stalkers would be studs. Belle repeatedly told Gaston that she just wasn't that into him, but, due to the narcissism, he continued to pursue. In fact, Belle was quite content to be alone, but he didn't care. And let's talk about their "love" for a moment. The grimy, nasty butt hunter Gaston wanted Belle as a trophy, as another victory for himself, not as a lover, or companion. Any relationship between them would be entirely self serving on the side of Gaston, and Belle wasn't about that life. She fell in love with someone damaged, and sincere, and while it is awkwardly reminiscent of Stockholm syndrome, the feeling were real toward the Beast, something that Gaston could never have. Rebuttal to "Heroes Journey" Gaston never did anything "for" the town or "for" the woman he loved. He was a narcissist who couldn't handle being shut out by Belle, so he threw a hissy fit and tries to kill her love, because he was just a (insert euphemism here). He ended up dieing in the process, and the world lost someone completely replaceable. Now on to my argument. A Tale of a Self-Entitled Prick. According to Kantian ethics, nothing in the world, no action, is inherently good or bad. What determines the goodness or evilness of an action is the good or bad will of the action, and this is an issue for Mr. Gaston. Every action the grimy poacher makes is to self aggrandize himself, to force everyone in town to love him, regardless of their true feelings. This was arrogance, this was narcissism. He was a self obsessed goon that Belle would have never been happy with and that he would have ultimately cheated on or dumped just because he found another trophy in skirt. His story is reminiscent of the internet "nice guy." The I-held-a-door-open-for-you-once-so-I-deserve-to-be-your-fricken'-boyfriend guy. This self entitlement was then combined with a high-school-quarterback-who-screws-the-cheer-captain level of narcissism. Then, the ultimate prick was born. The world looked a bit brighter after his death, illuminated by Beast and Belle's love. I await your counter, TheBlueWizard
Consider hacking a form of terrorism

Hacking IS illegal. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly. The debate is to consider hacking as terrorism and to penalize it as such. Making things illegal does not stop criminals from doing so. There's no agreeing or disagreeing with a law (in some context). They are withholding information and we should be allowed to obtain from them - and by their own law, they should provide us with this information. If not - hacking is a solution so we can obtain this information. Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your New York Times article. My point is that hacking is not bad and gave you Anonymous as an example. They do good. You are claiming that you want to make people who go good hacking as terrorists. 9/11 is a poor example of what you meant because 911 had absolutely nothing to do with computer hacking. Turning hacking into a form of terrorism is not going to stop people from getting the information they want. Getting more defense on digital information is a whole different argument and this should be done by the government. Just because we are getting more technologically advanced does not mean that it should be considered terrorism. When there is threat to human life that would be a different story. However there is not. So it should not be considered terrorism.
Consider hacking a form of terrorism

No matter how good the government computers are, there will always be an off chance of someone break in to their computers. The point of making hacking illegal would be a clear sign of deterrence, hopefully this would prevent people from not stealing government documents. According to your own government source, all documents the FOIA gives is under the code of law and everything that is exempt falls under 9 exemptions. So trying to obtain that information should and is clearly illegal. Either you agree with your sources or you are saying you believe there is information our government is unlawfully withholding, and the only way we can get this information is by hacking. If you were to read the New York Times articles, you would of saw that the first words that Mr.Muller is quoted to say, is how terrorist are showing an interest in hacking skills. By saying "If hackers can get within our nuclear launch system then we deserve to be blown up." you are also basically saying we deserved 9/11, because TSA let hijackers slip through security. Hacking today is a whole new ball game of terrorism. In a world that keeps getting more technological savvy we need to defend ourselves at all fronts, and that means preventing hackers from getting their hands on vital information
Consider hacking a form of terrorism

P1) If government computers are hackable it shows flaws within our system. These flaws need to be improved. If we have computer spyware is supposed to prevent these attacks, then why are they still happening. It should not be easy to gain access to such private information. P2) You misread the source, there are some exclusions to what types of information you can get under this. Something like nuclear codes are obviously not something you would get under this act. My point being is that as a country and as citizens of this country we have a right to know what goes on in our governement and we have the right to documents the government has. Because we have this right there is no need for those to hack into our systems computers to obtain this information when it is accessible under FOIA. http://www.foia.gov... P3) If hackers can get within our nuclear launch system then we deserve to be blown up. Point blank. What that sounds like to me is you're saying the government does not care enough to try and make something nuclear launch codes sensitive enough that someone can easily access through a computer, which seems highly implausible. Again, no one has ever died from cyber terrorism "no instance of anyone ever having been killed by a terrorist (or anyone else) using a computer. Nor is there compelling evidence that al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has resorted to computers for any sort of serious destructive activity." The real problem we should be focusing on, are living people who actually do kill people. http://www.princeton.edu... P4) In your NY times source, it says that hackers are an issue "because they pose a "potentially devastating" threat to the country"s businesses and infrastructure." They are not worried about attacks on themselves. http://www.nytimes.com... If you also continue reading down, it states that "Anonymous embarrassed the F.B.I. in February when it posted a 16-minute recording of a conference between the bureau and law enforcement officials in Europe about their joint investigation into the hackers." Of course they are going to be upset. Anonymous, the group of online hackers, expose what the government is doing wrong. Anonymous, because of hacking, found out that in 2011 a group of Chinese hackers who made cyber-attacks on the United States. They also took down a child pornography website AND protest led by the Westboro Baptist church. They even tried to go after Los Zetas, but when the drug cartel threatened to kill innocents, they withdrew from leaking the info. http://www.businessinsider.com... .