BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stand your ground.

How exactly is retreating a right? The point of stand your ground is so a victim can react when provoked, if they could see the future and avoid these situations, then I'm sure they would, but we can't see the future now can we. "1. The law protects the most violent when both aggressors are wrong." I'm not sure if this is your wording or my interpretation, but in all violent crime, there is a perpetrator and a victim. The law is designed to protect the victim when they are presented with lethal force, instead of having to retreat. Why should the victim have to retreat? Honestly, I don't believe Zimmerman should have been protected by stand your ground as he initiated the confrontation. He ignored what the 911 operator told him to do, so he shouldn't be protected by stand your ground. Also, the Florida stand your ground law only applies to people who are lawfully inhabiting the place of the event and is void if they're engaged in an unlawful activity. So someone messed up when prosecuting Smith (1). "2. The law is not applied consistently:" "A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases " the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" " found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time." What does this have to do with anything unless we know the race of the perpetrator? How does this show SYG (Stand your ground) is applied inconsistently? 1. http://www.leg.state.fl.us...
Stand your ground.

Stand your ground removes the right to retreat before using deadly force. Whereas someone could avoid / retreat from a dangerous situation before deadly force is called for, stand your ground removes that legal obligation1. The law protects the most violent when both aggressors are wrong.Stand your ground law comes into affect where retreat is entirely possible, and even logical. This is the case with George Zimmerman, who legally had the right to follow someone until a confrontation took place. It is entirely possible that if Trayvon Martin would have won the fight and killed George Zimmerman with his bare hands or a weapon, he could have invoked the stand your ground law. This is the problem with the law. It favors the person with the deadliest force, because the narrative will be dictated by living. Consider some of the cases where the stand your ground law has been invoked and been succesful:Owen Eugene Whitlock killed his son in law over a barbeque grillhttp://www.tampabay.com...Tavarious China Smith, a drugdealer, has invoked the stand your ground law two times, both in drug deals gone wrong, and has served no time in jail for the murders. http://www.tampabay.com...Maurice Moorer killed his ex-wife's boyfriendWhat happened: Maurice Moorer fired more than a dozen shots at his ex-wife's boyfriend, killing him in his car. The shooting occurred after a dispute between Moorer and Eddy Moore earlier in the day. Moore was sitting in his car outside Moorer's house when Moorer stepped outside with a gun and shot at least 15 times. Police argued he had lured his rival to the house. But Moorer said Moore had been threatening to kill him and appeared to be reaching for a gun. Police found a gun in his back seat under some laundry.http://www.tampabay.com...Denounce Harden:What happened:Deounce Harden and Steven Deon Mitchell had argued in the past over Mitchell's ex-wife, whom Harden was dating. Harden showed up at the carwash where the Mitchell worked and the two men began arguing. Harden shot and killed his unarmed adversary in front of the business. Harden then called the police, who found him standing over the body, holding a gun. The outcome: The prosecutor declined to file charges against Harden, even though Mitchell was unarmed. The shooting was deemed justifiable "under a new state law that allows the use of force when a person is being threatened." 2. The law is not applied consistently:A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.3. The law is not needed to protect self defenseJustifiable Homocide has always been an affirmative defense. Retreat has already been limited to being "a reasonable effort to retreat".In a scenario where retreat is impossible or retreat would increase the danger to the would be victim, stand your ground law would not have any affect. In a case where someone is being robbed for instance, the stand your ground would have little if any affect if the victim shoots the aggressor.
Stand your ground.

I found this definition of stand your ground off wiki and find it to be suitable for this debate, if you don't think so, present an alternative definition in the next round. "A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation." (1) Given that definition I'll continue. I. Not every victim has the means or opportunity to evade or flee a situation. II. No one should be forced by law to flee when they are in the vicinity ,at the time of the situation, legally, when the situation was initiated by the aggressor. III. The law should be designed to aid the innocent, not the criminals. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: God Exists

Thank you truthiskey for this debate. As I"m sure all voters are aware, to award a conduct point is to determine which debater, on balance, was more composed, and used fewer or no personal attacks against their opponent. Improper conduct includes personal insults, profanities, and bad sportsmanlike behavior. I can promise voters that I was not trying to be unsportsmanlike and break con"s rules intentionally. I misunderstood his rules. And I apologize, truthiskey, for my folly. And I can promise you that I read your first round. Before presenting my argument, I"d like to open up con"s definition of God. The God I"d like to imagine is: the creator of all things and an omnipresent, benevolent, omnipotent, and all-knowing being. I doubt con will mind me adding in that God is also the creator of all things. REBUTTAL to contention 1: The problem of evil. If God is all-knowing and all-loving, according to con"s argument, it would appear that God is not helping those who suffer to end their suffering. As a result, God is either impotent or evil. I recently watched a talk by Sam Harris who made the same argument. I claim that God is neither evil nor impotent. Why God is neither evil nor impotent: I argue for deism. God created the world and now no longer participates in it for good reason. God created this universe to teach organisms important truths. Only true happiness can be appreciated in light of suffering. You have to know the bad to know the good. The ends, to allow for organisms to experience true happiness, justifies the means. Life will inevitable produce suffering as a result of God"s intentional design. The origin of suffering is attachment to a state of being, object, or whatever. The way to end suffering is through the eightfold path, essentially by detachment. Right speech, meditation, and other practices would help you detach and eliminate suffering from your life. If the eightfold path is practiced and mastered, you can reach a state of enlighten and end all suffering. And you will enter nirvana at the end of this life as a result of your practice and mastery. Proof that God exists: God most certainly exists in the minds of many people. God exists in the minds of at least 92% off all people who live in America. For some reason I wasn't able to put in the table/poll. Here is the source: http://www.gallup.com... However interesting the poll may be, I don"t believe I"m addressing my opponents question and concern. Con wants to know if God exists in reality. Many people believe that God exists as I"ve shown. And they"ve experienced spiritual phenomena as a result of their pursuit to know God. It is objective that these people are experiencing mental phenomena that have yet to be explained. If enough people relay their subjective experiences of this mental phenomena in congruence with a common source, this may be evidence that supports the claim that God exists.
Resolved: God Exists

However. .. . Pro was supposed to post his argument in round 1. Now that he hasn't presented his case, this puts me in an awkward position (Pro had the BOP and all Con was supposed to do was refute). I encourage everyone on this website to read the rules before accepting a debate (as pro has not followed the rules, please award the point for conduct to me). Still, I have 1 contention to bring up, even though, to be clear, the burden of proof is on pro as stated in the premise of this debate. Contention 1: The problem of evil. This contention basically is pointing out that for a god to be both omniscient and all-loving, he has to help everyone. If not, how is he all-benevolent. Every day, bad things happen to people. Children starve to death. If god is omniscient then he can change all that. And if he is all-benevolent, then he would. So, it is up to the theist to show how god is both benevolent and omniscient while there is still suffering in the world. I apologize for the short response, for as the BOP is on Pro, I thought that I would get to refute the arguments that he was SUPPOSED TO POST IN ROUND 1. Thank you all for reading and I strongly urge a con vote.
Resolved: God Exists

Rules: - Pro States his case as acceptance - Pro must leave his Round 5 empty or show in some way that it is invalid. This is to balance the round count too four and four. - Burden of Proof lies on Pro. Pro must show that god exists. If pro cannot do so, con wins. - NO CONTINUING SPEECHES IN THE COMMENTS. THE LIMITS ARE THERE FOR A REASON. For the Purposes of this debate, God is defined as an omnipresent, benevolent, omnipotent, and all-knowing being. You can run a plan of a single religion. (AKA: I'm going to prove Christianity.)
Is one piece the best anime

Forced down your neck? You mean like when hitler forced his ideology down the throats of the german people. One piece shouldn't force things that's why other animes are much better due to the fact they know how to put things in your mind without going, "HERE, REMEMBER THIS AND PUT IT IN YO LIFE", Really, I don't understand how people could enjoy being forced to do things, Though one piece is a good anime, It is far from being the best.
Psps are better than Nintendo Ds'

I have a great interest in gaming. .. .so that is why I decided to take this. My position is that the PSP is not better than the DS. My opponent says that DS can only attract younger kids. I do not see how this makes a system superior or inferior. I will say the DS has an appeal that can grab both the hardcore and casual gamers in the market. The fact that it has this appeal is one of the contributing factors that caused it to become the best selling console, outselling the PS2(1)(2)My opponent says that the PSP has better controls. The traditional controlling on the PSP would add less appeal compared to the DS with its touch screen and microphone that also adds to a newer gameplay experience. My opponent says that the PSP does not have to have games inserted into them in order to play. While this may seem convenient, having problems for if something happens to the system such as the hardware being corrupted, then the games that are on it will be lost. Not only that, it would take up more memory in the system. If I misunderstood my opponent's point, I apologise and ask for clarification. M opponent says that the PSP has a longer battery life than the DS. Actually, it is the other way around (3). Due to the type of hardware that the PSP has, it takes up more battery life than the DS. MY opponent states that the PSP has better memory. Due to the direction that Nintendo decided to take with the system, more memory was not needed for it as it was not their selling point. My case DS is less expensivePrice is a great appeal to customers. With a decent price range, people will buy your product more. PSP’s issues are that it is very expensive. With the recession, this added to its advantage more. Better Game LibraryAnother advantage was that the DS has a better game library than the PSP. Most of the PSP’s main games are portable titles of console games. . The DS on the other hand, has original titles to them. It also has backwards compatibility to play games from Nintendo’s older handheld systems. Different Control Scheme As mentioned before, the DS has a different scheme for handhelds. It is innovative and adds further into the experience. Ease for developers. Due to the simple nature of the DS, it is less expensive and easier for develepers to create games for it. This causes more attraction to the system and therefore more diversity in gameplay Sources:(1) . http://www.joystiq.com... (2) . http://ds.nintendolife.com...(3) . http://www.ign.com...
Psps are better than Nintendo Ds'

Nintendo Ds' r good for young children whereas a Psp is better suited for an older person. Psps r better than Nintendo because Psps have more memory. They also have a better controls and buttons. Psps don't have to have a game inserted into them to play any games and there is nothing to loose. Nintendos also have a shorter life on their battery than Psps. Therefore Psps r better than Nintendo Ds' in all ways.
Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history.

Well what I fail to see in your list is a debate topic. Newspaper articles and magazine titles don't have to use perfect English because people aren't debating the resolution. Articles are simply trying to get a point across and people aren't going to sue them for having incorrect grammatical meanings. If someone talks to you saying gas prices will be the most costly in history, it is fine because you understand them, but when it comes to debating a resolution, you have to make sure every piece of the wording makes sense when you take it apart piece by piece. You interpret a random sentence in Time magazine piece by piece, but that is how you examine resolutions You failed to give me any evidence of debate topics in which something like will be... in history would work fine without a comparison afterwards. Let me put it concisely. History- a systematic account of any set of natural phenomena without particular reference to time Will- about or going to Be- to take place; happen; occur Source: Dictionary.com Combining this, will be in history means it is "about to take plsce in s systematic account of any set of natural phenomena without particular reference to time. Pretty much, since there is no comparison put in, we can't truly argue something that seeks to predict time itself
Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history.

Sigh... another example of public education failure. Times Online: "Bush's second inauguration will be the most expensive in history." http://www.timesonline.co.uk... ABC News: "In fact, the Red Cross has said the Hurricane Katrina relief effort will be the most costly in history." http://abcnews.go.com... London free press: "The Olympic village is the best in history and I expect the ceremonies to be the best in history" http://lfpress.ca... People's Daily Online: "The Olympic Games of Beijing 2008 will be the best in history, said the President of the Uruguayan Olympic Committee Julio C. Maglione. " http://english.peopledaily.com.cn... Asian Games Press: "The opening ceremony tomorrow will be the best in history." http://asiangamesdoha2006.blogspot.com... New York Times: "The executives who market Hollywood's movies are confident that this summer will be the best in history" http://query.nytimes.com... Time Magazine: "This year's election will be the most expensive in history." http://www.time.com... But by all means, explain how your version of English is obviously more accurate than the rest of the English speaking world. In the meantime, if someone wishes to participate in a debate about the listed topic instead of inventing English usage, I'll be happy to accept a challenge.
Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history.

I am glad my opponent cleared up his grammar error and admitted that his orginal statement predicting the future was absurd. The term "will be" was not clearly defined to a certain end point and therefore the term applies to all of the future. My opponenet argues that ruels of common English would make his statement true but I am sorry to say that whatever common English he/she is studying doesn't seem to match real English meaning. Will be is the future and unless you put an ending statement, the term goes on for all the future. A statemtent like i.e. "will be the most costly in history at the time of its conclusion." would be fine but since my opponent gives no direct time for which we compare these olympics to all history, his resolution is as he says himself, "absurd" In a debate we debate the resolution on the resolution that we start out with... In this case "Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history." is the resolution we go by, not what my opponent conjured up in the second round. When debating we have to look at every word in the resolution and every possible meaning. For my opponent to make a resolution with flawed grammar and then pass it off as me no understanding the English language is quite sloppy. Disregarding the nonsensical nature of the resolution, my opponent goes on to defend himself saying the a statement like "such and such is fantastic" follows his common english theorem, but alas no real debate would have a resolution with such and such fantastic (and don't try to start one just to prove me wrong, because it is quite clear that a statement like such and such is fantastic would never make it into even a high school debate.) My opponent also writes that he would have used "of all time" if he meant comparison to the future, but judging on the implictaion of the resolution he wrote he might as well had. Just to wrap this up: A) We stick to the original resolution, not the new one my opopnent wrote in his second round by the basic rules of any debate B) His grammar "will be...in history" leads to comparisons of all future since he didn't add a phrase like "will be...in history at the time of its conclusion" C)This means that this resolution would have to be true forever and that is not possible to predict D) My opponent's "common english" that I apparently don't know would not even be used in a high school debate (let alone something higher) because of its vagueness Looking at all that I have put through, it is clear that the resolution my opponent started this debate with and the only resolution we go by is false in its implications. Therefore, to all who understand English, I urge a vote of negation
Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history.

As mentioned in the comments, when one states "will be...in history", it's usually expected that the context of comparison is against it's predecessors. Language is not always literal, and when I say "such and such is fantastic", I don't mean it is imagined, but rather excellent to the point of almost fantastical. In any case, if I was talking about of all time rather than in recorded history so far, I would probably have used "of all time", wouldn't I? I apologize, I assumed that my opponent would have understood underlining implications behind common language. But of course, English is not the first language for all of us, as such, I will try to be more clear by rephrasing the debate topic to better suit my Opponent's needs. "Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly from the time of it's preperation in 2001 to the end of the event's completion later this year in comparison to that of similiar Olympic events in the past (discluding the original sporting events participated by the Greeks, Romans, or such as they were not 'Olympic Games' as proper defined now), taking into account of inflation, economic growth, population growth, while ignoring such unrelated issues of political struggle. The term "costly" refers to financial spending, rather than the cost in terms of human laborers, time and energy, or in terms of how many specific cows were slaughtered for the preparation of Olympics. When considering financial amounts, using $USD as ONLY a form of standardization rather than specifically that (for example) China has spent 3 billion in Chinese Yuan and 2 billion in US Dollars. China in the case of this debate is limited to the country of China established by common international laws to include Hong Kong. It does not include Taiwan as it is still under scrutiny whether its political boundaries are correct. 'China' also suggest the inclusion of Tibet, the topic of which is not under discussion here. In the unlikely case that there is confusion, 2008 is suggested to be 2008 A.D. of our current calendar, as is commonly perceived to be this current year." I hope this new and improved debate topic will be more appropriate for my opponent's needs, and look forward to debating him on facts, not semantics.
Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history.

The total costs of Beijing's 2008 Olympics will be the most expensive in history. This will include spending towards infrastructure, technology, architecture, security, employment, and upkeep during the time of the Olympics. The spending (that goes directly towards the Olympics event) is estimated to be at $65 Billion USD. [1] The spending towards infrastructure, energy, supplies, and water account for roughly $40.9 Billion USD Compared to it's previous host, Athens spent roughly $11.2 Billion USD in 2004. Sources: 1 http://epiac1216.wordpress.com...
The current evolutionary synthesis is not a scientific theory

For clarity, definitions : 1) Evolution : the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits [1] 2) Theory : an hypothesis which is well supported through repeated experimental tests which is capable of predicting new phenomena and explaining current phenomena and is both demonstratable and falsifiable. [2] [3] [4] 3) Law : a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle, a distillation of the results of repeated observation [5] 4) Second Law of Thermodynamics : the equilibrium state of a system maximizes the entropy[6] Note, there are many ways to define the above terms, some of them are highly contested, the ID movement for example argues for a unique definition of theory which can be as vague as "best explanation"[7] Three rules : 1) Do not accept this debate and argue using definitions other than the above. I will entertain of course other debates with different definitions, just post in the comment section. 2) Be an active Con and make a case that the current evolutionary synthesis is a scientific theory. This way both sides can argue for and against which is far more interesting to read. 3) Respect the character limit, and do not abuse it with references to external arguments, using the comment section, or abusing the rich text bug . [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.experiment-resources.com... [5] http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com... [6] http://www.allaboutscience.org... [7] http://bevets.com...