BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mental illness is no excuse for being a criminal

I suppose I'll take this one. I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone, But that's a separate debate. So, I'd rather debate the merits of jail sentences for crimes committed due to mental illness. The purpose of a jail sentence is threefold: a) to protect the public while the offender is in jail b) to serve as a deterrent to others in a similar situation to the offender c) if not a life sentence, To convince the offender not to do the same thing again in the future once they get out The brain is an organ like any other, And it, Too, Can malfunction. In some cases, This results in someone who genuinely did not make a free moral choice regarding whether or not to commit a crime. For example, A person experiencing a psychotic episode might genuinely believe that pushing her children out of a window several stories up was the only way to save them from eternal torment. (This is an actual case I read about. ) In a case like that, The moral decision that she believed she was making (kill her children quickly or let them suffer eternal torment) was very different from the real moral implications of her decision, And she would have made a very different choice if her perception of reality was not distorted. In a case like that, The only benefit of jail time would be to protect the public, And the public can be just as protected if she is instead in a high-security mental hospital (which is where she ended up). It won't serve as a deterrent to anyone in a similar situation, Because someone who is suffering from acute psychosis is not going to make a rational cost-benefits analysis - they quite simply are not capable of doing so. It also won't make her any less likely to do the thing in the future, For the same reason. The only thing that will make her less likely to murder someone in the future is getting her psychotic symptoms under control with medication. A question - have you ever played a video game or watched a movie or TV show featuring a good guy getting mind controlled? Would you consider that character responsible for their actions under the effects of mind control? After all, It's still them doing that thing, Even though they didn't choose to do so.
Mental illness is no excuse for being a criminal

Too many times I see criminals get off on the offence of "found not guilty by reason of insanity" This is an absolute BS excuse for what a person did. Everyone is responsible for their actions, I don't care if you are autistic, Schizophrenic, Bi-polar, Delusional, Paranoid or whatever other fvcked up mental illness you have, It doesn't excuse you from committing crimes. The mentally ill should be tried the same way as any other sane criminal. I don't care if you are mentally ill, That is no excuse for committing crimes. It's still you, Don't use the excuse, Well I was insane at the time so I butchered that person or decapitated someone and ate their tongue. There should be no insane defense, You commit a crime you do the time, You kill someone and you are mentally ill, You still get the needle!
Mental illness is no excuse for being a criminal

You don't understand the concept of an analogy? I'm well aware that mind control isn't real. I wonder if this analogy will be more understandable to you. Awhile back, A woman threw her baby off of the Capilano bridge in North Vancouver. Luckily, The baby suffered only minor injuries, But she could easily have been much more seriously hurt or even killed. She apparently did this because she found her baby difficult to look after and didn't want her anymore. I think we can both agree that she is a terrible person who deserves serious punishment. But what about another woman who is standing on the bridge, Holding a baby, And then faints and drops the baby accidentally? It's still her hands that dropped the baby. Do you think she deserves the same punishment as that woman who deliberately threw her baby? Or how about another analogy? There was a little boy, About 3 years old, Whose mother gave him a gun, Showed him how to pull the trigger, And told him it would be a fun game if he pointed it at his father and pulled the trigger. The boy then shot and killed his father. Do you think he should be punished the same as an adult who shoots and kills someone? Incidentally, In terms of protecting the public, The research shows that all else being equal, A convicted criminal with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or a related condition is less likely to ever do it again than someone without that diagnosis. You mentioned that the guy who beheaded someone on the bus is walking free right now. Were you aware that, Close to a decade after he got free, He has never committed any crimes since? Last I heard, He's been on his meds for a decade and is doing great, Except for the crippling guilt. Not everyone with schizophrenia goes off their meds, And I strongly suspect someone who seriously injured or killed someone while psychotic is a lot less likely to want to go off their meds than someone who just acted weirdly and had trouble functioning. I know I certainly would be more willing to put up with side effects if the alternative could be someone's death. Plus, People who've been declared not guilty by reason of insanity aren't just released without supervision once they get their mental illness under control. You don't seem to believe in the concept of mental illness. But just because you refuse to believe something doesn't change the reality. Mental illness exists, And it can make you do things you would never do if you were in your right mind. I know people personally who have done things because of a mental illness that they'd never have done otherwise, Though luckily no one was hurt. They're not bad people who are making up an excuse, They are good people struggling with something that happened to them that they couldn't control.
Mental illness is no excuse for being a criminal

Let's continue this debate after some DDO forfeit issues last round Further to your point about mental illness, I agree with you that a mentally ill person should be locked up to protect the public, The problem is our parole board is a JOKE, And these people get back out there again, And how many times are we going to use the excuse of mental illness for crimes being committed. The mentally ill on average get out of jail 1/2 the times faster than a felon who does not have mental illness. We give the mentally ill medication and treat them as if nothing happened. The problem with that is, You can't expect to have the mentally ill person take their medication on their own, Many have side effects to psychosis medication and eventually stop taking it and revert back to the mental illness that landed them in jail in the first place. Just read the Greyhound bus incident in Canada, I would attach the link but DDO crashes when I try to attach links. This freak got off with mental illness in court after decapitating a guy and eating his tongue and now he is walking around on the streets 5 years later. The guy should have been guillotined for the crime, Not fed meds and excused. The mentally ill should be treated the same way as any other criminal, You kill someone, You get the needle. Not the excuse well you are ill, Can I use that excuse next time I have a cold? "well I was ill with a runny nose and fever so I was irritated and killed someone, I think I should be given Tylenol and a 6 months sentence for murder your honor" as for the good guy being mind controlled, I DON'T CARE, You do the crime, You do the time, It's still YOU, Don't use the excuse well I was mind controlled, First off, That doesn't exist, Second, Every criminal uses that excuse and third of all someone has to pay for the crime, Victims families need justice and you did it. Don't blame aliens or some other mind controller, It's still you! Case closed, The mentally ill ARE GUILTY, And should be turned into pig feed
There is no God

the god of the Christian faith is unicorns i am the only god that has ever been worshipped, god is non sense, and my imagination is not a sense lies exist, therefore god must exist because god is at least a lie god is information, creator and creation, as creation cant exist without creator, and creation only happens in the mind, like imagining a unicorn the breathes fire and flies across the sky without nothing but fairy dust, takes a god to create when it doesn't exist in reality creation dosnt happen in reality i have no beliefs, therefore i am god
There is no God

I intend for this to be a serious debate, so please, no nonsense. Anyways, now for my arguments. NOTE- When I refer to "God," i am discussing the one revered by the Christian faith. Prayer does not work. We pray to God in the hope that He will answer our prayers and listen to our woes. Prayers are supposed to be sacred, sincere conversations with a higher power. Since one of the basic beliefs about God is that He is omnipresent, he should be in each of our hearts and acknowledge our pleas. Try praying tonight. Try asking for something that is in good intentions, like the curing of a terminally-ill relative, or the recovery of a lost family heirloom. Wait for Him to listen to you and heed your prayer. Wait, nothing changed? This is odd. Jesus claims in Matthew 7:7, "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened... how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" How can there be no response to wholehearted prayers? The answer is simple, there is no one listening to you.
Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)........Hillary Clinton(Con)

This has NOTHING to do with Political Correctness, if you think Gays SHOULD be able to be FIRED or EVICTED JUST because they are Gay, then YOU are a HOMOPHOBE. If you think women do NOT deserve EQUAL pay, then YOU are a SEXIST. If YOU think Blacks should be RACIALLY PROFILED< then YOU are a RACIST
Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)........Hillary Clinton(Con)

This is a clear example of how many Clinton supporters are. Ignorant and Hateful. Con has failed to refute any claims and I will now disprove his just for the fun of it.. First, Con says Trump is racist. Do you even know the defenition of racist? The defenition of racist is as follows: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.[1] I fail to see how Mr. Trump has ever said that his race (Caucasian) is inferior to any other race. If Con has any evidence or sources I would love to see them. Second, Con says Trump is homophobic. You can't just say Mr. Trump is homophobic without ANY evidence. He has not said or done anything that proves he is homophobic, unlike Hillary. She accepts money from nations that hate women and LGBT. Third, Con says Trump is sexist. If Trump was sexist, he wouldn't be employing millions of women in his companies. Many Clinton supporters are voting for her just because she is a women, and they are the ones who are sexist. Fourth, Con says Trump is an elitest. Having money doesn't make you bad. Think about it, Trump could live peacefully if he wanted to because he has so much money, but he actually cares for this country and that's why he is running for President. Lastly, Con says Trump is a bigot. If he was a bigot, no one would be voting for him Your ignorance says something, maybe you should look at the facts before saying something. It's a fact that Hillary sent classified information on her private server. It's a fact that she caused the Iraq War and ISIS to come. What will she do next?
Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)........Hillary Clinton(Con)

I believe I am not required to refute his claims. I urge Con to follow the rules so this may remain a civilized debate. This round is only for contentions. NO REBUTTALS! !! My first Contention is mainly about Illegal Immigration. Contention 1:Mr. Trump is not a politically correct person. He sees and tells the truth the way it is and is non political correctness is approved by many Americans. [1] By being politically correct, issues cannot get solved, like the issue of Radical Islamic and the issue of Illegal Immigration. Muslims must be banned in order to prevent more terrorist attacks in the United States. For Illegal Immigration, the illegals came here ILLEGALY. They broke the law to get here and they should be punished by being deported. There is no need to be politically correct and say children would be separated from mothers. They should've thought about that before coming to the U. S. Illegally. It just proves that many people think that America is stupid and won't enforce immigration laws. A wall must be built to stop all of these illegal aliens from coming and ruining lives of Americans. The wall would only cost about 17 billion dollars. [2] This is wishing the margin of the 58 billion trade deficit America has with Mexico. [3] The next round is for rebuttals and second contention. . http://www.rasmussenreports.com... . http://m.imgur.com... . https://ustr.gov...
Who should be the next President of the United States? Donald Trump(Pro)........Hillary Clinton(Con)

Hello all! I am I favor of Mr. Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States. I believe that Hillary Clinton is a lying corrupt criminal. I will argue for Mr. Trump and Con will argue for Clinton. Thank You, and I hope this will be good debate. Please no trolling or rude behavior. Citations should be used if can. Good Luck to Con! The format of this debate is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Arguments....NO REBUTTALS Round 3: Rebuttals and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusion
Poland vs. America (992-1000 BC)

Just to clarify, the first colony called Isabella was organized during 1493 AD in the Dominican Republic. I mentioned that this debate was inarguable during the Layout. http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org... First Point Boleslaw Chrobry took power in 992 BC as I said in my debate Poland vs France. https://en.wikipedia.org... Second Point Poland divided the legislative and executive branch. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarchy is the Way Forward

Thank you, "newspapers_are_cool", for your argument, but also for taking the time to debate with me, a newcomer. I would like to dedicate my final round to rebuttal and to conclude my case. You said, I believe, that the State has benefits. I would first like to agree. Naturally, a State isn't there for oppression alone, but you seem to have missed the point. While the State may provide the National Health Service, which I am glad you brought up, this system is not impossible to provide by the community. For thousands of years, people in the community have delivered babies without requiring the NHS to help them. All it would need is skilled members of the community to have compassion, which to me is not a distant hope. People are better than you think. Do not underestimate them. Besides, while there would be no States, there would be a communal obligation to help people. It is an interesting point that you make, as this is a potential hazard of Anarchy, but I think you're missing the point. I cannot stand up and say that Anarchy has no faults, or that there would be no problems. I am in fact arguing that a society of Anarchy is a preferable one to our current politics, which I believe stands at the pinnacle of this debate. We aren't arguing over the bits and pieces here, we are looking and the simple philosophy of a system without a government, which I believe if you cannot give reason to reject, is a sign that you are losing. I would request your response to this point of the debate. But nevertheless to stoop to the bare practicalities, I have faith in humanity. Think about what our simple people have done over the years. You'll no doubt point towards the buildings that governments have commissioned, or paintings sponsored, or any number of things, but I am not talking about things you can sense. Every day of our lives, we depend on kind people, who do good out of their own will. I find people lending me books, or helping older people cross busy roads. This may seem clichï¿½d, for which I apologise, but it's true. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough, but I am thinking about anarcho-syndicalism, with local communities who work for a collective good. So long as people have the bare minimum to let them live, I have faith that there will be some stability. Okay, you may call me naï¿½ve, but surely it is better to have faith in the future than to be cynical of reform. So to conclude, what have I told you in this debate? I have told you that the power of people over themselves is necessary, but over others is a bad thing, as power is abused, and as the State has power over a nation it ought to be abolished. I have also tried to show you that the only way for a free and equal society is also known as Anarchy. I cannot put any pressure on your vote, but I can ask you to exercise the freedom you have to vote for the Proposition. Thank you.
Anarchy is the Way Forward

In this round I will rebut his arguments. "When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state. " This ultimately is the quote which Cloud is basing his argument on. But we have to ask ourselves, is this word 'freedom,' being used correctly? There are many things which the state provides that is not 'oppression'. The state is there to look after the most vulnerable in our society. Organisations such as a National Health Service are a great symbol of what successful states can achieve. I don't think that the heavily pregnant homeless woman who relies on it necessarily views it as oppression. I dare say she will not view it as 'freedom,' when it has been disbanded and she will have to find another way of delivering her baby. Anarchy is idealistic because it would only work in a society where everyone is responsible enough to make their own decisions and no one as any ambition at all. This brings me nicely onto my second piece of rebuttal. "A fair system in which we discuss, co-operate, negotiate and barter in peace on a local level. " Does Cloud really think this will ever work. That no one will ever have ambitions to become leader of this equal utopia? That everything will be resolved without certain people becoming more respected. That respect then transforms into power and that certain person decides to use that power for their own benefit because this is a society with no leaders and so imagine the status you'd have if you were respected and were able to sway public opinion. Do you see how quickly the 'social utopia' can fall apart. It is simply unrealistic to assume that a) no one will try and take charge and b) that the society will function for more than a week. I have proven that Anarchy is ideologically flawed and will not work in practice.
Anarchy is the Way Forward

"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state." Lenin Ultimately, Anarchy comes down to the freedom of the individual. Freedom is arguably the greatest possession of anyone, more valuable in itself than any security. It allows the individual to reach his or her potential, or be able to express their emotions passively without fear of pain or imprisonment. Freedom is an inherently good thing. Anarchy also stands against the power of an individual over other people. This relationship is often exploitative, as power corrupts. It rots a person, and tempts them to abuse what power they have. Such a hierarchy has been shown time and time again to fail us as a whole. And whereabouts on such a hierarchy is the most power based? In the State, naturally. How can a State abuse its power? By enforcing controlling laws and taxes that make the people suffer. While democracy claims that the people have a say in how they are governed, it is too often a decision between two or more undesirable parties, and once a party is elected, the people must settle with the decision made until the next election, in which time they may be imprisoned by a power driven State that denies the people freedom of expression. So what is the answer to this restrictive force? Anarchy. Not the scary unshaven Anarchy that the State would have you fear, but a fair system in which we discuss, co-operate, negotiate and barter in peace on a local level. Such a system is the way forward. So if you believe in peace, harmony, equality and liberty, I can be confident that you will vote for Anarchy. Vote for the Instigator.
Anarchy is the Way Forward

"newspapers_are_cool", I challenge you to this, my first, debate. I open my case with a definition, namely that by anarchy, I am talking about a system without a State or Government, but with local communal discussion that enables the people to run themselves and own the means of production as a community. Naturally the system advocates the freedom of the individual, and the equality of the people, which leads me well onto my first point. Throughout history, liberty and equality have been the two factors of change in society. The freedom of the individual has shaped our society, and has been eroding the despots and dictators of the old worlds. This force of freedom is seeping its way into every country without fail, from Canada to China. Where there are shocking inflictions on a person's liberty, the world fights back. Equality has also been a vital force for change. Even to this day we see equality fighting discrimination. Equality has invaded race, gender and class, with mixed results. Where there are inequalities, we see them slowly fizzling out, and becoming scowled upon by many. So what am I trying to say by this? I believe that the perfect utopian world would be a world of perfect freedom and of perfect equality. This may not be entirely attainable, but anarchy is the closest system we can find to this. A system without the restrictions of a government, and with the equal class of all, is surely a step forward to any society? I await your response eagerly.