BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

you are not going to find this in no law book. this is vigilantism, i admit it. if we could get him in jail or ban him from abortrions, but if it's not working, we should have him taken out on the side. i have said that arguing against vigilantism is the main concern i have as well, in that the evidence needs properly weighed and we'd hope a good judge is the one pulling the trigger. they were trying to get him since the ninties without success. i can't speak to the details as to why, but if what i posted is true, he should have been shot. in the case of gosnell to compare... justice came. perhaps not soon enough. id be content if tiller were locked up for life or unable to do any ote abortion again. in both cases, if we see law isnt working but babies are dying... what are we to just wait around and let them die? if someone shot gosnell while we were waiting for process to work... that's just life and a good thing at least if babies are being saved. you need to address the two year old hypothetical. no one would just sit around an wait for politics or law to work while two year olds were being shot. most people would be for vigilantism here. if they or you would be, why not in cases of illegal abortions late term for trivial reasons? you may not be most people per vigilantism but if you are you need to address the difference, and if you aren't, you need to explain how you can just sit by or allow it to happen and think it's not the moral thing to do, to take em out.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

Ok... WHAT? one point you are stating that he should be shot, not jailed like I said or to have death row because of the killing of unborn infants. Why specifically shot? That sounds like a gang reference or an unprofessional way of carrying out punishments in your term. Next you put in the comments "what if he killed two year old?" What if he did? He will still gain the same punishment when he killed the unborn babies. Just tell me why he needs to be SPECIFICALLY shot, not by emotional opinion but somewhere in the law book that he deserves that way to die.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

he should be shot because he is murdering babies. late term trivial illegal abortion, is murder. they've tried many times to get him legally but have failed. if this is the standard you want to use go for it. based on what i can tell, he's guilty though, and if he got off he got off on technicalities or against the weight of the evidence i presented. maybe the people i quoted didnt or couldnt testify for some reason. who knows. but again based on what i know, at least in theory if what i say is true.... he deserves to be shot. not even deserves for his own punishment... deserves for teh lives of future babies saved
Samsung Phones are better than Asus Phone

Like the"Asus Memo ME172V", the Asus FonePad is essentially a slightly redesigned Asus-made Nexus 7. It's roughly the same size and has the same silver trim around its edge, but instead of a grippy leathery backside like the Nexus 7's, it instead features a silver aluminum back. The Nexus 7 is still more comfortable to hold, but the FonePad's slightly lighter metal body feels more durable.
Samsung Phones are better than Asus Phone

For the publicly traded company, see Samsung Electronics. Not to be confused with Samsun. Samsung Group Samsung Town, Seoul Native name1340;1457;그/353;, 三星그/353; TypeChaebol IndustryConglomerate Founded1938 FoundersLee Byung-chul HeadquartersSuwon, South Korea Area servedWorldwide Key peopleLee Kun-hee (Chairman of Samsung Electronics) ProductsApparel, chemicals, consumer electronics, electronic components, medical equipment, precision instruments, semiconductors, ships, telecommunications equipment ServicesAdvertising, construction, entertainment, financial services, hospitality, information and communications technology services, medical services, retail Revenue US$ 327 billion (2013)[1] Net income US$ 30.1 billion (2013)[1] Total assets US$ 100.4 billion (2013)[1] Total equity US$ 70.3 billion (2013)[1] Employees427,000 (2013)[1] SubsidiariesSamsung Electronics Samsung Life Insurance Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Samsung Heavy Industries Samsung C&T Samsung SDS Samsung Techwin etc. WebsiteSamsung.com Samsung Hangul1340;1457; Hanja三星 Revised RomanizationSamseong McCune"ReischauerSams!5;ng Samsung Group (Hangul: 1340;1457;그/353;; hanja: 三星그/353;; Korean pronunciation: [sD8;amsD8;A2;!1; ɡɯ?8;up]) is a South Korean multinational conglomerate company headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul. It comprises numerous subsidiaries and affiliated businesses, most of them united under the Samsung brand, and is the largest South Korean chaebol (business conglomerate). Samsung was founded by Lee Byung-chul in 1938 as a trading company. Over the next three decades the group diversified into areas including food processing, textiles, insurance, securities and retail. Samsung entered the electronics industry in the late 1960s and the construction and shipbuilding industries in the mid-1970s; these areas would drive its subsequent growth. Following Lee's death in 1987, Samsung was separated into four business groups " Samsung Group, Shinsegae Group, CJ Group and Hansol Group. Since the 1990s Samsung has increasingly globalized its activities, and electronics, particularly mobile phones and semiconductors, have become its most important source of income. Notable Samsung industrial subsidiaries include Samsung Electronics (the world's largest information technology company measured by 2012 revenues, and 4th in market value),[2] Samsung Heavy Industries (the world's 2nd-largest shipbuilder measured by 2010 revenues),[3] and Samsung Engineering and Samsung C&T (respectively the world's 13th and 36th-largest construction companies).[4] Other notable subsidiaries include Samsung Life Insurance (the world's 14th-largest life insurance company),[5] Samsung Everland (operator of Everland Resort, the oldest theme park in South Korea),[6] Samsung Techwin (an aerospace, surveillance and defense company) and Cheil Worldwide (the world's 15th-largest advertising agency measured by 2012 revenues).[7][8]
Samsung Phones are better than Asus Phone

Asus Fonepad"is a series of"tablet computers"with"mobile cellular telephony"capability (and so is, therefore, considered a "phablet") developed by"ASUS. It is the first phablet to breach the 6.9-inch"diagonal screen measure"barrier, thereby causing it to break-into the 7-inch screen size realm traditionally occupied only by true tablet computers which have no cellular telephony capability. On August 26, 2014, Asus launched the Asus Fonepad 7 (FE7530CXG),"which is a 3G phone calling tablet with a Intel Atom Z3560 processor, 1GB RAM, a 7-inch 1280x800 screen, and Android 4.4 Kitkat OS.
Death penalty

Yes, but still taking someones life away for doing something as signing someones signature for them? That should not be done. Just think if you signed someones signature for them, would you want your life to be taken away in the most painful way possible... an electric chair, being choked to death. If it was me that is not how I would want to go down. Plus, what if the person that was being killed had information about something that no one else knew. That information is now gone. Forever.
A Strategy for the ISIS problem

Okay this is just stupid. I don't have almost anything to say in this round because you haven't give new arguments and the ones you have given are bad arguments just to no be offensive. But just to clear this up bombing Syria creating three new states and basically fighting Isis with those tons of second effects would make more harm than good. Killing that much people is bad and I don't care if they aren't all Syrians, they're inosents that diserve a good life not just to be killed because someone is mad with terrorist that don't have anything to do with them.
A Strategy for the ISIS problem

You dont kill all of them it would be impossible and be vital to the mission NOT to exterminate all of the Syrians. The Russians wont kill all the Syrians.While the death toll would be in the millions they wouldn't come close to exterminating the whole Syrian race. The "Clean Sweep" initiative would simply clear out all the radicals and impose a dictatorship in Syria (under Al-Assad) creating peace. Thorough talks with Russia would convince them to keep a leash on him and stop bombing his people with chemical weapons. Under European/American control Iraq would be swept away and 3 new states would come into power. With US support peace would be established through the different religions. This would be the opposite of the Syrian position as we would establish democracies there.
A Strategy for the ISIS problem

Well actually it would be bad to kill 56,27 million people that live in Syria and Irak and they would defend themselves so the attack would be a failure. And that global rigid Immigration standard would be very spensive and it would be hard to find out who is a terrorist and who is a normal Iraqi. Another hard, very hard thing to solve is not letting anyone escape because actually how can a country close all a country airports borders and ports. This won't help maintain the peace since Syria, Irak and their allies would be mad at Russia. The economy would be devastated the environment would be harmed (bombs have negative effects in the environment) and the hole land won't be habitable for a very long time causing diseases to those that pass through there and devastating a hole civilization. Many recourse's would be wasted in this and more importantly Isis members would find a way to get away
A Strategy for the ISIS problem

I mean the UN can be easily persuaded. That and the UN doesn't really have power The UN's "sanctions" barely are having an effect on Russia and if they were brought against the US would either be dropped with coercion or wouldn't be enough to bring down the US economy. http://www.theatlantic.com... In this article it shows the UN's carelessness. An entire genocide happened and they didn't care to i tact (Voters DO NOT VOTE for me on Sources. I said Sources would not count and I meant it. Keep Sources at Tied) We would also make a global standard for rigid immigration not allowing any terrorists to be admitted to and if they are found out they will captured and interrogated. Also the Russians wont allow ISIS members to escape. They will end them with carpet bombing killing both civilians and Terrorists. Also the majority of active ISIS members are in Iraq and Syria. Yes massive loss of life will occur but I do not think this will be a bad thing if this action results in extended peace in the middle east
A Strategy for the ISIS problem

Isis This initiative won't even be close to work since bombing a hole country would be exaggerated expensive and against UN laws so it won't be permitted by the UN. One of the biggest weak parts of your solution is that Putin or the Russian government would need to tell the Syrian citizens that their country would be attacked and it would be more probably that Isis members escape than this citizens do. The looses would be thousands of millions of dollars in buildings. Wildlife would be killed and the contamination would be very huge. Many Isis members don't even live in Syria so they won't be killed. Basically this solution suck Isis would continue and many Human rights would be violated maybe you should think of another solution or forget the topic
A Strategy for the ISIS problem

This is more of a discussion, Comments are welcome. My opponent will basically tell me why my strategy is not a reliable or good one. I suggest a "Clean Slate" initiative. What I basically would do is make a executive agreement with Putin to let him to take the reigns in his Syrian campaign. This would entail having no fly zones and having no restrictions on Russian bombing. The world (anyone involved in the middle east conflict) would back away from Syria and let the Russians deal with the rebels and ISIS. While this will betray our rebels there and there will be a tremendous loss of life the Russians will eventually turn the tide in the war using spec ops and its famous use of carpet bombing. Then the US coalition against ISIS will focus its target on Iraq. Aiding Kurds and deploying troops and using drone strikes/ air strikes to full potential. This would entail that many civilians will die/or severely injured. Once the deed is done we will divide Iraq into 3 parts: Kurdistan, Shiite Land, Sunni land. This will create peace in the region and creating a more peaceful region will be easy to deter radicalization. The Death Toll will be in the hundreds of thousands maybe even millions if you add the Russian death toll of civilians The price of the war on the us side will be in the billions However the price will be lower than the overall price of continually dealing with ISIS. Remember this is just a discussion. No sources just speak what is your mind.
Zoos are not out-dated and are necessary for animal conservation

As my opponent forfeited the previous round, I am going to take the opportunity to discuss some issues with in situ conservation (where animals are conserved in the wild where they belong). To begin with, in situ conservation is the most advantageous form of conservation, as it means animals are able to remain in their natural habitat and stay wild. This is obviously the best option for the animals involved; however, it is not always possible. Some problems facing in situ conservation: - Poaching - Illegal pet trade - Bush meat - Traditional Chinese medicines - Souvenirs - Deforestation - Global warming As you can see, all of the above are caused by Man. Humans are responsible for the mass extinction and so we have a moral duty to care for these animals. Zoos are not the best option; however, sometimes they are the only option. It costs thousands to reintroduce animals back into the wild and there is no point if they are going to be wiped out straight away. It is important to eradicate the causal factor to begin with; however, this is a long, slow process and if we didn't have zoos, the animals would die out before we could help them. For in situ conservation to work, we need to address these problems and work with the people who are causing the animals to disappear. However, how do you explain the importance of animal conservation to people who are literally starving, but manage to make enough money through poaching, to feed themselves and their families? It is so easy for us to criticise zoos, but as you can see, in situ conservation is not always the answer, thus zoos are the next best option. This brings me back to my argument: zoos are not out-dated and are essential for animal conservation. Do you want your children to grow up without knowing what a rhino looks like? A tiger? A polar bear? Any animal infact? All animals create a balance and all living organisms have a purpose. Think about it.
Zoos are not out-dated and are necessary for animal conservation

My opponent stated that "...a zoo's job is NOT to conserve wild species..." this is completely incorrect and defeats the point of a zoo. I would like to see a reference for this statement. I would also like to remind my opponent I am specifically looking at UK zoos. Answers: 1. I am confident in saying that the majority of animal welfare and behaviour research is carried out in zoos, as I am a researcher myself. Zoos were originally created as scientific institutes to study exotic animals, but had to be opened to the public for funding. 2. "Now zoos are not where Animals started, they do not have the rights that we do, we can at least leave them alone." -- It is true that animals do not have the same rights as us; however, we are the cause of the mass extinctions and thus we have a moral obligation to protect them. If we left them alone, they will all become extinct. As for "protect them where they started." this is near impossible in some cases. Think about poaching, deforestation and Global warming. What would be the point in reintroducing species and spending thousands of pounds if they are going to be wiped out again or they cannot sustain themselves sufficiently? As for in situ conservation, this is a common practice. The West African black rhino is being carefully monitored and managed in the wild. For more information on endangered species, please visit http://www.iucnredlist.org.... "...if evolution is true, than we are all Animals, and we should be out in cages too!" -- Humans are like mosquitos, the whole world is covered in them, so why would we want to cage them? Also, what does this statement have to do with zoos and conservation? 3. Animal conservation centres are zoos and zoos are animal conservation centres - different name. 4. Some zoos do get Government funding. Good luck :)
Zoos are not out-dated and are necessary for animal conservation

Okay hello!! I'm Just going to jump right in to it, and I'll start by asking a few questions. 1.What scientific research is done at a zoo? 2.What species have been protected/saved through a zoo? 3.What is the point of a animal conservation center, if we have zoos? 4. Does the Government spend any money on this? To start off, a zoo's job is NOT to conserve wild species, as stated by the opposition, it is to "to educate the public", and "to provide a fun family day out" And that is ALL it is for, now I ask, what scientific research is done at a zoo, and the answer will be none, because scientific research is done at places called "A research Center". Now zoos are not where Animals started, they do not have the rights that we do, we can at least leave them alone. Or protect them where they stared. And if evolution is true, than we are all Animals, and we should be out in cages too! That's all I have for now. Thanks you
Zoos are not out-dated and are necessary for animal conservation

Animal conservation has become a hot topic more recently between scientists, the media and the public. There are huge debates about whether animal conservation is necessary and the advantages and disadvantages of in situ and ex situ conservation. A main concern is ex situ conservation (i.e. zoological parks). Many people see zoos as out-dated and cruel. Exotic wild animals are kept in man-made enclosures under unnatural environmental and social conditions and surplus animals are usually euthanised. This is true, but who can argue that zoos do not play a leading role in animal conservation? The zoo has four main aims: 1. to educate the public; 2. to discover new findings through scientific research; 3. to provide a fun family day out, and; 4. to conserve wild species. As you can see, three of these (education, research and conservation) are all academic and aim to protect species. Providing entertainment for the family is not exactly in the animals best interests, but the funding is necessary to enable research and conservation. Zoos provide valuable information to the public about animal conservation, either through a fun family day out, school visits or through the media, such as the internet and T.V shows. Admittedly, not all countries have 'good' welfare standards for their animals; however, the UK does and this is the country I am primarily looking at for the debate. If zoos did not exist, the West African Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis longipes) would be completely extinct. This is the same for may other animals sepcies. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Arguments on debate.org should be more technical

Naturally I'd love to learn as much on this as possible. I follow and concur with the frame work, I cant comment on CEDA{I'm going out on a limb} some vital people who live or die much like fine trail lawyers. ? Hey if anybody out here is beyond bored and would love{like} to try and educate me further, I'd be grateful. Peace, Miss Ruth A. Marland
Arguments on debate.org should be more technical

1. Clarification of framework a. Frameworks are used to determine how best to debate. They often take into account philosophical issues pertaining to how we should view the round, as well as how to preserve fairness in the round. b. Fiat is a tool that we can use in order to determine which of two worlds is more ideal. Basically, the implication is that I, as Pro, only have to prove that arguments should be more technical, not that it will be. c. pre fiat means before that assumption. That is, that the point of debate is to education ourselves about the world during our actual arguments -- that these words ought be educational in and of themselves, regardless of rather or not we are talking about the implications of the topic. d. post fiat means after that assumption. That is, that we ought to educate ourselves about the implications of a more technical debate.org. 2. clarification of Other Observations Essentially, I'm saying that if we're going to debate online we should structure our arguments and follow the structure of our opponents arguments with more precision. I find rhetoric interesting, and it's very important to learn how to present persuasively, but the internet is not a forum where presentation skills can be adequately used or tested.
Arguments on debate.org should be more technical

note: if you have ever debated competitive in a formal circuit (HS/college), please don't challenge on this, I want to hear the opinions of one of the people I am talking about in obs. 2. obs. 1: Framework 1. Debate is discourse on behalf of intellectuals 2. The point of debate online is to educate; it's not about presentation 3. In order to educate we must strive to learn truths about pre and post fiat worlds 4. Dropping any part of this framework in the 1st round will be considered a permanent agreement with that argument. 5. No new arguments in the 3rd round by either side. obs. 2: Debate.org "debaters" don't debate technically 1. CRaP (Controversy, Rhetoric, and Persuasion) -- often called Public Forum in HS debate circles -- is equivocal to how many here "debate," and this discourse is aimed at persuasion and not finding truth. 2. No one on debate.org actually structures their arguments, and few provide evidence. obs. 3: technical debate is best for the online forum. 1. We aren't presenting, and we won't gain anything from writing "persuasive" passages on-line. 2. debate.org is a unique opportunity to focus on the merits and warrants of arguments in depth instead of the communication of ideas. 3. Technical debate focuses on merits and warrants of arguments, which are communicated in an easy to understand but not superfluous way. 4. The real world requires CRaP: it's a more appropriate forum.
Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law.

Thanks to Lwerd for broaching this interesting and controversial topic, and one that I'm sure will lead to a fantastic debate. I only have one thing to clarify: I've never stated that it should be completely illegal to record interactions, but that it can present a very dangerous and disruptive thing for law enforcement to handle. I take the position that restrictions are not unreasonable in order to protect both the officer's privacy and law enforcement's integrity, but that to make it completely illegal is more than a tad extreme. There are much easier ways of enforcing these restrictions while maintaining the ability for citizens to record any crimes committed by police officers and have that admitted as evidence in court or to the media. However, if need be, for this argument I will argue for full illegality. Possibly not important, but I certainly believe is, as knowing someone's motivations for arguing for a certain position. So if I seem not to be taking "farging people taking picture of the cops" to heart, you'll know why. Another thing to clarify is that I don't have a very large amount of time to devote to DDO during the afternoons this week, but hopefully we can wrap up this debate by Wednesday, when it'll matter. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck!