BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
terrorist should receive an equal treatment in trial

Hey, maybe i should tell something mr. Martin luther king's said "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" and this quote means that we shouldnt feel angry to them or treat them as bad as we could, or even torture them. It makes us same like them. By the way, ive said that this terrorist we discuss is a terrorist who killed people and massive destruction just to send their wrong ideology. Maybe its a right ideology but how they achieve or do their argument in the real life is wrong. and whats my point here? I or maybe we need more time to rebuilt or renewed our ideology. because what our prophet wants wasnt like this...
terrorist should receive an equal treatment in trial

Yes, they should. they are human too. everyone deserve rights, because all those terrorist did was 'maybe' has a purpose. everybody who live in this world should think for the good of our world. In my thought, those terrorist just has a wrong 'meaning' about something their prioritize about. for example ; What ISIS called Jihad. Jihad in my salaf books said jihad is separated into 2 kinds: 1. jihad fi sabilillah (war volunteer). this jihad is counting on fist and of course pray. but this is war, and this jihad theory is unused since the age of Khulafaaurrasyidiin. 2. jihad fil 'ilmi (study in high school,etc). this jihad is the one we used now. because our condition is not enabling to do war. so all we have to do now is only study, study, and study...! so all of those ISIS did was wrong. they think they could call themself jihad if they kill them. and why did i choose to give the same treatment to them? the terrorist? because they have a wrong meaning about jihad. and is my kind job to fix them. so please give them mercy...!
The King James Bible is more reliable than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV

The King James Bible used superior Greek/Hebrew manuscripts, namely the Byzantine Texts (Greek New Testament) and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Old Testament). The Masoretic Text stems from direct transmission of the Tenakh being traced back to the Sopherim of Ezra's day. The Great Rabbinic Bible (ben Chayyim) is the Hebrew Tenakh used and unquestioned for nearly 400 years (1500-1880). It was not until the English Revised Version of 1881 that other sources were considered. Modern versions follow suit in going to other sources for the Old Testament. The Old Testament was given in Hebrew, was preserved in Hebrew and is with us today IN HEBREW. Deviations from the Hebrew Masoretic Text warrants corruption and reflects infidelity to God's preserved words. The Septuagint, Biblia Hebraica, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate, etc. are not sources any translation committee should consult in translating the words of the Old Testament because at best these are all translations of the Hebrew or represent corrupt forms of the Masoretic Text (i.e. BHS, ben Asher). As for the New Testament, there should be no contention. The Traditional Text (Byzantine) has been used and trusted by the Church for more than 1,000 years. ~99% of all Greek manuscripts are in agreement with the Byzantine-type text. Only 1% represents the corrupted few, namely Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (C), and less than 50 papyri (i.e. P-66). The theory developed in the late 1800s was that the Byzantine Text (since most of its representatives were "late" manuscripts) had become corrupted by scribal changes. They viewed the oldest Greek texts as best (just as any other piece of literature is represented by its oldest copy) and based all subsequent work, such as the work of Westcott and Hort, on these few Alexandrian codices. This theory does not trump evidence and tradition. Unbelieving theories are meaningless in the endeavors of translation. If you look at bibles in other languages, over 25,000 agree with the Byzantine Text and consequently agree with the King James Bible. Out of the many verses in question in modern versions, many early Christian writers support the reading's authenticity, such as 1 John 5:7. Majority, historicity and witness do not constitute ultimate proofs of accuracy, but they do count for reliability, which is what this debate is concerned with. (http://brandplucked.webs.com...) (http://brandplucked.webs.com...) (http://brandplucked.webs.com...) I will expand on some of my points in round 3 and provide references if necessary.
The King James Bible is more reliable than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV

My argument is that the King James Version is more reliable (trustworthy) than the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJV based on the manuscripts used to translate these versions. Please only accept this debate if you are a Bible-believing Christian. Burdon of proof will be on both participants to prove or disprove the position. Round 1 - Acceptance/Statement of Position Round 2 - Opening Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Rebuttals/Closing Statements
FDI retail policy in India

"How can intervention of big businesses destroy and kill local economies India most of the local areas and villages?"Big businesses will destroy local economies by displacing many people affiliated with small businesses, including shopkeepers, hawkers, vendors, and workers. "they wont be affected as the foreign retail investments would be only establishing themselves in metropolitan and centralized cities." Who said that they are restricted to metropolitan and centralized cities? Also, establishment of large foreign businesses in metropolitan cities would have to affect neighboring villages and towns, since products will be branched off to them. When FDI hit Thailand, 60,000 small shops closed. Through market saturation, large corporations are able to create widespread impact in an economy. "fake dairy products"The opponent is correct that I am unfamiliar with this claim... and I cannot find any information about it. I'm still not sure, though, how it is relevant to my argument that, through monopolization, large corporations can lower product quality due to a huge decrease in competition. According to a study, when two malls were established next to 82 small shops and 29 hawkers, these were the effects on them: "-71% of small businesses sampled reported falling sales.-Sales decline is evenly distributed by value of inventory up to 25 lakhs. It has mostfrequently impacted larger shops in the size range of 400-500sq ft and 300-400sq ftand those less than 100 sq. ft.-Highest concentration in declining sales by business type was experienced in grocerystores who, of those sampled, 87% reported a decline in sales.-63 % of the sample said that they felt threatened by the Malls. 50% of the samplewas expecting serious trouble. 92% said that their children would not continuewith the business.-Hawkers are facing increasing eviction drives and harassment around the Malls.41% reported an increase in eviction drives, 24% in harassment by agents of theMalls, 17% increase in bribes and hafta.-72% of hawkers experienced a fall in sales and all reported falling profits, whichmeans falling income for them."Moreover, there is a negative impact on farming, since large corporations will push farmers to work for them and get involved in single-crop farming and the use of artificial means of farming. Due to monopolization, farmers will have to sell their products to corporations at the offered price, whatever it may be. This is already starting to happen in India.(http://www.indiafdiwatch.org...)
FDI retail policy in India

"intervention of big business will destroy through forcing small businesses to close and killing local economies. " How can intervention of big businesses destroy and kill local economies India most of the local areas and villages already have the local retail shops.they wont be affected as the foreign retail investments would be only establishing themselves in metropolitan and centralized cities like Delhi,Mumbai etc. plus PM also said that each and every city can decide whether to have FDI policy in their area or not. "product quality will stop mattering" product quality cant stop mattering at all because everyday there are numerous cases of fake dairy products.You may not be familiar with that fact but I am. "destroying all small competitors" entering of multi-retail brands such as walmart to india would have no effect on local shops.It will give a good competition to companies like reliance fresh(which is also similar to walmart and yet it hasnot at all had any significant effect on local retail shops.).plus brands like reliance can also learn so much from these foreign brands
FDI retail policy in India

"Instead it will give ample opportunities to the unemployed (lower class)"Corporations predict that a total of 2 million jobs will be created when they infiltrate India's economy. There are 200 million people in India, however, whose jobs depend on the retail sector, which intervention of big business will destroy through forcing small businesses to close and killing local economies. "Improve quality of product"Big businesses will monopolize their respective markets in India by destroying all small competitors, and then they will be in complete control of prices, so it will ultimately come at a cost. Also, after monopolizing, product quality will stop mattering, since all small businesses whose products competed in quality would be destroyed. Also, vegetables and fruits that will be imported from outside India will be not fresh and stale due to long distance transportation and constant refrigeration. My argument is that FDI of major corporations in India will lead to detrimental effects, such as unemployment, destruction of local economies, and the consumers of India will not benefit. Letting India's economy be hijacked by large foreign corporations is a bad idea. Thank you. (http://www.indiafdiwatch.org...)
Ferrari or Lamborghini

Ok, For acceptance, Ferrari has MUCH less car choices than Lamborghini, so if you don't like one, (talking about the Ferrari here) your screwed because you don't have any more cars to choose from. For example, Ferrari has less than 50 models over 40 years! In addition to that, there are only 10 cars per model! on the other hand, Lamborghini has 111 models, and the numbers of them range from 15 to 113. So, I think u get the picture.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

I can tell you that Marijuana should not be legalized in the United States. Marijuana has a lot of problems. It has health risks and it is, at least partially, a gateway drug. In this way, I would compare to handguns. It's mere presence doesn't necessitate violence, but likely increases violence. So also it is for marijuana. It doesn't necessitate addiction, death, or harder drugs, but it does increase each one of those. Marijuana Health Risks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.dea.gov... Gateway Drug: https://www.drugabuse.gov...
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

Marijuana should be legalized, in the U.S. Full burden of proof is on me, as I am making the positive claim. marijuana-cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettes. legalized-make something that was illegal permissible by law. United States of America- The country that wastes billions-trillions of dollars in military and tanks and ships that nobody wants, while people die on the streets because they can't afford healthcare. Is a rigged democracy/oligarchy, where the economy and legislation passed is almost completely controlled by corporations. Current president is Obama, whom is a great orator and has some intelligent progressive policies, but is an overall center right establishment president. Is in North America, and borders Central American and Canada.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

I'm going to say one thing. We don't know what marijuana does with crime yet. We do know that alcohol leads to crime [1]. Why is this? This is because it leads to loss of inhibition and a distortion of the senses. All drugs do. This isn't just about marijuana. There is not one miracle drug that defies the patterns that go with them [2]. A) Yes, I do have a source to indicate that crime has been decreasing naturally [3]. B) When you say that all these things can kill people, you're right. The thing is though, almost all of the above items that you have mentioned (with the exception of guns, faulty justice systems, and abortions) all involve people taking risks on their own. In the case of these drugs, it is people who are taking other peoples lives into their hands. Every time somebody gets high, they risk something going dangerously wrong for other people. That is unjust. That is taking away someone else's freedom. That is what a government protects. I'm not going to go into the other items. That is irrelevant to today's debate. C) With the rational presented here, we should just legalize murder. Laws don't stop people, so why have them? It's because laws stop a lot of people. That is why we have them. Why Con Wins: 1) Con has demonstrated that marijuana is bad, and pro has failed to disprove this. 2) Con has demonstrated that a lack of legal marijuana is not a restriction of liberty, rather a way to uphold liberty. 3) Con has demonstrated the effects of laws on people better than pro. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnn.com... [2] - http://www.bjs.gov... [3] - http://www.bjs.gov...
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

While we do not know is marijuana lowers crime rates, but it does not raise crime, as is a common argument against legalization. "The statistics to marijuana pointing to these various types of death have been tracked, they just haven't labeled these as the cause. Marijuana does kill." A. Do you have a source I could examine? Right now this is kind of just an assertion. B. Saying that some one could die from marijuana therefore ban it is kind of asinine, sex could kill people as well through AIDS and other STI's. Human interaction can kill people, as rejection can lead to suicide of course. Giving birth could kill people, as could abortions. Playing any sport, soccer, baseball, motor racing, hockey, football, have all killed people. Guns have killed people, a lot. Knives have killed people. Kitchen appliances like toasters and stoves have killed people. A criminal justice system where people slip through the cracks has killed people. Airplanes and helicopters have gotten people killed. You do not ban something because misuse of it would end up as dead, then you have a society with a terrible economy, and almost no freedom of people to do what they want. "...would be like keeping handguns around for economic benefit solely" A. We do keep handguns around for economic benefit, even though they kill people. Because making them illegal only leads to people who really want them going through illegal markets for the product, same for marijuana. If making marijuana illegal was actually really effective then no marijuana would be in circulation.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

I have need to contend over three issues: physiological effects, other bans, and crime statistics. Crime Statistics: When you say that we have to assume that crime is decreased by marijuana legalization, that is built on the false presupposition that "the evidence we do have points to the fact that it lowers crime rates". The evidence we have is that crime has been decreasing over the past two(ish) decades. Marijuana legalization has no causation, merely correlation. Physiological Effects: When you say that "Marijuana itself has never killed anyone", this is not true. It has killed people. When you point to cigarettes which have killed over 400,000 people in 2013, you have to realize that cigarette caused deaths can mean everything from cancer, premature death, organ failures, etc... These deaths do have one thing in common, cigarettes. The statistics for Marijuana pointing to these various types of death have been tracked, they just haven't labeled these as the cause. Marijuana does kill. Other Bans: Just because I'm keeping marijuana banned, this doesn't mean that I have to also ban cigarettes and alcohol. Instead, I should keep them legalized until such time as a ban would not be vehemently opposed. The goal is to keep public safety and order up. Keeping marijuana illegal will lead to this end goal. I can't ban alcohol and cigarettes and have this goal be achieved. Therefore, I will do what I can in order to maintain these two traits. Final Thought: To legalize marijuana solely for economic benefits would be like keeping handguns around for economic benefit solely. This would put money over lives. That is truly unacceptable.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

"As of right now, there are not enough statistics to make a judgment about overall crime rates because of marijuana." A. Very true, but the evidence we do have points to the fact that it lowers crime rates, so we have to assume that right now as an advantage to marijuana legalization. The only thing I credit to marijuana legalization when it comes to crime is a decrease in marijuana possession charges. However what we can tell from this is that marijuana legalization does not increase crime. Marijuana itself has never killed anyone, it does combined with other drugs long term. But what I am saying is if you try to ban marijuana because of health risks, then you have to be for banning cigarettes, or alcohol (which people do overdose on) this just isn't a very viable reason to advocate banning something. "The health effects of marijuana are much larger than those in cigarettes, but marijuana use has been lower." A. Marijuana does have health effects, however, the fact that in the U.S in 2013 there were over 400,000 cigarette deaths, and no marijuana deaths, shows that the effects can not be greater.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

Let me put it this way. Yes, we are getting an incredible amount of money. We are, however, poisoning ourselves in the process. Marijuana entails many health risks. As of right now, there are not enough statistics to make a judgment about overall crime rates because of marijuana. All we know is that crime is going down like it was in previous years before marijuana was legalized. To say that marijuana legalization caused this change is to use the post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. As for your usage of the number of deaths, now that marijuana is legalized we will have a sample size much closer to that of cigarettes. When you say that marijuana has not had an overdose death, this is true. This is also true for cigarettes. As for the comparison in death rates between cigarettes and marijuana, let me tell you something. Marijuana has seen that same percentage of death rates, it just hasn't been recorded. The health effects of marijuana are much larger than those in cigarettes, but marijuana use has been lower.
Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.

Marijuana should be legalized for economic reasons. Multiple states have legalized marijuana in the United States. Colorado is a great example of its advantages. The retail sale of marijuana in Colorado began on January 1st, 2014. The first glaring advantage is that tax revenue was huge, just in between January 2014 and October 2014, tax revenue amounted to $40,900,000 million dollars. This was just in a span of about 8 months, there has been a massive increase to that total by now. And a huge part of this is, a lot of this tax revenue is going towards health professionals in public schools. The Colorado joint budget Committee set aside $2,500,000 in order to increase health professionals in public school. This would in turn, actually help decrease crime rates in Colorado, involving drugs. https://www.drugpolicy.org... [1] That is a wonderful source there, as it gave much of the information needed to see the benefits. The effect legalization has had on Colorado is amazing, in 2014 Colorado had the fastest growing economy of any state in the United States. Business Insider did an article where they ranked each state by economic growth using factors like the unemployment rate, non farm payroll jobs, GDP, average wages, working age population, value on international exports, house prices, and auto sales. http://www.businessinsider.com... [2] This is extremely apparent, considering the employment rate of Colorado was at a six year low in 2014. https://www.colorado.gov... [3] I have heard countless times the arguments that legalizing marijuana leads to more traffic fatalities. But actually, legalization had the opposite effect in Colorado. In the first 11 months of 2014, Colorado had 436 traffic fatalities, which is a 3% drop from the first 11 months in 2013. See [1] This can hardly be contributed to legalization, as traffic fatalities have been decreasing in the state for 12 years, however this shows marijuana did not lead to an increase in traffic deaths. Colorado's capital, Denver, released information about crime rates in 2014, and they show crime actually went down. In the first 100 months of 2014, violent crime went down 2.2% in Denver, in that same period burglaries decreased 9.5%. See [1] What this shows is that marijuana legalization does not increase crime rates. Also, keep in mind, no one in human history has ever died from a marijuana overdose, con's source by the DEA admits that. While cigarette smoking is the cause of more than 480,000 deaths per year, just in the United States, while no one has died from a marijuana overdose in human history anywhere. http://www.cdc.gov...
Should Animal Millers be able to keep their animal breeding license after being found guilty.

Animal milling is a practice of mass breeding animals usually puppies or cats. The mother female will not be given more than a month of recovery time before being forced to breed again these practices include low nutritional value in the food. The water can sometimes be contaminated eg. crawling with bugs. The animals involved can be put in cramped cages with many dogs in the one cage. The animals can also be separated from their parents at an incredibly small age. So do you think that animal millers should be given back their animal breeding license after being convicted of this crime!
Jurors Should Be Allowed To Ask Questions During a Trial.

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. It's not talked about too often so hopefully we can cover some new ground and perhaps convert some people. Jurors have been a part of criminal trials, in some form or another, civilization for almost as long as we have recorded history. However there are remarkably few situations in the modern world where jurors are allowed to ask questions during legal proceedings. It is in my opinion that this is a good thing, and a practice that ought to be upheld. In this debate I hope to explain why. One of the biggest reasons, and perhaps the only one needed, is swaying oneself emotionally. One of the jurors biggest roles in court proceedings are to look at the evidence and form their decision based off the evidence provided. If given the chance to ask questions many jurors will sway themselves emotionally by doing so. Not by the witnesses or defendants answer, though that may contribute, but by voicing these questions aloud they will begin to form opinions before ever hearing an answer out of the person they are questioning. Though there are many people who are able to remain emotionally objective (and kudos to them) the majority of us will be swayed the second we begin to phrase the question. During the process of creating and asking a question we will form opinions based off the wording of the question. For example 'If you said you were at a restaurant the night of the robbery then why does no one working there remember you?" when saying this, almost all of us will begin to develop small tiny and subconscious opinions before we hear the answer. Then if anything at all is odd about the answer, something that normally would not be of concern we will have an opinion. It is for this reason that I do not believe that jurors should be able to ask questions during the trial. Thank you.