BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should the punishment of cyber crime be at par with the punishment for rape,murder etc.

Cyber crimes—harmful acts committed from or against a computer or network—differ from most terrestrial crimes in four ways. •They are easy to learn how to commit; •They require few resources relative to the potential damage caused; •They can be committed in a jurisdiction without being physically present in it; •They are often not clearly illegal. "Why would you bother with flying a plane into a skyscraper when you could cause a crisis of confidence in the financial sector with an Internet-based attack?" "You don't even need to rob the banks, just cause a run on them." One of the key challenges for law enforcement authorities is the lack of a coordinated global structure under which cybercriminals can be charged and prosecuted. To take advantage of this, some groups have set themselves up in countries with less stringent checks and controls. The point on which i would like to stress is the fact that the consequences of cyber crime are as cruel as those of murder,rape,etc. and in some cases worst than taking ONE life. so my friend don't you think its high time for the government to bring some changes in the law structure keeping in mind the harshness of cyber crime.
should the punishment of cyber crime be at par with the punishment for rape,murder etc.

Even though some of extreme cases of cyber crimes cause victims to be seriously affected in their lives, cyber crime cannot be compared with the pain of victims of the most extreme crimes as murder,rape, etc. Cyber crime has threatened the society ever since the use of internet has been open to people so easily, because anonymity of people is guaranteed. Even though they occur more frequently than such crimes as murder or rape, they do not cause as bad effect to victims as murder or rape does to them. The punishment of a crime should be decided upon its cruelty. The cruelty of cyber crime cannot be compared that of inhuman crimes, rape and murder;therefore, the punishment for cyber crime should not be the same as the punishment for rape or murder.
should the punishment of cyber crime be at par with the punishment for rape,murder etc.

The first recorded cyber crime took place in the year 1820! That is not surprising considering the fact that the abacus, which is thought to be the earliest form of a computer, has been around since 3500 B.C. in India, Japan and China. The era of modern computers, however, began with the analytical engine of Charles Babbage. In 1820, Joseph-Marie Jacquard, a textile manufacturer in France, produced the loom. This device allowed the repetition of a series of steps in the weaving of special fabrics. This resulted in a fear amongst Jacquard's employees that their traditional employment and livelihood were being threatened. They committed acts of sabotage to discourage Jacquard from further use of the new technology. This is the first recorded cyber crime! The growing danger from crimes committed against computers, or against information on computers, is beginning to claim attention in national capitals. In most countries around the world, however, existing laws are likely to be unenforceable against such crimes. This lack of legal protection means that businesses and governments must rely solely on technical measures to protect themselves from those who would steal, deny access to, or destroy valuable information. Self-protection, while essential, is not sufficient to make cyberspace a safe place to conduct business. The rule of law must also be enforced. Countries where legal protections are inadequate will become increasingly less able to compete in the new economy. As cyber crime increasingly breaches national borders, nations perceived as havens run the risk of having their electronic messages blocked by the network.
Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

1) Capitalism obeys the definition of a game: "a form of play or sport, esp a COMPETITIVE one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." Even the "play or sport" section of the definition is attributable; the institutions based on gambling are so naturally assimilated by the economic system. Consider how, under socialism or communism, you would not likely find casinos since they aren't as compatible with the instution of gambling. 2) All games have rules, which must be created by an impartial central authority in order to make the game fair. We have rules called laws to make capitalism fair-of course it never gets there, for 1 obvious reason: the interests of the players influence the rulemakers. 3) Therefore, capitalism must be regulated by a government. Libertarianism is illogical because it removes this central authority and with it the ability to maintain rules. Rules are necessary for fairness in the system-why else would we agree on so many of them?
Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

Capitalism is defined by not having "Active" rules to encourage anything in economics. It simply forbids the initiation of force. Competition may result, but only for the same reasons you identify it as existing under socialism or communism. If by capitalism you don't mean capitalism, then say so.Neither our parents nor anyone else set up this government by contract-- they could not. A contract is binding only on those who sign it. A "Social contract" is defined by the characteristics that exclude it from being an actual contract. The lack of analogy to football is well-established.
Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

Competition under socialism and communism is neither direct nor essential: it is only inherent in the sense that there is an innate competitiveness in all human endeavors - all is vanity. Capitalism, however, employs a vigorous and active set of rules to encourage competition at every level- whether it be businesses within a single industry or entire industries competing amongst one another. We clearly have game-like activity on one hand and not on the other. "confusing. .. with keynesianism. "- Semantic high-brow. Let's keep it a clean fight, shall we? The distinction between authoritative and contractual is inconsistent. Our parents (and so forth) set up this government, contractually, so that we could play the game of capitalism for profit - similar to the NFL. We are living out that social contract that our parents supported and perpetuated for us. There is EVERY reason to believe referees are required.
Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

Under socialism and communism, people compete for bureaucratic favor. Depending on the brand of socialism, they compete in a similar manner to under capitalism too, just not as thoroughly.Under capitalism, there is no moderation by the government by definition. You're confusing it with Keynesianism.The NFL does use contractual rather than authoratative rules. Ask any NFL player, they signed a contract. They are free to go to the CFL or the UFL or play in an unorganized manner or not play at all or attempt to make their own league. Most games are similar, unless played in the physical education program of a coercive K-12 institution, or used as training mechanisms for conscripting armies such as Israel, etc. There is no particular reason to believe the proposition that a referee is required merely because of "all risks or benefits." It does not follow logically and no sufficient empirical reason is given for the proposition. Furthermore, the threshold is undefined and arbitrary.
Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

1. Under Capitalism, investors and entrepreneurs are are essentially players in a game: they compete with each other, take calculated risks for rewards of profit, and obey laws that are similar to the rules of a game moderated by the government. Under socialism and communism, these games do not exist, because people do not COMPETE capitalistically ("everything is a game" = false). 2. Con is describing games of minuscule size and negligible risk. Football with six friends may be possible with no ref, but show me a league (even at the lowest skill-level) with no refs. Imagine if the NFL used "contractual rather than authoritative" rules: would players agree to admit they bobbled a pass or hit too hard? Of course not; it would be impossible to play at all. Furthermore, any game where the size and/or risk or benefits involved becomes significant requires a central, neutral regulatory body. 3. Again, appreciable size and risk ($=not for fun) are involved in adult games.
Capitalism is a game; therefore it must be regulated as such by an authority.

1. Games are distinct from work, usually carried out for remuneration (Wikipedia: Game), otherwise, everything is a game which with Pro's syllogism means everything should be regulated--totalitarianism.2. Many games have no centralized authority. "House rules" exist. Customs among actors exist. I need no ref for a pickup game of football. If I want one it needn't be centralized and may be contractual rather than authoritative.3. If a game necessarily needs government regulation, then how is it that children ever play pickup football? Government bureaucrats typically are not involved and when they are the game is ruined as those are called recess monitors who forbid consensual tackling, making it less fun for those who enjoy such.The number of rules "We" (unspecified, therefore, everyone) agree on is precisely zero. Thus Pro's argument that centralized authoritative rules are necessary for fairness is null even were it not an ad populum.
The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

I'll follow Con's method and use this round to build a general case for the categorical imperative and use the next round (and further rounds) to deconstruct Con's case while defending my own. My own case will draw from Habermas' discourse ethics[1] in deriving normative truths from the pre-requisites and implicit values in communicative argumentation. The aim here will be to show why these normative truths can be used in support of the categorical imperative. ===Discourse and Universality===a priori of argumentation/communication.First, it must be accepted that argumentation is a necessary pre-requisite to communicative justification. This merely means that you have to argue if you want to justify a proposition. This is more formally called the a priori of argumentation and communication. Justification is derived from a reductio i.e., it's incoherent to argue that arguing is unnecessary. But even without this the point just seems common sense to most people. You can't justify your position by recourse to force or mere conjecture specifically because there's no argument.justification of pre-requisites to discourse.What does this have to do with ethics? Argumentation necessitates certain norms of action in order to facilitate its enaction. For instance, we have to be alive in order to argue so arguing in favor of something like murder would be hard pressed to get around the fact that the content of the argument contradicts the non-contingent pre-requisites to argument itself (i.e., it exhibits a performative contradiction). The purpose of this argument will be to show that the first formulation of the CI is in line with the pre-requisite norms of argumentation.truth aptness presupposing universality.The first formulation (FF) entails universality as the crux of moral consideration. And this is specifically what we see when we examine the normative pre-requisites of discourse. In forwarding an argument (regardless of the content) the aim is to be able to convince others of its soundness. This presumes inter-subjective validity. For if a proposition is only valid when expressed inwardly (for instance solipsism), it can't be expected to convince others. So the question then is "are non-universalizable maxims inter-subjective valid?". The answer is no because to assume so means to assume that normative statements are not truth apt (truth being universalizable) which is incoherent if one is undertaking to defend a certain conception of normative truth in the first place. Non-universalizable normativity therefore undermines itself.===Sources===[1] http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...
The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

I accept. I shall use the first round to build my case, then use the round following it to criticise the categorical imperative, afterwards finally summarising why utilitarianism should be preferred to (I assume my opponent's case here) Kantian Ethics.For simplicity of reference, I shall be running soft rule preference utilitarianism (a mouthful, but can be summarised as a variant of utilitarianism promoting the value of the preference of each individual, with principles (rather than laws) to follow to be moral), which itself if true by lemma necessitates the principle of utility. The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle.
The categorical imperative vs. the principle of utility

In this debate, the Pro will undertake to defend the categorical imperative while the Con will defend the principle of utility as a justified ethical principle. The standard to win is to defend your own position while disproving the others.===Definitions===Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative was to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”[1] Hereon referred to as FF.The principle of utility states that "actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain."[2] Hereon referred to as PU.Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.5. Burden of proof is shared.===Sources=== [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... (Sec. 5)[2] Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill), pg. 5. Available online: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com...
Immigration Laws

There are major problems with United States immigration laws that would make it possible for terrorists to access this country: Seeing as I only have a half an hour to respond, I will try to be speedy and precise. Any time you are letting people into your country, there is an inherent risk that they some of those immigrants may have a malicious intent. The only way that the United States could mitigate this is if they simply prevented all immigration and travel to the United States, but this solution wouldn't even begin to address the problems of domestic terrorism.
The electoral college should be removed and popular votes should determine the presidency

I'm not really sure what you are debating this for since you are for keeping the electoral college. It is VERY unfair from just looking at the Electoral College Map. California, for example, 55 electoral votes? Texas, 38 electoral votes? Florida 29? New York, 29? HELLO... Who ever these states vote for, that will be the president! Why even vote? Our vote really doesn't even count.
The electoral college should be removed and popular votes should determine the presidency

The Electoral College should be removed. 1. Introduction it was orginally invented during the Revolutionary Era of this country. It was invented because we did not have easy communication between the colonies then. Now, we have easier communication. 2. The Electoral College is unfair. This is shown through the 2000 Presidential Election: George W. Bush vs. Albert Gore. Al Gore recieved a fair amount of votes more than Bush, yet Bush still won becuase he had more elctoral votes. Rules: 1. Please no inapropriate or rude comments, I'm a new member to this website and I'm still adapting to how debating here works. 2. Please support your facts with evidence- I do not want to debate opinions.
King Richard III of England was a good king

Thank you for the debate :).Usurpation is simply, the seizure of power unlawfally or maliciously :).1. The Woodvilles were named as King Edward V's protectors until he would come of age in his will.2. King Richard III, yes could well have considered his nephews unfit for kingship, they were 12 and 9 years of age. 3. Yes, the Duke of Buckingham died for treason, but his death was cruel.King Richard III, according to his knight Sir James Tyrell confessed to carrying out the murder of King Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury on their uncle (Richard III)'s orders in 1502. This hammers home Richard was a terrible King. More in Round IIIBack to you pro, my friend :), great debate so far
King Richard III of England was a good king

The Duke of Buckingham was executed for treason for helping Henry Tudor the sentence which is death Lord Rivers was executed because the Woodvilles were trying to seize power from King Richard. (3rd the rightful heir to the throne) 2.This is merely speculation but perhaps he claimed his nephews as bastards because he thought they were unfit for kingship 3. I don't what usurping is please explain You are welcome glad to be debating :)
Should special needs kids get believed if they say that someone did something to them

Well, they haven't been taught correctly that people should just believe them when they say something. They don't want to be hurt when they figure out that "special" isn't exactly the special they thought it was. So sometimes people just pretend to believe only so they wouldn't hurt them. But no one can judge them because of that; their knowledge of things like that aren't exactly out-of-the-box. So just let them think they're special and live on with their lives.
Should special needs kids get believed if they say that someone did something to them

I think that if special needs kids say that some random person called them a name and they just believe them, thats baloney, the person/people that were told about it should actually go and investigate and ask people that were at the scene when it happened( if someone and/or some people there) but the school that I go to, when a mental or maniac kid that makes noises and/or hits or screams like hell in the hallways when people are trying to learn and they think in their stupid head that "oh, I THINK that someone made fun of me, but since im special they'll believe me no matter what". Thats bogus I think that they should actually investigate before they start playing the freaking blame game like "oh, he/she said that you said this to him/her, and shes special needs, so youre in trouble now". Well i got couple words to say "SCREW SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REAL WORLD IS LIKE, if they GOT BUILLED THEN THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED LIKE THEY WOULD WITH ANY OTHER NORMAL KID THAT REPORTS SOMETHING LIKE THAT
This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary -Neo Dada

This rebuttal is solely for the voters as it appears that you are incapable of understanding my argument. The topic for this debate is the idea that this is a revolutionary theory, ie; innovative and radical. However, the idea itself dates back to 1915 at the latest, which means that it is older than most human beings now. This is hardly innovative, and the style itself is bland, and involves mispronouncing words, nothing more. But that does not influence the topic. It is not revolutionary because it is not a radical or innovative concept anymore, and any further analysis on the poem is simply an attack on your poor understanding and appreciation of poetry. If you'd like to defend the quality of the poem or poet in question, by all means, send me a personal challenge; I will gladly accept. Until then, I'll sum up my argument. This style is meant to be revolutionary and new, but in fact dates back to the first world war and despite attacking the old masters of poetry and calling their overly complicated language enslavement and tyranny, it uses that very same pompous and middle class language it hates so much. I dub Anti Poetry "Poetry for Hipsters", and will name it as such even if you challenge me again on it. This is more of the same, but lesser in quality, and tries to compensate for that poor quality by sayin that it is supposed to be like that, as a stand against good poetry. This debate is over, but if I catch you putting this debate up again, by Kavanagh's sake I'll just take it on right away. Until then, by all means, send me another debate on poetry, I can't resist a challenge. Duncan.
This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary -Neo Dada

con says "No, you can't just paste it there; you have to explain WHY it is revolutionary ' I have said WHY to repeat ""Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules"nd con supplied the poem that is an example of that so 1 i have told you what anti poetry is and why it is revolutionary 2) con has given an example of poetry that I say exemplifies that con disagrees 1 but does not gives us an argument why 2 con supplies the poetry example that use to show my point 3 con does not tell us why that example does not show my point 4 con rubbishes the theory of anti poetry but as the authors says "Hitherto poets have sort the approbation of the establishment Anti-poets seek its reprobation; for then the Anti-poet is a success" thus I should win
This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary -Neo Dada

No, you can't just paste it there; you have to explain WHY it is revolutionary. This is not evidence, that's just what I pasted earlier to show how this wasn't a revolutionary idea. The Jury is still out on whether you're just a troll debater. Until then, better actually submit some proof- you know what? Proof; Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. Yeah, your proof has to establish a truth, not just sit there. Ok, waiting for your response, Duncan.