BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(Death Note) L is Just as Evil as Kira.

L was testing whether or not Kira could kill Tailor. If the answer was yes, then L would have let Tailor die. But going further, after finding the Death Note, L intended to test the 13-day rule by using it. That would have been murder.L. Lawliet did lie to the Japanese police, commit torture, and engage in other minor illegal activities.Torture is outlawed in the entire WORLD! He greatly stretched the law when he kept Amane for 50 days, though this isn't extremely illegal.3. Kira and L. Lawliet do not have the same reason for engaging in illegal activities.While it is true that Kira is a raging psycho with a God-Complex, it is also true that this was powered by a zeal for justice. He wanted a safe world that he wanted to rule over, his justification being that this was the only way to keep the world safe from scum.So Kira, reapor of Justice, faced off against another man who would also disregard the law in order to enact his own "justice". L, in his first appearance, claims to be justice.Both men leap ofver parts of the law that don't suit them, like operating despite being order to be shut down, kidnapping, extreme torture (3 days straight), killing Lind L. Tailor, and violating civil liberties. These are just the things we know he has done. Imagine what he has done during other cases.
(Death Note) L is Just as Evil as Kira.

How does one judge "evil"? Well, most veiw evil differently. I myself veiw Ryuk as the only "good" guy, so to speak. Regardless if we look at L and Kira we see that:Kira's Crimes:Lying to policeResisting arrestMurderCruel and Unusual PunishmentHackingMurdering PoliticiansThreatening the World's SafetyL's Crimes: Lying to policeOperating against ordersSevere TortureCruel and Unusual PunishmentCountless Civil Rights ViolationsHacking(Likely) MurderThreatening World's Safety by Confronting Unstable KiraIndirectly Murdering Lind L. TailorLooking at their crimes, these two men (boys?) are doing the same behavior for the same reason. I hearby proclaim that L. Lawliet should be incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law.
(Death Note) L is Just as Evil as Kira.

Warning: the following debate will likely contain spoilers for the anime/manga/movies "Death Note". A great injustice has occured throughout the Death Note fandom. Many fans recognise L, the former World's Greatest Detective, as a hero. I have come today to tear down this false idol and expose his corruption. L is just as great an evil as Kira, and I wish t prove it.
(Death Note) L is Just as Evil as Kira.

My opponent has failed to prove how the crimes of a mass murderer equates to a person given the authority to break the law. My opponent ignored the my point how the authorities were chasing down Kira not L Lawliet. If L Lawliet was equally evil wouldn't the proper authorities being chasing down L Lawliet as well? Their crimes are not equal. Again the word "justice" and "evil" have different definitions. It is clear by the standards of most people in the Deathnote world and real world that Kira was evil. In the Deathnote world, authorities from various places across the globe were trying to stop Kira. In the real world, most mainstream religions find murder deplorable. Kira was a mass murderer. Shall we revisit Kira's kill count? Kira not only killed criminals, FBI agents, and detectives as my opponent points out. Kira's killcount: 1,000-100,000+ criminals, I estimate these because it was Ryuk who said Light had killed over a hundred criminals in the third episode. Kira had the Deathnote for several years. Lind L. Tailor FBI agent( Raye Penber) a former FBI agent(Naomi Misora) a con-man(Aiber) a catburglar(Wedy) Kira worshippers Sakura TV director (Hitoshi Demegawa) the head of a Yotsuba Group(Kyosuke Higuchi) Reiji Namikawa and the rest of Yotsuba Group Three agents of the Special Provision for Kira L Lawliet's killcount: L Lawliet did not kill anyone. In ending, let me say I will never capitulate on the point that Kira and L's crimes are equal. L Lawliet broke the law but he didn't slaughter thousands of people merely by writing their names down. Kira was the embodiment of murder itself, yet the pro wants to us to ignore it. A few minor illegalities committed by an agent are incomparable to a murderer of thousands.
The Wailing Wall is not part of Herod's Temple

For many years Jewish and Christian pilgrims have been visiting this site with the understanding of this wall being part of the temple built by King Herod. The Christians that visited this site must have understood Jesus as speaking figuratively about it's destruction in the earliest book of the New Testament, The book of Mark. Even Josephus confirms Mark's accuracy in his telling of it's total destruction. The context of Mark 13 reads as future events, Not as a re-telling of past events. Moreover, Certain word/s in the book of Mark cannot be found in extant secular writings later than 40 A. D. Mark 13:1, 2. And as He went out of the temple, One of His disciples saith unto Him, "Master, See what matter of stones and what buildings are here! " And Jesus answering said unto him, "Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon upon another, That shall not be thrown down. " What Archaeologists have discovered is that the wall left intact is from the Fort Antonia. An ancient Roman fort built onto a side of Herod's temple. Jesus in Mark 13:1, 2 was correct. popular-archaeology. Com. 'Wailing at the wrong wall' Nov. 15, 2015
Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

In his opening argument Pro claimed that "the more distantly related a particular species is, the more it gradually differs in the sequences which comprise its genes." In response I gave multiple examples of uniform gene sequences between species debunking his theory. Instead of giving actual examples as I have done, to support his hypothesis, Pro quoted excuses from Dr. Theobald to explain why his prediction didn"t pan out. I don"t think Pro was able to provide evidence that the similarities between species were discovered after the literature of evolution predicted them, and thus, I don"t think he has overcome my argument that evolutionists are (to use a an illustration) merely predicting the earthquake after it happens. I"ve argued that a known fact cannot be used as a prediction, and Pro didn"t even touch this argument. Pro"s entire list of arguments for atavism, phenotype comparison and ontogeny can be summarized in one word " similarities. If you believe that mere similarity between two things is proof that one derives from the other, then by all means vote Pro, but I"m not of that persuasion, I believe a lot more is needed, and I don"t think that "lot more" evidence was given by my opponent in this debate. My opponent tried to back up his assertions with circular reasoning, and for this, you should vote Con. I think that my other arguments regarding laboratory experiments on bacteria and fruit flies, mutation and natural selection, and the findings of scientists in the fossil record, were on balance more weighty and well supported than his rebuttals to which I had no room left to respond, regarding protein functional redundancy, atavism and ontogeny. For these reasons, I think the weight of evidence presented in this debate, and the rationality of the arguments when compared, leans in my favor. Therefore, I invite you to vote Con. I want to thank my opponent for a lively, intellectually stimulating debate. I do hope that unlike his last debate on this subject, this one was not so philosophical. I am open to having a much more indepth debate on this subject whenever Pro is ready. It might be good for us to even discuss this via our private emails; but for the benefit of DDO readers, I think it would be wise to have a 5-rounds debate, presenting arguments in the very opening statement, which will focus on just one aspect of evolution, so that we could get a very good look at the evidence for and against it in detail as opposed to scratching the surface of many aspects of this theory. I believe the fossil record might be a very good place to start; Pro, what say you?
Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

I have presented herein observable, testable, and falsifiable scientific evidence which strongly supports the idea of macroevolution.2. In the rounds I was permitted to present new arguments, I effectively debuted all of the assertions made by my opponent, as well as satisfactorily answered all of his inquires.3. I believe I have ultimately upheld the resolution of this debate, "scientific evidence supports evolution. "I invite my opponent to agree to a future follow-up debate in which we both can receive an opportunity to more fully discuss the issues we couldn't cover here.
Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

I just wish to make the point that if Pro's arguments are numerous and long, and take much space to answer, I'll have to choose between responding to some point he makes in favor of macroevolution, or to make my case against it. Pro has formatted the debate in such a way that my first post is a response to his case instead of making my own positive evidence against his position. But I'll do my very best to reply to as many of his points as I can, in as much detail as space will allow; while attempting to show some evidence against macroevolution. Bring it on.
Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

I recently participated in a debate similar to this; however, my opponent decided to take the topic down a more philosophical trail. Seeing as how my original intention was to debate the truth of macroevolution from a scientific perspective and not a philosophical one, I've decided to try this again.The debate will be structured as follows:(1) Acceptance(2) Pro arguments, Con rebuttals(3) Pro counter-arguments, Con rebuttals(4) Closing statementsFor the purposes of this debate, both participants must agree to the following definitions:*Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through the scientific method [1].Evidence: She available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid [2].Theory: The scientific terminology for a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment [3].Evolution: The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, genetic drift, migration, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation [4]. Macroevolution: Major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time [5].Species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding [6].Life: Any organism exhibiting all or most of the characteristics typically associated with life, including growth, adaption, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, response to stimuli, and cellular composition [7].Furthermore, in addition to accepting the above definitions, both participants must agree to the following rules:(1) No semantics(2) No new arguments in the last round(3) No arguments in the comment section(4) No plagiarism (so-called "self-plagiarism" does not apply)(5) Any desired changes to the structure, definitions, or rules of the debate must be agreed upon before acceptance________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org......[4] http://www.biology-online.org......[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...*The definitions seen here may vary slightly from their original state as presented by the sources listed. Such modifications were made to accommodate the purposes of this debate, or to otherwise improve the original written meanings as I saw fit.
from a prolife perspective, abortionist tiller should have been shot...

The pro-life perspective does not uphold (nor conflict with) the idea of people getting shot for their misdeeds. The mission statement of pro-life organizations is to stop abortions--there is no general consensus on the type of punishment that should be enforced for those who engage in abortions. Can there be pro-lifers out there who are against the right to gun use? Absolutely--and on those grounds, they could argue that Tiller should not have been shot. Thank you.
the war in Iraq should end now

"this war has economically drained this country of its assets," How??? I would like to state that war is not a good thing. It causes deaths and destruction, but that is war. There is no such thing as peaceful war. I am by no means promoting war at all, just stating what war is. Think of all the problems that would be caused by drawing out immediately. Everything we have worked for so far would be put to waste. Riots would start and their problems would start all over again. The money spent would be a total waste. So many more problems would erupt. Al Quad would take over the region again and Iraq would be even less safe then before we came in in the first place. Maybe, instead of immediately drawing out, we should have a slow and gradual decrease in the number of troops there. Along the way, this would help Iraq be more stable and less dependant on the U.S.'s help. This would result in a much more peaceful end to the war. As I have stated before, war is not a good thing, but the press loves to hit us with the sad and depressing stories such as suicide bombings hitting record highs, etc. There are also so many advances taking place all over Iraq. So many neighborhoods and streets are much safer now than before the war. Good things are happening a mist the negative reports brought forth by the press. "it's all bush's fault" What would you have done if Al Quad bombed the Twin Towers. Would you have just sat there and said, it's okay? President Bush knows much more information than we do about the war. He made the decision based off of this information. Although, he may have made some poor decisions according to some people, the war is not "all his fault."
the war in Iraq should end now

I am guessing that my opponent has failed to get my actual opponent to debate...so... I will close with the fact that security, lives, and and becoming more stable are all advances in Iraq that are taking place. On ABC's Good Morning America this morning, a soldier came on and talked about how Iraq is improving. He mentioned how last time he left to come home for a break, he saw no soccer games going on. This last time he left, he saw around 100 small games being played of soccer. Although, soccer is not anything too significant, it shows how the people of Iraq are being able to restore their normal lives and are able to be more secure and safe in their country. We should be focusing on training the Iraqi people even more so that they can eventually protect and improve their country on their own without dependance on the US and other countries. Since my opponent has failed to reply, I leave this debate open to others who may want to deabte on this topic. Thanks! :)
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

1 These anti-union and often anti-not white symbols placed at government institutions is a constant reminder that the government does not believe this nation is, one, under 17 bars and 50 stars. 2 Losers of war are often erased from history. The Confederacy should feel lucky to have as much history left as it does. 3 Confederate history is not Southern history. 4 Blacklash is justified. This is still funny to me. 5 These symbols are owned and protected by a government whose constitution is in direct conflict with the Confederacy. 6 Their anger is justified to them. To say that it is not is merely to apply the same silencing they do. M'urica. Thanks for the lively debate.
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

Well I'm not quite sure how to respond to this one so I will consider this a conclusion round summarizing each of our points to make it clearer to readers. 1. It is destructive to an entire regions history and to the men who died fighting for their homes. 2.There could be very dire consequences in the future due to the usage of institutionalized censorship. 3.It is largely reactionary and had little to no bearing on the nation before the events of last summer.
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

"If we take the widest and wisest view of a Cause, there is no such thing as a Lost Cause, because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause. We fight for lost causes because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successors" victory, though that victory itself will be temporary; we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph." ~T.S. Eliot I believe your slippery slope will fail in the face of individuals like yourself. Their anger is justified to them. To say that it is not is merely to apply the same silencing they do. That is all I have, for this round.
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

I apologize for getting sidetracked but for these kinds of issues, it's not easy to stay on track because of how intertwined the history and causes of the war relate to today and the current situation. But let's return to the present, my point for this post will be the dire consequences that could arise from such an action. The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virgina has been taken down their mission accomplished. But yet they still continue their assaults upon the graveyards and monuments especially. Blacklivesmatter is an example of one of the groups of antagonists that promote such behavior. They deface monuments with impunity and burn the honored flag and stomp it into the ground. But after, if ever they were to get rid of everything named for the Confederacy and be succesful in taking down all the monuments and banishing the flags to museums and private ownership, they will look for another target surely to vent themselves upon. I already have seen similar groups doing that to the American flag, the burning and whatnot. The basic premise of this post is that they go after the symbols of the Confederacy for the evil of slavery and the associated controversies. But how long until they go into a complete turn about and go rampaging on the United States symbols. What happens when they call for sandblasting Mount Rushmore or tear down or deface statues of Washington or Jefferson. The biggest problem with this is that it's all based on the ideology of Political Correctness, which in my opinion, is basically institutionalized censorship. Look at the major groups that advocate social justice reform BLM or the modern feminists are a good example. BEM censors any blacks who dare to criticize them, or drown out and abuse others with their 'peaceful' protests such as the incident at a college library recently. Or with their mass riots over shootings thus interrupting the due process of law with violence and vandalism. Then there's the modern feminist movement who is really in many cases more of a superior to movement. (note I'm not prejudiced against these movements but only citing the most prominent examples that came to mind.) But such behavior is volatile and dangerous to personal liberty, and if left to go on uninhibited may cause severe damage. Again I will reference the incident at the College Library. It was done with such fervor that the administrator was afraid to act as can be seen in his very careful wording and slow response. They in effect almost nullified the campus and administrators authority. Now that is the end of this post for round 4.
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

I would argue the Union wanted to keep slavery in light of their decisions before the war. One instance before the war after 7 states had seceded was the Corwin Amendment. It passed an almost strictly Northern Congress and was ratified by 2 states Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois (Although Illinois was of questionable validity it's still considered ratified) the amendment reads in full, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Furthermore I would attest slavery had next to nothing to do with the war itself. Lincoln described his Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure to keep England and France out of the fight as they were very close to joining this giving the CSA it's independence. Second, the Morrill Tariff was to be reinstated in 1860 after the panic of 1857 which I believe was the first world wide depression. The Morrill Tarrif was largely aimed at the south which was 60% of the economy at the time and import heavy and according to Frank Taussig, a historian on tarriff in the US says the South was paying about 80% of the tax revenue. But that aside I was speaking of the southerners percentage in the military not as a ideological plea, but as a testament that no matter how slandered and hated we are we still do more than our share of blood for wars which are increasingly stalemated or useless to begin with. But as for the slavery issue in pertains to its commodity in the south hardly anyone owned slaves and most worked alongside them if they did. As for the Government's stance on it as well as the military, the Confederate military leadership (in a majority if the records are true about the meeting with Patrick Cleburne) decided emancipation was necessary and just. Most of the southern generals were for emancipation though the Confederate Congress didn't care enough to do so. It can also be argued that Jefferson Davis had plans for emancipation later down the line for his quote on slavery, " The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline, and thus be made unfit for slavery. And as soon as he becomes unfit for slavery, the master will no longer desire to hold his as a slave." That quote indicates he wanted to educate and free slaves later on and had plans to do so. He also was known for adopting a black boy named Tim into his family and not as a slave. There were many thousands of free blacks in the south as is proven by state records. I will end with this, if you take a people's history and steal their symbols, you have sown the seeds of your own destruction as is witnessed throughout history.
The backlash against all symbols, names, and places relating to the Confederacy are unnecessary.

Losers of war are often erased from history. The Confederacy should feel lucky to have as much history left as it does. To relate Southern history with confederate history is baffling. The only real connection between confederate history and southern history is that the confederacy just happened to be made up of southern states. Oppressing the Confederacy strictly to the history books is justified. The south can have their history without the black mark left by constitutional liberals of the day. I can guarantee you most of the 41.2% could care less about confederate history. They are proud to be from there, but are aware of the implications of a government implicitly supporting an ideology, that not all people are granted inalienable rights. Military service is completely voluntary anyone can leave at anytime, barring a few rare occasions. The confederacy wanted slavery so bad that instead of giving up the right to own another human, they went to war. Sounds like pretty progressive ideology to me. The Union wanted to stamp out slavery from this land, because this land was born from the ideology that all are created equal. I would say the Union had the moral justification to use bayonet point.