BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
# Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance [2018] FREE/HDRip/DVDRip/full h-d 0nline

Watch NOW!!! Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance (2018) Online Free Full Movie, 2018 Movies to Watch After You See " Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance " Film, Full. Watch Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance (2018) Movie Online. Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Full Movie, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance 2018 Full Movie Free Streaming Online with English Subtitles ready for download, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance 2018 720p, 1080p, BrRip, DvdRip, High Quality. `44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;ஜ۩۞۩ஜ`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44; WATCH i.n H.D : http://bit.ly... Download Here : http://watch.streammoviehd.club... `44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;ஜ۩۞۩ஜ`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44; Movie Title : Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Video Quality : [HD-4K] Stream Your Favorite Movies HD Free Online Now Available in Discord Dekstop DivX, DVD and 3D Blue-Ray Movies, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Movie updates and Full and his latest putlocker must Watch up in 2018 to get it Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Movie streaming sites where you can stream Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance . Helo fellas! We hope you enjoy and fun here. so do not miss to Watch and visHarry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Online for free on Monday. Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance "s up to you, you can Watch Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance streaming via the Internet, or through a television at home. You don"t need to install anything and you can Watch Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance in very good qualHarry & Meghan: A Royal Romance y. Watch Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Movie and TV may bang been the opening spirHarry & Meghan: A Royal Romance ed in municipalHarry & Meghan: A Royal Romance y, Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance "s necessarily the person. Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance s programme relic a Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance wonky at the champion of present,Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance s Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance features are fHarry & Meghan: A Royal Romance ting coming into their own and costs can gaHarry & Meghan: A Royal Romance up Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance if you requirement to Watch anything beyond the bedrock. Step to Watch or Download Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance Movie: `44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;ஜ۩۞۩ஜ`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;
Capital punishment should cater to pedophiles, not just murderers.

Well, as far as the Death Penalty catering to crimes beyond murder, I agree. I am a very open-minded person and while I may not support the death penalty, i can accept it. I only disagree with the death penalty because we are human and make mistakes. However, this debate being about pedophiles getting the death penalty, I do completely disagree. Not only on the grounds of cost, but on a deeper level. Crimes against children should carry a punishment worse than anything we offer in the United States. If we can't castrate them, perhaps we should be able to exile them or something. However with none of these being options, I can't find an appropriate coarse of action. Death is WAY too easy though.
Capital punishment should cater to pedophiles, not just murderers.

Your assertion that capital punishment is more expensive than life internment is purely subjective. It completely depends upon the level of judicial expense that particualr government has and how much they fund their prisons. I had hoped to debate with a supporter (real or pretend) of capital punishment though, for this is turning into a debate about capital punishment in general rather than the arguement I had intended, that murder should not carry milder punishments than child molestation, due to the nature of the crime. The con of this arguement therfore should asserting that only murderers should be put to death (I believe that is the sentence for murder in your country). I, the Pro, am however trying to assert that pedophiles are far more likly to become repaet offenders, have actions that are defendable by no means of the imagination, and therefore are far better candidates for execution than murderes. As for your arguement castration should be made into a state-issued punishment I completly agree, but must say I am skeptical about how many defense lawyers would dub it unconstitituinal citing "cruel and unusual punishment" clause that has made its way into most democratic constitutions.
Capital punishment should cater to pedophiles, not just murderers.

First of all, putting an inmate to death costs 38% more than housing an inmate for life without parole. This is not only a waste of money but it also doesn't give the victim much closure. Putting pedophiles to death is too kind indeed. I did not suggest eunthanization. I suggested castration. Ya know, cut "it" off. At least then we start addressing the recurrence problem.
Capital punishment should cater to pedophiles, not just murderers.

Although the death penalty has long sicne been phased out from the Western democracies (excluding some US states and Guatamala) and at least in my country it shows no signs of resurfacing again I believe it should be used when fiscally viable agiasnt serious crimes like pre-meditated murder and, a view that does not seem to be shared by many legislators, child molesters. In addition to be one of the worst criminal demographics to reoffend and to committing actions loathed by every conceivable culture, pedophiles are for some reason not allowed to be executed in many places that carry the death penalty. Yet when people try to describe the worst villains, do we really think of murderers before pedophiles? Murder can even be a defendable action (though not very well) in some circumstances, maybe because it was provoked or something. Yet can anyone think of sitaution in which child molestation is ever vauguly justifiable (even the wildest imaginations of some uber-liberal defense lawyers fail at this)? Why child molestation should be made a capital offense 1) Magnitude of the crime 2) High re-offense risk 3) Overcrowded prisons
3 sides of the coin

Considering the fact, that you joined, most likely as an avatar with prior experience, to Master Debate this issue show's us all, "we the people", your clearly dedicated commitment to the destruction of free will, and the war your saviors propose, on those that live with the "pursuit of happiness" as their only goal. Freedom does not apply, when the Ivory tower rookie speaks? That be you sir. As certainly you are a professional at this game, as no rook, would sign up yesterday and make an argument as polished as yours. Clear win for whoever is not an Ivory tower, debt ridden capitulate.
3 sides of the coin

Max Wallace, do you take pleasure in stating the obvious? Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. This is where your first error lies. I take it you assume by your words "[they] want the sheeple to follow" that leaders represent 100% of their national electorate, and thus expect everyone to naturally follow them based on their status? That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination. Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic. It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions. You forget, or perhaps are not informed, about the many instances where leadership has been a tool used to carve out the basal beginnings of social justice. Take for instance the civil rights movement which took place during the 1960's. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not, and I repeat, had not, usurped the discriminatory state of affairs that plagued American society during this era without sufficient leadership skills to aid him... the situation in America for those of darker skin, foreign nationality, disability and orientation would have been very dire indeed. Perhaps at the time, Mr King had no idea of the precedent he placed down on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that day, but now, fifty years on many are glad Mr King had a dream that day. That, is leadership my friend. It is not based on the notions of "greed, self-righteousness or the ability to [manipulate]", but rather it is based on the ability to tell the truth, and for basic human decency to acknowledge it. The leadership you have been exposed to, or interpreted in whatever fashion or manner; is indeed a warped perception of what leadership is and should be. P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !
3 sides of the coin

There are 3 sides to a coin. Heads. Tails. The edge. We perform coin tosses to make decisions sometimes. Sheeple pick a side. Never the edge. This debate is about the tendency of the human species to choose a side, which the sheeple do, so they can be declared by the elites to be winners. The elites, those in the .000001% income bracket that attempt to control us, use this tendency to create more power for themselves. Don't listen to the propaganda and choose a side, eventually you will lose. Leaders do not live on the edge of the coin, they flip the coin. Leadership is a matter of greed,self righteousness, and the ability to flip the coin in the direction you want the sheeple to follow these days. The tools of elitist leaders are Science, War, and Justice. Good luck, let's have some fun!
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

Hello, I am new to this site and am here to argue that aesthetic, while being very important, will not match the importance of graphical quality for a variety of factors, such the fact that frame rates affect game play immensely, higher texture resolutions will continue to make games look more real (increasing immersion), and that tangible numbers relating to the games graphical quality are a better selling point that saying the game is aesthetically pleasing.
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

Back when Pac Man released, graphical quality was a huge importance because ground could be covered quickly, but I contend that diminishing returns will take hold in the next few years of gaming. Due to that, companies (Triple A's included) will be forced to focus more on aesthetic rather than graphical quality. In that regard, I ask the con: will aesthetic (the art/look of the game) become more important than graphical achievement (720p, 1080p, 4K, better lighting engines, etc.)? 1st round: meet and greet/opening claims 2-4: actual arguments
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

1) Ghosts would still be a better comparison. 2) My opponent states that gamers and devs alike have been "striving to achieve the goal of creating a virtual reality" since games began as an established media; however, current consumer trends speak the exact opposite. The simple fact that there are other, equally as popular, genres aside from first person debunks that statement immediately. -MOBAs have sprung up as mega hits over the past few years. League/DOTA has overtaken literally every other game on the market in players. -Strategy is stuck with Starcraft; however, the Esports scene is so strong that it won't die in the next few years if not decades. -Games like Minecraft and Terraria threw graphical fidelity out the window but still sold millions. All of these genres/games have no use for a virtual reality component, yet they remain as strong as ever. -Any third person game really. But let's focus in games that could use the Rift: While it is immersive when you look onto a beautiful landscape in GTA or a ravaged battlefield in CoD or Battlefield, that immersion is broken as soon as you PLAY the game. No, the simple fact of the matter is that devs only use that term to make their game sound more mature. Call of a Duty allows people to run around with knives and sniper rifles on 40m squared maps. Battlefield allows you the ability to put C4 on your jeep and ram it into a helicopter. Heck, ARMA is designed to be realistic, not immersive. The realistic elements are in place because they offer unique gameplay, not immersion. The Oculus Rift becomes pointless in ARMA when you have the ability to go into third person. Furthermore, the Rift is a niche gadget for a niche audience. People may have heard of it, but I doubt most gamers give two potatoes what happens to it. The gaming industry's consumers, especially in recent years, have made it a point that they like gameplay, not graphical fidelity. Call of Duty is an extremely popular franchise, but it's as immersive as trying to sword fight with wet noodles because it actually has low level graphical quality compared to many AAAs. Crysis 3 pushed the boundaries with its machine melting quality. Here's what happened to it: http://pixelenemy.com... "Crysis 3 was also released in February and was the month"s third best-selling game in the US, moving 205,000 copies." Call Of Duty: http://www.polygon.com... Gamers don't want graphical immersion. It's becoming more and more obvious, especially with the booming indie industry (who can't afford the best fidelity), to devs that they'll need to rethink their goals because gamers already have.
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

It's the same series within 3 years of each other, neither is ridiculously outdated, and the argument shows that improvements in graphical quality over aesthetic (which is similar for both) with make a game look better. Increasing immersion. Which is my final argument, the graphical quality of games increasing to look more realistic when technologies like the Oculus Rift roll out will be more important. Through the history of games, we've been striving to achieve the goal of creating a virtual reality, it has sold before and it will sell again. With different companies moving in to sell us the technologies we need for greater immersion, our graphical capabilities will have to match. What will happen when the texture is right up close to your eye and it isn't up to expectations? What will happen when the graphical glitches of engines become that much more noticeable when you are trying to immerse yourself within a different world? Is aesthetic really going to be more important when the very thing that most gamers are trying to do, immerse themselves within the game, is being comprimised by faulty graphical fidelety and stability? Will it still sell if it is impossible to attain the immersion that the industry has been so long trying to create?
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

1) You're comparison is faulty. A blatantly older game will look less appealing than a newer game. Blops2 - Ghosts - AW First and foremost, each of these games were created by three different dev teams with their own separate budgets; furthermore, Blops 2 likely started its development in 2010 when Black Ops released and released in 2012. Ghosts released in 2013, and AW released in 2014. We can guarantee that Blops 2 and Ghosts had a two year cycle, but we don't know about AW aside from assuming that it had AT LEAST two years as well. Therefore, we can assume that AW started development in 2012, a full two years after Blops 2, and this assumes that Sledgehammer hadn't been developing AW for longer than two years (which is what I would believe but alas, a lack of proof). If Sledge did start development before 2012, then it's a false comparison because a two year game will be of less quality than a three year one. 2) Engines can still be improved, but I contend that devs and consumers will need to learn that these engines aren't gaining that much ground. I'm not against devs favoring graphical quality over aesthetic, but those games will be few and far between compared to the larger, more aesthetically driven market. Also, the indie industry is doing better than ever. While graphical quality IS a selling point, the simple fact if the matter is that some/most/I-don't-have-statistics people don't as much care anymore. http://www.gamersnexus.net...
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

I would object to frame rate not being included in the original wording of the debate "graphical achievement" would include frame rate due to the fact that game engine's graphics must be optimized to create both Graphical and Aesthetic beauty within a game that everyone can enjoy. It takes hard work to optimize a game, so I would call it a graphical achievement. You do acknowledge that this is very important. 1. I acknowledge that graphical quality has advanced much more quickly in the past, but not much variation between games is simply false. if I were to look at a game from just a few years ago and compare it to one now (for the purposes of picking a game everyone knows, I'm comparing Black ops 2 to Advanced warfare (not a big fan, but it will suffice to support the debate. When looking, the first thing that pops out at me is that reflections within the scopes, this is not aesthetic this is the capability of the engine being displayed. I can see a much more vivid reflection in the new game and little details such as that within the engine will help to draw players in with immersion (if you can become immersed in call of duty, that is). The second thing I notice are the shadows in both. Within the black ops two screenshot (I link it at the end, along with the AW one) there is less clearly defined and detailed shadow, shadow, in my personal opinion, is one of the most important factors in making a game look appealing, and it is control by the quality of the engine that renders them. If a game looks appealing to the eye, it will sell better, like book covers sell books. BO2:http://www.dlcompare.com... AW:http://www.cinemablend.com... 2.I agree with you in the case you mentioned, BF4 is no where near as vibrant or appealing as bf3. But this is the case where I can't argue that aesthetics had a greater effect on the game's looks than engine, I applaud you opponent. But if we stop innovating our graphical engines to produce greater detail, than how can we pack in the greater aesthetics craved by consumers? Aesthetics generally do depend on an engines ability to produce detail to recreate the thoughts of the art department within a game world. Can we really expect greater innovation without improving our technological capabilities first? Thank you, ponder on these questions and reply when ready.
Aesthetic will be more important than graphical quality in the near future.

Please note that frame rates have nothing to do with the graphical quality (to my understanding). I agree that framerates should stay as high as possible. 1) At the beggining of gaming, graphical quality improved with leaps and bounds; however, graphical quality hasn't changed that much from game to game. Also, modern graphical quality soaks up a great deal of development time and resources. This shows diminishing returns. We can assume that, eventually, only minor improvements in graphical quality will cost a great deal of resources from devs and/or publishers. While hard numbers are a great selling point, those numbers won't mean anything if a significant profit cannot be achieved. 2) Aesthetic can subtract from/add to graphical quality. Battlefield 3 uses Frostbite 2 engine, and 4 uses the Frostbite 3 engine. Now this is personal opinion if course, but I consider Battlefield 3's look to be better than 4's. Battlefield 4 had a more recent/upgraded engine, I, personally, found that the watered down colors negatively impacted the increased quality. Let me reiterate that that is my PERSONAL OPINION; however, what it does show is that the aesthetic of a game can be equally as important as the base graphical quality and that better quality doesn't always mean it'll look better. Thoughts?
Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia)

This is the Physicians oath as of now submitted by the World Medical Association (WMA): AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION: I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due; I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity; THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration; I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died; I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession; MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers; I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient; I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life; I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat; I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour. The sections that concern me the most are "The health of my patient will be my first consideration", "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life", and "I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat" These sections show that as a medical professional it is considered the worst possible action a physician can take. Thus, euthanasia is wrong and should never be practiced. Sources: http://www.wma.net... p.s. sorry if argument does not make sense english is not first language.
Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia)

Point: Those in the late stages of a terminal illness have a horrific future ahead of them. The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to "control" their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994.[1] [1]Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc... (accessed 6/6/2011)