BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Law enforcment

Well, I don't know what your stance is on Law Enforcement, but I dislike the Law Enforcement of the United States of America due to he following reasons: 1) It is a corrupt system and we have seen that recently in the 2016 elections where the FBI hinted that they supported Trump and they continually researched Clinton's e-mails. We ave also seen this happen at the Watergate Scandal which forced President Nixon to resign. 2) Many of our officers from different parts of the country are racists. We have seen this after the fatal shootings of many innocent blacks and also the beating of Matthew Walker, an inmate at the Charlotte Correctional Institute (a jail) by at least ten corrections officers, many of which had more than thirty complaints filed against them. The beating resulted in the death of Mr. Walker and the Charlotte Police Department protected the ten corrections officers in spite of conclusive evidence against them. 3) Many of our officers are not trained well: our officers are continually shooting innocent people because the police officers are either racists, plain dumb, or not trained well. Granted, the officers have a right to their unalienable rights that John Locke describes most importantly as the right of life. But the right they do not have is to take another's life when the suspect clearly followed instructions. The recent shootings involving the female officer and a black man revealed that the suspect (the black man) clearly followed orders and yet the officer shot him... And it was also revealed that the female officer was once under the influence of drugs. 4) They are greedy as hell. Nowadays, officers are after the money rather than the protection of freedom, life, and liberty: I dunno about you, but where I live (a very very safe environment) officers continually arrest people for petty charges. Once I remember an officer fined a man who threw a burger away... seriously? Is there even a legitimate law where people cannot throw burgers away? And the man who did it was fined $200... It is clear that our law enforcement is corrupt, untrained, inexperienced, and greedy. These are few of the many reasons why our law enforcement needs reform.
Law enforcment

I believe I may have gotten off topic at the end, but I stand by my arguments. You have valid points, and so do I. Unfortunately I had began to doze off before your post. *sweatdrop* I respect your arguments, and I hope you respect mine. To me, the police can only be as kind as the ones they protect. I will not justify the cops who have broken their oath to protect us, but I will defend those who keep their oath with my life. Just as they have, and continue, to do for me. Thank you for this interesting debate, Emperor_Edward. May the Force be with you, Midnight_Wind
Law enforcment

No problem, my finals are coming up soon, too. 1.) I see. You need to remember that in order to keep themselves and others safe, police must sometimes use 'necessary force.' Nowadays criminals (thugs and other felons, not those who commit misdemeanors) call it 'police brutality' in order to get a lesser sentence. 2.) I understand your point. I will dismiss that statement, for I did not back it up with sources. I apologize for what is coming, but after looking even deeper into this matter, my patience is almost gone. (Not your fault) Keep in mind my last few comments are intended for those who are violent. People like you, who only wish for reform, are still respected. My turn to seem harsh, No more nice-girl A 17-year-old high-school student from Alabama was almost beaten to death and the four who beat him were only charged with assault. The kid has brain damage. All he did was where a 'Blue Lives Matter' shirt. He almost died They should have gotten an attempted first-degree-murder charge. They were older than 18. Adults according to law. They attacked a MINOR! And you say we don't need police. Again I do not mean to insult you, but this proves that without guidance, we would begin to kill each other over opinions. "A house divided against itself can not stand."
Law enforcment

Hello. Once a gain, truly thanks for accepting and continuing the debate. I'm sorry for not being online and not debating sooner as I had multiple exams to take and please forgive my tardiness. 1) There are bad cops as both you and I have said. In fact, so many that America is perhaps one of the most noticeable countries with the some of the worst policemen.I will list them at the end. 2) "One of the safest countries on the planet" (Pro). We are NOT one of the safest countries with the best law enforcement. "http://www.gutenberg.us...
Law enforcment

Don't worry, you didn't seem harsh. 1.) Again, there are some bad cops, but what job doesn't? The Dallas assassinations for instance. Those officers could have just run from the sniper, Micah Johnson, but instead they moved to protect the crowd, Black Lives Matter protesters. (#BlueLivesMatterToo) The police tried to negotiate with him, but the sniper replied, and I quote,'"he was upset about Black Lives Matter," Chief Brown said. "He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers."' (http://www.nytimes.com... ) What do you mean by corrupt? There are multiple definitions. 2.) Again, I said that there ARE SOME BAD COPS. But not all. That also was not a rebuttal or argument, You gave an example of ONE corrupt cop. 3.) I never said it was the safest country. It is unfortunate that those men have died, and I will mourn for them. I will also mourn for the dead police. You really have not given any rebuttals to my statements, nor have you given factual evidence. I do respect your argument! Again about the deaths: http://www.breitbart.com... America is supporting murder. What have you become America?
Law enforcment

Hello and i thank you for reading and refuting my arguments and i find them very impressive. Now I shall begin with my argument: 1) Our police force is no doubt corrupt and I don't mean the average corrupt, I mean REALLY corrupt and it has shown in many instances in the past few years and even today where officers use racial injustice as an excuse to shoot black people. They have also hired officers who had previous records of drug abuse (the female cop I had mentioned). Police corruption is major problem in the United States, where some police officers turn bad to make money from drug deals, or career advancement, while many more try to cover up their own acts of brutality, murder and torture. Such is the case in the city of New Orleans, just this week five former police officers were sentenced to prison for the shooting of six unarmed civilians, two of whom died, in the days after Hurricane Katrina back in 2005, about 20 officers staged a cover up and many were excused. I can also mention another two dozen where many have been fatally killed or wounded by police brutality. 2) One of the most corrupt police departments is the Chicago PD. This city was home to Joseph Miedzianowski who has been labeled by many as one of the most corrupt policemen in history. He was both a police officer and a drug lord. He was in charge of the Chicago gang unit. At the same time he ran his own drug gang which would shakedown rival gangs based on his knowledge through the Chicago Police Department. He did this for 22 straight years before justice caught up with him in 2001. 3) America is not the safest country in the world with the best police (that honor goes to Iceland and Austria). Our police forces, as I have said, are corrupt and have an itchy trigger finger. There have been many cases where the officers pulled the trigger when the civilians were innocent and doing the thing the officers wanted them to do SLOWLY. I will cite an exerpt from the Iceland Police on a report: "Iceland police shot first time in 2013, on a man in the history of this country. The man first injured two police officers with his shotgun. National Police Commissioner instantly apologized to the man"s family publically." Showing that the Iceland Police are definetely skilled and did not have an itchy trigger finger and DID NOT shoot innocent people for no reason. Once again thank you and if I seemed too harsh please forgive my rashness.
Law enforcment

My stance on law enforcement is that, yes we do need some reform, but otherwise the system is fine. 1. ) About your 'corrupt system' comment. I do not understand, because law enforcement was doing their job they were wrong? Clinton's e-mails being researched was handled by the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION. The FBI investigates. It's in the name. The reason they are being investigated? A private server that she deleted MIGHT have classified information. What they are worried about is if it was hacked. Did you ever get in trouble with your parents about giving personal information in the web? This is what that is on a large scale. Nixon. .. That was before I was born and the executive branch handled that. 2. ) Police Brutality. The big topic. I agree that there are racist officers, but how many? About the deaths of African Americans, what about Caucasians? I defiantly agree that those officers were in the wrong. Even if an inmate is causing trouble you don't hurt them. 3. ) Not trained well. That really depends on were they go to the academy. Sometimes, fear gets the better of them and they shoot. Would you fire if someone else was pointing a gun at you? 4). Law Enforcement Salary Chart: . http://www.indeed.com... 38% Thirty. eight. percent. lower. WOW I don't know about you, but that is NOT greedy. And this is based of hours working. Not arrests. The throwing away a burger. Littering. ( I have to quote this: "Littering and? Littering and? Smokin' the reefer. " I am so sorry could not resist) From . http://www.ncsl.org... "$20 in Colorado to $30,000 in Maryland. In more serious cases, offenders may be subject to imprisonment, with sentences ranging from 10 days in Idaho to six years in Tennessee" Wow Maryland. Excessive much? Not a penny is collected by the officer. In your fourth argument you said: "I dunno about you, but where I live (a very very safe environment) officers continually arrest people for petty charges. " 'A very very safe environment. ' I wonder why. Now my argument So many deaths. A stabbing? Wow. Worst of all? This doesn't count the officers that are assassinated. . http://www.odmp.org... Yes we need some reform, but look at us. One of the safest countries on the planet. (I wonder if aliens are on Mars. .. joking)
Gay Marriage

My main points are: There are many benefits that married couples get when they are married, and gay couples who can't get married aren't benefiting from them. Some of these benefits include: Joint tax to reduce tax burden, Family health coverage, Bereavement leave from work and inheritance (if partner dies) "Traditional" marriage changes and is changing. Interracial marriage used to be a problem and was socially unacceptable; and illegal Marriage is a human right towards all. It doesn't affect anyone if gays get married, and it is selfish to think otherwise. Why do you get a say in how somebody should live or what they do? (Unless it is harmful or impacts you in a dramatic way, which isn't the case in gay marriage.) I await to hear your points.
Should prostitution be criminalised

Since my opponent wishes not to participate further I would like to finalize my argument by saying that Prostitution is but string in a spider'web of crime, they are all inter elated with one another. Drugs, Human Trafficking, Modern day slavery,Money laundery and such. My opponent did not clarify for us how is Prostitution benefit the society and one self. But simply had enough to assume that one should practice Prostitution out of sheer entertainment of liberty. Based on that, the government should act on his consent and give him/her those legal rights as a citizen. He focused on the personal rights and dismissed the greater good of all. He also did not entertain the possibility that these Prostitutes maybe aquired through an inhumane way. I wish I can thank my opponent for this debate, but as a matter of fact I can not. Hopefully some other day we will have a more dragging and engaging debate. Thank you.
Should prostitution be criminalised

Furthermore, I wish to clarify his grave misunderstanding regarding the issue at hand. In his respectable claim he states that Prostitution should be legalized as he believe it is an act out of self consent. If the participants wish to achieve money through sexual intercourse, then the state has no right to interfere. I see that he is coming from an absolute liberal position. Regardless I am afraid that he has not considered the bigger picture of the situation. Governments are not against the idea of prostitution as much as what tails the Business. It is entailed with sinister motives and actions. The people who found this Business do not rely on women who are willingly giving up their approval to be used as assets, that is not the case. Their disgusting Business is founded upon Human Trafficking and Slavery. They prey on third-world order and the financial/socio-economic unstable in order to recruit them as 'assets' the organization deprives these prostitutes of every shred of dignity and human rights. But my opponent might argue and say that they have the right to 'give up their rights for money, that is none of the Government's concern'. Right you are, but sadly that is not the case. Most of these women are addicted to drugs, this is one of the ways that forces their assets to keep working for them regardless of their consent. Yes, the drug empire is associated with Prostitution a long with Money laundering, which of course causes the country grave harm both Economically and Youthfully. More will be discussed in detailed in the following rounds.
Should prostitution be criminalised

The freedom of conscience guarantees that the government should not legislate against issues of morality & religion. The government should only legislate for or against personal acts that have a negative impact on other people. For instance such actions as rape, robbery, murder, assault and stealing should be legislated against because the basis for the legislation is that such actions harm other people. So the right of a person to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others should be protected & there should be no laws against such personal actions that do not inhibit ot infringe the rights of others. Prostitution is a personal decision that does not negatively affect other people except the people engaged in the act. If we want to help prostitutes lets have developmental projects to empower women to be economically independent with skills & knowledge that they can use to generate income for themselves. As a social ill we want to get rid of, prostitution should neither be criminalized or legalized. We should just work to empower women so that they have means to make an income for themselves.
Ethical development must continue into adulthood

So Ethical development has absolutely nothing to do with anything specific in the study of morality but only the capacity for to learn those things, correct? And the resolution is that that capacity must CONTINUE to develop into adulthood. Do you all see the same assumption I do that one must make to take Pro for that resolution? It is the assumption that the capacity has somehow not become complete by adulthood and therefore still has 'room' to develop. How chaotic would it be if your body failed to complete development like that and continued to grow into adulthood? What if you simply never stopped getting taller? By age 50 there wouldn't be a building on Earth you could fit in. Think of this in terms of the Moons lunar cycle; eventually after waxing or waning (developing) for some time it must either become completely done and be Full or New. Because it CONTINUES to develop though even after reaching this stage of completely whole what must happen and does with the Moon? . http://www.moonconnection.com... That's right it has to 'develop' in reverse. We do not want this to ever happen with morality. Why? Well, glad you asked. .. . Because. .. .. 1st) Ethical development MUST reach full capacity before adulthood if we are to have any hope the next generation will be ready to face the challenges of the world on their own when they reach adulthood. 2nd) If our 'capacities' continue to 'develop' once they reach the full point when we are at adulthood, then as we continue into adulthood they will only 'wane' and our capacity to make moral decisions is compromised. We MUST fight with all we have to maintain our complete and fully developed capacity for ethics into adulthood, not allow for any change in that status quo if its at all possible. Because each generation has survived well enough once they have reached adulthood in the past, we can rest assured that the level of development in capacity for making moral choices indeed does reach that 'full moon' complete stage. This perspective argument for the Con side rest on that point, but because I am 'CON' the negative position, I do not have the burden of proof for this point. Pro however, does for the assumption I am contending, that we do not reach full ethical development by the time we reach adulthood. I await my opponents response.
Ethical development must continue into adulthood

I've been wanting to argue this position for a long time. But first, I will propose a distinction for the debate. Ethics refers to whatever capacities or abilities for an individual to act in a moral manner; morality refers to abstractions available for one's ethical capacities, decisions, etc. Thus, my argument is not necessarily advocating the development of morality (i.e., learning maxims or commandments for one's choices when dealing in society) but is advocating the development of those capacities which are not of an intellectual nature and are present in the employment of one's capacities.
Many of the following government aspects help the economy.

On one of my opponent's favorite websites (http://judelfoir.wordpress.com...), it is said: "There are only three aspects of government that help the economy. These are the liscence and copyright system, the justice system, and the education system. Innovative protection must be global; education must be local; justice must be spread out. All other government has a negative effect on the private sector and society as a whole." I disagree. I think that there are more, such as the following: Infrastructure (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Currency (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If I win two or three of these contentions, I win. If I lose only one or zero, my opponent wins. Thank you for reading, and I hope that you will now accept.
Surrogate Mothers

Actually controlling mother is possible. It is possible through contracts.Legal contracts are drawn up to cover all the expenses and expected duties of both parties in the agreement. A life insurance policy on the surrogate typically is purchased to cover the pregnancy period. An agency holds payments in trust for the surrogate mother, keeping the financial burden out of the personal relationship being formed between the surrogate and the couple. Lawyers make sure all the agreements follow state laws and that surrogates and couples remain in compliance with the terms of the contract throughout the process.
Surrogate Mothers

Surrogacy is an option for those couples unable to conceive. However, there are some disadvantages.The intended parents do not have full control over how the surrogate's pregnancy is managed. The surrogate may not want to undergo certain tests or may prefer a birthing plan that is different from what the intended parents want. Furthermore, there is no way that the intended couple can monitor the surrogate's behavior 24/7. If she opts to drink, smoke or do drugs, despite agreeing not to as part of the contract, there isn't much the intended parents can do, especially if they aren't aware of it.
Surrogate Mothers

Over the last few years, surrogacy has entered our pop culture zeitgeist, with stars like Nicole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker using surrogates to complete their families. But surrogacy remains one of the least talked about tools in the fight against infertility. Why do surrogates do what they do? What do they get out of it? And how hard is it to give a child to its parents after having it in your womb for 9 months? Is it normal to be or to have a surrogacy mother?
Richard Nixon was a good President.

"Nixon was just accused of doing all those things, and pardoned by Gerald Ford. Are we sure that he was a crook? Most of us are. But that doesn't mean he was." It was very, very obvious that he was guilty. All the proof pointed to this. He was pardoned simply to avoid the hassle of an extensive and not worthwhile court case. Also, the judge believed that Nixon had been punished enough by the resignation and the fall to his pride. "Secondly, Mr. Nixon was very persistent in politics and had high hopes. He waited for eight years, anxious to be President, as Eisenhower's vice. He then ran against JFK, and lost, having to endure an additional 3 years, adding up to 11 years. After JFK's assassination, he had to wait 6 more years for Johnson to leave the office and have himself be inaugurated. So, in total, he waited for nearly 17 years to become president plus the many years of his earlier life. And in those 16/17 years, he built up the country's hope so they knew how they needed him. First of all, just because you keep doing something doesn't mean you are a good person. It simply meant that you are persistent.Also you bring up the point that he made the country's hope to know how they needed him. If this is truly the case, would it not be more despicable how he betrayed and lied to the people of america that "More than ever, they needed Nixon now." You also fail to address my various points on his cons.
Richard Nixon was a good President.

Nixon was just accused of doing all those things, and pardoned by Gerald Ford. Are we sure that he was a crook? Most of us are. But that doesn't mean he was. Secondly, Mr. Nixon was very persistent in politics and had high hopes. He waited for eight years, anxious to be President, as Eisenhower's vice. He then ran against JFK, and lost, having to endure an additional 3 years, adding up to 11 years. After JFK's assassination, he had to wait 6 more years for Johnson to leave the office and have himself be inaugurated. So, in total, he waited for nearly 17 years to become president plus the many years of his earlier life. And in those 16/17 years, he built up the country's hope so they knew how they needed him. "More than ever, they needed Nixon now." (If you get that reference, haha).