BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hate speech should be banned

Well, It was a short debate, And this is the last round. From what I understood, The main problem the pro side has with laws against "hate speech" is the inherent ambiguity that gives rise to bias. However, As the pro side rightly said, Each case is different, And hence a bit of ambiguity in the law allows the judge latitude to decide how much provocation, Bullying, Incitement, And so on is too much, And then decide whether the present case breaches that boundary. Furthermore, There is scope for bias across the breadth of the judicial system, From whether to allow a case to be contested (many cases are directly thrown out due to lack of evidence or other reasons) to which crime a person is guilty of (for example, Murder is divided into first degree, Second degree, Voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, And in many cases, It is up to the judge to finally decide on how heinous the crime is). This does not mean that all laws should be banned. Yes, It may mean that judges should be trained so as to reduce the effects of personal bias on a case, But that's a different debate altogether. The courts also provide the right to take the case to a higher authority if the contestants feel the judgement is wrong. In most of the higher courts, There exists a panel of several judges from different backgrounds so that the effect of judges is mitigated. The final argument, That punishing people will not achieve anything is patently false. The judicial system works on the basis of negative reinforcement, Wherein people follow the rules to avoid penalty. Being convicted adversely affects the life of any person, And hence, People will try to not be convicted. This may not stop homophobic people from remaining so, But the danger of conviction will force a modicum of respect in any conversation they make with or regarding the LGBT community. This is similar to how a person who destroys public property will, Upon conviction, At least be aware of the consequences of doing so, Even if in his heart he still believes he is entitled to destroy public property. These consequences then persuade the person to not continue this past behaviour. I have greatly enjoyed this discourse and thank you for the opportunity.
Hate speech should be banned

Yes, Exactly, They get to decide what hate speech is, Meaning that there could and would be a huge bias depending on the judge that you get and it'd go down to luck. Yes, I think it should be legal, Why? Because that would simply be impossible for a TV channel like that to exist in a normal country. Please tell me, Who would fund an extremist group? Extremist are just that, Extremists, And they are a very small percentage of the populus and normal people wouldn't be watching this. People want FACTUAL news. (Why do you think "news" sites like Buzz Feed are dying off? ) And that is, Why there is a trial. Each court case is different. I mean, If it would be so simple why won't the judge just say "he's guilty" or "he's not guilty. "? Alright, But please tell me what will punishing people that use hate speech achieve? Will they think to themselves: "Oh, I guess I was wrong, Well I'm going to stop being homophobic, Racist, Etc. Etc. " No. They are going to strengthen their beliefs, They are going to think that a tyrranical government is supressing them from telling the truth. The only way that you can change those people is with external influence, Meaning a debate for example. But there won't be any external influence, If nobody knows that those people are extremist, Besides their extremist friends.
backwardseden aka nirvanaispus (youtube) is mentally retarded and needs to be blasted into the sea.

Exhibit A https://youtu.be... Exhibit B https://youtu.be... This man is a danger to himself and everyone around him. I bet he poo poos his pants on daily. He HATES god, he HATES children, and he HATES the 2nd amendment! backwardseden's youtube channel is filled with BIGOTRY and HATE! he needs HELP in the form of being shot out of a cannon into the Baltic Sea! Debate this! YOU CAN'T!
should the usa ban trade with countires that violate wemon and human rights

We need our powerful and continuing nationalism, so those countries where it just plain sucks to live serve as an excellent example of why it's so great to live here. We need them around so we can quietly circumvent human rights here at home while the public is outraged at the bloody excesses perpetrated elsewhere. We need their evils as a common enemy to rally against. They justify our military. They could push into our turf and terrorize our citizens, and we can't have that. They provide a reason for us to treat women differently than men. (You know what they'd do to our women, had they the chance.) Our mass media has stories to sell about how bad they are, as long as they suck. They could be so bad as to try to sneak peeps in, so we need to be on watch for them. That will provide excellent practice for our intelligence services in case a real threat comes along. We are a nation under God. Those godless heathens are Not Us. The unrest generated by those other countries feeds our companies, which brings money home. (I actually don't have anything union-related here, sorry.) Their propaganda is a;ways good for a laugh. We need to be protected from those people, so the police need more power. Our leadership knows who's best for the job of dealing with those countries, let them handle it. It's understandable that elections may be tampered with by their agents, better have someone with a close eye on it. tl;dr They justify us. Best to prop them up a bit.
Death Penalty Applicability

I can not argue the stats that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates nor can i argue the need for killing in military combat. So i argue, Pros flaws are: international threats vs external, Is lower homocide rates morally justified and environmental influences in said inmate (who is perceivably intolerable) 1. In military combat we are faced with, As a people or nation, The possibility of a change in our way of life if we loose. A change worth defending. Therefore it is in essence self defense even though you dont have to be in a one on one combat to justify self defense. In the inmates case, No part of our way of life is at risk if said inmate is in a hole or mental institution designed for long term isolation. 2. If the death penalty deters said behavior well enough to lower homocide rates, Then we are not speaking of the same mental condition you explained. Laws dont alter the thought pattern of psychopaths only there ability to follow there impulse. Were talking about people so evil the thought of death os scarier than a life in prison. Those people are uneffected by laws. But killing them still effects our morality. 3. A hole or isolation is the key to removing said risk from society while not playing the role of a creator by taking a life based on our judgement.
Death Penalty Applicability

In regards to never killing a human being other than in self defense, I cannot agree that it is Never morally acceptable to kill another human if you are not being personally engaged in a high risk personal defense situation with the individual you are attempting to terminate yourself 1. Killing, Not to be confused with murdering, Is unfortunately sometimes one of the options that superior officials in society and military are forced to make for the well-being and safety of the people around them i. E. Using a drone strike on an unaware High Value Target in military combat 2. There are definitely situations where inmates who have committed crimes that meet the criteria for apropriating the death penalty are permanently unable to function around others without inflicting violence onto prison staff or other inmates. For example, There brain structure may have been changed due to compulsive drug use inhibiting there ability to not turn quickly to violence. Even though it was not necessarily there fault for having compulsive drug use, The end result is still the same, An incurable and highly untreatable protensity for extreme violence being perpetrated by the inmate 3. Using the death penalty has also been a powerful deterrent of homicide in the US. States that have the death penalty as an asset are having success in deterring homicide according to this study [1]. Therefore the death penalty has likely saved hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives from premature death by murder in all the years that it has been legalized as a viable option. This includes woman and children. Now that being said, We should not confuse making unethical examples out of first time offenders as an ethical act to attempt to deter crime. I. E. Giving somebody 20 years in prison for a crime that they committed when they were mentally incompetent or incapacitated. [1]-https://www. Cbsnews. Com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/
Death Penalty Applicability

Great start, As con i will first flaws in the argument and then state mind. I argue the death penalty is never applicable for 3 reasons: the pros definition of reasonable threat to society, Fairness amd morality 1. A reasonable threat to society is to be reasonably removed from society. I understand ur argument regarding the penal system so i prospose, Death is not a reasonable removal but a cruel one as the parties taking the life did not breed the life. Leading to #2 2. In fairness, One could argue society is dangerous to the criminal. This is not my argument, But i argue, Said society may learn more by not utilizing a death penalty and may understand how something in the society may be perpetuating the unfavored behaviour. 3. Moraly it is not right to kill if not in self defense. Generally, Once a person is apprehended self defense is no longer an issue. And to end a life because of a judgement is moraly unjust, Even in revenge as it does not serve a common good as beneficial as learning from said negative experiences with said psycho.
Death Penalty Applicability

The death penalty is a valid sentence when the inmate would be a reasonable threat to other inmates, Correctional officers, Correctional staff, And old conflicts of interest in the community or abroad. If somebody has an extensive history of violence, A current protensity to be violent, Or a connection to a violent organized crime group or gang with likely potential to be conducting illegal activities or business within or outside of the prison system, The death penalty should be considered a valid option due to the inmate being a reasonable threat to society. In conclusion for safety and moral concerns, The inmate should no longer be granted or given the ability to conduct such violence towards others or the communities in which they would or likely could effect.
Calling something gay, when trying to say that it is stupid or bad is illogical.

It seems to me like the topic for this debat was too broad because we are both arguing different points. You are arguing that it is not illogical as a slang term. I am trying to say that with literal definition gay is not logical because it is not relevant by means of any dictionary to call something stupid using the word gay. Although i feel that gay will eventually come up in some dictionaries in the future I find that it is with the literal definition of gay and illogical, using gay is illogical to substitute stupid. Illogical -adjective 1. lacking in correct logical relation 2. lacking orderly continuity Gay –adjective 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. 2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. 3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season. 4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies. 5. homosexual. 6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization. Stupid –adjective 1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull. 2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question. 3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party. 4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio. 5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue. There is no overlap of the definitions of the two words stupid and gay and when you look at the definition of illogical it states "lacking in correct logical relation" without the relation it does not have logic=illogical
Calling something gay, when trying to say that it is stupid or bad is illogical.

When this phrase was first used for an irrelivant thing it would have been illogical, same for the second, and so on until somewhere along the line it became logical that said thing was gay? An innaniment object cannot be gay in any sense of the word. So how could it have logically made the leap from being illogically acceptable to logically acceptable in conversation.
Assassins Creed 5 should be set in 20th century Russia

The are many suggestions as to where the next game will lead, but I doubt it will should go the way of Russia. Desmond was supposed to be the assassin, and Daniel Cross made just two appearances in AC3, one in a cutscene and the other where you simply chase him for ten seconds and then kill him, unlocking the pistol, the proof as to why guns drastically change gameplay, and any overly modern setting will reach this problem. The pistols in AC4 meant that at best, you could deliver 4 shots at once. With a machine gun, you can wipe out a whole group in seconds. The next game should be balanced, hold a link to the Assassin-Templar war, and form a link to Desmond. To pick a time period, it must be one where swords still have a place in combat. Do you remember how stupid the Templar sticks looked in AC2? 1917 is too late, so Russia should not be the next location. China is most likely their next game anyway, as the rope darts and references are painfully obvious. I am unsure of how the factors I used last round will affect it, but at the end of the day, it's Ubisoft's decision. and we're only their fans. Not sure how I was supposed to react to your response, but there you go. See you next round. Yours sincerely, Duncan
Assassins Creed 5 should be set in 20th century Russia

While i can understand where you are coming from,remember Edward did not have any links to the assassins. also im not sure if you read the fall.its a comic book about nikolai orelov a soviet assassin who is an ancestor of daniel cross(subject 17). i think its inevitble that there will be a game set in russia but if the title is "great fall" that will probably mean AC5 will be the one set there. according to recent rumours london during the industrial revoulution seems like the most possible but i cant imagine a game in england being very exciting(unless maybe you play as jack the ripper :) ). one other possibility is China.remember ubisoft said that there would be clues for AC5 in freedom cry. think back to when Ezio gave the small wooden box to Shao Jun the chinese assassin.well Ade recieves a similiar looking box in the DLC.also someone asked ubisoft on twitter for clues about the next game and they repleyed "look for the stars"(could be reffering to the chinese flag.
Assassins Creed 5 should be set in 20th century Russia

In my opinion assasins creed 5 should be set in russia during the Bolshevik revoulution of 1917 and should cover topics such as the civil war and the death of Vladimir Lenin.Many people are in favour of a modern assasins creed and i think the latest game possible would be in russia because since the russian revoulution wasnt a bloody war,the stealth aspect will remain.
Assassins Creed 5 should be set in 20th century Russia

It is clearly inevitable that a game will be set in China,but i dont think it will be the next one. the last two assassins creed games were announced on the first tuesday in March,which means it will most likely be reaveled tomorrow. i think it would be more sutibale to wait until tomorrow and if the game is announced,discuss the setting because it dosent make sense starting another round if the game is going to be announced in the meantime. But finally im going to say im 99 percent sure its in russia because of the coordinates ac initias put on twitter
The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

Teleological argument for the existence of GodThe Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy explains a teleological argument for the existence of God as such. .. "Some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural—if not inescapable—to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. The mind in question, being prior to nature itself, is typically taken to be supernatural. Philosophically inclined thinkers have both historically and at present labored to shape the relevant intuition into a more formal, logically rigorous inference. The resultant theistic arguments, in their various logical forms, share a focus on plan, purpose, intention and design, and are thus classified as teleological arguments (or, frequently, as arguments from or to design). " [1] Intelligent Design The teleological argument of the existence of God should not be confused with intelligent design which doesn't make the claim that "God" did it as intelligentdesign. org explains. .. "The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process" [2] GodWe do need some definition of God, seeing this is the teleological argument for God debate. As such I propose a God as defined as. .. All powerful, all knowing, intelligent, wise, just, personal, supernatural. Intentional design vs Unintentional designYou can't have an argument of this sort without using the word "design", but there is a problem here cause the word "design" is used ambiguously. An atheist evolutionist will talk about the "design" of a bat wing which can leave some people scratching their heads cause they think, well doesn't design require a designer ? That's because design can be used within two different contexts, design that is intentional and design that is unintentional. Intelligent design = the result of an intelligent cause/s, pre-planned, deliberate, intentional. Non intelligent design = the result of non intelligent cause/s, not pre-planned, not deliberate, not intentional, something done without a goal in mind. What Pro has to argue for is not just "design" in the general sense, but rather "intentional/intelligent/deliberate design", and that this intentional design is caused by God. I look forward to Pros opening argument. Sources [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] . http://www.intelligentdesign.org...
The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

The Teleological Argument is one of several arguments used to make a cumulative case for the existence of God. The Cosmological Argument reasons from the existence of the cosmos to a Creator. The Ontological Argument reasons from possible worlds and a Maximally Great Being. The Moral Argument is that argument from a moral law to a Moral Law Giver. And the Teleological Argument argues from design to a Designer. [1]I will be defending the Teleological Argument in this debate. Like all the other arguments, the Teleological Argument has taken several different forms. The form I will be defending is as follows:1) The universe resulted from either design or chance.2) It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance.3) Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. [2]There is no doubt that the argument is valid. The conclusion naturally follows from its premises. What I will be defending here is the soundness of the argument. [1] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 714[2] ibid. , p. 718
All school kids should complete 2 hours of homework each night.

Nice Arguments, Now on to the rebuttal! "What harm comes from homework?" There is NO harm from Homework, just that the fact that students should be doing more work once they get to home sound stupid! "Why play Xbox, check your phone in school, instead of bettering yourself in knowledge." Some students just need a break from knowledge and learning. Also, what if Schools ban phones? For example, myself, I am a B - A+ Student and I rarely do homework. I complete it at school OR when I am bored. So even without Homework, you can still get good grades and improve in your knowledge. This is an snippit from an article from www.teenink.com "Stress is very unhealthy for growing teens and statistics show that 29% of 13-year-old students report spending 2 hours or more on homework daily in the U.S. Isn"t that a bit much?" 13 Year olds going to school every day for 6 hours and then adding another 2 hours on top of that? That is quite a bit of time to be spending on knowledge everyday. There is nothing wrong with Knowledge, just too much is bad. Knowing too much might make you scared of real life. Thank You :)
All school kids should complete 2 hours of homework each night.

I have mixed feelings about this issue, but this sounds like it will be fun. "I believe school kids should not be completing 2 HOURS of Homework each night! Kids need some leisure time as well! " My opponent's reason for not participating in a educational activity crucial to their success in school should be limited, because they need "leisure time. " A self-centered ideology. By answering this question, i direct one i would like you to answer, what harm can possible come from doing homework? "That's a joke! Where is the time for PS3, Xbox, phones, etc? " My opponent's reasons for opposing this topic, is not at all logical. In fact, it spits in the face of rationality. By supporting a claim based on personal beliefs, even worse, a selfish ideology. Is not a viable reason to debunk a topic. I would like my opponent's rebuttals to answer the following questions: "What harm comes from homework? " "Why play Xbox, check your phone in school, instead of bettering yourself in knowledge. " If you don't like the concept of school, which I'm getting. Then i suggest you don't go to school, homework is a gigantic contributor to your succession in school.
All school kids should complete 2 hours of homework each night.

I believe school kids should not be completing 2 HOURS of Homework each night! Kids need some leisure time as well! If we wake up at 7:30 in the morning and leave for school at 8, there is no time in the morning to play games, check phones, etc. That means you start the day with 6-7 hours of SCHOOL! Non stop Work (Besides snack/lunch breaks) After school you shouldn't have to do more work. 30 mins to 1 hour of work is fine but not 2 hours +! 1 hour at a max! 7 Hours of school then another 2 at home? That's a joke! Where is the time for PS3, Xbox, phones, etc?