BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) Yes agreed but what if one specific inmate that was not causing trouble was the one who was being targeted and harassed by the others. Then shouldn't he himself be put into protective custody for his own safety. This would be better financially to keeping only sending one prisoner to protective custody rather then having a group of prisoners sent there. They would save much more money. 2) Premise 3: That is not always the case though. They may not be there when the riot or fight break out so they can't even help to stop it. Even outside of prison, we live in a society where even though the government has rules and regulations, people still break them and do not act accordingly. The first example would be the prisoners. 3) These inmates do not have to be in solitary confinement for long to develop suicidal thoughts though. Everyone has a different tolerance when it comes to being isolated or being cramped up in a small room. Also I agree, the inmate most likely does not think about all the consequences when they are committing the act, so why should we punish them so severely for something that could have been for self defense or by accident? 4) Stating from the article, Sam Mendez did not gave any previous psychological issues. 5) So what you're saying is, just because one individual makes a mistake, we should follow that same one? It is part of the constitution that they shouldn't put one against "cruel and inhumane punishments", so if we were to disregard the constitution, we might as well disregard everything else that has to do with law. 6) Humans need to socialize and interact with their surroundings and also are curious about what goes on around them. Being put into solitary confinement, they are snatched from these rights.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) Other inmates shouldn't have to be put in protective custody just because there is an inmate who is deemed to be dangerous. The inmate that is causing all the trouble is the one that needs to be punished and separated. 2) It is also not necessarily true that everyone who goes into solitary confinement is going to come out mentally ill. For example, a family member of mine was put into solitary confinement for 2 months and he did come out with any mental illness. Solitary confinement made him thick twice before doing something that will get him solitary confinement. 3) I agree that there are fights on a regular basis, but those fights can be taken care of by the correctional officer. Now when it comes to a point that things get life threatening, then there must be severe punishment put into place. 4) I agree with your definition of cruel and unusual, but to call solitary confinement torture is debatable. 5) Solitary confinement may lead to suicidal thoughts, but to have those feelings the inmate must be in solitary confinement for an extended period of time. To land and extended period of time in solitary confinement, the act must have been severe. The inmate was not thinking about all the consequences when they committed the act. 6) As you stated, that is the effect on one person. I agree that solitary confinement can be heavy on the an inmate's mental state, but as i stated before to be in solitary confinement for 16 years he must have done something really severe. How are we so sure that Sam Mendez didn't have his own mental issues before he was put into solitary confinement. 7) For the most part whoever is in solitary confinement did something severe to deserve the time they got. Solitary confinement is used as a punishment, inmates are not put into solitary for no reason. 8) Lab animals are also used for chemical testing which we wouldn't do on humans. Are these inmates entitled to dignity? These inmates are in prison for various different crimes from drug possession to murder and everything in between. They weren't thinking about their dignity then. Were they thinking of the dignity of the person they victimized?
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1)In such cases for safety reasons, other inmates can be put in protective custody, in which they are segregated from general prison population for their safety (Turner, 2003). Even if these inmates were to go into the yard, they are ushered for safety reasons, so they should not necessarily be put into solitary confinement for that. 2)It is not necessarily true that one has to be in solitary confinement for a long period of time to have lasting psychological effects. 3)I agree that having no source of authority would cause more chaos because no one is there to control the prisoners but even if there are prison guards, riots and fights break out on a regular day basis. The guards try to control the situation and do the best of their ability but they would not be put into solitary confinement unless they committed a severe act of crime. 4)"Cruel and Unusual" punishment would be a degrading treatment or punishment in some form of torture. Torture would be the act of causing someone pain, either physical or emotional, for a confession. 5)Solitary confinement also leads prisoners to suicidal thoughts. They start to believe that the only way out is to take their own lives. Why would we make someone prefer death as a solution to not just this but any problem overall? 6)Taking the story of Sam Mandez into consideration. He was put into prison and then solitary confinement for 16 years for a murder that wasn"t proven and is now mentally ill. He tells doctors he has 11 children, married to Lyssa Chapman, and that we was an architect for Denver International Airport. He is said to be suffering from various forms of psychosis. This is the effect solitary confinement had on one single prisoner (Cohen, 2013). 7)There are also many cases in which individuals are put into solitary confinement for falsely accused crimes. Knowing that our criminal justice system has made mistakes in the past, why should the punishment be so severe in which the individual could be psychologically fine coming into prison but leaves in a much worse condition? 8)Solitary confinement also violates human dignity. We would not keep animals in this condition in lab for experiments so why should we treat humans like that? They are deprived of phone calls and any contact with person relationships, in which isolation as extreme as this makes it harder for them to being relationships with outsiders when they are released.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) I agree that it can cause violence, but inmates who are already being violent must be separated and disciplined. If this violence continues without being disciplined it can be dangerous for all the other inmates and the correctional officers. 2) I do agree that i can cause some mental issues, but i does serve as a form of discipline. They are restricted to the bare necessities because they have broken the rules or disobeyed the correctional officers. For solitary confinement to have a lasting psychological effect on an inmate they must serve a long period of time in solitary, to get an extended sentence they must have done something to deserve it. 3) If there is not a sense of authority in the prison, it can lead to very dangerous things for example riots. Even though there is still disrespect towards authority, the inmates will still think twice before they disrespect authority enough to land themselves in solitary. 4) Stating that solitary confinement violates the 8th and 14th amendment is debatable on its own. What are the standards to which you determine something as "cruel and unusual." 5) There are negative effects to solitary confinement, but as i stated before its a punishment that they caused. 6) Solitary confinement is expensive, but it helps keep inmates and correctional officer safe by separating the dangerous inmates. These correctional officers are highly outnumbered and are put in serious risk everyday they go into work, they should be able to separated inmates that are dangerous.
This debate will get 1000 views before the voting period

"1000 views - the view bar says 1000" The picture clearly says 1000 TIMES, not 1000 VIEWS. .. .. . Therefore the criteria is not met. ============================================================================ On the other hand, I am looking at the same box right now, and it is now well over 1,000 times, which falls under my unchallenged criteria of either 999 or less / 1001 or more by the time the voting period comes around.
Feminism is harmful to society

"Yes because I want to tell you that men are much more likely to face discrimination than women" This statement is completely untrue. Men do face discrimination but certainly not more than women! "1. They represent most of homeless population" How does this connect to feminism being harmful to society or not?? Please explain further. 2. They are more likely to commit suicide This is true but I don't see how this connects to feminism not helping men. While we all advocate for suicide prevention, I researched into this fact and there was no link to feminism... 3. They have fight and die for war Women also have fight (and sometimes do die) in war. If you are talking about the draft, I agree that forcing only men to be conscripted is unfair. It comes from an old-fashioned view that war is only for men as women are "weak". However, as I said earlier, feminism is fighting to erase these absurd mentalities and create equality. 4.they are over represented in dangerous work occupations This comes from the belief that men are supposed to do the hard work. While men are generally 15-20 percent larger than women (https://abcnews.go.com...) this doesn't mean women can't do hard (sometimes dangerous) work. I talked about how these stereotypes are unfair and as always, feminism is working to stop this thinking. 5. They had little to no protection against domestic violence I already addressed this in Round 2. 6. They get longer prison sentence" Again, I know. Read above. "And what did feminism do ? Nothing. MEN Do Not Benefit anything from them." I have already proven how feminism benefits men. Please read my arguments next time so you can rebut them more effectively.
Feminism is harmful to society

Yes because I want to tell you that men are much more likely to face discrimination than women 1. They represent most of homeless population 2. They are more likely to commit suicide 3. They have fight and die for war 4.they are over represented in dangerous work occupations 5. They had little to no protection against domestic violence 6. They get longer prison sentence And what did feminism do ? Nothing. MEN Do Not Benefit anything from them.
Atheism is a religion

Pro clearly didn't read my last argument. First of all, we did agree on a definition, but even if atheism is taken as a claim for no God, my last argument clearly covered it. I also argued based on the definition that was agreed upon, so I am a bit confused when Pro said there is an "inconsistancy in the premises." Pro stated that I am describing agnostics. Again, that was covered in my prior argument. Pro still hasn't answered the question. What religion is a Buddhist? I have no further rebuttals, as Pro has not argued a point that I did not cover.Extend previous arguments.
Atheism is a religion

The adverbs "especially" and "usually" are a clear sign that a specific part of the definition is debated and therefore not acceptable. Let's accept the first part of the definition: "Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe". Isn't true that atheists claim that the cause of the universe is not God? They certainly claim that it is so. Since no evidence is possible on the existence or not existence of God, this claim is to be considered a belief.
YouTube Video Battle - Funniest Videos

"Your second video will not play :(" Click the name, rather than the ">" button, and the video will appear in a new window, ready for viewing! "Were those funny? Or, like the last video says, were they just random? Voters?" Random = Funny http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
YouTube Video Battle - Funniest Videos

==NOTE== Your second video will not play :( Were those funny? Or, like the last video says, were they just random? Voters? ==2nd NOTE== Unfortunately, there is profanity in the fourth video. You might want to make sure your little siblings aren't in the room. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
YouTube Video Battle - Funniest Videos

For this debate, my opponent and I will be posting YouTube videos. Whoever has the funniest videos, by the opinions of the voters, wins. Rules: 1. Nothing may be posted besides this opening speech, YouTube videos, and comments on whether or not a player broke a rule. 2. In Round 1, each player posts one funny YouTube video that is less than 15 seconds long. 3. In Rounds 2-5, each player posts up to ten funny YouTube videos, with the total running length not exceeding 10 minutes. 4. A voter decides which person had the funnier YouTube videos, and gives all seven points to the victor. 5. Have fun! http://www.youtube.com...
God more than likely does not exist

The DebateI as Pro will seek to provide argument to support the proposition that God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false. Con will at the minimum seek to negate Pros arguments. DefinitionsGod - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being. RulesNo new arguments to be presented in the last round. First round is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in the first round. Any questions or problems ?
The United States should adopt the Metric System

My argument will be utilitarian: while the cost of retrofitting entire domestic industries (manufacturing, shipping, storage, etc.) is high, it is more than offset by the savings that result from operating with the same system of weights and measures used by the rest of the world. Additionally, the Metric System (hereafter "SI") is easy to use, simple to learn, and is already in use by most domestic scientists. The only barrier to change seems to be the public's disinclination to do so. This is unwarranted, as many countries have successfully transitioned over the last 50 years. I look forward to this debate.
The United States should adopt the Metric System

My opponent has forfeited his final round and there is little left that I have not addressed. In short, national standardization of the metric system cannot be done without legislative coercion. As such, I believe it is unethical and ineffective, as we can see from the British transition. Most people, even those raised on metric, prefer the Imperial or standard system over the metric system. Free will cannot be legislated away, and the people will continue to use the system they feel is most convenient. Projected savings of switching to the metric system have been calculated using unverifiable numbers that were proposed nearly a century ago, while the argument of metric in the classroom is a red herring. Schools can teach just metric in order to save money without the entire country being formally required to use the same system.
The United States should adopt the Metric System

My opponent has forfeited his round, so I will summarize my main points before the final round. 1. People should not be coerced into using a system which they don't wish to use. 2. The proposed economic figures are based on unreliable speculation. 3. Economic benefit is not within itself enough to justify the coercion of people's behavior. 4. If we are to accept the fact that we would have as much success as the authoritarian system Britain currently has in place, the majority of Americans will still prefer traditional units even when raised on the metric system.
On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.Yes, I am initiating this debate as con. Deal with it. Burden is shared.Pro has the option of treating round 1 as acceptance or posting arguments and forfeiting round 5. Rules:Definitions/RA/Framework is open.No plan advocacy.No semantics/lawyering/etc.Don't forfeit yo.No new arguments can be made in the final round in which you argue.Voters may decide whether they believe drops should be concessions.I set this debate so it can only be accepted by someone ranked as good or better than me (which isn't hard, lol). If you can't accept, post in comments.
Knowledge based Rap battle

no proof no science quit cha trying i aint lying you suck air out of places like a vacuum does don't drive your only buzzed but the metabolism fu*cking sucks so son just wait its not to late at all because the sodium chloride just burns your tonuge like salt its your fault, your fault your losing this thing you heads f*ucki*ng transparent like a fruit flies wing i sing i rap you out me to nap cause my rhymes burn like the dust from that powerd candy or like potassium on water call the fixer handy mandy My disses are like postulates they don't need proving shi*t I'm out of time lets face it your losing.
Knowledge based Rap battle

Dandy Dour will sop ya range with a stinking bucket of piss And cock block ya brain if you think you f**king wit this I've been calculating ya lyrical development lyk Botswana's current expansion phase, You'l never make it lykthe east African countries free trade policy your lyrical lifespan is coming to an end lyk period of catching up on pre-independence neglect of public services, Now ama gonn come thru and put you to shame Rearrange your f**ken face I see u think u bold But um worth more than the idol you worship fourfold lyrically i alter your cannabinoid receptors chemical binding traits lyk tetrahydrocannabinol You scared of me Dats why your vocal cords vibrate faster this the end of ya chapter, Quit rap and be a pastor
Knowledge based Rap battle

well start by saying hi I'm a winner but you'll be getting yelled at even more then skinner mister. you may use science to rap but you put me to sleep go take a nice nap or just have your body jerk and just enter to rem your rapid eye movements continue till the end im hotter then the sun hydrogen to helium you don't sound like fun and wait I'm not done ill bust a cap in you A*ss you'll scatter like blue light more mass means lower frequency hold on tight my vocal cords vibrate faster then your fat dildo at the end of this you'll be calling like smegial... out for bilbo your a hoe i know the blood rushes to my dic*k that means it gets hard go away you little prick man you have brain disease so your a retard
Knowledge based Rap battle

Eyo; yo; I've been aching within, burning deeply for the start of this first round For Dandy Dour to overshadow this faggot like a warcloud Ma muderous lyrics devolve upon your brain and melts it I'm a lyrical gayatri Mantra Like a super-imposed polygon I'm always on top A talent like mine is rare like the gastrosophageal reflux disease So it's impossible to limit ma lyrical context like cyber space security issues See, you and me are not commensurable And if you think i'm wrong "Delirium" must be the state of ya mind I'll wade accross burning waves to devitrify you And as you loose your rhymes and cry to me Don't think i'll be emphathetic and hug you I don't symphathize so f**k you
The Republican Party advocates for more "efficient" government more often than smaller government

I'm taking the position that the Republican Party in general isn't really advocating to shrink Government but rather to grow it at a slower pace than the Democrat party. Cons objective is to prove that the position I have taken is false and that the Republican Party is really trying to make the government smaller. Examples of making government smaller include fewer expenditures by the government and/or decreasing the amount of money spent by the Federal Government and also the conserted effort to give up collective rights to hand over to the individual and reduce the overall legal burden on the people of the United States. On a side note I am new to this website and have only engaged in a couple debates, but however, I think I'm a worthy contender who has some interesting points to share. I would love to have a respectful discussion with you and I hope you accept
In defence of Atheism, Prove me wrong

To begin, I will introduce myself and my beliefs. I am Fenderchic, a 16 year old, former Catholic who debating on the side of Christianity for the past 4 years. I believe that a God COULD exist but that currently there isn't enough proof leaning towards a God whereas science has shown the possibilities that the universe could exist without a God. One major argument that an atheist had presented me with prior to my becoming of an atheist was "If God doesn't need a creator, why would the universe?" After reading the Bible, sections from the Qu'ran, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Mortality by Christopher Hitchens, and watching some online debates, I concluded that the universe could indeed have formed simply on its own.
In defence of Atheism, Prove me wrong

As a theist, A Christian, I have the universal cosmos on my side to defend this argument. As a Christian, I can not only quote the Quran but also Muslims in saying, that the Holy Quran supports me in my faith without contradictions. Hinduism, which via Sanskrit is argued to be Monotheist in nature, Supports all my claims. the Mythology of Europe, supports my claims, as well as all worldly philosophies. As a Christian I rely heavily on sciences and logic to defend my case. And There is no evidence to suggest I am in any way wrong about my Religion or faith. Philosophically I am sound, with a Corner stone as my foundation with which I may crush my opponents. I suggest you work in teams to mass your arguments. I am pleased to have this opportunity. Please bring the Atheists A game. As I am not a shark.
enslaving the terriosts and war criminals

It is my utmost pleasure in partaking in this wonderful, informing debate. In observation on your opinion on terrorists and the crimes they have committed, there have been some awful crimes done against people and families. "The enslavement of non-Muslims" you state as a crime ... But if you are for "enslaving" terrorists and war criminals, how can you be against enslaving non-Muslims? Although Terrorist and War Criminals deserve punishment, they do not deserve to be enslaved. ... Now granted, in accordance to the fact that when you meant "enslaved" you mean civil labor? In that case, I am in favor of enforcing Terrorists and War Criminals to complete community service and other jobs. ... Either way, Slavery is wrong and enslaving anyone, terrorist or not, would still be wrong. However, I do stand by putting them to work. "Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property, to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement. While a person is a slave, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave's labour, without any remuneration." Slavery is classified as humans being property and being able to be sold from one person to the next. No one "owns" another human being, and cannot force them into slavery. However, community service or labor would be appropriate. Slavery is not. Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org...