BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

I see your point of intent. I agree intent has a lot to do with someone's guilt. However the fact that something is a crime or not does not effect the action in itself. While it is know by the old neighbor that it is a crime to cut someone's flowers and not known by new neighbor the fact of it being legal or not does not have any effect as it being illegal would just be the reflection of the problems with cutting someone else's flowers. Some people have paid for the seeds and possibly arranged them in a specific pattern they would not like to be destroyed or just enjoy their natural form. These are the reasons cutting someone's flowers is wrong not because it is a crime it being a crime is a reflection of it being wrong. This goes to all other problems it can apply to as well, if something is illegal there is a reason or reasons behind why that can be known even without the knowledge of it being illegal. This leaves the intent of both the original and retaliater the same. The new neighbor should be aware that cutting someone's flowers may be unwanted and permission should be asked for first. The one who takes the flowers back while aware that it is a crime does the same action with the same problems that it may cause to the neighbor leaving him with the same intent as they are not doing it to commit a crime they are doing it for the original reasons and are just aware of it's status as a crime. to simplify it if A is a crime it has reason or reasons B for it to be so. B exists independently of A so If action A is not a crime there are still reasons B not to do it. If C does A without regards to B then D should be able to do action A to C regardless of knowledge of it as a crime as both C and D are aware of B which is the base of the problem.
Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

Excellent answer, but you are missing my point. If I grew up in a town where cutting flowers from my neighbours garden is allowed and move next door to you, unaware that it's illegal to cut flowers from a neighbours garden in this town. I then cut flowers from your garden one day and in response, you cut flowers from my garden. To me its perfectly OK, whereas to you, its a crime you knowingly commit. Lol I know its unlikely either of us will get the death penalty for such a heinous deed, but in principle you should receive a harsher punishment.
should weaboos be banned

First good luck. Now for my arguments. also new rule look at the sources so you can see how cancerous the weeaboo spiecies is in my sourcesWeaboos they think they are japanese just because they read or saw some anime wierdo stuff and know how to use chopsticks and learned the language online.These creatures of the underworld are very cringy with there anime girl/boyfriends(it's a real thing). Also they are very violent using there Katana and ancient japanese weapons to spread fear among the populus don't belive me did you hear about the weeaboo named jones who attacked a man named frank typical weeboo inspecting his katana in order to kill of his american ancestry 1943 colorized sourceshttps://www.youtub...e.com/watch?v=5QvgLlFyeok -this girl thinks she is japanese because she reads mangalook at this savage player going full weeaboo this is weeaboo jones the one who asulted the man named frank
Scientology is a work of fiction.

Let's remember for a second that the burden of proof rests with the instigator. Now let's look at what my opponent has offered to support his claim. >>So it just SEEMS like a science fiction story? L. Ron Hubbard wrote Battlefield Earth too, that was made into a movie starring John Travolta. Are people to believe that a writer who wanted to make a lot of money while he was alive, coincidentally, was some kind of prophet in addition to creating science fiction stories?<< He wrote Battlefield Earth as a work of fiction. He did not do so with works relating to Scientology. I, for one, don't see its similarity to science fiction. It sounds more to me like science fact. Scientology improves conditions in life, and provides _real_ spiritual answers. Also, you say he wanted to make a lot of money in life like it's a bad thing... isn't that something we all want? The fact that he was also a science fiction author does not discredit works he wrote not as science fiction. >>Society hasn't duped me into thinking anything, as I am not only and athiest, but also a homosexual. If society had any bearing on how I think, I wouldn't be gay and godless, so it's safe to assume that they haven't swayed me on this matter either.<< You think that just because you're in minority positions on some issues you are therefore immune to being duped by society? Think again. I didn't say you were duped in every way, just that you were duped into labeling Scientology as fiction. This is evident in your lack of supporting evidence for your claim. >>< > That's doubtful.<< You doubting it does not discredit it in any way. I wish you were capable of backing up your claims with evidence. >>You make a good point here. Scientology requires its members to pay enormous amounts of money in order to attain its concealed information. It's a money making scheme; not the truth. The only time you don't publicly extend information that is tied closely to religion is when you do not want it scrutinized without someone to lead your beliefs in a certain direction. Scientology is not only fiction, but it's a dangerous work of fiction.<< Not all truth is cheap, especially deep, spiritual truth. It's not revealed to the public because it is information to be paid for. Much as a college education is. You can't get a doctorate for free, why should you be able to learn the deep spiritual truths of the universe for free? Unfortunately, my opponent has been unable to bring up real criticisms of Scientology. As the instigator of the debate, it is his burden to provide evidence to back up his claims. I have rebutted all his statements. That's all I should have to do. Especially since any supporting evidence for my side would be copyrighted information :> I'm eager to see how the people vote on this one.
Scientology is a work of fiction.

< > So it just SEEMS like a science fiction story? L. Ron Hubbard wrote Battlefield Earth too, that was made into a movie starring John Travolta. Are people to believe that a writer who wanted to make a lot of money while he was alive, coincidentally, was some kind of prophet in addition to creating science fiction stories? < > Society hasn't duped me into thinking anything, as I am not only and athiest, but also a homosexual. If society had any bearing on how I think, I wouldn't be gay and godless, so it's safe to assume that they haven't swayed me on this matter either. < > That's doubtful. < It is what it is, and it is the truth.>> You make a good point here. Scientology requires its members to pay enormous amounts of money in order to attain its concealed information. It's a money making scheme; not the truth. The only time you don't publicly extend information that is tied closely to religion is when you do not want it scrutinized without someone to lead your beliefs in a certain direction. Scientology is not only fiction, but it's a dangerous work of fiction.
Should art be taught more seriously

I will accept the challenge with the assumption you are referring to a more serious art programme in school. As a kid who grew up with possible schizophrenia, clinical depression, post trauma and autism; my response will be quite odd. I have never had any artistic ability and the only form of "art" I could manage, per se, was cartography, et caetera. Albeit, I wasn't interested in art in the first place. The issue with teaching art is that what you teach, more than likely, will never be used and could only penalize and hold back unfortunate students. If you are as interested in art as I would assume, even you should understand that art is something not learned but something that comes to you naturally. If it is being forced, there is a problem. I would even go as far to say that art should be purely optional.
University fees shouldn't be allowed

My opponent seems to be confusing the existance of education with the government "ensuring" it, by mandate. Not acknowladging education as a right is different from saying that no one should get one. The resolution is that university fees shouldn't be allowed, as to not prevent people from getting an education. But those educations provided by sad universities are not a given, without those universities they wouldn't exist at all; what basis do you have to lay claim to the produce of other peoples labor? A university proffessor is not public property, his services are his own, and we cannot say that someone else has the right for him to teach them.
University fees shouldn't be allowed

The amendments do not apply to all . You're only talking about US laws . Maybe the government can't control the fees of uni's , but they should definitely limit the number. Education is more of a right, a need, without it , we wouldn't be here . Without education, I wouldn't even be able to debate with you right now. Education is the process that let you move forwards, without it , it could effect society and even the world. To argue with you, even the man who created the fifth amendment, the law that states that education is not a right, was a lawyer. Without the privilege of having an education, he wouldn't have been able to write this law, meaning this law wouldn't have existed.
University fees shouldn't be allowed

Education is not a right, nowhere in the Constitution is education protected as a right. In fact all you are entitled to as t the constitution is Life, Liberty, and Property:"No person shall... be deprived of Life, Liberty, and Property." -the Fifth AmendmentSo Property is a right, but Education is not, and someone needs to pay for your education, through taxes, i.e. theft. So what my opponent is advocating for is for us to undermine what really is a right property enable to secure that which is not a right, education. In addition to this, colleges and universities are owned privately, which means that my opponent wants the govt to exert more control on private business. What right does the state have to say that a college or university cannot charge fees? It has no right- and neither is this power permitted under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
University fees shouldn't be allowed

Those who get to universities with good pass rates should be rewarded. Education is a right , and educating the people for the future generations will not only benefit themselves , but the environment we live in as well.Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Also, education is an opportunity for a better future; those who are from less-privileged background, can sustain equal education opportunities, which can help them to reach a better future. With things like this , some poverty can be gone as there is still a chance of education. Another reason is that students have to work loads to pay for the loans, this may discourage them form learning as they are shown(or influenced ) to take up smaller jobs easily.
George Zimmerman is not innocent

I would like to say that my opponent has failed to use any other type of source rather than wikipedia. And wikipedia is known as not being reliable. That is something to consider. "The charge of manslaughter was also a stretch. Under Florida law, as in other jurisdictions, manslaughter is committed where a killing results from negligence rather than an intention to kill. The negligence must be sufficient that the act, although not intentional, becomes criminal. Negligence, and therefore manslaughter, would have been open to the jury had there been some evidence of negligence on Zimmerman"s part; there wasn"t any. Negligence would have occurred if, for example, Zimmerman"s gun accidentally went off, killing Martin. But the evidence of Zimmerman was that he intentionally shot Martin because Martin was beating him. What Zimmerman did was intentional. He intentionally shot Martin once in the chest at close range. Either he was justified in shooting or he wasn"t; it was second-degree murder or nothing." - decoded science "Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense. " - Cornell Law 1) George Zimmerman would have been guilty of negligent homicide, or manslaughter, if he hadn't intentionally shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Let me also state that the prosecution couldn't prove that George Zimmerman commited manslaughter. 2) Although George Zimmerman did commit homicide, he had acted in self- defense which was proved in court, so his homicide was lawful.
George Zimmerman is not innocent

"Hence, although Zimmerman was possibly negligent, irresponsible and exercised poor judgment, it was not illegal for him to follow Martin, carry a gun when doing so or even ignore the opinion of the civilian 911 dispatcher when advised, regarding his following Martin, "OK, we don't need you to do that."One last argument based on this comment. George Zimmerman committed criminal negligence.Some examples from wikipedia:United States Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child. Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate). George Zimmerman acted negligently and committed homicide. Therefore he committed negligent homicide. CONCLUSION Pro has disproved two of my arguments but this accusation of negligent homicide is irrefutable.
George Zimmerman is not innocent

Zimmerman was not a law enforcement agent. He was a civilian, operating under different legal standards than those applied to the police. Merely because he was a neighborhood watch captain does not attach law enforcement status to him. Tape showed Zimmerman's anger over black man's beating It has been reported that he acquired a concealed weapon permit, which legally allowed him to conceal the gun that was used to shoot and kill Martin. Hence, although Zimmerman was possibly negligent, irresponsible and exercised poor judgment, it was not illegal for him to follow Martin, carry a gun when doing so or even ignore the opinion of the civilian 911 dispatcher when advised, regarding his following Martin, "OK, we don't need you to do that." The only legal relevance as to whether race was the determining factor in the following and killing of Martin was whether it goes to establish if Zimmerman exercised a "depraved mind" regarding the killing. Source: CNN
George Zimmerman is not innocent

Okay then; you've been able to debunk the stalking argument, but theres one other: racial profiling. George Zimmerman saw Trayvon walking home; Trayvon wasn't doing anything that would suggest criminal activity but George Zimmerman for some reason called the police and started following him. The only possible reason is that he racially profiled Trayvon Martin and figured he was a criminal because of his race. Racial profiling is an illegal act. Therefore George Zimmerman is not innocent.
George Zimmerman is not innocent

Section 784.048 (2) of the Florida Statutes states when "a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person" the person is guilty of the offence of stalking. Stalking is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and a fine not exceeding $1,000. In order to be convicted of stalking, it must be proved the defendant followed the victim "repeatedly." Whether or not Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher told him it was not necessary or continued to follow him, the following was all one act. He did not "repeatedly" follow Martin. Another aspect of the offense is the following must be done "maliciously". Malice is similar to the "ill will and spite" that is necessary in order to get a conviction for second-degree murder. Since the jury was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had "ill will and spite" at the time he shot and killed Martin, there is no evidence he had any malicious intent at the time he followed him. As well, it would be extremely hard to argue Zimmerman was maliciously following Martin while, or even after he was on the phone to 911, had identified himself, and gave his location to the dispatcher so officers could be sent. Stalking can also consist of "harassment" rather than "following" "Harassment" is defined as a "course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose." Again, even if Martin did experience emotional distress, prosecutors would have to prove this one brief encounter was "a course of conduct" and that Zimmerman had no legitimate purpose in "harassing" him. It would be difficult to argue that following Martin so the police would know where he was after they arrived constituted stalking, when it was done on only one occasion, and without malice. Florida also has an offense of aggravating stalking applicable when a "credible threat" is made during the course of stalking. Aggravated stalking is a felony but there is no evidence this crime is applicable. According to Florida law, George Zimmerman didn't commit a crime of stalking. Source: http://www.decodedscience.com...
George Zimmerman is not innocent

Sorry I got confused when I made the debate. I meant to argue that he's not innocent. So heres my argument: According to Trayvon Martin's friend who was on the phone with him at the time; George Zimmerman started following him; scaring Trayvon. Therefore what George Zimmerman did was STALKING.STALKING: According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"-wikipediaStalking is illegal and George Zimmerman following Trayvon placed him in fear; thus George Zimmermans actions were stalking and since that is illegal, he is not innocent.
Jesus being the son of God and God at the same time makes sense

Jesus being the son of God and God makes no sense for a few reasons. First of all for Jesus to be a human with genes he would have to be created through reproduction, either sexual or asexual, which would also mean that Jesus' biological parents would have to be human, which God is not. Secondly the definition of "to make sense" is able to be done or put into practice successfully, so does it make sense that Jesus is the son and is god at the same time. Is it practical ? Third it states in the bible that every human is born with original sin, and if Jesus was a human but was also God then that would mean that God would have original sin as well. So either God committed sins, or Jesus was not God because it is documented in the bible of Jesus committing sins, which he apologized for on the cross. Fourth if Jesus was God then he would have been alive since the beginning of time, so how would it be possible for him to be born again while still maintaining all of the knowledge that he had before he was born as a human? Lastly, in academia there has to be one key factor in an experiment that is required for it to be accepted is that it must be able to be repeated., as in it must be about to be repeated, and this has never been done. It is for these reasons that I do not believe that Jesus could have been the son of God.
Jesus being the son of God and God at the same time makes sense

Well I intended to have may opponent give the first argument but it's alright I forgot to put that in round 1 so, my fault. Now before I begin debating I would like to thank my opponent for accepting, and hope that we can keep a respectful attitude throughout this debate. Now I do believe that it does make sense and that the bible clearly explains but I would want you to start off this argument trying to show how it may not make sense.
Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible

I accept this challenge. Before I begin, I would like to thank my opponent for not only giving me the opportunity of not only debating a game that I never have played before, but also for giving me the opportunity of debating someone that is equal to me statistically, thus making this my first true fair debate. Since my opponent has not clarified the terms of this debate, I shall provide definitions to the terms. Five Nights at Freddy's: "a 2014 indie point-and-click survival horror video game developed by Scott Cawthon. The game centers on the fictional pizza restaurant Freddy Fazbear's Pizza, where the player must act as a night security guard, defending themselves from the malfunctioning animatronic animal characters by tracking their movement through the facility using security cameras. " -(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) utterly: "in an utter manner; completely; absolutely. " -(. http://dictionary.reference.com...) impossible : "incapable of being or of occurring" -(. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) To clarify this debate will not be debating whether or not the exact events of Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible, but rather an event like Five Nights at Freddy's is utterly impossible, ie malfunctioning amintronics attacking a night time security guard.