BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

People can think what they want, and they have a right to ask her questions, but if she refuses to answer they can't continue and harass her with questions and "make her life miserable". How can you"behave like your innocent"? This women's daughter died, regardless of how, how do you expect her to act? She has gone through months of grueling trials, questions and people hating her. The least they can do is let her have peace now that the decision has been made. People get second chances. For example, look at NFL player Donte Stallworth. In 2009, the morning after drinking he drove out to get some food. He was not aware he was still "legally drunk" and struck and killed a pedestrian who walked out in front of him. He was convicted of murder, and spent a year behind bars. After getting out he was reinstated by the NFL and allowed to play. This is a man who was actually convicted and he gets left alone. Anthony wasn't convicted, and yet people still feel the need to bring ehr past up.
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

I must assert that there is no such law that bars persons from asking questions. The free press has that right to approach anyone they want and ask questions. In many cases, the press wants to hear from parties after a case is over. If Casey does not want to face this constant scrutiny, then she either needs to answer the questions or move out the United States. 1. She has no constitutional right to be left alone when she enters the public domain. 2. Many people believe that she got away with murder and we hope these constant questions makes her life miserable. 3. She is not behaved like someone that is innocent. 4. If Casey wants people to leave her alone she must answer the questions. If she is found to be innocent she will be left alone if she admits guilt she will face additional questions--which is a small price to pay for getting away with murder. Don't you agree? 5. Should O.J be left alone too? Give me a break. 6. Lets leave all people that get away with murder alone.
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

"People have the right to seek answers from her"Yes they do have the right to seek answers. She also has the right to refuse to talk to them let alone answer their questions. She has already stood trial and been through that process. If people want answers and have doubt that's up to them, it's their own personal opinon and views on the subject.As for "What does Casey Anthony have to lose if she answers questions at this point?" Who knows what she has to lose. Only she know what really happened and no one else. There will always be speculation over any trial decision no matter what evidence is provided. She might have a lot to lose, she may have nothing at all to lose. It doesn't matter "what she has to lose" at this point, she doesn't have to answer any questions. The decision has been made.Although valid points of evidence, the points you made at the end are dissmisable to this debate. We are debating on her life AFTER the trial, not debating on weather or not she was guilty or not.
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

As I mentioned early in my post, I do not condone harassment because that would violate a state and/or federal law. Harassment laws vary from state to state and they differ from federal laws. I would advise anyone seeking contact with Casey Anthony to obtain legal representation to make sure they are within the confines of the law. Nonetheless, I stick to my central argument. People have the right to seek answers from her. Casey has nothing to lose at this point if she is no guilty. She should be willing to speak publicly about the case at this point. The Pro should answer this question: What does Casey Anthony have to lose if she answers questions at this point? There are not legal impediments at this point. [1] Did she know her daughter was dead when she was partying? [2] Why would you lie about a friend having your daughter? [3] Why did her trunk smell like a dead body? The jury used a "beyond any doubt" standard, just like in the O.J case
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for agreeing to debate. I agree that there is "nothing in the Constitution that bans the media and private citizens attempt to unearth the truth from a party the deem guilty". Regardles of weather or not it is legal to harass her doesn't make it right or should make it ok for the media and/or anyone else to do so. People who harass her accuse her of being guilty of the crime. They have no evidence of this, no confession from her, and in a court of law it was determined in a court of law that she was innocent. In some people's mind this may have been an incorrect ruling, yet that doesn't matter, that is their personal opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I'm not saying I support Anthony or what happened to her daughter, but her innocence was deteremined in a court of law, not in someones personal opinion.An accused women should not have to be harassed soley based on the public's opinion
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

I believe that she should be able to live a normal life without pressure from the media and everyone. Anyone willing to debate? I do believe in sixth amendment which basically disallows an individual from being tried more than once upon a finding of innocence. A long time ago, there were many people who were tried over and over for the same crime. This to me simply is not fair. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that bans the media and private citizens attempt to unearth the truth from a party that they deem guilty. That is, as long is they do so within the confines of State and Federal laws. My opponent believes that Casey Anthony should be entitled to a normal life. I disagree wholly. As a private citizen, I believe that Casey Anthony got away with murder. It is my hope that she is constantly reminded of it. Casey Anthony never took the stand and therefore never gave her account as to what happen. The public wants answers in exchange for normalcy.
Minecraft is a good game

Now, i dont know why u accepted this debate but, i assure you i wont troll :P Minecraft is a sandbox game that was created by Mojang. (actually Notch but who cares) The game is mostly focused on creativity and building, whereupon players can build with cubes in a 3D world. It may still be in the Beta, but its good nonetheless. Why is minecraft a good game? 1. Gameplay (major factor) A. You are given so much freedom that you can do anything u want there. From making a little statue to building the empire state, anything is possible in that game. (i made a minefield hehehe) B. Dont feel like building? Go mine the dark tunnels and collect ores and stuffs. If you're lucky, you may even get diamond! But of course theres monster roaming around in the dark and everywhere. Another option on how to play the game if you enjoy mining or killing. http://www.youtube.com... 2. Mods Of course there also other people that creates mods specially for Minecraft. This boosts the gameplay as theres soo many mods created. 3. Mutliplayer If u felt bored by being alone too long, why not go to a multiplayer server? Yeah there may be lagg, but the fun gameplay with others minecrafters cant be denied. Gives back spotlight* I still have mah weaps. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.minecraft.net...
Trump Is Not a Liar

The Washington Post started tracking President Trump's "lies" very early in his presidency--perhaps even before he was elected. Routinely, Friends and media outlets tell me variations on this theme: "Trump is a liar! " In this debate, I would like to discuss one or both of these two positions: Position #1 (general): President Trump doesn't lie (in all its shades and varieties) in a manner worthy of special tracking. His lack of complete honesty is in line with the mainstream of US politicians and media outlets nowadays. Position #2 (specific): President Trump's "worst" lies pale in comparison with President Obama's worst. Please let me know which argument you would like to start with.
Trump Is Not a Liar

https://www. Politifact. Com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ All False statements involving Donald Trump Unclear where number comes from DONALD TRUMP Says the United States loses "250 Billion Dollars a year on illegal immigration, Not including the terrible drug flow. Top Border Security, Including a Wall, Is $25 Billion. Pays for itself in two months. " — PolitiFact National on Wednesday, December 5th, 2018
Trump Is Not a Liar

My opponent asks me to "grow up. " I would think that the grown-up thing to do on a debate forum would be to actually debate. I have made a salient point, And my opponent ignores it. I challenge him to respond with a rebuttal or a counter argument. He does still have 1 last opportunity to do so. For others, If you prefer to leave the burden of proof on me, Post a comment that you are open to a new challenge.
Trump Is Not a Liar

In round 2, I demolished everyone's source that Trump is a liar: WashPo's list is full of clearly non-lies. Probably nothing on their list is a real lie. My opponent's Round 2 response was just a rehash of his Round 1 rant. So, I will respond to some of the side comments. ======== "If we're talking sheer numbers of lies, Trump dwarfs any President I think we've ever had. " ======== Says who? Does WashPo have a tracker for Obama's lies, Bush's lies, Clinton's lies? -Nope. We can't know how his lying compares without having comparable lists. ======== "Everyone lies. " ======== This is my exact point: Trump is just another one of the everyone that lie. Why should his lies be tracked when no one else's have been? I assert that Trump doesn't lie in a manner worthy of special tracking. His lack of complete honesty is in line with the mainstream of US politicians and media outlets nowadays. ========/======== There is an assumption of innocence without WashPo's credibility. Burden to you!
Trump Is Not a Liar

WashPo's tracker of Trump's lies stands at 6, 420 (1). Sounds bad until you look at the data. WashPo highlights the most repeated lie in their database. Representing a full 2% of all of Trump's so-called lies, Feast your eyes on this *horrendous assault against truth*: "There was no collusion. There was never any collusion" (2). WashPo calls THIS a lie? Their Fact Checker's explanation: Mueller hasn't made his report yet (3). Apparently, Anything Trump says about it will be a lie. Publicly defending oneself cannot be the same thing as lying! This removes ALL credibility from WashPo's list according to Debate. Org: "Using fake facts destroys your credibility" (4). In a silly way, Fact Checkers only accept claims as true if they can find another source for the info. Too often this standard is insufficient. (1, 2, & 3) https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/? Utm_term=. 0728f131ae69 (4) https://www. Debate. Org/help/articles/tips-for-a-better-debate/
Trump Is Not a Liar

It has been estimated and documented quite accurately that he lies an average of twelve times a day, That isnt even in dispute, They tract his lies with radar every day he gets fact checked and he lies and lies and lies, He is the enegizer bunny of fibbing, He is a pathogical liar in fact. He is the worst, In a world of liars, Politicians, He is the master. King of the Hill.
Qin Shi Huang was a hero not a villain

Sounds interesting! Before we begin though, I'd like to state my position as follows: I agree that in hindsight, he did unify China and was a highly significant historical figure because of the sweeping changes he wrought to culture/geography. However, I'd argue that this isn't necessarily 'heroism' - his methods are not what we would regard as 'moral' in modern society. Rather, he instigated essentially a primitive cultural revolution as well as causing hugely unnecessary deaths for the purposes of self interest (i.e. in building his tomb). Hence, the qualities of nobility, self-sacrifice, and greater good embodied by a hero are not those that inspired Qin Shi Huang's actions. Thus, he is more accurately classified as a 'villain'. Looking forward to researching further into this.
Qin Shi Huang was a hero not a villain

Some evidence to show that Qin Shi Huang was a hero is this quote, "Shi Huangdi brought 400 years of civil war to an end and was determined that the power of the feudal lords would never tear China apart again." (Ancient Quest, 1994) This shows that he was a hero and contributed greatly to the prosperity of a unified China. Qin Shi Huang as a hero: He introduced common language, law systems, currency and weighs and measures He divided the country into 36 parts. Each part had 3 departments which were: The civil department, the inspection department and the military department. He built bridges to link the capitol with the rest of the empire and to encourage trade, irrigation systems to provide reliable water soureces to farmers and to control flooding and he also built the Great Wall of China with 25 000 watch towers along the northern border to protect against invaders. So... was he a hero or a villain? Tell us your ideas! Although so many believe he was a villain, I believe he was a hero! To have brought so many people (over such a large area) together, with so little technology, he was certainly a hero!
Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

Obviously I have won the argument because I am not asking if there were alternatives rather I was asking if it was necessary and I believe invasion would have killed alt more Japanese as well as Americans diplomacy was not an option because the Japanese were actually not willing to surrender rather they were actually doing the contrary. They were actually building up a better defense ruling out your ideas of blockading and invasion. Now for the gas attacks. Gas attacks were not only inhumane but another reason they were banned was because the harmful gas actually would drift back to the people who ordered them in the first place, And an obvious reason was the Geneva Protocol in 1925 banning use of chemical weapons which included gas attacks. Finally diplomacy was not possible because the Japanese were going to continue fighting and it was even quoted by a Japanese Officer on the site below http://www.takeonit.com... The things on that site prove your idea that they were willing to surrender wrong.
Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

Accepted. As the debate topic only requires me to prove that there were alternatives, I will go ahead and list them.1) Blockading2) Gas attacks3) Invasion4)DiplomacyThe top 3 answers may have proven crueler than the atom bomb, but they were options, meaning the A-bomb was not neccesary. I will be focusing on the fourth, seeing as not only does it prove that nukes were not neccesary, but also that they might not have been the best option.Japan was willing to surrender, meaning the bombs were unneccesary. They knew the war was lost, and would have only asked for the safety of the emperor. It's argued that even they did not surrender right away, they would the moment Soviets landed on their soil. Source:http://www.mtholyoke.edu...;Even if this were not the case, diplomacy would have had potential. They knew we had the bombs, and it would have looked admirable if we were still willing to go the route of peace after being attacked, especially since we had fully in our power the strength to get our revenge.
Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

The use of nuclear bombs on Japan in WW2 were completely necessary. First of all if we did not use the bomb the war would have continued therefore leading to the death of more Americans. It seemed to not matter to the Japanese when they participated in Pearl Harbor. Or perhaps the rape of Nanking. If we did not end the war we the bombs the war would have continued leading to kill more Americans as well as the Japanese. And then after what they did in Pearl Harbor some of them have the ordasity to say that the bombs were inhumane. And sure it killed innocent people, but didnt they kill innocent people in Pearl Harbor and also The rape of Nanking? The idea that those bombs were inhumane was absurd. The rape of Nanking IS considered the forgotten holocaust for a reason. The atrocities they committed when invading China were unforgettable. Furthermore i believe that the bombs were completely necessary. I mind you this is just the introduction to my arguement while i have much more to add after extensive research on the subject I promise you i will be a worthy opponet.
Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

I do love how you use unbiased sources, it allows me to pick up information to support my side."Considering the attack on Pearl Harbor that decimated the US Navy very badly making blockading [an] almost impossible solution to the war."The US Navy was still more than willing to form a blockade. I find it hard to believe that they would volunteer for something they weren't capable of. The plans for Operation Olympic, the invasion plan, called for 24 battleships and 400 destroyers, so it would be fair to say that America had plenty of navy power left. The Navy was still arguing for a blockade, which leads me to believe that the defenses the Japanese were building up was not enough to remove the option from the table. Operation Olympic would have taken place had it not been for the nuke, so it was possible.http://en.wikipedia.org..."Its because it happened in the past we wont know."You should still provide speculative information to support. That is all you really can do in a historical debate. The fact that they might have been willing to fight to the death should not be an excuse for killing so many innocent people. The fact is, after the fact, it was easy to say we had no other option, what reason did we have to bring up the alternatives?"if they are so intelligent why did they blindly attack Pearl Harbor?"I was looking for a better word. They weren't a vengeful nation. As to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the cause was a US embargo with Japan, as America was where Japan recieved its supplies. Since Japan lost its primary resource provider, they were forced to plan an attack on America that would weaken us long enough to conquer the Dutch East Indies. It was not an act of vengence, but an act of neccesity, see how that works both ways? Does that mean if they had nukes they should have been allowed to use them on us?"They barely have a military to this day."Anyone can build up a military, but they chose what was important. They were not vengeful so they did not use the attacks as an excuse to form a large military to counter. "And proof that they were building up their defenses is none other than...Operation Downfall."If Operation Downfall was cancelled before the nuclear option was chosen, this would be more satisfying proof. The fact is that Operation Downfall was not deterred by any defenses the Japanese set up."I've decided the idea that they would have surrendered or not a irrelevant detail because it has too many opinions and points of view to actually determine whether or not they would have surrendered or made a truce."Then you accept the fact that diplomacy was a possible alternative.The last point I would like to make, is that even if there was no other solution than the nuclear option, which I believe there was, there was no need to use bombs when a single bomb would have sufficient. The threat of the bomb without even dropping the first one could have been enough, and I find it hard to believe that if we dropped the first one, they would not have felt at least a little intimidated. One bomb would have been more than enough to cause the surrender of an already defeated nation.
Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

If Japan was building up it's defenses that would include Anti aircraft guns making a invasion by air almost impossible. And when you say blockading I assume you mean blockading by the Navy. Considering the attack on Pearl Harbor that decimated the US Navy very badly making blockading a almost impossible solution to the war. Now for the diplomatic solutions you suggested their is almost no way to know if they were going to consider surrendering or creating a truce. Its because it happened in the past we wont know. They could have been ready to fight to the death while now looking back on it they may have said they would have surrendered possibly to make the US look like the bad guys. And about your statement saying that we are lucky that the Japanese were so intelligent to not blindly attack us with revenge. Well if they are so intelligent why did they blindly attack Pearl Harbor? And also they could not blindly take revenge because after the war their entire military was decimated. They barely have a military to this day. I've decided the idea that they would have surrendered or not a irrelevant detail because it has too man y opinions and points of view to actually determine whether or not they would have surrendered or made a truce. And proof that they were building up their defenses is none other than...Operation Downfall. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ww2pacific.com... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... I hope this is enough proof that the Japanese were in fact building up their defenses to prepare for an invasion from the Allies
Nuclear Bombs were necessary to be used on Japan in WW2

Please note you could do beter than a source from an open forum. The source you gave even lists my argument twice!Dwight D. Eisenhower claimed that the Japanese were prepared to surrender. The U.S. Chief of Staff noted that no war can be won by killing innocent women and children. We were lucky the Japanese were such an intelligent country, any other would have turned to blind revenge.http://www.takeonit.com...Alternatives prove that the bomb was not necessary. Justified, maybe, but that does not make it necessary by any means.The quote you gave about how the Japanese man Yokohama does not back your claim that diplomacy was not an option. Diplomacy is not neccisarily asking for a surrender, it is asking for a truce, which would be refraining from war. As to the quote, I looked up its origin. It was a bit quote in an American newspaper, something not quite as credible as if it were in a Japanese newspaper. This one newspaper may have looked for the proudest officer before interviewing him. And as one officer alone, his testimony would not be enough. As for the gas argument, if we were willing to use a atom bomb, I doubt we would have heeded a gas treaty if would have been the most effective method. Can you provide proof that Japan was building up there defenses? And I do believe you can set a barricade around a defense, as well as invade by air.