BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

So your source is a youtuber? That seems a bit dubious. That's not a great source. I need studies with objective data. Not the opinion of someone who shares you views. You said "I think all studies will agree. " You don't know that. That's why I need a study showing that your claim is true. We're talking about closing the gates to possibly millions of refugees. You're going to need better evidence than "I think" You said "I know because I checked myself. " I can't just take your word for it. You're biased in the matter. This is why I need a study showing correlation between immigration and crime, Otherwise, Your claims are unfounded. "In Scandinavia almost 1 of 20 people live on Welfare" ehem. I need data please. If You're not going to post data, Then you don't get to spout off numbers. Either explain it logically without using made up stats, Or give me data. you said "They should be fighting in their country not fleeing" That's inhumane of you to say and you're not any kind of authority to say that people should have to die just because you're xenophobic. Honestly that's a bit selfish of you. If you were in their position, I don't think you'd fight the way you're expecting them to. You'd flee for refuge. I'm simply positing that you show some empathy and allow them the same freedom. you said "If somebody inavded sweden I(who am only 17) would do Everything to get the foreign occupiers out. " That's because you're 17. You lack the life experience to understand the depth of human suffering. Furthermore, You lack the foresight to know that violence is not the answer to most questions. bottom line. You haven't met you burden of proof. Human rights cannot be taken away without a good reason. That means in the absence of evidence, The only solution is to grant their human rights. your floor.
Hate speech should be made illegal.

Wow. No response. To be honest, I was hoping any objections by my opponent could cleared up through expounding on the above, but seeing as how my opponent literally has none, I guess the above is sufficient. Let me again say that we are by no means discussing whether or not restricting a citizen's right to hate speech anywhere is acceptable. Rather, as implied by my opponent's definition of hate speech, this particularly concerns anything which is in a public setting. After all, even as my opponent points out in cross examination, certain speech can and has directly brought about dreadful consequences and limitations allow for speech to be controlled in government protected settings. And that's all for now.
Hate speech should be made illegal.

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for hosting this debate. With pleasentries out of the way, let us proceed. I don't necessarily agree with my opponent's definition of hate speech, but since he made teh debate, I'll guess I won't place any objections unless he attempts to define it any further. RE: "I believe that stopping hate speech is the equivalent to restricting free speech." By all means, it is. Stopping ANY kind of speech is in fact a restriction on free speech. Just ask my opponent as even he (in the comment section) makes it pretty clear that there are cases where free speech SHOULD be restricted. To cite precedent ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942): There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Noting the above, it is rather clear that hate speech can be considered an extension of the "fighting words" limitation on free speech. Thus, I hold that hate speech ought to be illegal in government supported (or to be more blatant, public) areas (as is the case with all other limitations on free speech) in order to preserve peace and civility amongst the common people. And that's all I have time to say at the moment. I shall be more than willing to expound on what I'm actually defending in the next round and look forward to my opponent's case.
Hate speech should be made illegal.

My position in this debate is going to be that hate speech should not be limited. Furthermore I'll be using Wiki's definition of hate speech, I kind of enjoy it: "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting." I believe that stopping hate speech is the equivalent to restricting free speech.
Catholics Are Unbiblical.

First I would like to apologize for not posting arguments till now. I just completely forgot and got sidetracked with school but let's start this anyway. First, I would like to start out by attacking baby baptism. The word greek baptizo which is translated to immersion as my sources will say. This is showing that when you dump water on kids it is unbiblical. First no where in the bible does it say to baby baptize. Yet you do it anyway and you don't even do it correctly. When you show me that the bible says to baby baptize I will believe you are biblical. You say that us Protestants take the bible out of context but this is you doing that. Second, you worship the pope and say he is that head of the church. You say well Peter was a pope even though Jesus just said he going to build his church around Peter. You say this is justification to follow everything the Pope says. I read something on you most holy family monastery thing and they were quoting the Pope saying that he said something and that makes it correct. You basically worship the man and everything he does. Even if he does rape a bunch of little kids with his cardinals and say that gays will get into heaven as he has said very recently. It's idolatry the way you worship him. Third, you pray to Mary and Hail her. I read your justification for it and you sir were the one taking verses out of context. All of the justifications could easily apply to Joseph saying that just because he was the father of Jesus. Also you say Mary hasn't sinned unlike everyone besides Jesus. What form of idolatry is this in that stupid "MOSTHOLYFAMILY". Have you heard all have fallen short of the glory of God. That just doesn't apply to Mary though because she was perfect like Jesus. That also justifies you praying to Mary. Lol. This is the second major form of idolatry. Praying to Mary so she can intercede even though the bible continually says that is what the holy spirit is for. But you just forget about him though because you know Mary was just perfect. If you can show me one way that the bible says to pray to Mary (believe me it doesn't) or that proves that Mary was good enough to be Hailed. And you say we take verses out of context. No sir you do. I would like to apologize again for this debate being only one round but again I was very busy. I was born into a catholic family but soon discovered after reading the bible how wrong catholics are in some things. However I know you believe that you are the arians of Christians the pure race but read the bible, stop being brainwashed like I was, and read the facts. The catholics are unbiblical for three ways and you can not argue them face it. Now stop telling everyone how you are the perfect christians and us protestants are wrong. I respect catholics because they have spread the gospel so much. However quit frankly they are wrong. Sources: http://www.biblestudytools.com...
Catholics Are Unbiblical.

Catholics are Biblical. We Catholics adhere to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium. It is the Protestants that are unbiblical because the protestants, like the Pro, always take verses from Scripture out of context. Protestants also try to twist verses from Scripture into meaning something it does not. In fact, it was a Catholic Church council that compiled the manuscripts in 395 AD and deemed them to be the inspired word of God. In order to do that, the Church had to throw out over 600 other manuscripts/books that were floating about during that time period. So when you non-Catholics claim that you accept the Bible, then you are essentially claiming that you accept the authority of that Catholic Church council which originally gave mankind the Bible. It wouldn't surprise me if you prottys believe the Bible fell out of the sky from heaven.
Give a 6 year-old girl a lick on the cheek!

She is a cute little girl, Very sweet and very young, And doesn't know very much. She is a little child who just turned six. She likes to play outside, Sometimes she wonders around alone, Oh what a mistake! If I see her wondering around alone, I will approach and give her the lick on the cheek. She may smile at it, She may cry after it, But one thing is for certain, She is getting a lick on the cheek. I will give it to her, Her first lick, My unwanted touch, I don't know how it makes her feel, But it makes me very happy. And nothing will stop me. For what I want to do is a horrible crime of lick. Some people may say that I am sick. But I will still lick her on the cheek, And she will remember it as long as she lives, The day when stranger approached her and gave her the lick on the cheek.
My version of capital punishment should be legal

Let's face it ripping people apart is a bit extreme, I'm not sure how it can be acceptable. Killing someone in a gruesome way degrades human life, at least when someone is injected it is kind and considerate i.e. humane, the people who are on death row get to know the man who is going to kill them, and can feel reasonably comfortable. If people are put on a rack it sends out the wrong message that some people are pure evil and unworthy of being forgiven by God. You only have to look at the effectiveness of speed cameras to know that deterrents don't work. Human beings have a tendency do bad things regardless of how harsh the punishment is for doing them, e.g. bank robbers, they may be given firearms, and although they'd rather not shoot anyone they will if they feel it will help them to avoid a very lengthy time in jail. It wouldn't be hard to persuade someone to take a gun, some risks seem worth taking when you are in an emotional state. If you look at every case on a case by case basis you'd find they had no or bad parents, were carrying a knife to defend them self if attacked and similar things. People are not inherently evil, and so they shouldn't be treated like they are. Murderers don't tend to care about their victims pain, and it might seem fair that we shouldn't either, but we shouldn't be the same level as them when we have it in ourself to be the better person. Deterring serious crime can lead to serious crime being committed e.g. revenge attacks, which I think is relevant, as this shows that your method of CP can't prevent murders, and the public's opinion does matter even if statistics show less murders, because the quality of life is also important to consider. Any system can be rigged, votes for political parties are occasionally rigged. If only one person were killed each year and over 10 years they were all black, or all women or something, it could happen, then people may become more racist or more sexist, this impacts people's lives. I'm not sure how murderers can be equally included in a group which get executed. This has not been explained to me. It would be harder to forgive someone who was unworthy of being buried, or who you know is not alive any more. To sum up, some taxes are worth paying, if it costs more to give someone a humane death and helps us respect life then it is worth paying for. Thanks for having this debate, and I hope you have found my posts interesting.
My version of capital punishment should be legal

Pro's form of capital punishment = once a year a murderer is put on the rack and ripped apart. I only need to show a better version, so I'll stick with lethal injection which is the primary method of execution in America and is used on any number of serious criminals. Lethal injection kills the person by first putting the person to sleep, and then stopping the breathing and heart, in that order [1] I don't believe in capital punishment, and so you might think I would prefer your form where less people die. However I don't believe your form of capital punishment is best. I've accepted this debate because I have had a similar idea in the past and I realise that if criminals were put into a lottery, that would mean their best chance of living would be to encourage others to commit violent crime. That's one reason why it's a bad idea. Here is some more + If only one person were selected, criminals have a good chance to get away with murder. Are people who have lost loved ones supposed to be satisfied by watching a different criminal die to the one who murdered their relative? Wouldn't they know the real murderer is still alive, and will probably never face justice? + Innocent people would therefore risk the rack to avenge someone they love. Desperate or greedy criminals who want to get away with robbing a bank etc will not be deterred either. + Innocent people should not be killed (or become criminals), but even with your form of CP innocent people can die, though I admit it would be less likely. However suppose a life was executed, and everyone watched it but later it was found he/she was innocent, the public will be far more outraged. + People don't need to feel discriminated against because criminals are executed in a humane way and it's very unlikely that an innocent person will be imprisoned and less likely to be executed. If your form of CP were used people would feel discriminated against if after 10 years there hasn't been one white man killed, or one black woman killed, or one Chinese person, or one Christian, or one Muslim etc. + If this execution event of yours is held on let's say Christmas Day, that means the day after i.e. Boxing Day is a better day to kill someone, meaning innocent people will be afraid to go out on that day or around that time. + For my final point I'd like to say by that people should find it in their self to forgive others, it's how we move on in life and enjoy life, your method of CP takes that opportunity away. My opponent says his method would cost less money, but what about the other costs I have shown? sources: wikipedia
My version of capital punishment should be legal

Thanks for accepting this. Should be a juicy debate! So my version of CP (capital punishment) has several benefits compared with standard CP (e.g. lethal injection). 1. It avoids the problem of killing an innocent as everyone that could be picked has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 2. It avoids discrimination as black people are just as likely to be selected as white people (even though the number of black names may be marginally higher). There is no discrimination of the judge when picking randomly. 3. Only one person needs to die a year. 4. One gruesome death would be far cheaper than hundreds of painless deaths (lethal injection costs a lot). 5. It is more likely to deter criminals from committing crime. Big moment every year, big build up. People will watch or at least know about this gruesome death and even with big odds in my favour I still would think twice about murdering someone. 6. If you think its unfair to kill the criminally insane then lets make the choice just between those that aren't. So it is a good method of CP. Then there is the issue of whether CP deters. All the studies have been inconclusive about whether it helps or not. But firstly I think that the most painful death imaginable is more frightening than dying with little pain. A rack would scare anyone into thinking twice about killing someone. Have a read of this and tell me it would not deter someone (even marginally more) than death by lethal injection. [1] Studies are inconclusive but I believe that this does not matter. Here I borrow from Ernest van den Haag's best bet argument. [2] To bet that CP does not deter is to bet against the innocent rather than the murderer. We are accountable for what we let happen as well as what we do. If I have good evidence that a bomb on a plane will go off and do not inform the pilot (assuming I can) then I am morally accountable as my action could have prevented hundreds of deaths. If this gamble pays off then we have saved the lives of the innocent. If we're wrong, unfortunately, we've sacrificed the lives of some murders. Therefore, I believe betting against the innocent is wrong. The criminal knew the consequences of his actions so it is not unfair and the innocent are exactly that, innocent. Therefore, we should bet that CP works and implement my version. [1] http://www.medievality.com... [2] Ethics in Practice by Hugh LaFollette (eds.), Blackwell 1997, East Tennessee State University
My version of capital punishment should be legal

I believe that the best form of capital punishment is to, once a year, randomly select an individual that is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and rip them apart using a rack and broadcast this on national television. This individual has to be guilty of murder or anything worse than murder to have the possibility of being chosen. I believe this is better than conventional capital punishment for numerous reasons and should become law. Definition of capital punishment: the death penalty for crime First round is for acceptance only. I look forward to an informative debate.
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have

P1. Pro misquotes me by omission, here. He selectively reproduces the prelude to my argument, while leaving out the argument proper. It is reproduced here, in full, for posterity: "Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not-- by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations)" P2. Pro again misquoted me by omission. See P1 regarding the inherent nature of language. If one desires an example of a lingual innovation in order to express a novel concept, consider the word "McMansion", defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary as: Main Entry: Mc"Man"sion" Pronunciation: \mək-G2;man(t)-shən Function: noun Date: 1990 : a very large house built in usually a suburban neighborhood or development ; especially : one regarded critically as oversized and ostentatious Note the date: 1990. This is evidence that new words are being coined to fill novel needs. P3. Pro again misses the refutation. P4. Pro acknowledges that Dean's thesis is of no value. Occam's razor states that we should not multiply complexities unnecessarily. As Dean's thesis is of no value and does not ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding, and therefore adds an unnecessary, complex layer to it, it should therefore be sheared. P5. Pro asks for sources regarding solipsism. As it is a relatively common concept, I did not believe a source necessary, however I will comply. According to Wikipedia: "As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known ... As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner." In arguing that language in insufficiently precise to articulate ideas accurately, Pro is, in substance arguing that we cannot know what others observe, that we cannot, in essence, know the universe as we translate our visceral experience into language and incorporate it into what we know anecdotally. Indeed, his very thesis that "man cannot know the universe" is merely paraphrasing solipsism's definition. Further, by asserting that language is sufficiently flawed that we cannot know, his argument can be neither proved (which would constitute knowing), nor disproved (since that would also constitute knowing). Unfortunately for pro, as he has not argued my assignment of the burden of proof to him and has, we must assume, therefore accepted it, he logically cannot fulfill his obligations since, if he is correct, by his own postulate it cannot be proven." http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://i.word.com...
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have

you say "Colin Leslie Dean is a hack who's never been accepted as a reliable source, nor published academically. But, let's skip the ad hominem reasons for disregarding his work and instead critique his ideas, shall we? His thesis, as I interpret it, is that due to limitations in language, scientific observations cannot be elocuted with complete accuracy, thereby undermining the accuracy of the theories and principles we promulgate. Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not-- by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations), this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding. In essence, it's merely an appeal to a lingual, rather than general sensory, solipsism; an idea held in some scorn for its status as untestable and unfalsifiable nature. Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no right-minded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner regardless. In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, and as merely a reapplication of solipsism, unoriginal. point 1 con says "Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not" but has given no proof of this statement point 2 con goes onto says Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not..., this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding." just because it adds nothing to scientific or philosophical understanding this is no logical refutation of deans thesis point 3 con says "Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no right-minded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner regardless. In this way, In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, and as merely a reapplication of solipsism, unoriginal. " Being a no right-minded person is not a refutation I bet in his day Galileo was considered a no right-minded person point 4 con says "either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe or we proceed in our current manner regardless.In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value" just because Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value is no refutation I bet some said the same about Galileo thesit 5 con says "Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, and as merely a reapplication of solipsism, unoriginal." con says deans thesis is unoriginal - so who else has said deans thesis but con has given us no sources of others which agree with deans thesis so this is again no refutation of deans thesis