BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law.

The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

-Remade- Due to my opponent forfeiting. Some new Rules: You may start debating round 1. No ad hominem keep this debate civil guys. Try your hardest to debate this. No insults. If you ever insult the person you debated you forfeit all your points to the opponent. Example would be calling your opponent a moron or a idiot. Burden of proof will be shared between pro and con. The flooding of the earth killed at least 10 million people. God justified his actions saying that humans corrupted. He even stated "'The wickedness of man was great in the earth" as stated in the bible. They were corrupting the earth and therefore ruining god's plan for a "perfect world". Now how is this relevant? Over 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. That is pretty close to 10 million people. Hitler blame the Jews for the problems of Germany. His political message by banishing the Jews or killing the Jews. With this plan Germany will become large,and economically powerful country. This is dangerously close for God's plan for a perfect world and Hitlers plan for a perfect Germany. In conclusion the flooding of the Earth was dangerously close to Hitlers holocaust. Sources and cites: http://creation.com...... http://www.annefrank.org...... http://www.projetaladin.org......
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

Here I will try to respond to respond to my opponents objections then give final arguments and a closing statement. My opponent has objected that the flood can't be local because it says it went over all the mountains well my response is that it is refurring to the hills in the region since the word "world" means there "known world" and not the entire planet since during there time most humans were in one location and not spread out. Then my opponent objects that since hitler said he think the Jews were evil then his actions were not more different than the floods however the fundamental problem with this argument is that there is no evidence that the Jewish people were bad. I checked my opponents sources and none of them suggest that the Jews were evil like hitler claimed. My final argument is that hitler killed the Jews because of social Darwinism that is that he killed the Jews because he thought they were "less evolved" than the Germans and thus he killed them not because the Jews were bad people but because of there race and genetics. There is evidence that hitler used social Darwinism to achieve his agenda so then the reasons for hitler killing the Jews would not be the same as God flooding the group of people My closing statement is that the burden of proof is on the instigator to show that the Jews were just as evil as the people before the flood. My opponent in this debate has provided no evidence that the Jews were actually evil thus his entire stance on this issue doesn't work. I've shown that the Jews were not evil and many of them were good people and that hitler killed the Jews mainly because of social Darwinism and not necessarily them behaving bad. So thank you for this debate and I hope that you vote well. Sources for flood (1) https://www.google.com... (2) http://www.asa3.org... (3) https://christogenea.org... Sources for hitler and social darwanism (1) https://www.csustan.edu... (2) http://www.holocaust-trc.org... (3) http://hhsrobinson.org...
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

"The text is not implying that the flood was global there are many christians that believe noah's flood was local because of the original hebrew meaning of the word "world" i will send you the sources for the material at the end on my response." Genesis 19:20. Tells that the tops of all high mountains were at least 20 feet beneath the surface. If this was a local flood how come the tops of all the high mountains are at least 20 feet? If this happened the whole world would be flooded because these are the highest mountains under in water. The flood killed all living creatures on earth (Genesis 9:16). Why would god ask Noah to get all the pairs of Animals in the ark if it was a local flood? "Hitler hated the jew because of antisemitism and in antisemitism it means that he ONLY hated the jews so it would be more of a racial issue rather than him punishing them for being bad. Even before the holocaust the jews were facing racism and discrimination. This means that they were not "wicked" like how the pre-flood people were. it would be very illogical to say that the actions of the jews and the pre-flood people were acting the same way. There is no evidence that jews were "wicked" people in germany before the holocaust. Albert Einstein was a jew that lived in germany before the holocaust so its wrong to say that the jews and pre-flood people were the same." I agree Hitler hated the Jews of antisemitism but he blamed them for events like World War 1 and the economic crisis. "...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Hitler called the evil and corrupt just like how God called humans evil and corrupt. No I am saying that both the Jews and pre-flood people were both told that they were evil and corrupt,thus a reason to wipe them out. I await my opponents final arguments.
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

The text is not implying that the flood was global there are many christians that believe noah's flood was local because of the original hebrew meaning of the word "world" i will send you the sources for the material at the end on my response. Hitler hated the jew because of antisemitism and in antisemitism it means that he ONLY hated the jews so it would be more of a racial issue rather than him punishing them for being bad. Even before the holocaust the jews were facing racism and discrimination. This means that they were not "wicked" like how the pre-flood people were. it would be very illogical to say that the actions of the jews and the pre-flood people were acting the same way. There is no evidence that jews were "wicked" people in germany before the holocaust. Albert Einstein was a jew that lived in germany before the holocaust so its wrong to say that the jews and pre-flood people were the same. Sources for local flood (1) http://www.godandscience.org... (2)http://www.ecclesia.org... Sources for holocaust (1) http://www.bl.uk... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.thehuttonews.com...
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

I hope we can have a fun time debating. "1. Some christians interpret the flood story to be allegory or a local flood and not the entire planet" There is evidence that the flood was the entire planet. . God said, "I am surely going to destroy both them (the people) and the Earth" (Genesis 6:13b). Noah's arc was there for more than a year (Genesis 6:13b). That's a long time for a local flood. Geneis 9:1 basically confirms that Noah's family are the only survivors. On the same chapter of Genesis 9:1 confirmed that every living person is a descended of their family. If the Flood Story was a local flood how come every one is a descendant of Noah's family? "As you can see God is very patient with his creatures and would have spared everyone for the sake of ten good men. So clearly Gods actions are not the same as hitlers since God gave them plenty of chances to repent but they did not. Hitler was not patient he just killed jews for not liking them. " Hitler was very patient with the Jews. The first thing Hitler did to the Jews was blamed them for ruining his perfect plan for Germany. God killed those people because they were evil and corrupt and ruined his plan for the world. But let me digress,Nazi thugs would stop people from entering Jewish shops that is not violent. Jews were even allowed to leave Germany. In November 1938 a Nazi diplomat was shot dead by a Jew. After the event Hitler than proceeded to do a 7 day campaign of terrors on the Jews. But guess what no Jews died in the 7 day of campaign. Therefore Hitler was willing to spare the Jews. Hitler came to power in 1933. The holocaust stared in 1939 meaning that Hitler was patient with the Jews to not kill them in 6 years. Hitler was a patient man to the Jews. Source: . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... . https://www.ushmm.org... . https://www.ushmm.org...
God's action is similar to Hitler's actions

I will argue that God flooding a group of people is not the same as hitlers holocaust. These are my main reasons why 1. Some christians interpret the flood story to be allegory or a local flood and not the entire planet 2. if you look at the story of sodom and gomorrah there is a similar situation where everyone in the city is wicked and needs to be destroyed but if you read the verses this is what takes place. Genesis 18: 22-33 22 "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing"to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 The Lord said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it." 29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it." 30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." 31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it." 32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it." 33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home." As you can see God is very patient with his creatures and would have spared everyone for the sake of ten good men. So clearly Gods actions are not the same as hitlers since God gave them plenty of chances to repent but they did not. Hitler was not patient he just killed jews for not liking them.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

My opponent stated "They cannot and will not ever know if the defendant really regrets the crime, or is already being punished internally. Internal punishment is just as, in fact more effective than that of external punishment." But she also stated "they are looking to get away with their crime. This means that an internal system is just as ineffective as an external system." So if they often do not feel remorse, how can they feel internal punishment? She contradicts herself. In the case that law fails, community protection is absent, thus the society needs some enforcement mechanism in order to have a chance for survival. We achieve this through popular soverignty, also a form of democratic government. My opponent took my words out of context when she said, "My opponent also says that we should affirm to keep away from a state of anarchy, but like I stated before, the other forms of justice enforcement would be present (and my opponent agrees, since he proposes an example of this) thus keeping us out of anarchy." I clearly stated, "(Vigilantism) would not create anarchy, in which there is no law, because it is the process of implementing a new system, one that is better and does work." I did not say that we should stay away from anarchy, but rather that vigilantism is not anarchy. She also said that I agree with her that "other forms of justice enforcement would be present". The 'other' forms of justice will always be present in vigilantism, but that does not mean that I support the failing government. Our current justice system fails at times, and we have the right to protect our lives, liberty, and property (The USA Constitution). She also stated, "The best way of punishing criminals therefore would be to have them decide their punishments." Would you let your child (if you had one) decide his or her punisment? No, if you broke the law of the land and you could pardon yourself from anything you did, you would. That would be totalitarion, a form of government which vigilantism and democrocy do not uphold, so that point is flawed in that way. You also said that "This (due process) makes a single man, the judge, or in some cases a group of men (jury) the deciding factor in what is or will happen to the defendant. However, none of these people will truely know if the defendant acctually commited the crime." I don't understand that. Of course they are not going to know whether or not someone really did the crime, because they weren't there. But if you had video EVIDENCE of the person comitting the crime, you would know he/she did it. That is what it is all based on, evidence. With vigilantism, you get a first hand account of the entire situation and you can deal with it.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Contention 1: "Justice doesn't exist" As the resolution clearly states, to affirm is to "justify", justify being the root word of justice, aka, giving each his or her their due. But how do we decide what soemone's "due" is? The only means that us as a human race have done is through the process of external judgement, which includes due process, vigilantism, and any other means of judgement that is decided by a party that did NOT partake in the event being tried. The affirmative will most likely argue, in fact most people would argue, that due process (the system used by the US, or at least in theory) is the best form of judgement. This makes a single man (the judge) or in some cases a group of men (jury) the deciding factor in what is or will happen to the defendant. However, none of these people will truely know if the defendant acctually commited the crime, (when it comes to circumstancial cases where everything points in one direction, that is,) and even if they do, they cannot and will not ever know if the defendant really regrets the crime, or is already being punished internally. Internal punishment is just as, in fact more effective than that of external punishment. The best way of punishing criminals therefore would be to have them decide their punishments. Unfortunately, as we all know, most criminals aren't looking to get punished, they are looking to get away with their crime. This means that an internal system is just as ineffective as an external system. All in all, it is virtually and realistically impossible to give someone their due, which means that this theoretical "justice" does not actually exist. If it is impossible to justify something (keeping in mind that justify=bring justice to) and moreover affirm the resolution. On to the affirmative arguments: My opponent contends that citizens have a right to effect justice when the government fails to and, assuming you ignore my first argument, I would agree. BUT, we don't have to affirm to give citizens these rights. Vigilantism is only one of the many forms of enforcing justice that citizens can perform without the government. Lets look at my opponent's example: "they can hold a citizens court, with people who are trained in law that do not nessicarily have to be a part of the justice system". He is right, and you can perform all of this without affirming, so at this point in the debate, I encourage you all to vote Negative. My opponent also says that we should affirm to keep away from a state of anarchy, but like I stated before, the other forms of justice enforcement would be present (and my opponent agrees, since he proposes an example of this) thus keeping us out of anarchy. For all these reasons I hughly urge a negative ballot.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Where the justice system fails to enforce the law, the citizens have a right to uphold. It really isn't fair to say that when the justice system fails, then the people have no right to do anything about it. Vigiliantism doesn't have to be unorganized and spur of the moment, they can hold a citizens court, with people who are trained in law that do not nessicarily have to be a part of the justice system. If the government fails we have the right to replace it with a new form of government, but until we establish a new government we have to take matters into our own hands, rather than rely on the current government that is failing to enforce justice. This would not create anarchy (in which there is no law) because it is the process of implementing a new system, one that is better and does work.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

This debate does NOT have to be in LD format, in fact, I will be running a kritik on the resolution. We will follow LD rules (in the sense of AC, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR; but that alone) for speaking order. Please organize points in contention/point order. Anything not signposted will be ignored in the round. I think that's it...just be logical and use common sense when it comes to rules. Affirmative goes first...
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

My opponent states that 'If the people lose there rights to their guns then the only people who would have guns would be the government. Then there would be no way for the people to defend themselves against a government that would seek to take the rest of their rights away. Firearms are very necessary.' So not true! If the government where the only people o have guns, the percent of crimes committed with guns would drop very rapidly. At least the government can actually control themselves. My opponent seems to act like a gun is the only way of self defense. Also so not true! People who do not know how to use guns can actually accidentally fatally kill someone. With knifes, people know how to use them, for christ sakes you use knifes for eating! And with a gun, one shot your dead. With one knife stab, that is the first warning of 'back away'. Firearms are not always necessary. There is a limit to rights.
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

RebuttelsMy opponent's case hardly even refutes my case. Even though most crimes are committed with guns. This is barely the point. If the people lose there rights to their guns then the only people who would have guns would be the government. Then there would be no way for the people to defend themselves against a government that would seek to take the rest of their rights away. Firearms are very necessary. Also, even if the majority of all crimes are committed with firearms. A "One size fits all" policy just doesn't cut it. By taking firearms from everyone then your punishing the good respectable people who hold guns and don't commit such acts. Where is the justice in that? And finally my opponent forgets that there is no constitutional justification for taking away firearms. People have the right to bare arms, and the state has no right to take the rights away. I will now await my opponent's next response. Thank You.
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

It seems like this will be a very long debate. In 2008, the U.S. had 16,272 murders. 67% committed by firearms. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations oc- curred in 1993, including 4.4 million violent crimes of rape and sexual as- sault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.* In 1993, the FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were re- ported to the police by citizens. About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms. Murder was the crime that most frequently in- volved firearms; 70% of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were committed with firearms. 2006, 67% of crimes committed with guns. Most gun uses are used for crimes, not just defense. People can defend themselves with MANY other objects. Without guns, there wouldn't be no assassinations. Like with president Abraham Lincoln. Dont you see most firearm owners are taking advantage of guns? Sources: 1.http://www.nij.gov... 2.http://www.justfacts.com...
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

Contention 1: 2nd AmendmentThe U. S. Constitution states as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "[1]The founding fathers obviously supported gun rights. The 2nd Amendment says it all. They clearly new that if people were going to be able to defend themselves against tyrrany of a future government they were going to have to be armed. After all we did when our war for independance by force of arms. That we had patriots who fought in the army and fought in organized groups called militias. But to go even further what is this Bill of Rights that this Amendment is located in? Is it merley just a few rights that the governmnet is issueing the people? No! It is a "no fly zone" government. It's the basic restrictions for what the government can do. Contention 2: Guns Decrease Crime. Let's take a minute to think like a criminal. Lets we are criminals and we go out trying to find someone to rob, and we come across two different people. One is a gun owner while the other is not. Which would you prefer? The man who is able to defend himself or the man who is defenseless? I am sure the majority of the criminals would agree with me that the best choice would be the one who would put up the least resistance. The statistics prove this point right. The Daily Caller states that even though gun sells increased in 2010; the gun crimes decreased[2]. Also, the Institute for Legislative Action reported the floowing:"The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. " [3]ConclusionThe facts show that guns are good for decreasing crime, and that the government has no right to take gun rights away. I will now await my opponent's response. Sources[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://dailycaller.com...[3]http://www.nraila.org...