BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life in jail should mean Life in the U.K

I would like to thank my opponent for giving everybody something to think of in the nature that we have to pay for these people for life , there is a way around if a person sentenced to life in jail will cost a lot in taxes you could force them to "earn" money by making objects etc and the prison sells them and pays for these criminals I think you misunderstood me I said I didn't want the death penalty for many reasons , not because they would be released because I think instead of death they should stay behind bars. in regards to the comments about them not caring anymore and causing havoc because they are behind bars , we should look at Americas methods , think about it we cant say that keeping criminals behind bars for life wouldn't work because America already do it reasonably successfully so does Australia and several other countries . Also I believe rewarding criminals for good behaviour is wrong as it teaches crime does pay and they are more likely to re offend if they think they will get off lightly when caught again if they behave then re offend and it keeps going in a cycle which involves them going in and out of jail and being rewarded in the process . in conclusion I would say if we followed other countries examples of life imprisonment and improve some of the flaws in it I think we could make it work .Prisoners should not be released for taking life's and if they are imprisoned wrongly of taking life then at least they wont be killed and they can appeal and try to prove their innocence.
Life in jail should mean Life in the U.K

I would like to start of by saying that although people in our community or in our nation who are convicted of crimes do get released earlier this can be a benefit. While people see that they should have to serve there full term in jail, they also need to look at the fact that while in jail we have to pay for them with our taxes. Also on the comment about the death penalty, you say that people shouldn't be put to death because they need to serve there full time in jail, well if they don't get the death penalty then, like you also said, they will just be released early for good behaviour or something of that nature. Therefore the death penalty should be applied in these scenarios.
Life in jail should mean Life in the U.K

when somebody commits murder in the UK most of the time they are handed " life sentences " this however I think is not apropriatlay named , as when a criminal is convicted of murder and sentenced to life this is on average 10-20 years in jail which quite often is cut short for " good behaviour " or several other reasons . the justice system is to soft on murders once somebody is convicted they should remain in jail for the rest of their natural life , its only fair . That person has taken away somebody Else's life on purpose sometimes giving them the most horrible last minutes possible yet receive these jokes of a sentence . I do not believe in the death sentence for several reasons, mainly being that you could say it lets the murderer off the hook if you will because they do not suffer for their crimes as a dead man doesn't have to spend years and years in a cell.I also believe that it makes the system no better than a murderer taking somebody life and the anther reason being that there is a chance this person is innocent but is proven guilty by mistake and killed . Life sentences are the most suitable punishment for ending somebody life . it means the person sentenced will have to think about this for everyday of his life for possibly decades and if the person doesn't care that they committed murder then they can think about how bad their life will be spending the rest of it in a cell . I challenge anybody to prove me wrong that a life sentence for committing murder should mean that you are in jail for life and nothing else . p.s i would like to say sorry for my poor grammer and spelling
Donald Trump is not a good choice for President

A Trump presidency will be similar to Hitlers Facist Rule He wants all muslims to be databased He wants muslims to wear armbands showing they are muslim (Just like Hitler made jews wear semitic armbands) He wants to go into the middle east again and "Take their oil" He is very unrealistic and thinks that he can deport millions of immigrants that will cost much money and thinks he can build a wall and make mexico pay for it And finally he is flip floppity. He was a democrat and border socialist many years ago. He wanted free healthcare and supported labor unions I don't like flip flopity people. You don't know what they will do
Donald Trump is not a good choice for President

We need a Trump presidency. A Trump administration will be the first step to ending career politicians who have destroyed the US. After that, we can look at other people who have good policies such as Carly Fiorina and/or Ben Carson. Of course the Left hates Trump because they want to grant amnesty to 20,000 million potential democratice voters and the RIght wants the cheap labor (but is beginning to understand that cheap labor today means no meaningful election victories for the next generation). Both sides will scream racism and bigotry and make jokes about Trumps hair. They're wrong, of course (well, they're right about the hair.
prison not working

Were not talking about children,prison is for people of age,who should know better. Who said anything about "beating" a person, thats inhumane. No i'm talking about cause and effect.A person should KNOW if he does A then B follows, crime then punishment. Its right and fare,if you pander and stroke people they become spoiled. Its right and proper even decent to punish wrong doing. Society claims were advancing,were advancing in embracing each others evil,in the end man kind will pay a heavy price
prison not working

I think we need to be more like the usa.We are to soft even accomodating to criminals in my country (England).If a oerson commits a crime,that person should be punished.We are a people lost of discipline.Crime and punishment should fit together like the old saying "if you cant do the time,dont do the crime". Our people have lost all respect for authority,and its elder generations to blame "spare the rod,hate the child". People need drilling into line.People need to be led.
prison not working

Although I'm from Germany I will debate this topic with you. 1. For you the purpose of prisons seems to be, to be punished as much as possible, but the purpose of prisons in Europe is to resocialise people and turn them into productive members of society (opposite is seen in the US) 2. You seem to think that the newer generations are worse than the older, but this just acknowledges some of the greatest biases within the brain: -Positivity Effect -Subadditivity Effect -Rosy Retrospection
prison not working

I think our prison system (England) does not work.There is no attempt to install discipline and good morals into people. They get three decent meals a day,tv in the cell and even a kettle,this is not punishment with a goal,it is stroking and pandering an already faltering generation. We cry where are the fathers,our youths are crying out for discipline.we spare the rod at our nations destruction. Our prisons are a far cry from the correction facilities it should be may God help us.
Science and Religion Coexisting.

Thank you very much for bringing up this topic for debate. As a Christian that has a great interest in science I look forward to seeing your argument on why science and religion should not coexist. The way I see it is that religion and science are both searching for the same thing. Truth. The first thing I would like to point out is that nowhere in the definition of science does it say anything about it not being able to coexist with religion. It simply states the areas that it covers. "A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." These are definitions from dictionary.com and the next definition for it goes as far as to say: "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Science delves only into the physical, material and what can be quantified. Religion generally tries to explain the supernatural but really is just the belief in a God or Gods. Every religion is different but they generally do not restrict you from study of the physical world we live in. I see no rule between the two that says they cannot coexist. Albert Einstein, an incredible scientist was agnostic and was quoted saying "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I believe that both science and religion can coexist and they would only have the benefit of each other to gain from it. I look forward to hearing your further arguments! Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science and Religion Coexisting.

Well this ended up being a single point debate and never really got off the ground. For this I would like to apologize to all readers. I hope that we can see from our short arguments however that just because two things are different that it doesn't mean they can't coexist. As a matter of fact they coexist all around us. This was a light read for all readers and I thank anyone who decided to follow the debate. Again I apologize for not getting this debate off the ground.
Lil Barnacle is the best rapper in 100 years

My opponent did not make a argument in round one, Or a convincing one at least when stating that "Lil Barnacle" is the best rapper in 100 years worth of time. It's important for you, The reader to know that when it comes to opinions, That's just that. They're opinions, They're subjective, And for everyone it's different. So while my opponent thinks Lil Barnacle is the best rapper, There are many who will say that Eminem, 2pac, Lil Wayne, And other's are the best in the last 100 years, Or since forever. My opponent has to prove without doubt that Lil Barnacle is indeed the best, And show statistics, And all that good stuff in which I'm afraid will be a tall mountain to climb. Many other rappers like some of those I mentioned up above for example Eminem have won many awards in the rap category, And are more known, Sell more CD's, And make more. Not only that, But some of those rappers may shape and change the music industry, And also just do positive things for their community (Prince EA on Youtube). Even then, Just as Ric Flair would say "To be the man, You've got to beat the man. " and I don't think Lil Barnacle has surpassed any major rapper out there, Or accomplished as much as a good majority of them have. Rap battling? I'm sure Eminem would destroy him. So I ask my opponent to demonstrate with proof that Lil Barnacle is the best, And that deep down everyone reading knows it and is delusional to think he isn't the best. Entertain me with this subjective reasoning, And opinion from someone who isn't a professional critic, But rather an average joe and consumer that appreciates Lil Barnacle.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1A

Ah, unfortunately my opponent forfeited her round. It's a shame, since we had a good exchange going on. Since this is my last round, I'll leave with the note that the voters should still read this debate and think to themselves whether or not I or Vi won the argument vote (which is the most important one). Sure, she may lose the conduct point or whatnot -- depending on how you evaluate conduct -- but don't be automatic in your vote for the argument point. There's nothing left to say, so extend my arguments to this round.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1A

I'm going to assume that my opponent is referring to modest foundationalism in his claims, but if he wishes to also discuss Cartesian foundationalism I will gladly refute that as well. One main objection to modest foundationalism comes from the very idea that there are justified basic beliefs. The Laurence BonJour objection states that the fundamental role which the requirement of epistemic justification serves in the overall rationale of the concept of knowledge is that of a means to truth. Thus, if basic beliefs are to provide a secure foundation for empirical knowledge, then that feature, whatever it may be, by virtue of which a particular belief qualifies as basic must also constitute a good reason for thinking that the belief is true. If we let P represent the feature or characteristic, whatever it may be that distinguishes basic empirical beliefs from other empirical beliefs, then in an acceptable foundationalist account a particular empirical belief Q could qualify as basic only if the premises of the following justificatory argument were adequately justified: 1. Q has feature P 2. Beliefs having feature P are highly likely to be true. :. Therefore, B is highly likely to be true. But if all this is correct, we get the disturbing result that Q is not basic after all, since its justification depends on that of at least one other empirical belief (namely 2). Let me progress this idea a bit more.... Justification shows indication of truth for a belief. If a feature of a belief makes the belief "justified," then that feature of that belief can be called a "truth indicator feature." If the person lacks justification for this, then the belief is not justified. But if a person has that justification, then it is part of an argument for the belief, and thus the belief is not basic after all. So no belief could be basic and justified. Foundationalism is wrong. Again, let me lay this out in a proper syllogism: 1. For any proposition P that S believes, either S has a truth indicative feature argument for it or S doesn't. 2. If S has a truth indicator feature argument for it, then S's belief in P is supported by that argument and is not a justified basic belief. 3. If S does not have a truth indicator feature argument for it, then S's belief in P is not justified and thus is not a justified true belief. :. S's belief in P is not a justified basic belief. So, as we can see, the foundation of foundationalism (like that pun, don't you?) is flawed. If the root if flawed, the whole theory falls apart. I await my opponent's reply with interest.... Regards, Vi Sources: Laurence BonJour Richard Feldman, "Epistemology"
Three Philosophical Topics - 1A

Since this is more or less an "opening round", as it would normally be if this was a 3-Round debate, I will simply flesh out the position of Modern Foundationalism. I won't include any arguments in defense of it, simply because I'm not sure what arguments my opponent will use (it's much too tedious to refute every argument and position conceivable). However, I will discuss some classic problems of epistemology, which in a way is a foundational argument for foundationalism (ha). ==================== Tenets of Modern Foundationalism ==================== "Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge [in this case, justification]. The foundationalist's thesis in short is that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief. [1]" The inspiration for foundationalism, which is probably one of, if not the most, oldest epistemological theories, is the infinite regress problem. It is as follows: "if we think of justification in inferential terms, i. e. in terms of a belief being justified by being inferred from other justified beliefs, then we face a problem: on this account, for every justified belief there must be at least one other justified belief on which it is based, which must in turn be based on at least one other justified belief, and so on. If all of our beliefs are justified in this way, therefore, there must be an infinite regress of justified beliefs. [2]" Obviously, foundationalism purports to solve this problem by relying on a set of beliefs that they enjoy non-inferential warrant; they are known as "basic beliefs". As a modern foundationalist, I believe there can be two types of basic beliefs: self-evident axioms (e. g. Law of Identity) and incorrigible beliefs (e. g. Cogito Ergo Sum). It is from these basic building blocks that our other derivative beliefs can be rationally accounted for. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I've played out the reasoning and motivation behind foundationalism (modern foundationalism being one of the views possible), and I now turn the tables on my opponent. Good luck Vi. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. . http://www.theoryofknowledge.info...
Three Philosophical Topics - 1A

I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Modern foundationalism is a valid theory of justification. PRO - Equity feminism should replace gender feminism amongst the feminism movement. ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Modern foundationalism is the theory of justification (in epistemology theory of justification is about how we can justify our beliefs and propositions) that relies on self-evident "basic beliefs". *Equity feminism argues that women should have full legal and civil rights equal to men, but that attempts to abolish gender roles and such is overreaching and uncalled for. I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate.
Animal Testing.

First off, you just used the exact same argument in round 2 as your closing argument so that means you're super cocky, or you've already lost. Secondly, what is being done to animals is the same as if someone keeps a human in a too small cage, feed him/her minimal food, straps them to a bed, use straps to force your mouth open wide, to test animal medicine, that you don't know will ever be used by the public, and then kill you, or let you live injured after testing it. It's cruel, inhumane, and should be fined if not worthy of jail time.
Animal Testing.

The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test. http://www.peta.org...
Animal Testing.

The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test.
Animal Testing.

I'm arguing against animal testing because I believe it is totally unnecessary. For one, animals usually are killed after the initial test or live injured for the rest of their lives. Secondly, many tests performed on animals are for materials that never sees approval or public consumption and use. Thirdly, animal testing costs a lot of money. Considering the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with the drug or similar experimental substance, longevity of testing, and the price of animals themselves. Finally, the reaction to the drug/experimental substance in an animal's body is different from the reaction in a human's. Mainly because animals would be in an unnatural environment, they would be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to the potential reaction in a natural environment.
Animal Testing.

New medicines require testing because researchers must measure both the beneficial and the harmful effects of a compound on a whole organism. A medicine is initially tested in vitro using tissues and isolated organs, but legally and ethically it must also be tested in a suitable animal model before clinical trials in humans can take place. The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials. Testing on animals aso serves to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood. The chemicals that we use day-to-day can accumulate in the water, ground or air around us, and their potential impact on the environment must be researched thoroughly.
Justice League vs. Avengers

"Google! My old nemesis."What? What's so bad about Google? Do you prefer another search engine like Bing or Yahoo? "Ms. Marvel isn't marvelous." Her powers seem pretty marvelous. "Wolverine doesn't take the form of a wolverine."Yeah we all know that. The point is, he ACTS like a Wolverine. "Thor (well he is the norse god thor, but he's not called hammerman." That's like, the most obvious name of an Avengers character. His superhero name IS his real name. "Black Widow isn't spider person #7."But she has her bracelets, which release "widow bites". "...and his claws don't look anything like a wolverines claws."But they are claws, now aren't they? "I wouldn't classify that as an ability,"A lot of people do. "These characters can be killed, they have weaknesses."All JLA members can be killed. "They all contribute."So does the JLA. "...they would've failed." That's the problem. It took ALL of them to save one city. "Okay, that guy sounds like a badass."He is. "Yes, I know what Flashpoint is."Just telling."Not all villains are destriction villains though."Yes, all villains are destruction in at least one way. Even if they just rob banks, they are causing destruction to the city's banking industry. Lol."There aren't "helpers" in the avengers."Every team has helpers, it's like a law to being a good team."Okay, he's producing stuff."Exactly. Producing stuff."Also, what's Moffat doing?"Nothing. Just goin' off your examples. "And yes, people saw Avengers due to Johansson. I'm one of them."Goes with my case.