BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trayvon Martin equally acted in self-defense against George Zimmerman

CON: The way that pro is defining the world self-defense is kind of bollocks. If you look at it from that perspective anything can be self defense.In Runyan v. State, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."In common law, assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. In Trayvon Martin's perspective,* Prior to the altercation, he has not committed any fault* Prior to the altercation, he has a right to be where he is* Zimmerman made persistent pursuit followed by apprehending and instigating an altercation with Martin* Martin has every reason to fear for his life after being persistently pursued by a stranger who is not a law enforcer and did not attempt to provide clarity of intention. Testimony by Rachel Jeantel corraborate that offensive contact immediately followed after Martin warned Zimmerman to "Get off get off" which caused the former to drop his phone.While the con persistently argue that Martin should abide by the will of Zimmerman based simply on suspiscion, there is no legal basis why Martin should comply unless Zimmerman is a law enforcer. The con merely but wrongly insinuate that every person in America should simply oblige at the whims and demand of every stranger you meet in the street, and if not, is automatically deemed complicit even if the stranger has no real authority.A person has a right to ignore a stranger, and flea if they wanted to. This is the golden rule handed down to kids in kidergarten and Martin prior to the altercation did exactly the same. If a child, Martin or any person was apprehended by a stranger, they have every right to resist and defend themselves regardless whether men like Zimmerman are innocent and kind, or a sexual pervert.The right to resist and flea is NEVER dependent on whims and judgement demanded by men like Zimmerman.But since he insisted that Martin comply to him, he was merely asking for it. The fact that Martin incidently was better skilled at self-defense does not diminish the fact that Zimmerman acted similarly to how sex perverts and predators do....pursue persistently, then apprehend your victim. To say that Zimmerman has every right to do this since he is volunteer Watch is prejudicial. In Zimmerman's perspective* He is at fault for apprehending Martin* He has no right to invade Martin's space* While he was assaulted, this was due to his provocation in his attempt to apprehend Martin without sufficient cause and authority and having started and instigated the altercation that ensued. The PRO has reasonably given Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt by arguing the case that Martin has equally applied self-defensebut it is worth noting that Martin is rightfully more deserving of its application.
I can make the voters laugh more than you can

An old man lived alone in Texas. He wanted to dig his carrot garden, but it was very hard work. His only son, who would have helped him, was in prison for bank robbery. The old man wrote a letter to his son and mentioned his problem. Shortly, he received this reply," For HEAVEN"S SAKE Dad, don"t dig up that garden, that"s where I buried the Money!" At 4 A.M. the next morning, a dozen policemen showed up and dug up the entire garden, without finding any money. Confused, the old man wrote another note to his son telling him what happened, and asking him what to do next. His son"s reply was: "Now plant your carrots, Dad. It"s the best I could do from here."
I can make the voters laugh more than you can

I start by giving all you single men out there some advice when it comes to being rejected by women. For example, you walk up to a woman and start enguaging her when she says,"I have a boyfriend." You reply,"Does this guy treat you well?" She responds,"Yes he does." You end the conversation with,"Good, because I wouldn't." I must now give you some advice about women. I have found the best way to truely get to know a woman is to get her drunk. Then get her pissed off at you. The next advice I have for anyone out there is how and when to make a toast appropriately. While at a banquet one time I, a white man, was getting chocolate milk and an African American man was getting regular milk. I then turned to him raised my glass and said " to not being racist". I have yet another thought I must share with you reguarding sex. Sex and pizza are very similar. When it"s good, it"s very, very good. When it"s bad, you get it on your shirt. It is now my opponent's turn, and all I have to say to them is... I'm fat. Let's party.
I can make the voters laugh more than you can

I'm not going to let this battle be dictated by either factual evidence or right-wing semantics. That being said, my opponent believes that he can amuse the audience better than I can. If that was the case, than let me ask you. What newspaper do cows read? Let me ask you another question: How do you clean a toilet properly? Now you may be asking what cleaning a toilet and the newspaper cows read have to do with each other. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! That's right, if my opponent believes there is a direct correlation between cleaning toilets and the Moo York Times, then how would my opponent's argument be valid. I rest my case.
chivalry is not a good thing

"Chivalry is about being loyal to your partner or spouse."-you this is in regard to my monogamy post the point was that it does nothing to improve loyalty. ive stated many times why chivalry is sexist which ranges from entitlement and respect for nothing mannerisms like the ones in chivalry should be for people who deserve it not just women because they are women. that and just because women can be chivalrous doesn't mean its not sexist women aren't expected to be chivalrous and anytime men aren't they are seen as bad thats why its sexist.
chivalry is not a good thing

Rebuttals:Women acting chivalrous towards men is rare, indeed. Notice how my opponent includes a source that chivalry is a good thing (huffington post). Secondly, Chivalry and acts of cheating are not cohesive. Chivalry does not cause these situations. Chivalry is simply a type of mannerism that men show for women. Also, notice how my opponent uses an article about monogamy as a source. Once again, this has nothing to do with chivalry. Chivalry is etiquette. Again, it is a fact that woman can act chivalrous towards men, this is an actual fact which disproves the message of sexism. My opponent says that showing chivalry to women is unjust because they did nothing to deserve. Well, let's set a little example here, shall we. Philosophically, by respecting a woman you respect your mother (any close female family member).Not all women are strong, not all women decide to own corperations, raise children on their own; it is something that women are trying to avoid these days due to the infaltionary market. Women depend on man, or, most of them choose to. I am not saying that all women depend on a man. Personally, I was raised by a single mother.
chivalry is not a good thing

women acting chivalrous toward men is a rare thing to see and even then their is no social standard for women to act chivalrous like their is for men( which is a dying one but thats not a bad thing). also you said that chivalry is about loyalty to your spouse the main issue with this is that humans are not meant to be monogamous its not in our nature and people who have never had an affair are rare. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... http://www.statisticbrain.com... but again its sexist because it gives women a sense of entitlement plus respect and pampering they did nothing to earn.
chivalry is not a good thing

Definition:Chivalry, according to the the Merriam Webster dictionary is an "honorable, polite way of behaving especially towards women. " Just by reading the definition we could clearly interpret that chivalry is a form of etiquette. Chivalry is basically an old form of mannerism, which is clearly being abolished nowadays. [1]: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Argument:Chivalry is not exactly over; it is something that is still being practiced among many men. A study by the Psychology of Women Quarteley found that chivalry adds a lot of satisfaction between a man and a woman. A study among 10,000 around the globe found that women do not seek money or intelligence in a man, they seek kindness in the heart of a man. Chivalry is about being loyal to your partner or spouse. Also, in fact, chivalry doesn't only apply to men; it may also apply to women. According to Harvard's Harvey Mansfield, chivalry is "self-sacrifice (2). " Women are also able to practice chivalry as much as man can; this disproves the sexism. [2]: . http://www.nytimes.com... Being chivalrous does not make you sexist: Chivalry is considered something that applies to society/help society in some way. Can someone please explain to me why is it sexist to open a door for a woman. So, what you are telling me is if you open a door for your female family member, you exploit them to sexism? Normally, a prominent member of a society who respects women would at least follows some chivalrous instructions. Chivalry does seem to be a complicated instruction; it doesn't necessarily mean you are supposed to follow every code. Chivalry is something that man adapt to to feel confident near women. [3]: . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
chivalry is not a good thing

one of the primary reasons chivalry is not a good thing is because no one deserves special treatment and respect simply for being a woman if women want equal treatment they shouldn't want to be pampered. that and chivalry reinforces gender stereotypes like women are weak and aren't strong like men thats a stereotype that should go away. chivalry also gives women a false sense of entitlement the idea that all men must show them respect because they're women. respect is not something you just have you need to earn it from people and if you didn't earn it you should be treated like everyone else.
14+ year olds should be automatically tried as adults

You did not refute any of my points nor explained why 14 year olds should not be tried as adults.Brain researchers B. J. Casey and Kristina Caudle stated that when no emotional cues (when we are required to make decisions in the heat of the moment) are present, teens are better than adults at controlling themselves. [1] While lots of crimes involve emotional cues, it's no different for teens because adults are held responsible for their actions.It"s true that the prefrontal cortex is still developing in teens, but it is not defective. Just before puberty, research has found the brain experiences a burst of neuronal growth to provide for a period of pruning before adulthood. During the important adolescent stage of development, prefrontal connections are far from absent [1]. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors, and thus should be held accountable the same way adults are.An argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that a teen might not know what is legal and what is illegal. I will counter this by asking what 14 year old does not know shoplifting from a store is illegal and will land them in jail? And should we give less accountability to people new to the US or visiting the US who may not know all of our laws?Another argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that their Amygdala is overactive. This can lead to 1 emotion being twice as strong than normal, which can lead teens to relying too much on emotions and thus acting impulsive. I will refute this arguing this can happen to adults as well [2]. Should adults who experience this be treated like juveniles?There is a lot of mature matter in the 14 year old brain. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors.Do I think 14 year olds should be treated like adults in other aspects? Yes but I will not be debating those other aspects.___________________1 https://www.sacklerinstitute.org...2 http://www.psychologytoday.com...
14+ year olds should be automatically tried as adults

Brain researchers B. J. Casey and Kristina Caudle stated that when no emotional cues (when we are required to make decisions in the heat of the moment) are present, teens are better than adults at controlling themselves. [1] While lots of crimes involve emotional cues, it's no different for teens because adults are held responsible for their actions.It"s true that the prefrontal cortex is still developing in teens, but it is not defective. Just before puberty, research has found the brain experiences a burst of neuronal growth to provide for a period of pruning before adulthood. During the important adolescent stage of development, prefrontal connections are far from absent [1]. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors, and thus should be held accountable the same way adults are.An argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that a teen might not know what is legal and what is illegal. I will counter this by asking what 14 year old does not know shoplifting from a store is illegal and will land them in jail? And should we give less accountability to people new to the US or visiting the US who may not know all of our laws?Another argument against trying 14+ year olds as adults is that their Amygdala is overactive. This can lead to 1 emotion being twice as strong than normal, which can lead teens to relying too much on emotions and thus acting impulsive. I will refute this arguing this can happen to adults as well [2]. Should adults who experience this be treated like juveniles? There is a lot of mature matter in the 14 year old brain. This means that 14+ year olds can examine fully in detail the constitution or structure the consequences of their behaviors.Do I think 14 year olds should be treated like adults in other aspects? Yes but I will not be debating those other aspects.___________________1https://www.sacklerinstitute.org...2 http://www.psychologytoday.com...
The slippery slope fallacy

Note: Currently in order to combat debate-making ad spammers, Juggle has forced a space and capital letter after every period/full-stop and comma. Thus there will be grammatical issues in this debate and even the URL I post will be spaced. Here is a theme tune for my rap: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Ft3CVYh4bHoYou must be alarmed about the slipping on the slope, 'Caase if you ignore it's like tripping on a taut, Extended rope, You can ignore while it stings a little; strings itself along, But suddenly you'll find you're in the middle of murky whirlpool so strong, It's gon' pull you down through the ground 'til the sound of heart pounding is the beat of a song, That song's tone is regret that threat wasn't stopped, You sensed the ping but didn't hit back with the pong. You call it a fallacy, Say it's incorrect and deniable, But what you're really saying your lack of control's justifiable. You're whining and finding any reason to not be held liable. . . For the crimes you've committed, Your victims weak and so pliable, What you say is fallacious is quite unlike a Bible; well-researched and reliable, The cycle aint a lie, And it doesn't justify a thing you did, You don't deserve mercy, You're not cursed; you're just the worst thing for kid, I don't care if you were victimised, This aint an auction for sympathy for your bid, This is a life-imprisonment priced item and it's a slope on which you slid, There's no going back just changing rearranging broken partsBut the path you've gone down's losing light, You're consumed by the dark.
The slippery slope fallacy

The slippery slope fallacy I was told that if you start doing evil things You will become more and more evil You will start rationalizing evil And more evil deeds with follow As a little boy I discovered masturbation It felt good I felt happier than ever before But I felt that there is something more Something further Then I started watching porn And started watching it oftenly I felt better than ever before Then I sought younger and younger actresses Looking as young as children And then, Not even that was enough I started watching animated videos Where characters looked like children I felt happier than ever before But desire chased me further I found an actual child porn And I felt happier than ever before But still not happy enough I wanted an actual child So I went to the town to hunt I found a child, And I molested her I felt happier than ever before I have witnessed what a slippery slope is It was my path towards happiness As one goal is realised, The desire for other follows Some might say it's all unconnected Would happen anyway, Despite of each other But I know what I have felt I have experienced slippery slope at it's best
Legalize prostitution in the USA.

StructureRound 1: Acceptance and brief summary of position.Round 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defend against opponent's r3 rebuttal. I think we should legalize prostitution in the USA. I base this on two fronts. A. Government should not form laws against non-violent sins, AKA separation of church and state.B. Elimination/reduction of black market of prostitution. Thanks for reading and accepting in advance.
Muslims are more violent than followers of other large religions.

At the bottom of this argument are a couple of links to different articles reporting on findings by London's ICM, showing that Muslims in the U.K. reported donating more money to charity than Jews and Christians who also donated [1] [2]. This is likely due to Zakat, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, in which Muslims pay ~2.5% of their wealth every lunar year. This money is then distributed amongst people who are destitute, those who can't afford to cover their basic needs, etc.... This shows that the Islamic people are a very generous people, even willing to help out non-believers (albeit after other Muslims have had their needs fulfilled), similar to other Abrahamic religions. People often quote the passages depicting the "Merciless, cold-blooded Muslims" in the Qur'an, but forget that these are oftentimes accompanied by passages stating that peace is a better option, and to only fight against those that you must, or those that deserve it. "So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them" (4:90) "Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind." (5:32) "And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (Wrongdoers)." (5:45) In fact, Islam and the Arabic word for peace (Shalaam) both have the same root (S-L-M), which is generally used in words with some relation to peace, or safety. That's not to say, however, that there aren't extremist members of Islam that turn to violence, but almost every religion has such members. The Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Inquisitions, The Jewish Defense League, and so on and so forth. The Qur'an, to reiterate, teaches that peace is to be attempted, and is the ideal way that things should be. However, it also teaches to fight back with ferocity against those who would attack you and your brethren, again similar to the other Abrahamic religions. "And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (Chaos) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram, unless they first fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. " (2:190-191) [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... [2] http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...
Muslims are more violent than followers of other large religions.

I hereby challenge DavidMGold to this debate. It should be kept in mind that Pro's goal in this debate is not to prove that Islam is a violent religion, but that it is simply more violent than other major religions. If Pro accepts, then he will agree to adhere by these definitions: Muslim: Someone who identifies themselves as a follower of the Islamic faith, and believes in Allah as depicted in The Qur'an. For the purposes of this debate, we will adhere to the Hilali-Khan translation of The Qur'an. Violence: The intentional use of physical force or power against another person or group, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.
way to heaven

Okay here's what I think. You are using google translate because you do not speak English but you want to spread the faith of Islam. My opponent has once again not responded to a single thing I have said therefore my argument went unrefuted. Your argument is assuming that the Quran is true. You haven't proved that Islam is the only way to heaven but rather that the Quran says that it is the only way to heaven. Conclusion:1. Pro has failed to prove that G-d exists. The BOP was on him to do so because he claimed the Quran was from G-d.2. On the same note, Pro has failed to prod that the Quran is from G-d.3. Pro has failed to prove that heaven exists and that a way to get there is possible.4. Pro has failed to prove that Islam is a way to get to heaven.5. Pro has failed to prove that Islam is the ONLY way to heaven.6. Pro has failed to provide a single argument.7. Pro has failed to respond to a single argument of mine.
way to heaven

Okay my opponent does not not want to respond to my arguments or come up with his own arguments. My opponent is just throwing videos and sources. Before my opponent should even talk about the Quran, he needs to explain that G-d exists. He has not done so. In order to prove that the Quran is from G-d, he needs to prove that G-d exists. I think you are also trying to prove that Islam is the only way to heaven. I can tell because you are directly copying and pasting your previous debates you had with this topic. "iron came from stars God said in Quran:"we sent it down" Exactly what is your point? It sounds like you are just teaching me the Quran. Anyway who is "we" and how can you prove that they sent it down? I can guess how you are going to try to prove it. With a completely irrelevant video that is not fact based and contains loads of circular logic. I think this responds to everything because my opponent needs to prove that G-d exists and there is a heaven until then I await for my opponent's videos.