BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the United States, Plea Bargaining Unermines the criminal justice system

Webster defines Plea Bargaining as the negotionation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plea guilty to a reduced charge. Justice from webster: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair My two contentons are... 1. PB decreases some of the checks in our legal system 2.PB is inconsistant Contention 1: PB DECREASES SOME OF THE CHECKS IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM A major concern within a Plea agreement is the withdraw of a jury. No jury equals to much power given to the prosecutor. No jury means that a prosecutor has open reign on evidence, charges, etc. Contention 2: PB IS INCONSISTANT Another problem within Plea Bargaining is the absence of consistancy. DEpending on where the defendant was found, they can receive vastly different sentences due to plea bargaining.
In the United States, Plea Bargaining Unermines the criminal justice system

Pro's contention that Plea Bargaining denies the defendant the opportunity to prove him/herself innocent is invalid because if the defendant were really innocent there is almost no reason for them to agree to a plea bargain. The prosecutor cannot force them to take "the deal". If said defendant is guilty, then no good comes from them testifying in court. Justice, the Court, and the Taxpayer that pays for it all is best served, generally speaking, by a plea bargain from a guilty defendant. Pro's 2nd contention that Plea Bargaining increases the inconsistency of our justice system because it pushes prosecutors to resolve cases quickly is also almost always wrong. Prosecutors already have an enormous workload, so does the court. If PB were eliminated, that workload would increase drastically, thereby over-stressing an already over-worked system, that would lead to less vigorous prosecution of the guilty less protection of the rights of the innocent. My counter contention is that Plea Bargaining actually increases justice in our justice system. What Plea Bargaining does is separate the wheat from the chaff. There are countless crimes of varying degree committed every single day in every single jurisdiction. It would take an army of litigators and court personnel to give a full blown jury trial in every case. Since we are not a society of unlimited resources, choices have to be made, priorities set. Every defendant that admits guilt in a plea bargain deal is one less case that has to go to trial, one less trial to pay for, that leaves more time, energy and resources to fully adjudicate the tougher cases, and the more important cases. Great harm is done to every innocent defendant awaiting trial when their case is delayed because some guilty person refused to admit their guilt and insisted on a full trial. Longer delays not only lead to increased suffering and loss to the guilty awaiting trial, but they reduce the quality of the trial and the verdict because evidence, especially eye-witness testimony degrades over time. Justice is never harmed by the guilty admitting their crime and accepting punishment.
In the United States, Plea Bargaining Unermines the criminal justice system

I will now continue to build up my own case: Contention 1: It is common sense that in a trial, the defendant has the opportunity to prove him/herself innocent. Regardless of whether they are guilty or not, the opportunity for a defendant to testify is never a bad thing. Contention 2: As my opponent has stated, Plea bargaining allows the prosecutors to treat each case individually. Sure, but doesn't the Criminal justice system as a whole already? the problem that is unique to plea bargaining is WHEN the prosecutors treat the case individually. Prosecutors, gauged by the amount of cases concluded, have intent to resolve cases quickly PB offer incentive for the prosecutor to resolve PB inconsistently.
Abortion should be illegal.

Life begins at conception. When a child is conceived, it is alive. [1] A fetus can feel pain Bernard N. Nathanson stated that, while looking at an ultrasound image of a 12-week-old fetus being aborted,"We see [in an ultrasound image] the child’s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction." [2] Abortions cause psychological damage to the mother and the father Women who have had an abortion are 154% more likely to commit suicide. [3] A study conducted by the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology showed that out of men whose partners have had an abortion 51.6% reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression. [4] [1] https://reason.com... [2] https://embryo.asu.edu... [3] http://afterabortion.org... [4] https://www.plannedparenthood.org.../
Abortion should be illegal.

So, the first thing to do is view the topic of abortion from the point of view of a woman. Men should have no say in topic since it doesn't affect them in anyway. Also women don't abort their kids just to abort them, they abort because they have no choice and it will haunt them the rest of their life. But we need abortion, if we make it illegal then there might be illegal abortions where the mother could get extremely sick.
Abortion should be illegal.

This is about whether a law should be passed banning abortion, not whether such a law could be enforced. Con will be arguing that abortion is a woman's right, not that a law banning abortion could be enforced. I had a problem with my opponent doing so the last time I debated this topic, and I want to ensure that it does not happen again. The resolution will essentially be, "Abortion is never justified except possibly when the mother's life is in danger. " The round structure will go as follows: 1. Accept the debate. 2. Give opening arguments. 3. Give rebuttals to opening arguments. 4. Give more rebuttals and defend opening arguments. 5.
should all pit bulls be killed on the spot any where any time

I think that pit bulls should all not be uthanizede simelt because of what kind of dog they are. No one ever gives these dogs a chance. But there are some people like myself who owns a pit bull have seen the true loving passionate loyal side of these dogs. If people would stop trying to kill these dogs and give them a chance they to would experience the loving passionate side of these dogs. Pit bulls have a undying will to please their owner that what their used in fight not because they are born ready to fight. The people who belive that these dogs are blood thirsty killers only belive the lies told and they need to wake up and do some research about their personality. Not all pit bulls are raised to be blood thirsty killers. Some are raised to be loving passionate loyal guard and family dogs. And the people who think that all pit bulls should be killed on the spot any where any where any time should be raised in a fighting pit bulls situation
should all pit bulls be killed on the spot any where any time

First off i would like to explain how to deviate a pit bull from its nature of killing all you have to do is raise it right its a simple task if your experienced. And if not all you need to do is find someone who can help you out. And i have never seen anyone give these dogs a chance. Except for one person other than the people in my family and that person is Mr. Shorty Rossi you can see the wonders of his work on his t.v. episode pit boss. That what i mean by helping the breed by taking them in fostering them and trying to find them a home. And i have been bitten by and attacked by many different breeds of dogs. NONE of them BEING a PIT BULL. So i have my reasons of knowing that these dogs are not harmful. These dogs are the best breed in the world. And you can belive the statistics all you want to but these dogs are harmless. A perfect example. A woman was killed by 2 presa canarios just an innocent woman killed.
should all pit bulls be killed on the spot any where any time

"That only 32 percent what were the other breeds reported killing people." 32 percent or 76 people is a lot of people, especially for just a dog. Following the pit bull was the rottweiler in kills, with half of the damage the pit bull had done. "And also from your personal experienced having a pit bull attack you and if not have you ever been attacked or bitten and if so what kind of dog was it." I don't recall mentioning any personal experience. "Your just refrencing what you read on the internet any one in the world could hane typed that there is no wat to tell if that information is 100% accurate am i rite." No, my information is 100% fine. I don't see how it's wrong. I showed statistics and instances of attacks. I showed no opinions, unlike your argument. "Ive witnessed my friend get his leg almost mangled off by a german shepard and he wasnt doing anything to the dog just looked at it and it went buserk. Notice it wasnt a pit bull it was a german shepard. And also i know for a fact that not every pit bull is vicious becuase i personally own about 10-14 myself not one has ever attackted,bit, mangled, mauld, or killed anyone or anything." This source is not credible. No one cares if you were the one who witnessed it because you could also be the one who made this up. All dogs can attack, it's just that it's the pit bull that deals the most damage and causes the most deaths. YOU personally owned 10-14 pit bulls? Why is it 10-14? You can't keep track of your own dogs? You could very well be lying. "So i know that its not the nature of the dog its how its raised. I know that you can not take it away from its nature or what it was breed for but i know that you can teach it tio deviate awat from that nature of killing." If you can't take it away from its nature, then how can you teach it to deviate from killing? If its nature is killing, then as you yourself stated, how can you change it? Pit bulls are inherently dangerous and they will stay that way and there will still be deaths. Arguments 1. Too many deaths (never refuted) 2. Inherently dangerous (never refuted) 3. Hurt economy (never refuted) 4. Help ccrime (never refuted) 5. Pit bulls have been around for centuries! They've always been mean, vicious dogs that kill, maim, murder, and injure. Over the years, injuries have actually gone higher. You'd think someone would try to help the dog, and people have, but its in their nature to kill. I await the response.
should all pit bulls be killed on the spot any where any time

And also from your personal experienced having a pit bull attack you and if not have you ever been attacked or bitten and if so what kind of dog was it. Your just refrencing what you read on the internet any one in the world could hane typed that there is no wat to tell if that information is 100% accurate am i rite. Ive witnessed my friend get his leg almost mangled off by a german shepard and he wasnt doing anything to the dog just looked at it and it went buserk. Notice it wasnt a pit bull it was a german shepard. And also i know for a fact that not every pit bull is vicious becuase i personally own about 10-14 myself not one has ever attackted,bit, mangled, mauld, or killed anyone or anything. So i know that its not the nature of the dog its how its raised. I know that you can not take it away from its nature or what it was breed for but i know that you can teach it tio deviate awat from that nature of killing.
We Should Reduce the Human Population Down to 144,000

Well if we reduce the human population down to 144,000, you know what? That's right, overpopulation will be solved. That is right: Overpopulation will be solved if we have a mass genocide, killing off everyone that I believe to be inferior. Before we go, let me ask you one question: Who do I hate the most out of these four? A. Blacks B. Irish C. Indians D. Jews If you answer correctly, I will let you choose our next debate topic. This is debate #15 this year. Next debate is #16 this year.
We Should Reduce the Human Population Down to 144,000

I'm surprised you're tolerant of Islam. I might not be able to find a verse where God says that big families are good, but you can't find one where God says big families are bad. I don't think God would ever kill anybody based on their personality, and I don't think he cares about what the world population is. You've still failed to provide a verse from the Bible where Jesus or God says to purge all the people on the world until they reach 144,000. That list of people you just mentioned is probably everyone. You're suggesting a mass genocide, you sicko.
We Should Reduce the Human Population Down to 144,000

God never wanted us to have big families or overpopulate the world. Find me one verse where it says that big families are good; God never said that big families are good. Instead, they are sinful (or haram in Islam), beecause they pollute the environment and kill polar bears. So how do we achieve God's Great Commission? Kill off everyone who is inferior by my standards: South Asians/Indians, drug addicts, prostitutes, ugly people, obese people, poor people, excessively rich people, homeless people, single parents, orphans, babies, bullies, Muslims, criminals, terrorists, the physically and mentally disabled, the depressed, diabetic people, Gypsies, polygamists, homosexual people, transgender people, people with eating disorders, as well as people with IQ's of below 85. (My IQ is 172). There, what do you think? And please see this debate and tell me what you think of my debate: http://www.debate.org...
We Should Reduce the Human Population Down to 144,000

The max carrying capacity of the world might have been 144,000 in the bible, but their science, as we all know, was off and we're doing OK with seven billion people- we should start worrying once we get to about, say, ten billion. Also, the Bible was written when there were only about 144,000 people and they couldn't imagine the population being any bigger. You shouldn't live your life according entirely to the bible, sir. It's pretty restrictive. You say you're a Christian- where in the Bible does Jesus say to kill everyone past 144,000 people? I don't think he does.
We Should Reduce the Human Population Down to 144,000

God never intended for the world to be overpopulated. Also, the world is overpopulated right now, and did you know that the max carrying capacity of planet Earth is 144,000, according to the Bible? I'm assuming you're a Catholic, which is a denomination of Christianity. Read Revelations 7, and you'll see what I mean. God intended for 144K people to live on the Earth. Let's hear what you have to say.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

Please quote in the law 1) where it says that gay people can't enter Russia and 2) where it prohibits knowledge of homosexuality, as opposed to promoting it. Since the 2014 Olympics are being held in Russia several homosexual athletes from countries such as Canada, U.S and European nations are considering boycotting the Olympics because their not allowed to "kiss" or "hold hands" with there partners or just to "act straight". http://www.spiegel.de...
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

I'm sorry, I can't pinpoint anywhere in that article that bans children having knowledge of homosexuality. Can you quote which sentence you interpret as saying this? What you have quoted doesn't state that at all. I feel that this debate is just going to go round in circles. Propaganda means exactly what your definition says. That its used to promote something. Its not just the mere knowledge of homosexuality or else the law itself would be ilegal as a law that mentions homosexuality. It would cr"ate somewhat of a legal paradox! "So if Russia created the African Propaganda law, stating that Africans wouldn't be able to enter the country of Russia and that minors would be prohibited to have knowledge of "Blacks", and based on your arguments that it wouldn't violate the rights of Africans" Please quote in the law 1) where it says that gay people can't enter Russia and 2) where it prohibits knowledge of homosexuality, as opposed to promoting it. You clearly see all information as propaganda. Here's a website about rape: http://en.wikipedia.org... Is this rape propaganda to you?
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

This website will show that the law prohibits the knowledge of homosexuals to minors. http://www.policymic.com... On June 30 this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to MINORS," thus opening a new, dark chapter in the history of gay rights in Russia. The law caps a period of ferocious activities by the Russian government aimed at limiting the rights of the country"s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people. The definition of PROPAGANDA 1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. 2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy. So if Russia created the African Propaganda law, stating that Africans wouldn't be able to enter the country of Russia and that minors would be prohibited to have knowledge of "Blacks", and based on your arguments that it wouldn't violate the rights of Africans.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

"On this website it shows a RUSSIAN MAN BEING ARRESTED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED WITH PROTEST PRO-GAY." Consistent with what I said in my previous argument, he was not criminal charged. He was charged with an administrative offence. It is very common in many countries that if you commit an offence then you have your visa removed and you are deported. That is exactly what happened in this case and is not a significant violation of his rights. It only had a right to be in the country to the extent that he obeyed by its law. My opponent yet again questions my ability to use a dictionary. I hate posting definitions here but he has forced my hand: prop"a"gan"da(1) noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. I would welcome my opponent's explanation on how this equates to gay propaganda meaning telling 'minors under the age of 18 what gay is'. My opponent states that I cannot assume that homosexuals aren't being violated. This is true. However, the purpose of this debate is for him to argue that the law 'significantly violates' the rights of gay individuals in Russia. It is not enough for him to merely state that I can't prove they are not being violated. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... On this website it shows a RUSSIAN MAN BEING ARRESTED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED WITH PROTEST PRO-GAY. And it is the law in Russia that you cannot tell minors under the age of 18 what gay is, that is what propaganda means, I guess you don't know what the word means. But still denying the right to be homosexual or marry someone of the same sex (which is the reason athletes are protesting to boycott the 2014 Olympics in Sochi Russia), but the one thing your not understanding is your not gay nor am I but you cant assume they are not being violated because you DONT KNOW what it means to be homosexual.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

Con has misinterpreted the legislation. It no point does it encourage citizens to say anything to minors. Therefore, stating that the legislation 'tells minors that being gay is a lie' is incorrect. If Con does not understand the legislation then I encourage him to send me a message to help with his interpretation or else merely spend time over deciphering it before commenting. I advance the following arguments: 1) This is not a criminal law but a administrative one. It is similar to laws that prevent showing children sexually erotic or violent images and the only punishment is a fine or suspension of activities. 2) Any detriment to a homosexual's rights is not significant. Homosexuals in Russia can no longer talk to minors about homosexuality in a way that promotes it. This is not a significant detriment to the homosexual.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

So what you saying Putins propaganda law does not significantly violate the right of homosexuals. That is ridicules, so forcing citizens to tell minors that being gay is a lie and that it does not exist is probably one of the worst things you could do to violate the rights of homosexuals, Your claim is outrageous and you must not know what violate means. For those reasons that is why I believe that it does violate the rights of homosexuals.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

This debate concerns paragraph 6.21 to the Russian code of Administrative Violations. Here is a full translation of the paragraph: "6.21. Propaganda of non - traditional sexual relationships among minors. 1. Propaganda of non - traditional sexual relationships among minors, expressed in the dissimation of information aimed at forming non - traditional sexual attitudes among minors, attractiveness of non - traditional sexual relationships, distorted image of social equality of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or the imposition of information about non - traditional sexual relations, which can attract interest to such relations, if these actions do not make up a criminal offence, - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 4000 to 5000 rubles for citizens; in the amount of 40 000 to 50 000 rubles for oficials; and in the amount of 800 000 to 1000 000 rubles for organizations, which can in the latter case be replaced by suspension of activity for up to 90 days. 2. Actions provided for by paragraph 1 of this Article, committed with the use of the media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including network "Internet"),if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 50 000 to one 100 000 rubles; for officials - from 1000000 to 200000 rubles; for legal entities - 1000 000 rubles or administrative suspension of activity for up to 90 days. 3. Actions provided for by paragraph 1 of this Article, committed by a foreign national or a stateless person, if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall be punishable by a fine of 4000 to 5000 rubles followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation or administrative arrest for up to 15 days followed by expulsion from the Russian Federation. 4. Actions provided for by paragraph 1 of this Article, committed by a foreign national or a stateless person with the use of the media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including network "Internet") if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall be punishable by a fine of 50 000 to one 100 000 rubles followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation or administrative arrest for up to 15 days followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation."
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

I maintain that although this may be an infingement of rights it does not constitute a significant violation. There is no way that not allowing a couple to show there love and affection towards each other is not a violation, that is outrageous not being able to show affection for the one you love is unacceptable and most would agree with me that that is a violation of not only our rights but our freedoms.