BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Crime and Mental Illness are linked

The main cause for violence to occur due to a patient's mental illness is when the proper medication, or even no medication at all, is being provided to them. This can cause them to become angry, frustrated and even in some cases violent. Not receiving proper medication can mean that the symptoms of a person's mental illness can begin to massively increase, causing them to act out. Mental illnesses can cause one to hallucinate, become paranoid, hear voices, become delusional and even think something is wrong, when there isn't. Even on medication these symptoms are still bad, now can you imagine how much worse it would be without any medication.These symptoms mess the mind and persuade them to do things any other healthy person would not usually do. This can cause them to act violently as they think they are doing the right thing. Having a mental illness can make a person more likely to abuse drugs, to make their symptoms feel better in the short-term. The abuse of drugs and alcohol can be a result of not receiving the accurate medication. Take for example, healthy people, they take medication when they are sick or in pain, in order to make them feel better. This is exactly what people with a mental illness do.They may not take proper medication as the side effects are too strong for them to deal with, so they do something completely normal and human. They numb the pain with drugs and alcohol. Fifty-three per cent of patients who doctors predicted would commit a violent act actually did. Thirty-six per cent of the patients thought not to be violent in fact went on to commit a violent act. This just proves that even with medication, they are still susceptible to falling perpetrator or even victim of criminal activity
Crime and Mental Illness are linked

Most people assume that violent crimes that have been committed by people have mental illnesses, they don"t think any broader than it just being "obvious" although we have to remember that it is just our assumptions and not ALWAYS true. "When we hear about crimes committed by people with mental illness, they tend to be big headline-making crimes so they get stuck in people"s heads," said lead researcher Jillian Peterson. "The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, not criminal and not dangerous."
Crime and Mental Illness are linked

People with mental illnesses generally have very unpredictable behavioural patterns and are associated with an excessive risk of potentially snapping at any time, for no particular reason. Being a mentally ill patient means that you have the ability to become triggered by a range of numerous factors, such as stress, anxiety, loud noises, feeling vulnerable, or even feeling threatened by other people. These factors can cause a patient to react aggressively and in the form of violence. Although, usually this is not their intention. Most people with mental illnesses also have trouble showing emotion and communicating with others, and the only way that they can do this is through unintentional aggression. This may cause another person to feel uncomfortable and threatened by them, possibly leaving society in danger. Most patients can become triggered in situations that they, themselves, have had previous experience in, and react in the only way they know how. They react in ways that they are familiar with, usually violence, as this is what they are being exposed to. The mentally ill are more likely to attack someone compared to a healthy person, as their mood swings are completely arbitrary. The majority of people in jail are currently suffering for a mental illness of some sort. Special wards and rooms are allocated to these people to ensure that the other prisoners are not at risk. Police officers detain 1 mentally ill person every 2 hours. Being in jail may cause one person to develop a mental illness, and combined with the exposure of violence they are more likely to commit a crime when they are later released into the public
All shoes should be velcro, rather than tie-up.

I'm very new to debating, so understand that please :) Anywho, I disagree. Laces are a classic way of tying shoes. It's something good to know how to do, since tying knots is very useful in many other situations. Also, laces are tighter. Velcro can only get so tight, and once that little strip overshoots the end of the strip on the shoe, now what? OH NO!!! My shoes aren't tight enough. So now, you have to put it as tight as it possibly goes (which looks kind of crazy, in most cases, since the velcro connector ends up hanging off the side of the shoe). With laces, on the other hand, the you can tighten those laces through different loops to make them tighter in different places, and, most importantly, you can tie them as tight as you want / can. VOTE LACES.
All shoes should be velcro, rather than tie-up.

Velcro is superior to laces. Laces need to be replaced when the aglet (plastic tip) becomes frayed and broken, and the lace cannot fit through the eye anymore. Laces take much longer to tie initially, and can become undone throughout the day, causing a safety hazard, a nuisance, and further wasting time. Replacing laces is costly, and detriment to the environment, since plastic production requires crude oil. People would never have their shoelaces tied together as a prank, because velcro makes a characteristic sound when disengaged. I conclude that velcro is a superior technology to laces in regards to shoe tightening ability, and should completely replace them in the consumer marketplace.
Morals are objective

I'm not a formal debator, but I will do my best to present my case. Thanks for the forum to get both of our thoughts on this matter out there. I will also do my best to respond to each round in a timely manner. I've been quite busy lately, but I think I can manage.You didn't post any definitions so allow me to post them and you can feel free to agree or disagree with these definitions.Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.There is more than one branch of moral objectivism. Moral realism is the definition that I'll be arguing for.Moral Realism: The meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.My opponent will be arguing for Moral Relativism.There are also different branches of Moral Relativism. I will define each and my opponent will let us know which he is arguing for.Descriptive: holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral.Meta-Ethical: holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.Normative: holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.If my opponent is merely arguing for moral relativism in a descriptive sense, then I'm not sure we have an argument. Obviously people can disagree on things. But from our past discussions I think he will at least be arguing from a meta-ethical standpoint. But I'll leave that to my opponent to say.People have been arguing about this topic for thousands of years, and I'm not expert so let's see what comes of this :phttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Morals are objective

Are morals objective? I do not believe that is true. Can Pro make a case for objective morality? Will I be able to make a case that they are not? We shall find out. Rules: 1. No insults 2. Stay on topic 3. Burden of proof is on both 4. Follow the following format for the debate Format: Round 1- Acceptance. Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals. Rounds 4 & 5- No new points/arguments. Round 4- Rebuttal of previous points/arguments. Round 5- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case. Let the debate begin!
Importance of value education in our life

My opponent has forfeited Round 4. I will keep this short since it looks like my opponent is going to fully forfeit the entire debate. Normally, this type of situation would be an automatic 'Conduct Win' for me and I wouldn't even need to provide arguments, but for the sake of debating and affirming the resolution, I will provide some anyways. I. Education leads to a life of understanding. I believe this point is a truism and won't spend much time on it. Basically, if I had never learnt that 2 + 2 = 4, I would never have the means to understand why 2 + 2 = 4. Without such an understanding, there is no way to utilize mathematics throughout life. Now though, because I did learn basic mathematics, it's easy for me to take my monthly utility bill, and split it evenly three-ways using division to provide my roommates with their share of the monthly bill. It's evident that without such an education, I would lack the necessary skills to do such things as division and would therefore have a harder time managing my costs of living and household. Clearly, education played a valuable role in my ability to do so. Without an understanding of mathematics, it'd be impossible to do so. II. Greater opportunities in the work-force. I believe this is also somewhat true. Depending on what degree of education you have, you will either have a vast array of job opportunities, or have none at all short of minimum wage jobs. For instance, someone I know from highschool (who decided to drop out his junior year) is now working at a McDonald's as a cashier. He is 25 years old and making minimum wage in a fast-food restaurant. On the flip-side, because I have a University degree in Communications, I am able to work as a Communications Director for a non-profit organization making $23.00 an hour. On top of that, this isn't even as far as I plan to go. Upon completion of law-school, I will be able to attain even greater amounts of money. Such is the case with my father, who is the managing partner of his law firm and charges $400.00 an hour for consultation. He also makes, on average, a 33% commission of any personal injury case he is involved in. Considering that he once settled a million-dollar lawsuit, he walked away with at-least $300,000.00I would argue that $300,000 from one case is much more desirable than $7 bucks an hour. How was such a leap in hourly and commission fees made? From education. Thus there is even empirical incentives and proof for the benefits and value of education. In Conclusion, There are several more arguments I could present, but don't necessarily feel the need to do so at this point since my opponent has fully forfeited the debate thus far. As it stands, the resolution is affirmed. I now return the floor to Con. Thank you.
Importance of value education in our life

I believe what my opponent is arguing is that we shouldn't place importance on the value of education in our life. Or, perhaps it's that the value of education is not important. Either way, the position of my opponent is one I do not agree with. My position is that the value of education is indeed important. I will use this round as acceptance, and will allow my opponent to make any clarifications. I now return the floor to Con for their opening arguments.
SHOULD THE LOSS OF THE TEST IN AHMEDABAD BE BLAMED ON THE PITCH

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhahhahahhahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahhahahahaahahahahhahahaahhahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahhahahahahahhahahheheheheheehehehehehehehe
SHOULD THE LOSS OF THE TEST IN AHMEDABAD BE BLAMED ON THE PITCH

NO the loss of the test in ahmedabad shoud'nt be blamed on the pitch as india were completely out done and outplayed in the test which lasted only three days becuase of the poor batting performance by our first-class international team.And india being ranked 2nd in the ICC test rankings such a performance should'nt have been displayed .Its a shame on India,especially the indian top order batsmen being ruttled out for a cheap 76 runs and then never using the conditionsand the new ball and let the 4th ranked south africans take the advantage and let them amass a huge total of 494 runs and sure enough that amount was to make the them sure that it was enough for the fellow visitors to smell victory as the south african bowlers utilized the conditions and the pitch to the right limit and won the game by an innings and 90 runs. Now comes the question that why couldnt the indian team bat so well compared to the south african team and why could'nt our high class bowlers restrict the proteas to a low target!!!!!!
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

I continue to ask that all voters provide an RFD. The sword symblifies arms. > Ok, I'll buy that. May I also add that the sword also symbolizes power, or might. I'll take my opponent's argument word by word. Ok, but all that means is that the sword is a creation, helped along by the pen. For an example, its like a mother giving birth to a child(the sword) with the midwife(the pen). Doesn't prove much. Is this an opinion? Opinions carry no weight in a debate round. You know what the greatest invention of all time is? Hmm? Let me tell you: Its writing. I can go on and on, but I can't prove it. So this is a moot point. Yet, you link this straight to weaponry. Also, not all knowledge comes from writing. In fact, no knowledge comes from the pen. The pen does not bestow upon you great knowledge. It is merely a medium. Also, this has nothing to do with the debate. We are arguing about the pen being mightier than the sword. Not giving more knowledge. Mightier. Thats what the resolution, set up by YOU, is asking! The pen is a pen. Pens don't evolve. This argument gets you nowhere. The pen is not going to rule the sword. Writing words does not directly control the sword. It may influence the user of the sword, but the true power remains in the use of the sword. So this point is still moot. Ok, at this point, I'm getting the impression that my opponent is misunderstanding the topic that he set up. He keeps talking about idealizations of the pen and the sword, while the resolution we are debating is a much simpler one: Which one is mightier, the pen or the sword? The definitions of might have not been contested, so we can accept them. From that, you can clearly see that talking about a melding of minds has nothing to do with authority and power! I've shown how power does not stem from writing. You do not gain control of people by drawing. By just proving this, I can win this debate. By proving that the pen is not mightier, I can win this debate. I have done so. But to move on to my points: 1. We're not talking about what may happen. We are talking about 2 things. A pen. A sword. And which one brings more might to the table. You haven't shown how a pen brings more might than a sword. I have. This point stands. 2. I am saying that if you look to the definitions, and I quote from the definition, " (1): bodily strength ". The pen does not fulfill this criteria. So far, my opponent has failed to prove anything, and my points still stand. Thank you.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

"My job is to negate the topic. According to Merriam Webster; to negate is to: 1 : to deny the existence or truth of 2 : to cause to be ineffective or invalid" I accept the second one like you say. Now to make things clear: The pen symblifies writing, reading, and literature The sword symblifies arms. Now for my speech The pen is what makes the sword. Swords are forged from the wisdom of the pen. You know what the greatest invention of all time is? Hmm? Let me tell you: it's writing. You see, with the ability to read and write, one can record their thoughts and experiences and allow the masses to ponder over them and eventually learn from them. Knowledge is power. More powerful than anything else in the universe. Reading and writing allows us to combine our minds into one. You see, power is best achieved through exercise. It is built. Exercising our knowledge base is what allowed mankind to eventually build complex things, helped us use math to make calculations, gave us the ability to descend into the sea, into the sky, and into space. It's what can turn a sword into a cannon. Or a cannon into a gun. Or a gun into a nuclear bomb. It is why mankind is becoming more complex and powerful at such a fast rate. Asking if the pen is mightier than the sword is just like asking: Which is stronger, life or fire. Well, at first, fire would be the obvious answer, because life starts basic and weak. Single celled, you know. The fire is still in progress. Overtime, fires may devour and become bigger, but they don't evolve. They don't eventually develop the ability to survive contact with water. Yet, life builds in strength. Life evolves. And overtime, life eventually uses water to defeat fire. And life will come to harness fire, and use it as a slave to carry out it's interests. This principal is no different when it comes to the pen. The pen eventually harnesses the sword to it's own will. The pen is mightier than the sword. Now to refute your arguments "1. Action vs. Words. When you look to the definition of might, you see that it references power, and authority. Where does power come from? You do not attain power through writing letters, and writing to people. Throughout history, people gain power through might. Again and again in history, we see the sword being pulled out to fight, either for glory or for power, or for both. So, in terms of actions vs. words, actions are more powerful and garner more might. " Yes, but the pen is what eventually makes the sword more powerful. "2. Mightier implies a direct comparison. When you use the suffix -er, you are comparing two things. Therefore, you are comparing the pen to the sword, and which one is mightier. Since mightier means to possess more strength or power, the sword is superior. A sword is stronger than a pen. " That's like saying brute force is more powerful than intellect. Is the race of Gorrillas more powerful than that of humans? They are 'stronger' than us. However, we are wiser, and therefore much more powerful.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

I stand in negation of the resolution that says: The Pen is Mightier than the Sword. I want to first thank my opponent for the debate, and I sincerely hope that everyone posts an RFD, since I only consider votes with an RFD a valid vote (in my book. Due to vote bombing issues and the like, I have lost faith in the current system. So I ask that if you want your vote to count, post an RFD.) My job is to negate the topic. According to Merriam Webster; to negate is to: 1 : to deny the existence or truth of 2 : to cause to be ineffective or invalid Since there are 2 definitions, it is necessary to choose one for the round, in order to reduce any confusion. I submit that the second definition of negate should be used, since I can't very well deny that the proverb, "the pen is mightier than the sword" exists. Therefore, my job is to show that the proverb, "The pen is mightier than the sword is ineffective or invalid. There is no viable way to show how a proverb is ineffective, so I must show that it is instead invalid. My opponent, therefore, must show that the proverb is valid. So in short, I have to prove that The Pen is Not Mightier than the Sword. Some definitions to start the round: mightier: possessing might might: the power, authority, or resources wielded (as by an individual or group) b (1): bodily strength (2): the power, energy, or intensity of which one is capable 2dialect : a great deal To the arguments: My opponent has allowed me to have the floor first, and I thank my gracious opponent for doing so. 1. Action vs. Words. When you look to the definition of might, you see that it references power, and authority. Where does power come from? You do not attain power through writing letters, and writing to people. Throughout history, people gain power through might. Again and again in history, we see the sword being pulled out to fight, either for glory or for power, or for both. So, in terms of actions vs. words, actions are more powerful and garner more might. 2. Mightier implies a direct comparison. When you use the suffix -er, you are comparing two things. Therefore, you are comparing the pen to the sword, and which one is mightier. Since mightier means to possess more strength or power, the sword is superior. A sword is stronger than a pen. I'll use those arguments for now.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

This is a classic argument. I am unsure weather I'm for or against this old proverb "the pen is mightier than the sword" In this debate, I will argue for it, claiming that it is true, and doing everything in my power to advance it. I ask for a well educated, worthy opponent, for I will do everything in my power to win this debate. I withhold my arguments to next round.
Keeping God Out of Elections

I mean any religion. I think that a religious rights debate would be unnecessary in any legitimate political debate because religion can't actually fix true problems in society. When a politician plays the religion card all it is is his or her attempt to gain voters and money throughout their campaign. Religion never helps bring clarity to an issue, if anything it makes it cloudier than ever. Abortion is one example. Whether or not someone believes in abortion, a lot of the time a persons religion gets in the way before they can really even look at the issue and form an honest opinion about it. Additionally, having a certain religious stigma can handcuff a candidate into saying he believes something he doesn't. It can also make a group of people stick with a candidate due to his religion and not his stances on the issues. I believe this is a problem with both parties. Source http://docphil.newsvine.com...
Keeping God Out of Elections

You never said the Christian God, so I am assuming that you mean any religion. 1. If someone wants to debate religious rights, then they are not allowed to talk about God? 2. If someone has a religion that involves human sacrifice, then the voters should keep that in mind. 3. Jesus also said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself. Do not bare false witness." This can help polititians guide the country. Source http://www.biblegateway.com...
Keeping God Out of Elections

Though it is an effective campaign strategy, I think that God and religion should be left out of elections all together. In certain cases, the power of religion can be an unfair advantage for the candidates running and I am afraid that one day the bible belt would be deciding elections and further move our country into regression when it comes to medical and social evolution. Furthermore, the use of religion can make a candidates views and political policies cloudy when there is a huge religious stigma surrounding their campaign. Religion can, in my opinion, steer a candidate away from getting to the real issues that a country may be facing.
Keeping God Out of Elections

"I just think that when presidential candidates, Rick Santorum for example, used religion as a platform to run for president. I think that is wrong. To use religion to gain voters and money for an election is where I think the line should be drawn." I agree. All I am arguing is that religion should not be ENTIRLY left out. "Freedom of religion is fine in my opinion and people should be more than welcome to discuss their religion." Exactly so candidates should be able to talk about religion. If the resolution is true, then they would not be able to. "Lastly, there a many other quotes that someone can use to motivate or guide a group. Your last point is irrelevant." It is not irrelevant because it can still help the candidate. Yes, there are many other quotes, but many quotes like that are from religions, and if the candidate uses it as a guideline, it will help them guide our country. Conclusion: The following of religion should be part of an election: 1. If the candidate wants to debate religion, they should be able to talk about it. 2. Religion can be a positive motivation to them. http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com...