BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

This is true. The Blondes knew where they live, but couldn't they have called the police? Maybe S.W.A.T. could've helped, but instead Mordecai decided to do it alone. First of all, I would like to say that I believe Rigby should not be charged for murder, because in his position it was self-defense, but Mordecai knew better and this was obviously some kind of Murder or just Stupidity. And also, Mordecai did not seem one bit surprised when a Blonde says "You know what to do Mordecai, Blonde him to DEATH". He didn't freak out or go "What?!". He just stayed with a straight face. 1. It is in fact true Mordecai and Rigby killed the Blondes 2. Mordecai although killing out of self-defense, put himself in a position where he knew there would be conflict just to get revenge on Rigby. For example, it would be like threatening to kill someone, and once they start attacking you, you kill them. Technically that would be self defense for you and them, but you provoked them and threatened them. You started the fight. 3. I do not believe that I would have to prove they did this just out of revenge, but if they did not do it for self-defense, I would think they would be charged anyway. Mordecai put himself in a terrible situation. He says he had no other choice, but he really had so many opportunities other than almost killing Rigby and blowing up the Blondes. As I've said this before, Mordecai did a stupid decision to put himself in that place, or for some reason he wanted to kill the Blondes by himself. I would like Mordecai to serve at least five years in low-security prison. Although he did preform a mass-genocide, I feel like I am not charging him for the murders (which would be way more years), but I feel like he's being charged more for his choice to not ask for help and try to escape and kill the Blondes alone. Thank you. May the best Con win... Ur-uh I mean lawyer. Although you did make up some stuff from thin-air like the EMS doctor saying they have injuries, which was never shown on camera, you did pretty good.
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

"In fact, I need to Blonde an outsider". Mordecai could have thought they would have let them go."Mordecai did know the Blondes were going to kill Rigby"(Mordecai bursts out in front of the courtroom.)I had to! They knew where I lived. They would have kept coming after us!Ladies and gentleman of the jury, to prove my client guilty, the plaintiff must prove three things.1. Mordecai and Rigby killed the blondes2. Mordecai and Rigby did not kill the blondes out of an act of self defense3. Mordecai and Rigby killed the blondes for revenge.If the plaintiff proved these three things to you, then you must vote for him. I suggest he has not proved it. Mordecai and Rigby killed the blondes as an act of self defense. Regardless, the blondes did try to kill my clients first before they tried to kill them. This would make it an act of self defense.This is for closing statements. How much time do you want Mordecai and Rigby to serve if convicted?Now, it is up to the Jurors (Voters) to determine whether Mordecai and Rigby are Guilty or Not Guilty.
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

Before questioning my witnesses, I would like to object again, for I feel that if the EMS doctor was bribed to support fake evidence for this court, the evidence should be ignored. And the Blonde's lair's footage has no sections that look to be cut out. Although this is possible, it is unlikely. And lastly on the video footage, what parts would it be missing that would be important to my argument? A part where they are hurt? Maybe, but at the end of the fight the footage shows no damage that could have been gained by the fight. And Mordecai did know the Blondes were going to kill Rigby;footage from outdoors show Mordecai grabbing Rigby and saying "In fact, I need to Blonde an outsider". He knew that he needed Rigby to be Blonded, resulting in his death. Also, Mordecai did not seem surprised one bit when he entered the Lair and saw the Blonde tub of Death according to the video coverage. I will now question a surviving Blonde *Blonde gets sworn in* Mr.Blonde, is it true that you told Mordecai that he needs a non-blonde to be Blonded? "Yes" And using the video evidence, we can confirm this. Is it also true that you left Mordecai alone outside after a exercise jog with Rigby before the Lair fight? "Yes. He said he would come inside with us after he talked to Rigby" Well, while Mordecai and Rigby were left alone, they could've escaped, but Mordecai decided not to! Pure stupidity or Murder. As I've already said, Mordecai could've escaped at many other times while he had the knowledge about the Initiation. That would be all, Your Honor.
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

" This EMS doctor could have been bribed! "Objection! The defense is making a statment about this man's character while it is not in question with no evidence to back it up!Objection sustained. May that be stricken from the record. I can see your point. However, Mordecai had no way of knowing the blondes would try to kill Rigbt and him. He was trying to teach Rigby a lesson Also, the security video in the blonde's lair is probably incomplete!This round is for cross examining your witnesses. Last round is for questioning YOUR WITNESSES! I will let you use this round for questioning your witnesses; Benson, Skips, and surviving blonde.
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

Thank you your honor, So this EMS doctor says they have a broken arm and severe burns? But these laser beams when used by Mordecai and Rigby for self defense did more then just severely burn the Blondes. So how is it possible that they have these burns while some of the Blondes have been killed by the lasers (The rest killed by the laser's self destruct and the last survivor)? This EMS doctor could have been bribed! And because there was video coverage on the Blonde's Lair, I see no lasers hitting Mordecai or Rigby or anything that could have caused a broken arm. Another thing, Mordecai was outside with Rigby when he told him that he needed Rigby for a sacrifice (Found from the outside video coverage from a nearby 7/11). This was to scare Rigby for revenge, but, Mordecai was planning to save him all along, although he knew the Blondes would not like this. So why did Mordecai put his and Rigby's life in danger and then kill all of the Blondes? Why didn't he just not show up after being told he needed a sacrifice. He could've said "ok, I'll get someone" and then go home but not arrive at the initiation! But instead he picked the hard way and un-needly kill all of the Blondes. This seems like Planned Profesional First Degree Murder Charges for Mordecai to me. Thank you your honor, that is all
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

This round is for opening arguments and questioning your witnesses.The defense would like to state their opening arguments.Ladies and gentlemen, the defense is here to show you that Mordecai and Rigby had to kill the blondes as an act of justifiable homicide and self defense. In our case, you will hear four witnesses testify ing for the defense. It is your job to determine if Mordecai and Rigby performed justifiable homicide, or first degree murder.The defense calls Mordecai to the stand."Mordecai gets sworn in and sits in the witness booth."Mordecai, is it true you were, for a time refered to as Blondecai?Yes, because of a bet Rigby cheated on. I had to dye my hair blonde. Rigby mocked me and called me Blondecai. It stuck and I went by that name untill the bet was over.Is it true you were then invited to hang out with the blondes? Yes. They were cool untill they tried to kill me and RigbyHow did they try to kill you and Rigby?They hung Rigby over a boiling put of blonde dye, which, if Rigby was lowered in there, would have killed him. They tried to kill me when I helped Rigby escape. They shot laser beams at us and were going to kill us.Why did you explode the blondes and their lair?I knew that if Rigby and I didn't kill the blondes, they would keep coming after us. I broke their pact of a non blonde entering their lair.What happened after that?The blondes still tried to kill us in the elevator, but it closed just in time. Officer Lopez then called an ambulance to pick us up. Now I am in this courtroom today.No further questions.Great, does the defense have any more witnesses?Yes your honor, we call Rigby to the stand."Rigby gets sworn in"Rigby, is it tr...Let me just stop you there. I have nothing to add to what Mordecai said. It was completely accurate.Ooookkkaaayyyy Rigby, you may go.The defense calls Pops to the stand!"Pops gets sworn in"Pops, how long have you known Mordecai and Rigby?Ever since they started jilly gaging in the park!Eerrr may you please refrase that for the court?Ever since they started working for the park.How would you view their character?Mordecai and Rigby are good fellows. Sure, they can be lazy at their job, but they would not kill a person without being provoked!Thank you. Pops, you may go.The defense calls officer Lopez to the stand!"Officer Lopez gets sworn in"Officer Lopez, how do you know the defendants?After rhe incidents with the blondes, I helped Mordecai and Rigby by calling an ambulance. I talked to the EMS people that were about to bring Mordecai and Rigby to the hospital.What did they say?They said one of them had a broken arm. They both had severe burns. They said only laser veams could make that burn.No further questionsDoes the defense have any other witnesses? The defense rests.
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

Awright! Leez do dis! Your honor, my clients (Although survivors already charged for intended murder) had the opportunity to live. Mordecai and Rigby escaped from the danger of The Blondes, but decided to leave a bomb to kill and injure them anyway. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that you can only use self-defense when endangered. They could have escaped from the Blondes without blowing them up.
Supreme Court Case: Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes

"This is the court case Mordecai And Rigby VS. The Blondes from when Mordecai turned into Blondecai. The blondes are charging Mordecai and Rigby for Murder in the 1ST degree."Judge"Your honor, me and my clients, Mordecai and Rigby, are here to prove that they had to kill the blondes so they could escape their lair. -cooldudebro"Your honor, I am here to prove Mordecai and Rigby didn't have to kill the blondes and were doing so for revenge."- con"Inreresting. Plaintiff, begin your opening arguments.-Judge Witnesses for con: Surviving blonde Benson. Skips Witnesses for cooldudebro:MordecaiRigbyPopsDispatch policeman Lopez
Teachers should learn how to speak in Ebonics if teaching in a community where it is prevalent.

Language is the primary means of instruction and learning in schooling institutions. Linguistic disparities that exist between a school's language of instruction and the language of non-native speakers of English and speakers of non-standard dialects cause academic problems among students. Ebonics, or African American Vernacular English (AAVE), is a dialect (or, as argued by some specialists, a language.) The debate over whether or not it is, however, irrelevant, because such a distinction typically lies in political issues (as we can see in the case of the Sweden and Norwegian languages, which are mutually comprehensible, but take on the roles of different languages through political intervention.) From the perspective of a linguist, I view the distinction between language and dialect to be irrelevant to the matter at hand, due to its artificial, political nature; what truly matters is whether or not it would be valid to accept it into the system as a means of instruction and learning in an academic environment. Ebonics is a very easily distinguishable dialect of English due to its unique grammatical, lexical, and phonological features. [1] In a study of Inuit students, it was proven that learning in one's own language benefited academic achievement. Through being taught in their native aboriginal language, these students were able to perform better in school and improve self-esteem at the same time. [2] Teaching in local languages has been supported time and time again through studies. [3] Claims that AAVE is "invalid," or "broken English," or "ungrammatical" are unfounded. No language is more sound or logical than another. Although it differs from prescriptive Standard English, it is still used in communities to convey complex meaning and has pragmatic and semantic significance in its cultural context. The idea that AAVE is systematic and expressive in nature is founded in decades of research, as explained by the Linguistic Society of America. [4] The teaching of Standard English is important, of course, since knowing it is clearly advantageous for those who reside in the United States. Standard English should, indeed, be taught to students who reside in predominantly AAVE-speaking communities, but the means of instruction and learning should incorporate AAVE; this would naturally require teachers who instruct in these communities to be instructed to be able to speak at a conversational level in AAVE. Therefore, having teachers instruct using AAVE in schools with students from AAVE-speaking communities, would be pedagogically sound, from a linguistic perspective. [1] http://www.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca... [3] http://siteresources.worldbank.org... [4] http://linguistlist.org...
There is no biblical reason the Boy Scouts of America should not be allowed to meet in a church

The official boy scouts of America are not affiliated with any religious organization. I am afraid that boy scouts who are a different religion might be offended. For Christian Boy scouts, it is a another story. As we heard in the news, some churches have banned gay boy scouts from meeting in churches. Homosexuality was removed as a mental illness by a respected medical group in 1973. However before this Homosexuality was not that heard of in America. Of course you might see movies about gays but rarely do you see it. Anyway I am just providing a little background. Now the issue we have here before us is whether or not to allow Bsa in churches. Now as I have mentioned before The Boy scouts of America is a non religious organization. This reminded me Of one of Jesus' sayings. Matthew 22:20-21 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Now from what I believe, this indirectly proves the separation of church and state. And since the Boy scouts comes to include Muslims and others as well, you can not allow this to happen, I do not think that forgiveness just magically appears if that is what you are saying, I believe that you have to ask for forgiveness. 1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Yes, God loves all sinners. But he loves sinners who repent their sins. Proverbs 28:13 - He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh [them] shall have mercy. I will wait for my opponents response!
There is no biblical reason the Boy Scouts of America should not be allowed to meet in a church

This argument presupposes the Bible is inerrant as well as authoritative; Please consider this when taking the con, this is NOT a debate on homosexuality. There is no biblical reason the BSA should not be allowed to meet in a church. I present the following three reasons with scripture to qualify this position: 1.) "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23- We run a dangerous gauntlet when we allow ourselves as Christians to feel we cannot interact with sinners. The argument presumes that homosexuality is a sin. If this is true, then homosexuals, like the rest of us, fall short of the glory of God. If the argument is that one cannot meet at a church because they are a sinner, then the church should be completely empty. 2.) "And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17- By removing the BSA because they have allowed openly gay boys to be scouts, haven't we turned away the sick? Do we turn away adulterers? liars? gossipers? The response as a church that we give by this decision says "you can be a certain kind of sinner, but some sinners, we just cant accept "those kinds of sinners". This is contrary to the entire concept of soteriology. Jesus accepts all sinners, but His believers will not? This is simply unacceptable. 3.) "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2Peter 3:9 While I will admit that "hate the sin not the sinner" is a clich"" that does not apply to God as it is theologically correct for Him to hate the sin and the sinner, "we as Christians, remain imperfect in our humanity and cannot love perfectly, nor can we hate perfectly (in other words, without malice). But God can do both of these perfectly, because He is God."(S. Haulgood) We, in our fallen state cannot hate without malicious intent and therefore cannot hate human beings for their actions. This is the same reason we can allow sinners in our midst and still love them in our congregations. We as humans simply cannot treat certain sinners different from others. Jesus Christ came to love all (John 3:16) and so we must as well. Allowing the BSA to continue in our churches only drives home the point that although we may disagree with their actions, we love them anyway.
There is no biblical reason the Boy Scouts of America should not be allowed to meet in a church

In answer to the question, the answer is no, the scouts are not worshipping, they are conducting their meetings on the church premises. My biggest point is that the scouts should be allowed to meet in a church, because the church should be open to all. Allowing the scouts to meet in a church doesn't endorse the scouts actions or decisions no more than allowing AA to meet. This is the point that is being made here
Atticus Finch is a better character than Scout Finch

Well if we are using my mother's opinion about these characters she agrees with my observation that scout gives unbiased accounts through out the book. Scout is not biased towards the poor she simple is to young to understand what being poor means so she acts on opinions of elders such as she has her aunt and father. Also when scout fights it is to settle a disagreement or to defend the reputation of a loved one and is never unprovoked which shows her loyalty and devotion. This is more than can be said for Atticus who practically abandons his family during the trial. What does that say about his morals that doing the "right thing" and rebelling is more important then his children. Scout is a confident, rebellious, and strong willed naturally, she doesn't need a huge scandalous case to show her will. She simple does what she want and feels is right. These traits clearly make her the better character because they allow her to remain untouched by social prejudices
Atticus Finch is a better character than Scout Finch

I disagree with your statement of Scout being unbiased. She is biased against children whom are poor, and do not know where their next meal is going to come from. Also she nearly beats up one of those poor children. Atticus is a lawyer, and knows what is morally right, and what is morally wrong.....plus your mom says he's a better character, and she used to be an english teacher soo :p
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species.

Ah, so my opponent has failed to explain his ideas,and instead has literally posted my entire reasoning on his argument for the second round, only providing one link about evolution. Additionally, my opponent assumes that I don't believe in evolution, at least in humans. I simply explained that, because it is hard to cultivate mutations and evolutionary genes in such a populous and mixed society, it is very unlikely for African Americans to dramatically change into a sub-species. My opponent's rebuttal, or a lack of one, is merely a link regarding evolution. I would like to clarify this though: I do believe in evolution. But as I said earlier, the chances of one entire race dynamically changing into a different subspecies is virtually impossible in my opinion. Of course, my opponent failed to explain why any sort of race or group could change to a subspecies, and why specifically African Americans would. I at least assumed that my opponent would bring in illustrations created during the period of slavery created by highly biased sources to at least attempt to provide any evidence, and my opponent has failed to do that much. Instead, he claims that I don't believe in evolution and provides one article explaining evolution in humans, and doesn't give the time and effort to even explain the article. For my opponent's lack of evidence, I indeed assume that this is no more than blatant racism. So, my opponent, who claims to be a "realist," is truly nothing more than some biased hypocrite. My opponent made baseless claims without any evidence regarding why African Americans would specifically evolve into a different subspecies.
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species.

Hi Cosmo. I hope you put more effort into this debate than you did our last. http://www.debate.org... You state: "My opponent believes that African Americans alone will devolve." I never said African Americans, I said Africans. This would indicate that my opponent thinks African Americans are the same as Africans. This shows a degree of ignorance on his behalf and a great deal of racism. My opponents argument is based around African Americans, thus making his argument void. I would also like to point out that my opponent has not touched upon my actual argument which I shall quote: "This has a lot to do with natural selection taking place in Africa, where many people are dying from lack of food. Therefore those that can survive while only eating very little will live to pass on their genes. This will make any gene that benefits survival on low amounts of energy recessive. Thus leading to a change in the population and causing, over many thousands of years, a visible and biological change in the African population." My argument rides of the fact that Europeans have evolved white skin, therefore Africans may evolve and adapt to their hunger crisis. (it didn't take millions of years for us to evolve white skin.) We as humans, are amazing animals, in such that we will adapt very quickly. Adaptability normally is the result of recessive genes which in turn are responsible for evolution. For a species to evolve, it doesn't have to be completely isolated. However being isolated speeds up the evolution process. This is heavy source showing Evolutionary adaptations through dietary changes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... If my opponent is saying that "humans can't evolve" then he is ignorant, and I want to say that no organism is ever beyond evolution and evolution is constant in everything.