BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping vided evidence that a Rape or nontraditiona

1) Bride kidnapping is a tradition. ___________________________________________________________________ Well it's quite clear to hear the words of the expert (3:03) that bride kidnapping is illegal. However the real questions that you should ask yourself is if they enforce the law and who cares? The answer to that is no (20:18) as the groomsman had mentioned once the situation is explained to the police they would understand and leave them to continue their wedding party. Saying that bride kidnapping is illgeal in Kyrgyzstan is like saying that jay walking is illegal. Yes we know that they are but does the law enforcement rules do anything to stop bride kidnapping? No they don't because it's common it's normal it's their way in rural Kyrgyzstan. There is no place for politics with bride kidnapping. Politicians switch their minds on these issues to often. These women did not arrange for their kidnapping in a dark alley. What they are aware of is that someday would be the date when their wedding occurs. The only reason you think that the events that occur leading up to a wedding is negative is because of the culture you know. Your idea of romance is not someone else idea. Who are we to judge what someone of a different culture does? No country has the right to dictate what is right for another country. The opinions of the west on how people should live is not the opinions of the world. These women are not desparate at all. The more they kick, yell and cry they are telling their kidnappers 'YES' please take me. They aren't hog tied, drugged up with their mouths tapped. If they didn't want to be married just be happy about your kidnapping. The way that a you could tell that it is a desparte woman is when she accepts freely without hesitation. Unfortunatly a woman lost her life. How do we know that the main reason she killed herself was because of her husband? People do commit suicides sadly but you can't blame bride kidnapping for that. That happens in western weddings also. After you looked at this video once you will yell Rape but when you watch it again you could see that culture trumps religion and the law. The grandmother was kidnaped, the mother was kidnapped they both experienced the bride kidnapping act and yet they lived so long to educate their daughter on her future husband. This is no devious act that men do just because the can it's an act that both parties have to participate in to get a result. No one is condoning the act of rape nor am I welcoming that act because that act doesn't exist in this video. The groom's family seeks out the bride's family to express their sorrys and admit to their guilt, admitting guilt doesn't always prove that a crime was committed it brings the families together. All of the food on the table wasn't planned both families knew that at some point that a wedding would be taking place. It was just a wedding that you have never experienced that's why it seemed different and scary. It's their tradition their culture.
The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping vided evidence that a Rape or nontraditiona

1) Bride kidnapping is a common tradition in rural parts of Kyrgyzstan that has been practiced as a way for men and women to get married. (1:25). 2) Before the bride kidnapping occurs a festive atmosphere is created with food and family as a pre celebration for a wedding at the groom"s house. (2:05) 3) It"s quite typical for the groomsmen along with the groom to plan the kidnapping of the future bride. (4:30) 4) West of Kyrgyzstan condemns the practices of bride kidnapping. (5:59) 5) Gay and lesbian marriages is unacceptable in their country. (6:09) 6) Parents bless the marriage that they claim they disliked. (7:58) 7) Groom is nervous as any other groom would be before their wedding. (11:56) 8) They were able to kidnap the bride. (12:42) 9) Neighbors laugh and smile since they know the reason for why she was kidnapped. (12:50) 10) Girls that cry when they are kidnapped will be happy. (13:45) 11) Ceremonial wedding scarf if place on bride to be head. ( 15:18) 12) Bride knew who she would be marrying since they have been dating. (19:11) 13) The bride agreed to the wedding. (19:21) 14) Groom"s family must ask for forgiveness from the bride"s family for taking their daughter to her own wedding. (21:10) 15) Marriage should already be done by the time a woman reaches 25. (22:58) 16) At the bride"s family house food is already prepared to celebrate the upcoming nuptials. (25:22) 17) The wedding has happened they are now married thanks to the Man. (27:54) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This tradition that has been practiced in Kyrgyzstan is common. It's not a process of stoning a women having her bleed to death, it's simply a marriage proposal. Obviously every country West of Kyrgyzstan would think that the way the men kidnap the women is barbaric. You can't assume that something is wrong with that person's lifestyle especially when the Americas conduct marriages and engagement in a different order. It's not only men that are responsible for the kidnappings some women rather be kidnapped. Some women are actually so nervous about being someone's bride that they will act the part that is need to show that they are not desperate at all for a wedding. That no means yes when their potential future husband is ready to have them as his wife that he would defiantly keep them safe and also so that he feels cherished. Families have great roles in these nuptials. without the family of the groom giving the bride's family notice that they have taken their daughter they repay the bride's family with gifts such as a sheep etc. The bride stayed with her new husband over night to consummate their marriage, her parents didn't say no to the agreement. There has and always will be the choice for a parent to decline the offer. Over time the comfort and shelter that was given by the husband turns into mutual love. They build a strong relationship.
The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping vided evidence that a Rape or nontraditiona

1. Bride kidnapping is illegal in Kyrgyzstan. (2:44) 2: Men knows they are doing something wrong and husband feels nervous about they act they are about to commit. ( 9:05) 3. Man intentionally plan with friends to take girl against her will and make her his bride.(4:32) 4. After stalking Female in video,with the help of her friend men kidnapped her and took her away to his place. 5. Women are brainwashed to believe that being kidnapped and married will make her happy. (15:46) 6. Elder men in husband's family admits that husband had committed a wrongful act. (21:10) 7. Wife was not in favor of being kidnapped or to be married at the time of incident . (26:55) 8. Bribes are offered by husbands relatives to win approval and acceptance of female's relatives for this forced marriage. (21:20) 9. Acceptance of bride kidnaping is trained in society. (24:30) 10. Bride had no idea that she would be taken away into marriage. (26:10) 11. Wife was raised to believe that putting up a big fight or a lot of resistance was pointless and she would not be left alone by her abductors. (26:15) 12. Wife did not have the right or opportunity to choose who or when she wants to get married. (26:15) 13. No where in ancient Manas tradition was there any evidence that bride kidnapping was done nor stated to be legal. (18:00) 14. Parents did not want daughter's teenage life to be cut short and her to be taken away and forced into wedlock. (22:00) 15. Sex took place at the husband's earliest opportunity without regard for wife's self worth and bloody sheet shown as a testament of conquest.(30:40) 16. Any man may kidnap any woman he please even someone he does not know. (4:00) ................................................................................................. Conclusion: The idea of belief or tradition can be so strong that it can influence many people to participate in such heinous and degrading acts such as rape and convince themselves that what they are doing although it may not be legal,it is the right thing to do. Being afraid put up a fight or challenge tradition puts women in a vulnerable state of mind to simply accept the life changing outcome. Life in Kyrgyzstan is that of a patriarch nature therefore allowing men to do whatever they please and walk away with their heads held high and a proud smile on their faces, while leaving women to remain subservient to their every beck and call with very little to absolutely no chance to question nor refuse his physical needs. As a Kyrgyzstan female your only you are trained to be nothing else but a wife to any man who choose to kidnap you then a slave to his and his family's needs. Such a grave act does not only affect the woman being kidnapped but often have long term grief to the mother of the kidnapped bride. This is a custom that does not only end with the wedding of the husband and wife but usually go on for generations. This system of marriage has no spence of mutual love between a man and a woman, which is the basis to a bright and prosperous life and the foundation to happiness.
Bad boys are not good, but good boys are not fun

Thanks, Pro, for instigating this debate. We will assume Pro has the burden of proof to show (1) that bad boys are not good, and (2) that good boys are not fun. I therefore await Pro’s opening remarks. Definitions: Since Pro did not define terms, I will take the liberty to do so now. Not - A Boolean operator with only one variable that has the value one when the variable is zero and vice versa. [1] Boy - A male servant. [2] Fun - amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable. [3] Bad - not able to be collected. [4] Good - that which is morally right; righteousness. [5] Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] https://www.google.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] https://www.google.com...
Resolved: Spain should grant Catalonia its independence.

In this case, I will be arguing that Spain should not grant Catalonia its independence, and my opponent will argue that Spain should grant Catalonia its independence. The first round is for acceptance and clarification only. The [Con] case will be presented at the start of Round 2. 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. The BOP is Shared; Con must argue that Spain should not grant Catalonia its independence and Pro must argue that Spain should grant Catalonia its independence. 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss ~ Definitions: ~ Should: Merriam Webster defines 'should' as an expression of obligation, propriety, and expediency. It may also be used to express a request. Grant: Again we refer to Merriam Webster which provides several useful definitions for 'grant'; to consent, to permit, to be willing to concede. independence: Independence is the quality of being independent which Merriam Webster conveniently defines as not subject to the control of others: self-governing.
God is Real

Assuming you read my instructions, I assume you are taking the side of Pure Science. Good luck in this debate. Now to begin. To my first point, faith. My opponent is atheist, so by this he does not have faith in Religion. This would make him anti faith, because as an atheist, he would believe that faith is blind and that there is no concrete evidence for God to exist. About faith though, if he is pure science, what about faith in science? I cannot personally verify all the findings of the Bible, but can an atheist who is "pure science" verify all the findings that scientists have to prove that they are true? Right there you would be putting your faith in their words. You, my opponent may believe that science uses objective facts whereas religion is partially subjective. Science would rely on objectivity to allow its own findings to be absolutely true. Yet, it uses the scientific method, which relies on observation, experimentation, and interpretation of the results. Once science loses its objectivity it loses its credibility. That is the problem, the scientific method produces objective data, but the scientist has to interpret the data. You cannot say that science is true just because it uses the scientific method. That is pretty much like saying science is true and God is not because science says so. By what authority is science allowed to claim that it is true more than religion can? And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using SCIENCE and the scientific method. Underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics i.e. a huge chariot wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea, they were also able to confirm that the design was the same as it was at the time of Moses.
Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

I'm an agnostic atheist... You haven't provided a sufficiently good reason for me to accept that the two are mutually exclusive. I'd like to urge voters to give PRO as few points as possible. He plagiarized 3 of his arguments from this website http://www3.telus.net... (thank you rowsdower for finding it) and he didn't once address a single point I made (due to the fact he was plagiarizing from another source).
Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

No, atheists DON'T clearly claim that. You need to spend some time around some actual atheists, instead of listening to anti-atheist propaganda, and then copy/pasting it onto a debate. Language is completely dependent on the majority usage of a word. When the majority start using a word to refer to something other than it's original meaning, the meaning changes. For example: the word 'queer'. In the old days 'queer' simply meant 'strange' or 'uncanny', however, through majority usage, it became synonymous with 'homosexual', and now if you see or hear the word 'queer', most people will assume it means 'homosexual' or at least pertaining to homosexuality in some way.
Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

When you do "not have belief in the existence of any deity" this would be agnosticism not atheism, because agnosticism says one doesn't know either way so you are free to say you have no faith in the existence of any deity since you believe there is no evidence either way (though the evidence is there for all of us to see). Whereas atheists clearly claim they do not believe God exists. Common usage of a term can be wrong, for if you remove from the English language the word for claiming God does not exist then there is no word to describe your actual belief, thus you feel you can't be attacked with the truth. Clearly such antics are intellectual dishonesty and self-deception.
Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

If you want to find another word for the belief that you do not have faith in the existence of any deity, by all means come up with a word, but I for one disallow you to change the traditional meaning of atheism and agnosticism since there are no other words in the English language to claim God does not exist and of not being sure either way. I need to identify what you really are so you can't deceive others and myself. If you don't believe God exists then I call just what you are, an atheist. If you have no faith in any God because you are not sure either way, then I call you an agnostic. If you don't like that, that's your problem! I can't force you to accept reality, but I can reiterate it. If you know God exists but have no faith Him, that's another matter altogether. Satan exists but he has no faith yet he is not agnostic nor atheist. He is just screwed in the head for we all know God exists and therefore, should have faith in Him (Rom. 1.20).
Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

My main point is to show "agnostic atheism" is a contradiction for to state God does not exist atheism is the only word that I know of in the English language and would be in direct contradiction with being agnostic since an agnostic says he has no evidence either way, thus, he can make no claim either way. He can't be an atheist because he can't state that God does not exist since he admits he doesn't know. The atheist makes the claim God does not exist. These are the traditional meanings of these two words, so the meanings you find on wiki are obviously devised by atheists to convolute and play down the evil nature of being an atheist. Satan is the author of confusion. The fact of the matter, all too often, the person who calls himself an atheist is really a closet agnostic, but the term agnostic doesn't roll off the tongue. It is based on feelings only, not logic.
Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

From the Wikipedia pages on Atheism, Agnosticism, and Agnostic Atheism respectively: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims"are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable." "Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact." Now show me the contradiction.
We Cannot Know Anything

Ladies and gentleman, note how my opponent completely ignores my logic on there being an internal contradiction within the topic. This is sufficient reason to stop reading as of now and just vote CON. However, to pacify my opponent, I shall respond to what he has stated in his 3rd round anyway. "Therefore our knowledge can never be truly objective. Is it no coincidence that we are all become our parents. [How did the first person know anything? " Alright, I see where you're coming from, but claiming that our knowledge can never truly be objective is same as suggesting that we know our knowledge can never truly be objective, thus, we still do KNOW SOMETHING. "People never know things, they only subscribe to hypotheses with more or less commitment. " Once more, my opponent is making a claim that suggest he know something as he is suggesting that he knows that "people only subscribe to hypotheses with more or less commitment. " No matter how you look at, PRO agrees that we can know something and is therefore negating the topic. Thus, it is quite clear that he agrees he has lost this debate. Thanks for the debate.
We Cannot Know Anything

The only way I can know anything is by the knowledge given to me by someone or something else. This can happen by learning from my parents, my society, everything I come into contact with from the day I was born until the day I die. This is why two human beings who live in a completely different part of the world like the USA and a remote village in Africa have completely different knowledge about everything and anything. If I spend all my life alone in an empty room with no windows and no doors I will have no knowledge at all, from not knowing how to walk to not knowing that 2+2=4. All the knowledge that we have was giving to us by someone else. Therefore our knowledge can never be truly objective. Is it no coincidence that we are all become our parents. [How did the first person know anything? People never know things, they only subscribe to hypotheses with more or less commitment.
We Cannot Know Anything

"The answer is that I can't as confirmed by studies of philosophy, especially of David Hume. Wait, so you're saying you can't prove your argument? Well if that is the case, then this should be taken as a concession on your part as that is pretty much what you're required to do. Fortunately, I can DISPROVE the topic. As I said in the comment section . . . The statement "we cannot know anything" contains an internal contradiction. Claiming "we cannot know anything" is suggesting that we do KNOW SOMETHING and that is that "we cannot know anything. Thus, even according to the statement itself, we CAN KNOW something. "Belief about everything I chose to accept as valid; that this table is real, what scientists tell me, ideas, religions, our amazing planet and its people." At the very least, we know that the "idea" of the table exist. Or are you suggesting that you can prove "ideas" don't exist or that you can show that we can't confirm whether or not "ideas" exist. If so, I'll provide an explanation as to why you're wrong. At any rate though, if you accept, you will have to agree that we know of something which certainly exist. At any rate though, the above line of reason is unnecessary, my fair audience, as this debate simply concerns whether or not we can know ANYTHING. Given that my opponent has stated he can't prove his claim and given that I've shown that the claim suggest we CAN KNOW something, I believe that is fair enough reason for a CON vote. Thank you for your time. Buh-bye.
We Cannot Know Anything

The answer is that I can't as confirmed by studies of philosophy, especially of David Hume. Without the possibility of knowledge, I am left with belief: belief about all things, material or abstract. Belief about everything I chose to accept as valid; that this table is real, what scientists tell me, ideas, religions, our amazing planet and its people. I cannot trust material objects to stay where I believe them to be (my pens for example), and I also have difficulty with with the limitations of man-made systems like mathematics and logic.
Should hunting season be longer

I am going to run a Kritik against the resolution.Kritik:ViolationThe killing of innocent animals for sport is questionably moral.LinkThe resolution precipitates the questionable morality of killing innocent. The killing of innocent animals has not been morally justified, hence the debate of lenghtening or shortening the season runs after the fact of the apriori, questionable morality.ImpactIt is widely accepted that animals, including the ones often hunted, suffer from being hunted. Particularly for hunting, even though killing is the end, the end is often not met quickly, often meaning that suffering occurs and is prolonged [1] [2].1) A society wherein the ruthless killing of animals is accepted without question indicates a barbaric state wherein the sufferings of the world are not valued. 2) Humans are animals, and whilst not all animals are the same, what distinction could Pro propose which would make the humans exempt from being hunted? Why only hunt some animals and not others? If the presumption is that we can kill things for sport, why not kill humans?AlternativeIf you want to kill things, go and play Call of Duty, Deer Hunt or some other kind of virtual game. In these realms, the pixelised deaths do not cause suffering to those killed, hence the problem of the victims suffering is averted.VoterIf you think that there are moral qualms with the slaughtering of animals for sport, then a vote for me should be required.“Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.” ~ Arthur SchopenhauerReferences:[1] http://www.peta.org...[2] http://www.idausa.org...