BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Psychology personality theories is outdated

My opponent does not even understand the the point he is trying to debate. My opponent wanted to prove that personality theories are out of day, yet he does not have a fundamental understanding of them. I showed how these theories work and how they encompass both the biological aspects of life and the psychological aspects in order to explain personality. He suggested that hunger makes these theories out of date but could not explain how or why. He stated technology outdated these theories but yet again he did not state how or why.
Double Jeopardy

Why Double Jeopardy is wrong:Possibilities:1. CorruptionCorruption is common. Someone could corrupt a bunch of people and put them on the jury, or corrupt a judge, and they could easily get away with their crime. Some will pay a lot of money to get out of the crime they had committed. They could also threaten the witnesses, and know exactly if they said what they demanded, as the accused watch their trial and watch witnesses testify.2. ErrorsThere could have been some kind of technicality in the case they were in. The judges could have wrongly denied evidence or given a false summation to the jury. Law has it's flaws, it's never perfect, so anything could happen.3. EvidenceThey could find video cameras showing the deed being done, whatever that may be, or their fingerprints on the knife that killed the person, and they could even admit to being guilty and still be free.Results:1. Frees guiltyBy allowing the double jeopardy rule, we are allowing, in some cases, people to "get away with it," as in, whatever they had done. You could argue that not all cases this happens, as a lot are innocent, but even if a few people were free after they had mass-murdered, then a lot of lives would be at stake. 2. RespectThe reason that (most of us) follow the law is because of our respect for it. Otherwise we wouldn't watch the speed limits, and things like that (but I'll admit, that's also due to the fines). But when convicts get off on a noticeable technicality, evading the punishments, it definitely shakes our confidence of the law, and puts more people to the impression that they can get away with their crimes.Clarification: I'm not saying that double jeopardy should be completely abolished, as in some cases it is needed, but when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against the accused after the trial, then exceptions need to be made. Complications: While I'm sure there are MANY complications to this rule, I only want to name one. The sixth amendment of the U.S. guarantees the right to a "speedy public trial." While this is a good thing for both sides, it causes complications to double jeopardy. It makes it increasingly harder to come to a verdict fairly. It also creates less time for the prosecution to find evidence. The court usually makes exceptions for the defense, but it is always harder for the prosecution.Additional Statements:Double jeopardy is an ancient concept, and quite frankly, outdated. According to history, it started before A.D. (Going by "before Christ" and "after death." In 355 B.C. Demosthenes said that the "law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue." It also survived the Dark Ages, Colonial Times, and now, where it is in effect in most countries today. For what reason? Do we still believe in prosecuting witches or that life springs up from recipes? No. A lot of things are different now, so we shouldn't practice old laws. Some are beneficial, some are not. Some just need modified, and like I've said before, Double Jeopardy is one of those.Sources:http://www.autrefoisacquit.info...http://members.mobar.org...http://www.doublejeopardyreform.org...http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy: Double jeopardy refers to a person being tried again for the same offense after being acquitted. Double jeopardy is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…". Basically, you cannot be tried twice for the same trial whether you are guilty or not. In this debate, I will be debating why double jeopardy is bad, and the opponent will argue that is is good. No sematics arguments. First round acceptance only. http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Self-Determination

I affirm my contention that the Harm Principle does rightfully apply to the topic of self-determination because it prevents authoritarianism and thus protects the exercise of self-determination itself. I also affirm that just because the world is not how it could be, this doesn't mean that the world can't become what it could be. The history books show us how far mankind has progressed, and to assume that we will not enter a new era of enlightenment whereupon we more fully, as a world, embrace the sovereignty of the individual and thus the individual's absolute peaceful liberty, is unfounded and preposterous. And hence, to assume that the world's nations will never accept the idea of peaceful secession and agreed-upon independence from within, is as well unfounded and preposterous. The present example of the UK allowing a referendum on Scottish Independence is proof that such a world of peaceful transformations of nations may truly come to be. (1) I thus conclude that the Con's arguments are founded in the past, while my own are founded in the future, of which I believe not to inevitably be mere repetition of the past. I believe both Con and myself have provided sufficient arguments for our separate stances on the matter of Self-Determination at the highest levels of society. I believe that the users, the sovereign people of this website, are free and ready to exercise their most serene liberty of self-determination, so as to support that very liberty. So, vote with your hearts; vote for Pro. And remember, as a nation of free people, you all will decide the matter, by your individual votes, as a nation of users on this website. Great debate, Con! It was a very interesting and thoughtful debate. I appreciate the kindness. (1) http://scotreferendum.com...
Self-Determination

Topic: Self-Determination Pro will argue the merits of Self-Determination Con will argue the issues of Self-Determination Burden of proof shared. Simply try to convince voters to be for or against Self-Determination on a global level. Definition of terms: Self-Determination: "The fundamental right of a nation or people of a given area to freely determine its own political status or form of government and to freely pursue its own cultural, economic, and social development without outside influence;independence." Definition of Nation: "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own."(1) Definitions as agreed upon prior to the debate. Format of the debate. Round one: acceptance Round two: Opening arguments Round three: Rebuttals and new arguments Round four: Rebuttals and closing arguments. Thank you Shield for accepting this debate and good luck to you. (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
The user "ark428" is a horrible troll

To begin with, I found your description of me to be extremely rude and degradative, and you should lose on conduct strictly for this reason. From insulting my intelligence, to calling me a "troll", a supernatural mythical being, you have slandered for the last time. Not only are your assertions completely false, seeing as I am clearly not a mythical beast or someone lacking in intelligence (IQ is 155, just for some evidence) but you yourself are exactly what you are preaching against. You defined a "troll" as someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages. You have not presented evidence of such posts or inflammatory comments. While I cannot say that you are posting anything extraneous or off-topic considering this is a free debate forum to post any arguments you wish, and this is after all an argument, I can still point out that you're posting inflammatory comments. In this debate, as I've stated previously, you have called me unintelligent, an internet troll, and a lame wisecrack. You have backed this up with no evidence of your own except a source from wikipedia that clearly defines a "Troll" as a mythical creature, contradicting your original definition. I'd now like to define inflammatory: "tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult" In only the first round, you sir, have made inflammatory comments. Therefore, by your own definition, you are a troll. Also, I'm excited to once again be debating my former classmate, my good pal, Mr. XStrikeX. I am not sure if he share this excitement considering the terms of which he started this debate.
The user "ark428" is a horrible troll

With this, I return to DDO to purge the idiotic trolls hidden among the masses. Except this one is not hidden. He is also not intelligent. Simply put, he's awful at being a troll, "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages." [1] Accept and defend yourself, lame wisecrack. Source: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)
Death penalty should remain

Thank you for accepting my challenge Maybe I should have made the title longer. I think the death penalty should remain in existence, I'm not necessarily defending everything about the status quo I have to disagree about it being blind emotion. Revenge and retribution are not the same thing (i.e. a parent punishing a child with a spanking, assuming it's not in the heat of the moment, is different from a child hitting another in revenge). If one has criminally and intentionally taken an innocent life, they've forfeited their own. It's ultimately about the idea that the criminal should not end up better off than the victim I used to have the very same view of "even if 1 in 1,000 are innocent and executed, it's worth abolishing the death penalty." Ultimately, here's why I changed: I wondered since when are we supposed to set punishment guidelines based on "what if the person is innocent?" With that logic, we can't even jail people. While they can later get exonerated, they won't get those years back. I'm sure you agree, if the person's innocent, then no punishment is appropriate. As for your criteria of punishment, here's what I then ask about "reduce recidivism": Can you justify giving someone a punishment harsher than what is deserved for the crime committed under the guise of "reducing potential recidivism?" I agree about victim's family, by the way I agree with you that cause/effect should be irrelevant, although if the death penalty increased the murder rate, that could be a convincing argument to abolish it. As for "justly," I meant it in the sense of the person being convicted and all appeals being exhausted, and the person having his/her right to due process. The disparities in sentencing are not exclusive to the death penalty, as you know Another point about the possibility of innocence: I think that the stories of how people have been exonerated later show the success of our system, not the failure of it. Granted, it's a failure that the wrongful conviction happens in the first place, but the fact that they end up getting exonerated has to count for something Agreed that constitutional =/= advisable. I was not trying to make the point that they are the same thing I would say that the death penalty, as could be applied, could be used as a tool of tyrants to silence political enemies. I'm not here to defend that. I'm only here to defend the use of it on those who have committed the worst of the worst crimes against others. I'm not talking about when murder is done out of passion or other possible mitigating elements. I'm talking about when one person calculatedly and cold-bloodedly murders another, motivated by his/her own profit and interest. If the evidence is overwhelmingly clear (beyond what is necessary to sentence someone to life in prison) that the person is guilty, if we are not willing to implement the death penalty in those cases, then we are expressing contempt for human life and failure to understand the magnitude of the crime
Death penalty should remain

What is the purpose of "retribution"? If you admit that capital punishment is not a deterrent (which you do), then who benefits from this "retribution"? Society doesn't experience fewer murders, at least not any fewer than would be experienced if the murderer were confined to life in prison. So it is just the "mental satisfaction" of society for playing God and putting someone to death. I think this is perverse and the sign of a declining culture. Society can say to itself, "We kill bad people," thus delineating right and wrong, but to no real benefit. This "goodness" is illusory. If the wrongful murder conviction rate was, say, 1%, and the penalty was life in prison, then those wrongly convicted could spend their time and energies reversing the decision and bringing the truth to light. In the end, even if they spent years in jail, they would have what was left of their freedom, and they most certainly should be able to bring suit against those who wrongly convicted them. Compensation could be made. But the death penalty is irreversible. It allows the state to cover up false convictions, since the condemned can no longer plead his case. The death penalty disposes of the problem and promotes sloppiness in the justice system. What would be an acceptable wrongful-execution rate? You say 1/1000 is acceptable. How about 1/100? How about 10%? 50%? 95%? Where is the line. The only acceptable line is 0%. The death penalty should be reserved for only those cases where the perpetrator admits to the crime or there is 100% irrefutable evidence (i.e. video documentation), AND the victims' families want the death penalty to be enacted. Otherwise, convicted murderers should be made to pay restitution and serve appropriate sentences, most commonly life in prison without the possibility of parole. Societal acceptance of the death penalty as an appropriate means of punishment only hastens the day when it can be used as a political tool to silence dissent. In the history of governments, has the death penalty ever been used by a nation and not ultimately applied to these political uses? I don't think so. Will the United States be the first country to not go down this road? I hope so, but judging from history and the current path of our government, I would say it's unlikely. Thus, I think the death penalty should be abolished at the federal level, and by the individual states.
Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia

We gave Colombia 10 billion dollars and they haven't done anything with it. We basically gave free money to Colombia because they haven't done anything for the U.S or for their own country. We are already in debt and its just one more thing that is making us dig a deeper hole in debt. We gave them 10 billion dollars to fix their economy and stop drug trafficking but they haven't shown us that they have done anything with that money.
No race is smarter than any other race

Variance is a basic statistical concept. Clearly you haven't learned statistics, and the purpose of this debate isn't to teach you statistics. If you want to learn, I've given you the concepts to research. Variance's definition is right there, but since your reading comprehension is lacking... Variance is a term to describe how far something is from the mean. For example, the mean IQ of blacks is 85. Are all IQs of blacks 85? No, obviously not. Some have higher IQs due to positive variance, some have lower IQs due to negative variance. 2) Lack of reading comprehension. I never called you a retard; you claimed that SOME people think that ALL blacks are stupid. I said that ANYONE who thinks that IS a retard. Since you don't think that, the statement didn't apply to you. You were creating a strawman and trying to argue that, when that was never an argument I made nor agreed with. 3) IQ correlates with intelligence; there is no more accurate way humans have to measure intelligence. However, if you understood statistics (which you clearly do not), you'd understand that having a test that correlates with intelligence, i.e. an IQ test, is able to be applied to large numbers of people and have that correlate as well. In other words, although a specific person with an IQ of 85 MIGHT be smarter than someone with an IQ of 100, a race filled with millions of people with an average IQ of 85 will NOT be smarter than a race with an IQ of 100; it's a statistical impossibility based on the law of large numbers, confidence intervals, etc...basic statistics. 4) I gave you plenty of evidence: IQ, and my explanation below as well. The chances that ALL races are equal when their IQs vary so greatly is so close to 0 you have a better chance that the earth is flat. 5) It's basic logic and reasoning. Or are you going to debate that all races are of equal athletic ability as well? We have differences in races due to evolution. Very basic concept.
No race is smarter than any other race

1. You never explain variance and how it applies to race and intelligence. Therefore I urge the judges to make him explain exactly how it works because all he did was attach a link to a Wikipedia page that barely explains anything. 2. All my opponent did was call me a retard in his attack. Do you really want to vote for a guy who doesn't have the self control to kindly and respectfully address his opponent? This is a debate not a beat down your opponents character. 3. IQ per the definition is the measurement of the capacity to learn not what you have learned and since you never refuted my argument about how intelligence is a measure of multitude of factors including how much you learned you cannot apply this argument. IQ also doesn't measure science strength, reading, writing, etc. And people with a strong adherence to these skills are also "smart" therefore IQ is not a good measurement for intelligence anyway. 4. What evidence? You say evidence points that way and give me 0 evidence. Judges, look at this argument of not knowing the intelligence of a child at birth as a way to vote for me. 5. You site no evidence for your argument here and moreover looks out of place (copied?) Remember my overarching argument is that people have the same level of intelligence they just have different levels of hard work and work ethic. THAT IS why they seem to have different "smartness levels" It's not that they are born smarter, but rather people in different environments don't get the same level of push and pull for intelligence. Final word: Judges, I ask that when you vote you think about this: People all have a bowl of potential "smartness". The difference between "races" is that some exercise this potential more than others. That isn't a difference in intelligence, it's the difference in exercising potential due to hard work, work ethic, environment, and society. Therefore, it isn't that a race is smarter than another. It's all based off of individual hard work.
No race is smarter than any other race

1) People in a dumber race come out smarter because of a concept called variance. https://en.wikipedia.org... And the critical studies actually state: ""Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors" In other words, the "critical studies" agree that blacks are less intelligent; they are just arguing WHY this is the case. Since I claimed the statement all races are equally intelligent is false, why is not important. Argument debunked. 2) Only retards think this way. They too are incorrect in their thinking, just like you who thinks all races are equally intelligent. Both are flawed. 3) IQ is actually age adjusted; in other words, the lower your age, the higher the score you receive from the exact same test. You should research IQ more. 4) The evidence has pointed that way over and over and over again. 5) Incorrect. Here is why: Moreover, it makes perfect sense that some races are smarter than others. After all, races evoloved in different areas. African americans evolved in africa, a hotter climate, where athletism was a favored trait. Asians evolved in asia, a colder and harsher climate, where intelligence is a favored trait. To survive in Africa, one needed speed and strength to be stronger and faster than the predators. However, in colder and harsher climates, intelligence is FAR more useful; to survive in the cold takes intelligence. This explains why there are so many more black people in sports related careers. It's not because they got "lucky;" it's because they evolved in different environments and are therefore different than other races. Or are you now going to claim that all races are also equally athletic as well? /Debate
No race is smarter than any other race

1Even if intelligence is "partially off of genetics", explain to me then why some people in a "dumber" race come out to be smarter than others? You don't like Ben Carson, then go with Neil Degrasse Tyson or Dr. Julianne Malveaux. These people who are supposedly and genetically "dumber than Asians" became more intelligent in their fields of study than other races. Explain to me how this is true if Blacks are genetically dumber than Asians. It's all in the amount of work they put in and the influences in society, not genetics. Oh and the site you sited in your last round, actually says that there were 3 critical studies that disproved or argued against the study (Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University). So you can't look toward one piece of evidence as the end all be all. I'll give tons more if asked. 2. I am not creating a strawman, I literally just said society thinks this way, I never said you think this way. Think of it as an introduction to kind of lead into my argument. If I had only said that some blacks are smarter or some Jews are smarter, than yes I would be creating a strawman, but since I clearly pointed out it was societal thought, I did not commit a logical fallacy. 3. Wikipedia, very nice source :) Again, mean IQ doesn't tell me anything if you don't tell me when it was derived. For all you know it could have been produced when the people scored were 20 when they would have been fully influenced by education level, society, etc. Therefore this argument can't be weighed in the debate. 4. The Child A, Child B comparison is to prove that people don't know straight from the bat that A is smarter than B, therefore even if differences DO exist, you haven't proved that, therefore you can't claim genetics is the main reason for intelligence. 5. "If everything else were equal, blacks would still be dumber than asians." ==> Hasty Generalization Logical Fallacy
No race is smarter than any other race

To say that intelligence isn't based off of genetics is simply false. Is intelligence based off of genetics entirely? No, of course not. Partially? Yes, intelligence is based partially off of genetics. Argument Debunked http://www.news-medical.net... Moreover, no one ever claimed there were black men who weren't smart, or that there were jews who weren't dumb. (Although I disagree on Ben Carson being really smart, but that's another debate.) This, however, is a conversation about races in general. You are creating a strawman; I never claimed that every black man was dumber than every jew. Smart blacks are outliers, and dumb jews are outliers as well. Intelligence of race follows a statistical distribution . The mean IQ of a black american is 85, white american 100, etc. Argument Debunked https://en.wikipedia.org... The part about no one being able to determine the intelligence from a child is irrelevant. Just because humans can't determine that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Argument debunked. Yes it is true that education level plays a part in intelligence; in fact, there are many factors to intelligence. However, genetics is one of these factors, and even if everything else were equal, blacks would still be dumber than asians.