BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

I can not find any support for the argument that the defendant rights to his inherence should be avoided because of his criminal act, yes he should be punish only for the act of murder. There has been no protocol between the testator and his grandson, nor is there any such contractual element made in such way to denied the inherence or property. No such contract can impose or imply conditions for the inherent. Even though the grandson is guilty of committing a crime of which placed him in a position to sooner receive the benefits of the will, his rights to the inherence should not be subject to seizure and should be giving his property as stated in the will. Therefore by the court assuming that the inherence shouldn't be given to the grandson because of the crime committed is changing the will and not continuing with the wishes of the will writer.
palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

1) Following a will's basic principle, it has been concluded that no alteration or manipulation should occur in regards to the provisions of a will. It is the writer of a will and writer alone should be the ultimate executioner of a will. Actions by any other person that affect a will should be penalized and he or she must be looked upon as a manipulator of that will. 2) It is reasonable to conclude that should Francis B. Palmer has been aware of his grandson's true intentions of murdering him and speeding up the process of obtaining his share, the testator Palmer would have altered his own will accordingly and that would have been honored by the Court. 3) There are special circumstances where a Court may intervene and one of those circumstances is when a will becomes the result of fraud: when a beneficiary has the power of attorney to conduct the last wishes of the testator, e.g. making false statements in a will to benefit himself/herself. The defendant Palmer was indeed charged and convicted on the charge of murder. That was a criminal proceeding, contesting the will is a civil matter an in civil suit, cases are intended to resolve, correct private issues such as breaches of contracts and in this case, the will in question left by Francis B. Palmer. The breach of contract in this case was that the contract, the will's "life span" was cut short due to the defendant Palmer's act not towards his grandfather, but the will itself. That is true that if the defendant killed someone else other than his grandfather, he would have received the assets fro the will anyway. But what was his intent upon committing the crime? He committed fraud and the fraudulent element in this case is that he manipulated the will, his actions prevented the will of ever being revised, defendant Palmer hindered the possibility of Francis B. Palmer to ever bring any amends to the will, possible ones that might have been even more advantageous and/or beneficial to the defendant. 4) The writing of a will is no one's business other that the writer himself. He might have had more provisions to add to the will and perhaps give the defendant a larger portion of his estate and if the defendant had knowledge of future provisions that can turn in his favor, he would not have murdered his grandfather then and not wait for a bigger cut of the inheritance. 5) The Court in this case is not the modifier of the will. The defendant took the first action of altering the will by preventing Francis B. Palmer from entering any more provisions to it by murdering him and therefore manipulating the will to benefit his own self. 6) The fact that Francis B. Palmer never had the chance to make any last provisions to the will because of the defendant criminal actions would constitute a modification of it on the part of the defendant and not the Court. 7) Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.
palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

1. No will shall ever be altered or revoked by the court, it is the courts function to preserve all of the clauses therein Is the court allowing to revise a person's will under special circumstances? If the court can adjust or change someone's will due to special circumstances, then one can argue the defendant can then respond by saying he would not have murdered his grandfather if he would be denied the assets left to him by the will. This does not mean that the grandson should not be punished for the murder, but to be denied his assets due to the outcome of his grandfather death regardless of how he died. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the grandfather. If the grandson killed someone aside from his grandfather, he would have received his property that was stated in the will. This idea takes away from the idea that the law does not reward a person for illegal acts. Even though Palmer did not kill his grandfather in this situation he was still eventually given the property when the grandfather died. Therefore, the court can award someone for an illegal act.
palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

The Court in this case is not the modifier of the will. The defendant took the first action of altering the will by preventing Francis B. Palmer from entering any more provisions to it by murdering him and therefore manipulating the will to benefit his own self. To modify the will, Court would have to physically alter its provisions, add provisions and it must have a good reason to do so in the first place. The last provision that was entered was doe by its writer, Francis B. Palmer and his intention must be respected in every way. Could we say that they would be more alterations to follow? It is not the question here. We must look at what transpired after the testator took action and modified his will, adding the name of his grandson Elmer Palmer to the will. There are special circumstances where a Court may intervene and one of those circumstances is when a will becomes the result of fraud: when a beneficiary has the power of attorney to conduct the last wishes of the testator, e.g. making false statements in a will to benefit himself/herself. (e.g. and that would make a contract, as previously mentioned, unconscionable. There is no way that one party would consent to a legal contract, an agreement to not benefit them in any way. The same way follows a will. When writing a will, a testator asserts as a reasonable man to whom the assets will be awarded upon his or her death. It is obvious to believe that the testator would be happy and satisfied that the beneficiary of his will become his own murderer. Culpable mental state should never be questioned. Defendant formed an intent upon which his actions were brought out in a form of murder. The intent was clear, to secure an immediate payout by the will. The defendant Palmer was indeed charged and convicted on the charge of murder. That was a criminal proceeding, contesting the will is a civil matter an in civil suit, cases are intended to resolve, correct private issues such as breaches of contracts and in this case, the will in question left by Francis B. Palmer. The breach of contract in this case was that the contract, the will's "life span" was cut short due to the defendant Palmer's act not towards his grandfather, but the will itself. That is true that if the defendant killed someone else other than his grandfather, he would have received the assets fro the will anyway. But what was his intent upon committing the crime? He committed fraud and the fraudulent element in this case is that he manipulated the will, his actions prevented the will of ever being revised, defendant Palmer hindered the possibility of Francis B. Palmer to ever bring any amends to the will, possible ones that might have been even more advantageous and/or beneficial to the defendant.
palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

1. The will dictates a part of the estates to be awarded to defendant Palmer. 2. Defendant Palmer should be entitled to his inheritance after his grandfather death. 3.A court can't assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming that the person who created the will is a reasonable person. By allowing the will to predict what a person would have done if they were alive is asking for too much from court. If the will was follow by the people who were part of it correctly than the court should not punish someone for finding a loop hole in the will. (E.g if someone who created the will states that the only way a person who is suppose to receive the assets of a will is by killing someone can the court than assume the person is reasonable?) if the court assumes the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will then the judgment of the will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but left to the court instead. 4. The point of a will is for the person writing it, is allow to assign whoever to follow their wishes with their property or money. If the court could adjust these ideas, then the very idea of a will is likely to be one non-existent.
palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

1. The defedant caused the death to the will writer, Francis B Palmer. 2. The power and construction of a will should be respected in ever sense. 3. To test a will's basic principle, one should consider that a court has no right of altering, annualling and / or voiding an already existing will upon it's writer's death. 4. There aren't any statues that support that the defendant should be denied any funds from the will because of his past criminal acts. 5. To accept such facts mentioned about the defedant criminal actions is to expand the statues that makes this particular case expost factor. 6. There are no conclusive facts that more provisions of the will were ever going to take place before the testor death. 7. No will shall ever be alter, revoked, as the court main priority is this case. 8. Therefore, should the court decide take away money that belong to the defendant that belong to the defendant, the court would be making a new will or altering one. Non-controversial: 1. A valid will should always remain as it is unless a law or a statue to be otherwise. 2. The will of Frances B. Palmer is said to include his grandson as a heir to a part of his estate. 3. Therefore, defandant Palmer should have the right to funds in accordance with the will. Contoversial: The court does not have the right nor the power to rewrite or alter an existing will.
Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate

Originally I considered having you change the premise because the debate was about morality. However I realized that in the end it did boil down to a case for God. All I had to do according to your premise was prove that he made a case for God, there was nothing about how compelling or valid it had to be. You didn’t even say I had to show how he proved the Christian God. Once again by bringing up maricacons to explain the 5 senses you are creating a strawman to avoid addressing the issue directly as you don’t actually believe in them. If you did believe in them then you would be debating whether they created the senses or the God of the Bible did, but that is not what was going on. Kerrigan’s case for not being able to trust the five senses is not self refuting because it only applies to atheists. He can trust his senses because God has allowed him to whereas an atheist can’t know.
Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate

All pro has to do is since he thinks skelly won is show one syllogism that concludes god exists in this debate. How does that syllogism conclude that god exists, if the debate was how reliable are our 5 senses, then you have a point. You in this debate had to make a syllogism that kerrigan made that said. Premise 1 Premise 2 Conclusion: therefore god exists. This conclusion in no way shows a god exists. Sorry. Therefore the atheist cannot trust what he thinks he knows. I think I know the way you thought on this. You probably were thinking this is great. As this is what he was implying Premise 1. Atheist can't prove their 5 senses work. Premise 2 god is the only way they can work conclusion god exists. now as I point out in the debate this is an argument from ignorance, and a false dichotomy. The reason it is an argument from ignorance is we don't know why they work. I could assert premise 2 is maricacons is the only way your 5 senses work. It doesn't mean it is true it is just putting a blanket assertion in place of I don't know. The really sad thing here is that by attacking 5 senses kerrigan has no way to prove anything anyway. He has to use them to make a case for god so at the end of the day he defeated himself. How does kerrigan know that his sense about god is right? Oh wait he can't answer that either. Sorry he was a logical fallacy machine, yes I was a little nervous on the debate and he may sound better, but when listening to a debate the important thing is the arguments and if he debates a topic that is not the actual topic it is a red herring by definition and an epic fail in intellectual debates.
Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate

You want a syllogism for the argument here it is The atheist claims that we can know everything by our five senses Our five senses cannot always be trusted Therefore the atheist cannot trust what he thinks he knows. The conclusion is that there must be something outside our senses which determines things. If you want to talk about fallacies like God of the gaps, how is that any different than the fallacy of you creating strawmen deities to try to disprove Christianity? If Atheism is such a compelling argument shouldn’t it be able to stand on its own without strawmen like the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns? That is what it boils down to and izbo10 failed to address and disprove these points.
Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate

In case my opponent missed it, he just wasted around his job was in syllogism form to present an argument for god that was done in this argument, in case he is unfamiliar with a syllogism: http://en.wikipedia.org... So if he wants to present this god of the gaps epistemological morality god of the gaps fallacy he might want to try in syllogism form as the rules state. Oh by the way you will note I point out how this is a god of the gaps many times by bringing up alternate explanations throughout the debate like moral fairies and the ipu and morality is a brute fact. Come on Benny if you brain learns anything in this debate, let it learn the basic logical structure of a syllogism.
All citizens who have not committed a crime should have the right to purchase a gun.

First of all, I'd like to point out the abuse of this situation. It is round 3! He has completely trashed his original case and started an entirely new debate! I am expected to leave the case I have worked on and answer an entirely new pro case like it is round 1, this is a dirty trick and you should be scolded for it. But, I was never one to back out of a debate, no matter how unfair my opponent is being. Let me just wine a little more about the antics of my opponent. "You've forgotten the most important fact of all" That's because it is a new goddamned argument!!!! It wasn't part of the debate until NOW!!! "You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed." He essentially says in his speech that there is NO WAY I can win this argument, because he tells me I cannot use the only route he leaves me with, this is madness, for everyone who might ever vote on this topic, please see the abuse this man is putting upon me. So I'm going to reject your demand and argue past the Constitution. You are correct that the Constitution is an extremely important document that ought to be respected, however the claim that the USA was founded on the document is false. The Constitution was written after the establishment of the United States, the US was founded on an idea, not a text. The intentions of the Constitution supersede the text written there because without the intention of the law, the words are meaningless. The purpose of the United States government, and every western government was to protect and serve the citizens under it. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens that might be attacked by british solders or Indians. At the time that the constitution was written, guns helped citizens far more than they hurt them, therefore, to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens, they had to make guns a right. Today, however, the US has the same obligation to protect us, but, we are now hurt more by the ownership of firearms than we are aided. This goes back to my con case. If private gun ownership is unnecessarily detrimental to citizens, it is the FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION of the US of A to change the Amendment. The Constitution was made to preserve America, once the Constitution serves a purpose contrary to that of the reason it was MADE, it MUST be reformed. Since all 4 points in my case stand, PEOPLE WILL DIE UNDER YOUR CASE!!!! This is contrary to the fundamental purpose of your precious American government, and must be stopped. There, I have defeated your first and second case. I hope you regret changing your case, because now you cannot respond to any of my arguments, and I should win both cases. To summarize for voters: Under the pro case, I have firmly established that people will die. This is a bad thing. So bad, that no voter should vote pro, no government should agree with the pro, and the Constitution must be changed in order to PRESERVE the democracy known as the United States of America!
All citizens who have not committed a crime should have the right to purchase a gun.

You've forgotten the most important fact of all. You know how the Constitution states our god-given rights that cannot be taken away by anyone? The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Explain to me how you plan that we could create laws that infringe upon the Constitution, the document under which the USA was founded? You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.
All citizens who have not committed a crime should have the right to purchase a gun.

Quote from your argument- So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?
All citizens who have not committed a crime should have the right to purchase a gun.

Criminals will always get their hands on guns. You can ban everyone from using them, they'll take advantage of it and use them against the law-abidding citizens. Isn't it scary that the government can decided at any time to have some troopers storm a house and kill you? Wouldn't you like to defend yourself? Criminals always can get guns from outside of the US, they'll just use them against us, the law followers.
Who should be the next POTUS???Donald Trump(PRO).......Hillary Clinton(CON)

Hello all! I am I favor of Mr. Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States. I believe that Hillary Clinton is a lying corrupt criminal. I will argue for Mr. Trump and Con will argue for Clinton. Thank You, and I hope this will be good debate. Please no trolling or rude behavior. Citations should be used if can. Good Luck to Con! Note: This debate is for Pro's and Con's of your candidate The format of this debate is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Arguments....NO REBUTTALS Round 3: Rebuttals and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusion
Bidoof VS...(Your choice)

No my friend, my Bidoof has merged with the dragonball Z world as well as the Bleach world. My Bidoof s excelled to the level of Super Saiyan 6 Bidoof, My Bidoof is so powerful he pooed right through super saiyan 5 to Super Saiyan 6. My Bidoof is not a Super Bidoof. My Bidoof is also equipped with his own sword which he will awaken to call upon his Bidoof Bankai called "La Toilet". This power is unstoppable and forces so much poo to be poured on your Bidoof that he will kill himself. Your Bidoof will become MOODY from absorbing all mah poo. P.S bear in mind my opponent had to prove that Bidoof would beat any pokemon of my choosing. I chose Bidoof, If Bidoof beats Bidoof, Bidoof still loses this battle. http://www.youtube.com...
We (The US Government) should not give monetary aid to Africa

Ok, its later in the debate, so I will only respond to what I feel is needed 2. EU is effective! I already stated the EU is the world leader in AID to Africa, and is best positioned to solve(thats Dochas 04) The EU is also the world leader in clean water, and has the best techniques and technologies to help Africa. 3. Our Aid would go to NGO's, people, AND Governments. So, the governments wouldn't be irresponsible for ALL of the money. What I ment by similar is that Europe and Africa are bound together by common history, interlocking cultures, and shared objectives. ALSO, they are very close together. I'm not 100% sure which governments are corrupt, but not all of them are(Take Cape Town, in South Africa, for example) 5. Yes, the US is in debt, and thats why the EU will help us with it. We have plans, they have money. 6. It solves mainly for US SP, but also EU too. It helps get rid of the Idea that America is just a snotty, self-centered country. We aren't risking our little bit of SP, we are trying to raise it. 8. There have been foreign aid sent to Africa, but it hasn't solved 100%. However, we are working on it. US action will help in this, because of our technology(Ill specify in my #9) Also, lives have been saved! 9. In terms of technology, it would help solve for the water crisis. We would send machines, to help purify the dirty water in African areas, and help bring more water to areas that are desertified. We are also working on Vaccines(Not just US, worldwide help) to help stop diseases. 10. As I already stated, the money goes to Governments, NGO's, AND people. It won't be misused becuase the EU will help pressure the people to use it correctly, because of their SP. If we don't give AID, these people will continue dying. Take this for example: The Water Crisis kills more than WAR, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction COMBINED. 60 CHILDREN die in about every 8 minutes because of it! My impacts outweigh, its MORE dying. And its happening RIGHT THIS SECOND! However, I do agree with your last statement. The money from the US doesn't need to be sent now. We can wait till the War is over. Until then, The EU can take care of it, while we send technology. Great debate! I am a Novice Policy debater, and I am trying LD in about a month. Debating is a lot of fun, and makes you think! Thanks for a great brain teaser, no doubt, my favorite debate I have had on debate.org! :)