BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plea bargaining in American criminal courts fails to achieve justice.

I would like to have this debate in a Lincoln-Douglas style which focuses more on value than scientific evidence. Thank you.RESOLVE: Plea bargaining in American criminal courts fails to achieve justice. Before we begin I would like to define the following terms: Plea bargaining: Negotiation process in which defendants agree to plead guilty in exchange for the expectation of fewer of lesser charges or punishments. -Christopher E. Smith, The US Legal System copyrighted in 2004 Criminal Court: a court having jurisdiction over criminal cases. -http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... court Justice: The process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. -http://www.merriam-webster.com...Plea bargaining in American criminal courts do not fail to achieve justice. The process of plea bargaining requires the accused to plead guilty, usually resulting in a lesser punishment. Value should be taken in account in plea bargaining. Here are my following contentions. When the accused plea bargains, he/she is still being given a punishment that he/she must serve. A person confessing to their crimes and taking responibility should be taken in account. There should be value in someone confessing to their crime, serving their time, and going back out into the world and try to rehabilitate themselves and change into a better person. I will extend upon my case once the affirmative/pro has responded. Thank you. (:
Self Aware AI is possible

I would like to point out that there is a deference between information and knowledge. Knowledge applies information to things other than whet the original info defines. People can see that wood floats on water, and that if something else floats too, then it must be a similar bouncy. That connection is much more complex than many realize. We also need to see that cramming information into a machine does not mean it knows how to use it. Also, the Internet is a vast place, and even Google does not know how much there is available to see using its engine. A computer would not be able to go through ever single webpage and take all this data, and then apply it to something else. Computers are getting better and mire like humans but we still need to see that what they can do is still limited. The AlphaGo bot beat the best human we could offer at Go. But put a checkers board, a much simpler game, the machine would stumble. A computer can be given a task and do it well. It can become better than we intended, but it can only go as far as the base programming will allow. Hard ware and soft ware are the biggest limitation. Computers are not human. They can never be human. We think too differently. It might be good for a book or movie, but in reality, AI is just a fantasy.
Self Aware AI is possible

The problem I see is that I didn't explain myself well enough. What I meant was that yes, i know how a computer works, but while those are needed, all a self aware robot would need to be able to access the internet for information, main processing would be in it's body, movement and that would be pre-programmed in, but info such as knowledge would be found on the internet. While nothing CAN rival the power of the human brain, that is what the internet would be for. We have the tech just not the ability. Besides just killing, viruses can occur is what I meant, i meant not whether we could but whether we should. The whole, it takes years for us to learn to use our bodies thing I don't quite like because we aren't just learning during those years we are also, they have made working robots smaller than me, i am 5' tall. So if they made it taller and a little wider everything could fit. it just needs enough processing power to get the job done. http://www.collective-evolution.com... while this is kind of funny it shows how close we are to self aware AI
Self Aware AI is possible

I was hoping for a bit more to work with, but I get what I get. I would like to point out that the first sentence of the pro side shows how ignorance in the subject leads to misunderstanding. A computer needs a cpu for processing information; it needs a hard drive to store information; it will also need a motherboard for the base firmware. We cannot just "have it on the internet." A processor is a physical thing. You might say that we upload so many things on the internet so I AI would be possible but the internet is just servers around the world that are connected; a physical computer is still needed. We might say that the AI would learn from the internet, but where would it start? Again, we have seen that connection are complex to program and impossible to make them all. If it wants to look up how to row a boat, it might just search it on Google, but what would it do with the info? Why would it want to know? We need to see that a self-aware AI has no reason to live...no purpose. Emotion is beyond even our comprehension, let alone being able to be programmed. Also the way people react is from emotion and a lens of cognitive input. Would this AI see and hear? If it did, how would it learn how to use these inputs? It takes years for us to learn how to use our bodies. Why would it kill people? Why is that logical? Computers are pure logic, only using numbers to finish tasks. There is no reason why a computer would want to kill humanity. Is it scared? We had to program fear. Is it evil? We had to program that. We can try to program it all, then the result is not self-aware AI, it is just a program that spits output from a certain input without processing anything.
Swimming should not be considered a sport

Your welcome i always love to defining a sport i've had many a argument about it, I'm just basically going to go straight down the flow. I realize that others can compete with you but they do not hinder you from getting your best time. There is no defense, and you aren't affected by the other swimmers. Just because you can compete against others doesn't mean it isn't an individual event. Much like in debate you give an oratory. Your performance isn't affected by any one else but it can be scored with the others competing. It is still considering an individual event. Once again just because you compete doesn't make it a sport. I compete against another person in debate, a board game, and seeing who can make the biggest burp you compete in. It doesn't make it a sport. These things are highly regarded skills that we send to people to other countries for and pay them millions of dollars. Just because you are sent to the olympic games doesn't mean that it's a sport, you just have to look at curling for an example of that. When you way this round i want you to look at the word compete. Do you really think that this is the word that defines a sport or is it something more. Something more than a skill.
Swimming should not be considered a sport

Thank you for joining this debate, First I will rebutt my opponents points and then move on to my own. My opponent stated that "Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports." Swimming is an event that you can compete against others, when your swimming against someone else you are competing against them. You are competing against yourself and you are competing with the other teams as well. Second "I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question." I also am on a swim team and I know that to win a swimming championships you need the best times, so you are always competing against yourself but you are also competing against others as well. Third "Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations." By what you described speed skateboarding as yes it would be considered a sport, because you are competing against another person right? Then overall speed skateboarding is like nascar. Also golf and track are sports to because not only does the whole world consider them they both are competitions. In the PGA tours it is all about golf players COMPETING against each other so it is a sport, and for track runners we have a whole olympic event for this plus you are competing against other nations making it a sport. Thank you,
Swimming should not be considered a sport

Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports. I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question. Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations.
STUDENT AT ALL KANSAS CITY MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING CELLS PHONES INTO SCHOOL

Hello Mudder i would like to begin by asking you, "Why should only the Kansas City and Missouri district be allowed cellular phones?" Why can't we make this a national thing. Any way beyond that cell phones do more harm than good. like you I live in a school district that doesnn't allow cell phones. I must admit it has done the whole school district good. Before the ban kids would be texting in class instead of paying attention. When the student forgot to turn his ringer off and his/her phone went off it would resrupt the class and the class would loss study time or just plain class time to have the phone taken awayu for the rest of class. The thing is though before the ban the student would get the phone back and the same thing would happen next class. Neverless by the third class the student would get a detention for distupting the class, but neverless he/she disrupted and it was a a waste of class time to give the student detention and have him/her turn the phone in. So, evidently the school officials decided to ban cell phones. But in our school we are allowed to heve phones in our locker so after school if a situation like yours arises then they could call home. Please inform me if your school is different but i don't think it is.
STUDENT AT ALL KANSAS CITY MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING CELLS PHONES INTO SCHOOL

THEY SHOULD BE able to bring there phones in school because after school they might b staying an they parents might need to get in touch with them an the teacher phone might be down so how they gone get in touch with them an hat if the child wanna go over a friend house how would they get in touch with the parent or what if they just wanted to walk home or what if they missed there bus and the teachers wont let the child back in the school then what
100 debate challenge 7: THBT internet brings more harm than Good.

Con drops my argument that he threatened my family. Arguments go to me it's the last round and it's too late for rebuttals. My opponent threatens me with Chuck Norris in the final round which is a clear conduct violation.Before every sporting event the pledge of allegiance should be recited but since my opponent did no such thing he hates America.Pro urges the voters not to penalize my conduct, but I remind the voters that I hate minorities, am a misogynist and am an advocate for slavery. I also want to remind voters that Hitler was a great guy. I personally would like to take the time to say that anyone currently reading this debate isn't very bright. Also, rape is cool. Oh yeah and I forgot. People that drink tea should be thrown in jail. Take that debatability. http://www.youtube.com...
100 debate challenge 7: THBT internet brings more harm than Good.

Pfff, Pro never forfeited [1], he conceded [2].[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I do urge the audience, however, to not penalize his conduct since it was a concession instead of a forfeit. Now, if I may take a moment of your time to recite some poetry.
should prostitution be legalised

Some of your points/reason are repeated, basically you are trying to say- Legalization of prostitution gives legal rights to pimps or sex industry to expand the prostitution , and it doesn't promotes women's health , doesn't enhance women's choice and may cause increment in child prostitution. So my point is : Legalization of prostitution doesn't means that anyone who wants to run prostitution can got permission from government, now government's have control on it. After legalization, pimps have to take license from government to run the prostitution. And practicing of unfair means by them can cancel their license, so it creates a fear for them, so they can follow the prescribe rule to run the prostitution. In case of expansion, So it is a choice, if anyone prefer it so she/he can go in it and if pimps try to make force on her/him then she/he can go for complain. Legalization of prostitution, doesn't means that governments give allowance for child prostitution, there would be minimum age which is decided by government, same as government define minimum age for marriage and minimum age for drinking, and if any case are found regarding child prostitution there should be complain of it and should be punished. Legalization of prostitution definitely protect women(prostitutes) because now what they are doing is legal so they can go to cop or state court if any unfair means happens to them and got a help from a state. State would not give licence for street prostitution to pimps, and also after legalization government have information of where prostitution is going on because every sex industry or brothel's which are running now they try to got a legal license. After legalization of prostitution state would conduct protective steps to ensure health and safe environment for prostitutes and provides labour rights and prostitutes have identity in society and if 100% is not followed but still these condition is much better than condition what prostitutes suffer in these day's.
should prostitution be legalised

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution 1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry. 2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking. 3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it. 4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution. 5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution 6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution. 7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings. 8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women"s health. 9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women"s choice. 10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized. In the next round,I will describe each of the points in detail
should prostitution be legalised

I am putting the three point in favour of legalization of prostitution. Protective sex, Labour right's to prostitutes, Reduce violence Against Prostitutes Protective Sex: It would provide protective sex to prostitutes and to her customer, and also Legalized prostitution would allow the state to require a information that all prostitutes take regular health examine, and ensure that she or he is not carrying a sexually transmitted diesease like AIDs or HIV. Therefore Sex worker may get weekly tests. It would give employment rights to prostitutes: They can get rights like minimum wage, weekly holidays, freedom from discrimination , and a safe work environment etc.. Reduce violence Against Prostitutes: If prostitution is legalized then they can call the cops in case of any violence and may reduce force sex. Well-regulated and Legalized would pave way for licenses and registration, whereby workers would have their own identity, access to public facilities, and other services. Which leads to both safe and profitable.
16kadams Tourney: Newt Gingrich's Moonbase Idea Will Happen

This debate will be about Newt Gingrich's crackpot idea about establishing a moonbase by the end of his second term. Rather than debate the benefits of such a moonbase or debate about whether we should or should not establish a moonbase we will instead be debating about the possibility that Newt Gingrich will establish a moonbase by the end of his second term.
Funniest Limerick wins

Rules;1.) Must be a limerick2.) Must be your own poem3.) Plagerism will result in automatic disqualification4.) 1st round acceptance onlyVoting rules; 1. Conduct vote will be replaced with who had better word usage. 2. Spelling and Grammar will stay the same. 3. More convincing arguments will be replaced with who had the funniest limerick. 4. Most reliable sources vote will be given to whoever has the most original poems.The rhyme scheme is AABBA
Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

ConclusionMy opponent has proven himself to be a very knowledgeable person of this specific topic. His arguments were highly sophisticated and complex. I give him that. Therefore, I urge the voters to give my opponent the "reliable sources" and "most convincing arguments" points. Before you vote, ask yourself: Who is truly correct? Whose evidence is more truthful? Who is the true victor of this debate? These are only a few of the questions you should consider before voting. I remain convinced that my side is correct, but when the votes turn out, maybe my view will change. For clarification, I am NOT conceding at all. I am, however, acknowledging that I have not put much effort into this debate and that my opponent deserves certain credits. It has been fun debating this topic and I look forward to the beginning of the voting period.
Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

RebuttalsSome of your points are valid, but I must say that they do not support your claim. I never claimed that Democrats are always more economically responsible, but they are generally more responsible than Republicans. I have made points about how Democrats have been economically successful, unlike Republicans. I have referred to Roosevelt and Clinton, two very successful Democratic presidents. I have also referred to Hoover and Bush, two of the worst presidents in our history, who were Republicans. I have a challenge for you: Deny it. Deny the points I have made and refute all of my arguments. I believe you cannot do this. It is your duty to prove me wrong. I will admit that some Republicans - Reagan, most notably - have been very successful economically speaking. However, Democrats are, generally, the more responsible party when it comes to financing the country. One cannot refute these facts. One cannot make a rebuttal about these truths. The points you have made may be valid, but they do not assist your stance. You claimed that, "[M]ilitary spending is far smaller than the [D]emocrat-supported welfare spending. The [D]emocrats have a biger problem." I beg to differ. Welfare is an important issue, but one cannot ignore the military spending issue. Welfare is not necessarily a "bigger problem." In time, both will be dealt with. I will admit that the Democrats aren't the perfect party, but they are by all means much more responsible than the Republicans. You cannot ignore the failures of George W. Bush and the recession he shall be remembered for. Barack Obama isn't perfect, but he has done his best repairing the economy and creating a better world for everyone. My challenge for you is to deny this. The Republicans have been highly irresponsible, obnoxious, and hateful, unlike the Democrats. Neither party has a perfect set of values and policies, but the Democratic agenda is much more attractive than the Republican agenda. "The [D]emocrats tend to see the government as a tool to solve problems and don't generally like to make major cuts to spending. They often propose government solutions to problems such as healthcare, poverty, pollution, etc that often involve increasing spending. Eventually what happens is that spending starts to vastly outpace revenue. That is when the left and the right begins making demands to balance the budget."This may be true, but I assure you that this would be beneficial. Look at the numbers. Review the facts. Over the course of history, the Democrats have proven their superiority. I am not a typical Democrat and I will comprimise with Republicans and others, but I will not deny the facts. In this argument, I will not list any sources. I have made my point and will continue to strengthen it. You, however, have made hideous arguments that do not support your stance. Republicans have their flaws and their advantages, but they are by all means less responsible than the Democrats. Your points absolutely do not support your claim. Mine, however, support my stance. When you write your next argument, I hope to see more effort put into it.
Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

In this debate, I will be arguing that Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans. I would like to implement a few rules before we begin: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used.2. Each argument must contain sources and they must be cited correctly.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.I will now state how this debate will be structured:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion
RIDDLES are hard...

1) This is the riddle....Sabrina gave Samantha as many dollars as Samantha started out with. Samantha then gave Sabrina back as much as Sabrina had left. Sabrina then gave Samantha as back as many dollars as Samantha had left, which left Sabrina broke and gave Samantha a total of $80.00. How much did Sabrina and Samantha have at the beginning of their exchange?