BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape

Even though she did accept the bridal scarf, she only did so because she knew that his family wouldn"t stop. Just because it is her family"s tradition to get married this way doesn"t mean she wanted to get married this way, she even said so herself that she did not want to be kidnapped, the groom told her that he would not humiliate her this way, he would go about it in a different manner, but he still went ahead with it. It is her family"s tradition to get married this way, but the bride is her own individual. She doesn"t have to agree with what her family"s traditions are, she can think for herself, in this case she did think for herself, and she was forced to marry him. Just because she knew the groom does not mean she wasn"t forced into the marriage. She did want to marry him; she wished that he did not go about it this way because it is not what she wanted. It was coercion, she resisted when they took her, and she knew what was going on, she knew that the groom was kidnapping her so he could get her to marry him. Say she was fearful because she did not know what was going to happen to her, when they got to the groom"s house and the women of the family were trying to convince her to accept the wedding scarf, she still resisted. She was well aware of what was going on but she did not want any part of it until she realized that she had no other way to go about it. It does not matter if he would of let her go, she still said no to the marriage. Even if she were just saying no to look pure for the groom and her family, why would she admit that she did not want to get married yet? Or that she only took the scarf because the family would not leave her alone if she didn"t? (26:50) If she wanted to get married to him, she wouldn"t of claimed that she wasn"t ready to get married at this time. She only agreed to it because she had too. If she had kept saying no, the groom"s family would of kept on trying to get her to accept the scarf until she did accept it. When she first arrived at the groom"s home she resisted, giving her answer as no. Clearly she did not want to get married to him this way, regardless of if she had plans to get married to him, she did not want to marry him at that exact moment. She told him that she did not want to get married this way and he had promised her that he would do it another way (26:50). It is a tradition in the family but it does not mean it had to be upheld. The bride did not want to be kidnapped even though it was a part of tradition. The Bride had already explained to him that she did not want to get married this way and he knew that, he told her he wouldn"t do it but yet he did it anyway. This is still non-traditional rape, she said no to the marriage. She kicked, screamed and tried to fight to get out of the van, she did not want to get married to him, but she was forced to under coercion. If she did not accept the bridal scarf, his family wouldn"t leave her alone until she did. Yes, she did know the groom, but other women who have been non-traditionally raped also knew their attackers and in most cases the women were attacked by their husbands. (167.5.4)
Rape

Granted, she did not want to get married in that sort of way, however, she did grant herself that way of getting married in that very demeanor because this is what she entirely grew up on. She was raised on these ideals, so she would be breaking tradition towards herself, her family and her culture-(26:50). The bridal scarf signifies that she will most definitely get married at that very moment. Why? Because she was raised on it, she knew what she was getting herself into when she accepted the wedding veil to be wrapped around her head to give the signal that a marriage was going to go into fruition, regardless if it would take hours or even days-(15:00). How was she forced to accept the marriage if she knew her soon-to-be groom? And it cannot exactly be coercion towards initiating such a grotesque and inhuman act like rape in the non-traditional sense because the only reason she was really resisting in the first place was because she did not even know where she was going when she was being kidnapped while just innocently getting water from the watering hole from a friend-(18:50-18:55). How would you feel if that were to happen to you? I"m pretty sure you would start to shed a few tears due to an outstanding fear you are realizing at the moment. Another point is that the family would have let her go anyway, if she had accepted another man"s attempt at kidnapping her, spend the night at his house. Then and only then would they have let her go because after that she would be deemed to be an "unclean girl" and then she will have to marry the person who kidnapped her instead of the initial person who wants to kidnap her in the first place. As long as the pair knew each other and established a rapport on this basis of them marrying each other then the kidnapping would mean no difference-(26:10) because over half of the marriages that occur within the region, over fifty percent of women become betrothed in this manner-(2:45). If the groom would kill the woman he wants to marry, then why would he marry her in the first place? Why subjugate women to such an ordeal if you are just going to kill her? And where exactly does the groom even remotely threaten his fianc" if she does not go through with the wedding? However, the actual claim towards the theme of why she said no was not meant only for her, but of the overall mentality of both the men and women of Kyrgyzstan-(16:00-16:23). If she did not want to get married to this person in that way in the first place, then she should have left the man altogether because being that the bridal kidnappings are a steeple of the regions traditional values. During the Cold War regime, there was a rise on the extinguishing of this practice. It started with legislation indicating that they were stopping the betrothing of underage girls and start sending them, along with the boys, off to state funded education programs so the children can finish school and possibly, in their perspective futures, go off to and study at university-(23:50-2403).
Rape

1. Bridal kidnappings are deemed traditional, predating "the horse days". (1:25) 2. In some cases, both the bride and the groom know each other and have courted around with each other for quite some time. (4:35- 4:51) 3. Most women in the region object to the act because of the humiliation of the being kidnapped, not because they do not want to marry the person who organized the kidnapping. (3:11- 3:14) 4. Widespread revitalization of bridal kidnappings within the cities of Kyrgyzstan because of a motion picture adaptation of these kidnappings in the 2007 film called "Boz Salkyn", which revealed the customs this tradition entails. This was often done in rural areas before the film's initial premiere. (5:00- 5:50) 5. One reason for this revival is because the people want to bring back past demeanors and rituals of their culture. (5:50-6:00) 6.in rural areas, as many as half of all marriages, happen by way of bridal kidnapping. (2:45) 7. Majority of police and elected officials don't even know if it is illegal, however, if it is found to be illegal, then it is deemed as a traditional act. (3:26- 3:40) 8. Western ideals stigmatize the act of bridal kidnappings, however the ideals themselves have nothing lot offer to their culture besides same sex marriage, divorce, orphans, HIV spreading, narcotics, violence and brutality. These things they are not accustomed to at all. (6:00- 6:21) 9. The revitalization of this tradition is evident, even as far as music that is inspired by the act of bridal kidnapping is playing on a radio as a groom is on his way with a kidnapping party to go claim his bride-to-be. (9:27-10:57) 10. The overall mentality of these kidnappings is first derived from a formal (western) proposal. When a man proposes, he is usually met with a negative answer, although what they really mean is "Yes, I will marry you." If the answer is No, then the answer is genuine, if Yes, it would only mean if the woman is desperate to get married. (16:00- 16:23) 11. After the bride has said yes, the groomsmen go the house of the bride's side seeking forgiveness for the kidnapping while bearing gifts of food. (20:35- 23:15) 12. The bride eventually stops resisting from the initial kidnapping, making it evident of her acceptance of the marriage. (15:30) 13. In some cases, the families knew each other and had prior knowledge of this arrangement for a long time. (22:17) 14. In this case, the bride confesses that she did want to get married eventually but just not so soon. She also accepted this marriage due to the fact that she was raised on this tradition. (26:50) 15. A rapport of this theme was already established between the bride and groom prior to the kidnapping. (26:10) 16. The after the wedding night, evidence of consummation must be disclosed to the village for proof that the bride was a virgin. If there is proof, it is then hung on a clothesline for all to see. (30:39) 17. If the bride does not resist her being betrothed, then that does not constitute rape. (27:40)
Rape

I understand what you are saying. Individual freedom is one of the most organic and autonomous emotions a human can ever possess on his person. However you keep negating the factor of the overall mentality of the region itself. Western ideals like civil liberties and such laws that regulate and protect a citizens inalienable prerogatives are highly accessible to each and every one of those citizens that dwell within the limits of this region. If this woman really and genuinely did not want to get married this way. She would have just went through the main steps of this marriage, like the ceremony and unfortunately she would most likely have to give up her virtue in order to make a proper escape or coordinate a well organized plan to get herself out of the situation she's in, and then make her way through the legal system with much much careful discretion in order to what she wants, which is her freedom yes? You see this process would most likely take days, months, or regrettably even years to execute of even remotely get into fruition. Regardless of what was said within your argument, the bride should go to the law if she wants out of this marriage. But with that comes much anguish towards both sides of the spectrum. Heaven forbid that she actually succeeds in get a divorce and annulment from this ordeal, as well as persecuting her husband for 1st degree rape and then all of the sudden she falls into an unfortunate accident or even worse, she can become inflicted with a sadistic, torturous or perhaps even most heinous form of street vigilante family justice and just beat her to a bloody pulp until there is no life in her, all just to prove a point to keep up an "ancient" ideal. She can cause a lot of trouble for herself in this situation if she is the slightest bit resistant towards this marriage. What she can do is really accommodate herself. She can set certain standards for herself as the woman of the house. She can finish school like the bride's parents told the men of the groom's family after the apology. All because she has been the product of a bridal kidnapping, it does not mean that one cannot grant themselves certain amenities for their comfort. Excuse me? How did I know that she did not recognize anyone in the van? Because it is right within the clip of this documentary, that is how I know. And of course she has to call out her fiance's name, that establishes that she then knows why she is being kidnapped. It would have saved her her efforts of struggling throughout the whole rise in the van. She was panicking. And yes, I can agree with what you are saying about her struggling to get away from a kidnapping attempt, but not your claim on that is her struggling to get away from a marriage. Her calling out to her mother is a general and natural cry for help because it is our mothers who are usually doing all the protecting in our early years, not a plea in order not to go through an arranged BRIDAL kidnapping. Like I said, it is a natural reaction. I mean, wouldn't you call out for someone for cares for you when you are going through a scary mess as a kidnapping?
All drugs should be legalized.

I also would like to apologize for such a late response. I am not going to go too much into rebuttals, as I have already done so in the previous round. However, I will bring up one quick point. Potency does not equal necessary equal usage. This my opponent’s closing remarks, and I will also have a couple of points for the conclusion. The definition of potency is the power to affect the mind or body, not necessarily equals usage. Now it is true that riots have been made due to some degree of prohibition of alcohol (1). And if done on a national scale, the riots would be catastrophic. However, that is one of the reasons NOT to legalize drugs. If drugs are legalized, there is no going back. Even the slightest prohibition may lead to absolute turmoil within the riot crowds, and they may be even larger. Mainly because drugs such as cocaine and meth are highly addictive and if there is a slight prohibition, there is going to be serious anger. It is best if we do not present drugs in the public solely for that reason. However, my economic and federal standpoints in regards to GDP, worker productivity, cost and crime still stand. My closing remarks are that taking all these points in mind (economic and federal standpoints in regards to GDP, worker productivity, cost and crime) along with a huge possibility of social decay, drugs are best to stay illegal. However, I agree that drug laws should be toned down and we should be looking for a cure. Again, as I stated before that would be a compromise to legalization. Or if my opponent puts it “an alternative”. This has been a pleasure debating with my opponent, and I wish him best of luck. I have learned quite a lot, and hopefully my opponent has too. However, I encourage to the audience not to take drugs! 1.http://www.surfermag.com...
All drugs should be legalized.

First I'd like to apologize for such a delayed response. I've been busy with holiday stuff, family events, and the like. I'd again like to give my opponent a final thank you for accepting my challenge and providing very thought provoking arguments. In this round I will be providing my closing remarks. I'd also like to apologize for my sloppy use of putting in my sources (which was honestly out of pure laziness). I'd also like to note that I'm doing this at a time when I'm not busy (which happens to be 2 AM, so I apologize if my closing remarks come off as something that was written by someone who is really tired haha). I would also like to point out that although my opponent supports the legalization of substances such as alcohol and cannabis, I am only using those as examples to extend on my points toward other substances. A lot of the points I make you will see relate more to the prohibition of alcohol, and this is because this is the most notable historical example. We have not yet found all of the answers with the prohibition of drugs, because we have not legalized them, and analyzing it is a much more difficult task than analyzing the historical trends involved during alcohol prohibition. 1. The Iron Law of Prohibition: The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan in 1986 which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases (1). The potency of narcotics, cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana increased significantly after the enactment of prohibition. In the United States during the past century, opium was virtually replaced by morphine and, later, morphine by heroin. The original Coca-Cola contained small concentrations of cocaine. Today cocaine is sold in the form of a high-potency powder or as concentrated nuggets called crack. During Prohibition, consumption of beer plummeted, and consumption of distilled spirits and moonshine increased. The potency of marijuana increased several hundred percent after a "prohibitive" tax was enacted in 1937. Synthetic narcotics and combinations of drugs, such as "speedball" (heroin and cocaine) or "moonshot" (crack cocaine and PCP), have been introduced (2). 2. The alternatives: My opponent made the case that me mentioning the rehabilitation centers was not an argument, but a compromise. My point in laying out the alternatives is not what should be done, but what could be done. So I will note that there can be alternatives to drug prohibition, and it is likely that they could arise in the event that drugs were to become legal. All my other points can be found in my previous arguments, and I'd like to give my opponent a final thank you for accepting my challenge and making this an excellent debate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Thorton, Mark. "The Potency of Illegal Drugs." The Economics of Prohibition. 89-90. Print.
All drugs should be legalized.

Thanks for accepting my challenge! To begin, here are the definitions I believe to be relevant to this debate:Drugs-a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.Legalize- make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Decriminalize- cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal.Economy- the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services. Feel free to add definitions you see beneficial, or adjust my current definitions. I was thinking about adding in definitions of drugs themselves, but I changed my mind, unless you think it'd be beneficial.
Communism (Con) versus Capitalism (Pro)

Rules: BoP is on me (Pro). This will be debate like a Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate complete with a value presented by each team. The debate will surround the values and each sides' connection with them. Please remain ethical, this is meant to be an intelligent debate. Do not post external links unless you are using them as sources. Telling your readers to read more about any issue on a given website is NOT allowed. Since this is a value debate, sources are NOT required but allowed. Forfeiture results in an automatic loss of the conduct point for the forfeiting team. I look forward to this debate.
Belief in God is more reasonable than disbelief.

In their previous argument, my opponent stated that "This debate is over." I took this to mean that he believed to have made his point, and already to have won. However, starting a debate like this and not responding for the rest of the rounds because of a reason like that is not only arrogant, but it's rude to me as the opponent. That said, I would like to add some arguments to what I've previously said. My opponent said that God is love. I disagree. I do not believe in God, which should exclude me from His "love." However, I still love my family and friends. I still have concept of love past physical attraction, showing that God can't be love, because even non-believers can feel it. Still, if some believe that I would be included in "His love", then I can still prove that it is not true. If God truly loved everyone, and gave everyone love, then people like Hitler should not exist. People filled with hate and nothing else should not exist. Then wars waged for needless reasons would not be waged. If God is love, then he is doing a poor job of adding love to the world.
Belief in God is more reasonable than disbelief.

To address my opponent's first point, I would like to say that it is not necessary that God is the one that created the universe. The quote used was "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." This states that God created the universe, but does not give proof that it was him. In this same way, I could claim to have made the Eiffel Tower, but if I claimed that, then you would require me to show proof that I'm telling the truth. The same can be said about God. There is no evidence, except scriptures written by religious people, that God created the universe, or anything else. To address the second point, it is true that humans have a desire to understand the world and the meaning of life. However, we do not require God to satisfy this desire. Many people that don't believe in God find answers through science, and completely satisfy that spiritual need. People always want to learn more, whether it's about other people, other life, or other planets in space. Believing in God does not negate this curiosity, this spiritual need, as evidenced by the fact that many curious, groundbreaking scientists are religious. People can be completely satisfied without worshipping God, proving that that part of our spiritual need, the one where we feel the desire to worship God, is nonexistent. Third, sometimes people will do things because they believe it's set in stone. The so-called "historical predictions" that God makes in the Bible are fulfilled by people, who likely were under the influence of the Bible themselves. They read the Bible, saw the prediction, and because God supposedly told them to, set out to fulfill it. People saw something they believed to be true, and set out to prove it. If Cyrus' army had never gone to attack, and had simply waited for what the Bible said to happen, then it never would have happened. They took what they thought was true, and acted on it, making it true. This isn't God's prediction, it's people, humans, making their choices based on what the Bible says. As to not forcing me into beliefs, I am thankful for that. However, I don't want a useless debate either. Just as you say I should research to find why God is real, I urge you to do the opposite. There is no proof that God exists, and the one thing most people say is proof, the Bible, is full of contradictions. If everything the Bible says is true, then it's nonsense because it constantly contradicts itself. You can find numerous websites that show examples of this. Also, if only parts of the Bible are true,then why follow it at all? While I recognize that many people believe in God, I say that you should look for proof before blindly following a religion that doesn't even agree with itself.
Unanswered questions

The debate prompt is "Unanswered questions." I don't know about any of you, but there are a lot of unanswered questions I have, so obviously they exist. So, I will give a few unanswered questions to prove that they exist.1. Why the heck did my opponent choose Con on this debate? After all, he gave a few unanswered questions, except they can be answered using Biblical apologetics. To him, they are unanswered, if he would like to debate those I would be more than happy to answer them.2. Is time travel possible? I mean really, there are so many reasons why or why not from Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawkings, and Michio Kaku. We really can't know right now.3. What will I have for dinner tonight? I really don't know since my mom is out doing errands so I cannot ask and I don't know what she is making. I have a hunch it is pizza, but I really don't know.4. Is Star Trek better than Star Wars? I have always liked the exploits of Captain James T. Kirk better, but hey, who am I to judge?5. Does that boy/girl like me? The classic question every junior high student has asked him/herself over and over about at least five people different people. At once. Middle school is confusing... I wonder how any of my questions got answered while I was in it...6. Are dogs better than cats? I would say "yes." But the crazy cat lady down the street has other ideas...7. When will the rapture happen? The Bible says that no one knows the day or the hour. So, it is an unanswered question.8. Does God exist? Personally, I'd say yes. Can we ever know for certain before we die... no.9. Does God not exist? Personally, I'd say no. Can we ever really know until we die... no. 10. Is Justin Bieber an idiot? Wait... never mind this has already been resolved.Anyways those are 10 9 unanswered questions and 1 question that is answered but only 13-year-old girls deny the obvious truth. In conclusion, unanswered questions exist! Thank you, and good night!