BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
terrorist are bad for the world

Terrorism is simply an extreme form of political expression. Given that terrorist attacks occur most often in countries which have despotic regimes, or in which no other form of political protest is available, these people use the only means they can of getting their point across. We need to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Entirely hypothetically, if the United States were conquered by a despotic regime, and a rebel group was created to attempt to overthrow this regime, you would most likely look upon them as liberators and heros, rather than terrorists and criminals. In a world in which freedom of speech is limited in numerous countries, terrorism can be the only way of getting the word out. It all depends on perspective. So, for now, terrorists exemplify freedom of expression, a good thing. I would just like to take the time to point out that while I do not condone the killing of innocent people, I accept that there are often legitimate reasons for such actions when no other course is available.
terrorist are bad for the world

Terrorist are bad because many people can die in one attack. Terrorists also just want to kill people. They want to kill themselves and kill other people. They can wipe out some of the population. In a war, government might send terrorist to bomb a place that is important to a country. They create fear and kill innocent people. They also break the law and attack. When a country is in envy with another country, they might just bomb the whole place. http://en.wikipedia.org... I thank whoever accepts this debate.
terrorist are bad for the world

"1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?" 2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists. 3. You are supporting me on number 5. 4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself. 5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport" 1: In none of my arguments was I making factually verifiable statements. These are opinion based, somewhat moralistic arguments based in logic. 2: Yes, they were. They attacked British troops, burned down buildings owned by the British, terrorized British citizens, as a rebellious faction, not an independent country (it wasn't a country till they won the war). 3: Your argument on #5 does not actually address my points though, so it is irrelevant whether or not I am supporting you. 4: You go to jail for killing other people. I don't see the argument here. If you are saying peaceful protests, that is all fine and well until the government starts breaking out the tear gas and "rehabilitation" camps. 5:Yes, yes they can. So? There has once again been no response to my primary point, which is that terrorism is primarily a means of expression. We arbitrarily label those terrorists who support our value systems to be heros, sometimes martyrs, who are revered, while those who oppose our value systems are just dogs murdering innocent people. The complete hypocrisy of this view means that there can be no choice but a Con ballot when we realize that terrorism is an expression of beliefs, whether we like it or not, and that numerous countries, considered "good" by our current value paradigm have been founded through terrorist actions.
terrorist are bad for the world

1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?" 2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists. 3. You are supporting me on number 5. 4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself. 5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport. Final Statement: Terriost are bad for the world by looking all of the above
Does God Exist

If your God gave us free will than look where it got the human race we are terrible things. every Human being has raging greed which often leads us to complete ruin. Every great civilization has been destroyed by some sort of Greed related crisis. If God made us in his image does that not mean that he was a fairly corrupted person. I just can't bring myself to believe that I was created by a Divine being that I have never seen or have any evidence of. Science and Communism are the future of the human race and Religion will someday lead to the deaths of many people. With all this unexplored Space all around of us I highly doubt that the answer of our existence is in a book on this small planet. There is a lot that we don't know about our existences, but if God really does exist that would take away all the Fun. Thanks for humoring me, take a break and watch Into the Wormhole. It's really good.
Does God Exist

In my opinion I do not think that the Big Bang theory caused the universe to be born. If this were true why do major explosions like nukes not create life. I also do not believe that we were created by a Divine force. If we were created by a God then he corrupted us pretty bad. I believe that this Earth was created by dust clouds in the universe that clumped together to make a large landmass and life was also created from whatever else is inside said dust clouds. We humans were just microscopic bacteria that adapted to the terrain around it. Thank you
Does God Exist

Hello, I saw your debate and am just getting back from church and thought that God was saying that I should challenge you to this debate. My opening argument is to tell you that the most common disbelief in the Bible is that the world was created in seven days. Science seems to contradict that by putting it into millions and millions of years. But if you think about it according to the Bible God has been around since the beginning of time. Do you think that God sees every single day an actual day? We are comparing two completely different perspectives. God's seven days could as well be equal to millions and millions of years. Breaking it down into parts. Day one: God said let there be light and there was light. The common scientific argument is the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory sounds a lot like if God would say let there be light. Also in my biology class (study of life) one of the first things that we were told was that life can only come from life. So if they say that the Big Bang theory is some small exception for this law. And if you say that I can use the Bible as a reference you should tell that to anyone who has written a world history book because the old testament has been used more in history books. There is a reason that the most informed on historic battles is in Israel( the holy land) Thank you.
Does God Exist

I really do not believe that I was created by this divine being to sit on this hunk of rock and worship him. There is simply no proof of his existence besides the Bible. This goes for all religions too how can all of your religions be right. There is no way to prove this though without having a person die and then come back to life so I am building my opinion on shaky ground. With the Scientific advancements we gain every day it will probably be known how we came to be in the next 5 or 10 years or even less.
Advanced Technology Is Making Our Youth Less Intellectual

My opponent has took the wrong side. Look at the first round. I am Con and she is Pro.Okay, let me begin. Rebuttals"I believe that as technology is advancing, the level of intellect that our youth possess is slowly decreasing because we rely on computers and the Internet to give us all the answers."Please note that my opponent uses the word "intellect". First of all, what is intellect? Definition from dictionary.com in·tel·lect   [in-tl-ekt] noun 1. the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge. 2. capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, especially of a high or complex order; mental capacity. 3. a particular mind or intelligence, especially of a high order. 4. a person possessing a great capacity for thought and knowledge. 5. minds collectively, as of a number of persons or the persons themselves. Does intelligence change over time? Several studies have shown that intelligence does not change over time. For my opponents argument that our youth's intelligence decreases over time to work, intelligence would have to change. ConclusionEven though our youth can get lazier, their intelligence is still the same.Sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...http://health.ninemsn.com.au...
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

In a contractual arrangement like the one entered between Williams and Walker-Thomas, the Furniture Company had to assume great risks in leasing Furniture to Williams. The company in cases as this had to construct the contract in way that if there are defaults it could recoup losses. Walker-Thomas`s method of pricing was therefore to ensure that there was adequate compensation.(513.6.5) Williams however got greedy and bought a stereo system that was way out of her means. Responsibility should not only be on the furniture company, but also on the appellant. She being a rational person should have known that her monthly stipend could not afford such luxury. In addition the furniture company was not responsible for the fact that she had to clothe, feed or take care of seven children. Williams was ultimately responsible for the fact that she sought a luxurious item instead of taking care of her seven children, and based on these facts she is very irresponsible. Both Williams and Walker-Thomas benefited from the contractual arrangement, she was able to make payments at leisure and enjoy the benefits of owning the item. The company was able to continue doing business and therefore remain viable. In a standard form contract, a great majority of transactions are based on the unwritten rule that that you can either do business with the company if you agree with the arrangement or seek other alternatives. (493.1.6-7) Williams in a situation like this could have sought other alternatives. Williams did understand the terms of the contract and the situation; she just wanted a way out of the responsibilities. The contractual arrangement between both parties was a fair one and therefore not unconscionable.
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

Unconscionability due to lack of meaningful choice and contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. The Walker-Thomas Furniture Company possessed the bargaining power because the items were leased to the purchaser and the title remained in the furniture company"s name until all the total payments were made and if the purchaser defaulted on any of the payments then the furniture could repossess the items (511.1.5). Since the contract was standard it negated the meaningful choice that the purchaser should have. The fact that the contract stated doubtful and uncertain stipulations like the company could repossess the items if the purchaser default shows that not all the stipulations in the contract are completely clear. Since the company possessed the bargaining power they should hold more of the responsibility. Even if Williams understood the language of the contract this contract would be a disadvantage to Williams. Unconscionability due to bargaining power, little real choice, commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms then it is as if his consent was never even given. When this happens then if unfairness is determined then the contract is unconscionable. The contract contained complex language so it is not clear that Williams understood everything even if she had previously signed contracts with the company. The fact that she did it voluntarily is not the issue here because she could have voluntarily signed the contract even though she did not understand the full meaning of the terms. In determining unfairness or unreasonableness in a contract the terms of the contract are to be looked at together with the circumstances surrounding the case (513.2.1). The furniture company was aware of William"s financial situation and the terms of the contract favored the Furniture Company. No rational person would agree to a contract where a company would be able to repossess all the items that they had previously purchased from a company if they defaulted on one of the payments. Therefore the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company"s contract is unconscionable because Williams did not comprehend the full meaning of the terms contained in the contract and the circumstances surrounding the transaction of the case was unfair.
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

So you are saying that she may not have known the details of the contract? There you go again with your conjecture. If she was dissatisfied with the terms of the contract, there is no evidence that she had asked for a revision of the contract and that the company had refused. I am sure any reasonable person, not understanding the wording of a contract would have asked for explanations. Williams had been doing business with the Furniture Company for many years and contractual issues were not a problem until now. Are you saying that she did not give consent to the Furniture Company all these years? I know that fraud is not the only factor that contributes to unconscionability; other factors may include duress, misrepresentation, undue influence, non-fraudulent misrepresentation, and differences in bargaining power. Fraud may be defined as a deliberate dishonesty act in order to gain an unfair advantage. There is no evidence that the furniture company used any false or deceptive practices in getting Williams to sign any contract. Alan Wertheimer states in his essay that unconscionability was meant to prevent oppression and unfair surprise. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Furniture Company had greater negotiating power.(489.1.4) Williams knew what she was getting into when she signed that contract. She had been signing several contracts with the Company over the years. The company had to protect its investments and plan for the future. The contract between the appellant and the furniture company should be looked upon as binding as it was voluntary, however unjust it may appear. (488.2.5) I do not see the contractual arrangement as exploitative on the part of the Furniture Company, because both benefited .You mentioned that the Justice Danaher in in his dissent stating that congress should establish legislation to protect against exploitative contracts .However this is his opinion and I am sure other Justices see it another way. If you are leasing someone Furniture items, I am sure you would want as collect as much information as possible. The previous Furniture was held as a form of collateral in ensuring that she did not default on the most recent transactions. The buyer had meaningful choice in that she had the option of not buying the stereo system. If Williams wanted to hear the news, weather alerts and government warnings then she could have taken out a transistor radio. This would be cheaper and less prohibitive. Yes I believe there can be restrictions on spending of relief funds. It would be better spent on basic necessities such as stoves, refrigerators and cooking utensils.
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

I never asserted that I knew for a fact that Williams did not understand the terms of the contract but simply that due to the complex language within the contract she may not have been able to fully understand them and may have signed the contract not knowing or understanding the full meaning of all the terms. She may not have fully known what some of the terms within the contract meant and could have signed it unknowingly which meant that she did not really give consent. If she had known the real meaning she would not have given her consent. You say that according to Dworkin if there is no fraud then the person cannot later relieve himself from the burden. What is fraud and how is it determined? There are other things that determine unconsionibility besides fraud. Unconsionability can be determined by absence of meaningful choice (512.5.1). Another way is through lack of consent to terms along with unfair contractual contractual terms (513.1.1). How is this not fraud? Non-fraudulent misrepresentation is the negligent or innocent misrepresentation by one party to a contract or to agree to terms to which the party would not have agreed had the person known the truth. (504.5.1) non-fraudulent misrepresentation has the same elements of fraudulent misrepresentation (504.5.2). According to Lynn Berat, "a party who has been persuaded by misrepresentation to enter into a contract or to accept terms to which he or she otherwise would not have agreed is entitled to relief if the representation was intentional, negligent, or innocent," (503.5.3). What about exploitive contracts? The dissenting opinion Circuit Judge, Danaher stated that Congress needed to establish legislation to protect against such exploitive contracts as the one presently before the court (513.4.2). This indicates that there was evidence of exploitation on the part of the Furniture Company in some way. We cannot just dismiss the fact that the Walker-Thomas contract had records of William"s financial situation, the fact that she had seven children and her social worker"s name on the back of the contract. Why collect this information if they do not turn down customers? Although there is risk the furniture company could have chosen to use this information to work out a better contract for Williams instead of repossessing her items. The total initial value of all the items the Williams purchased came up to $1,800.00 but the total she would be paying the store to gain the title of the items was $14,000.00. If this is not exploitive or unfair then what is? You say that the stereo was not a necessity for her but people differ in judgments about what is necessity and luxury. What might be considered luxurious to one person might be a necessity for others (513.6.1). Do you think that there should be limitations on the spending of relief funds? A stereo set might not seem like a necessity for some but for others it could be their only way of hearing the news in the morning, or hearing weather alerts and government warnings.
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

Are you stating that Williams did not understand the terms of the contract? There is no evidence in the reading that supports your claim. You cannot make broad assumptions like that. Williams signed the contract therefore she assumed the responsibility of honoring it. If you are assuming, then you could also make the claim that Williams did not read the contract. However according to Dworkin`s essay, In the situation that there is no fraud and an individual choose to sign a contract, then he or she cannot later relieve themselves of its burden (100.2.6) Williams should have known that it is not possible to support herself ,seven children and pay monthly installments from her meager monthly stipend of $218.00. This stereo system was not necessary for her overall existence. However with that said, she was enjoying the qualities that this music system offered and this must count as benefits. Because of the risks involved in leasing, the furniture company had to have favorable contractual terms in order to remain viable. (492.2 reading.6) The terms of the contract may seem severe, however it is more reflective of the buyer`s risk than any greed on the part of the seller. (492.3.1) You must substantiate the claim, that if a contract contained complex language then it is unconscionable. Other than defaulting on payments, why would Furniture Company want to repossess items from the buyer?
The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

You said that both parties had a "mutual understanding" of the contract"s rules but this is not the case because the party issuing a contract cannot just assume that the opposite party has understood the terms of a contract. Williams may have thought that she understood the terms of the contract but she really did not. It is the job of the party issuing the contract to ensure that all the terms within the contract are understood. Moreover in premise three of your argument you stated that the contract clearly stated in the contract that the title would remain in the possession of the furniture company but what evidence shows that it clearly states this and who gets to determine what is clear and what is not? The contract also used complex business language to state the stipulations of the installment payments such as pro rata and the amount shall be "inclusive of an not in addition to the amount of each installment payment to be made by purchaser under such prior leases, bills or accounts"" (511.2.1). There is slight possibility that a common person such as Williams or any common person, for that matter, would be able to comprehend these terms. The company could have used the same language when stating repossession stipulations. There may not be duress or undue influence but just like in the South African Contract Law where people were being exploited because they did not understand the legal jargon of the contracts, Williams is being taken advantage of in the same way (507.7.3). If there is evidence that the terms within the contract contained complex language then the contract is unconscionable. Companies like the furniture store are in business to make profits but should they be able to exploit people to make profits? The contract was entered into by two willing parties but the parties were not equal, in the sense that the Furniture Company had the advantage and the bargaining power. Since the contract states that in case of default the company could repossess, under what circumstances would the furniture company not repossess the contracted items when a customer defaulted?