BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
San Bernadino

Firstly, my opponent attempted to ridicule my value by calling it a "one sentence framework". Well one sentence is better than nothing at all. Secondly, my opponent also dropped my point in the last round, so it is but logical to assume that he has no argument to counter it, therefore judges please extend this point across the duration of the rounds. Secondly my competitor said there are no rules to dictate this match, but since you mentioned the word "contention" you are implying a form of either parliamentary, Lincoln Douglas, or Public Forum format. It is quite foolish to pick rules from a format and leave some out. Therefore my timeframe restriction still stands. Since my opponent complied with my value, he must realize that he has lost this debate because for Apple to comply with the government will never endanger the well being of the people if not protect it, where as to not comply could stop information on Islamist terrorists that could potentially stop a second San Bernardino, or avenge the lives of so many dead children, women, and men. The government is asking Apple's help for a reason, because they recognize the value of this iPhone, on the other hand, my opponent used a redneck cop who probably doesn't have any actual information on this iPhone to say that there is no value in this phone. My opponent also has the "burden of proof" as well. He must prove that there is no value in the iPhone, when it could be so easily be a key into knowing people like Farook who are out seeking for blood that here in the U.S. If he can do that, he wins. But since he hasn't done that, you can see the net benefits of examining and investigating this iPhone. You've heard the term "better safe than sorry" this is what I'm taking about. Vote Affirmative!!
To beleive in immortality is to fear death.

I will take you up on this debate and hope I do a good job for you. It's my first time too: D. I have debated on other sites before, but only just stumbled on this one when my daughter showed it to me. Let us start please by defining immortality and belief because those two words are the basic lynch pin of my assertions. I chose the second definition in both cases, because the first definition was nothing but root word. From dictionary.com: Belief: 2. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: Immortality: 2. Endless life or existence I take the Con side obviously. I maintain that it is possible that to believe in immortality is not to fear death. If I can show any reason a person might believe in immortality, for any length of time, that is not fear of death, I should win this debate. There are two possibilities here: 1) It is possible that having confidence in an endless existence can be due to a true faith that death does not apply to the believer. It is almost impossible to fear what one does not believe applies to oneself. Take for example black holes. I am reasonably sure, without seeing it for myself, that black holes exist. I am also reasonably sure that one will never directly affect me. I know that if one were to directly affect me it would be very bad. I am not afraid of this very bad thing because it does not apply to me. People do not frequently fear what does not apply to them. Death does not apply to those that believe in immortality, at least in their minds. This is because they have a conviction that death does not apply. 2) This is my primary argument. The resolution does not require that one believe in his or her own immortality, just immortality in general. The resolution does not specify that the immortality in question be wanted. I maintain that there are times immortality would not be wanted. If say, my life suddenly got much much worse, and I was the prisoner of a psycho that enjoyed hurting people and leaving them alive to be hurt. I am very much afraid of that pain. I do NOT want to feel that pain. The psycho has a very well timed heart attack and dies. I suddenly become terrified that his corpse will reanimate and come after me again. I am so terrified of it that I am absolutely CONVINCED the corpse will have an endless existence. Follow the steps: 1. I fear a person will cause me intense physical pain (but not death) 2. That person dies 3. I fear that person has a magical way of not dying (as in any horror movie) 4. I fear life exists in the dead person 5. I fear a dead person is immortal 7. My belief in immortality for this person is stemmed by my fear of his or her being alive. Now: I believe immortality because I fear life. A reasonable argument could also be made that I fear the intense physical pain so much that fear has caused my fear (belief) of immortality. Either way, it is not a fear of death. I have shown that belief in immortality can be caused by reasons other than fear of death.
To beleive in immortality is to fear death.

I would first like to say that this is my first debate on this site. I hope there are those out there that meet my instigation with mindful inquiry. Who knows, maybe I'll think differently in the end. To beleive in everlasting life is to provide an alternative for death, or to create an extension of life after death. Since death is a proven and inevitable fact, and everlasting life is a conception, to beleive in immortality is to be in denial. denial is to be afraid to face something in such a manner that it is shut out or explained or assured with such examples as immortality. Denial is an extension of fear. I finish a statement with a quote from Mr. Durden himself. "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything drops to zero." Open for business, fellas
PC is better than console for gaming

Accept.As agreed upon by me and Pro prior to this debate, this will not be a shared BOP. He will take on the BOP and show why PC is better for gaming. I will offer my own points in R2 as to why console is a viable option, and can be just as good. I will offer rebuttals to his points in R3 along with refining my points and offering a closing statementNote my Job is not to show that Console is better but to show that PC is not the best, and demonstrate why console can be just as viable.
The English language is very poorly organized. Its spelling system should be redesigned.

Thank you for this debate topic. As you have not posted any rules or definitions, I will presume you intend for this debate to proceed informally. I will use round one as you did to make a brief statement summarizing my position. English is woolly and adventurous language. Like all languages, English evolves organically, with transformation to words, spellings, grammar and structure occurring subtly and constantly in the ebb and flow of human conversation over centuries. From its diverse German, French, Greek and Latin roots, English boasts a rich, exuberant vocabulary, suffused with refined Norman elegance and stout Saxon potency. English is ungovernable. Spread globally as the tongue of the British Empire, the English language has evolved independently in those nations where it has taken permanent root, as in the United States and Australia, each of which contributes its unique vocabulary and dialects to English conversation. Any attempt to standardize spelling and pronunciation across such a diverse population as English-speaking peoples is doomed to failure. One of the best-known attempts at standardization and simplification - Noah Webster's dictionary and reformed spelling - had precisely the opposite effect, as it cemented the divide between standard American and British spelling. In all likelihood, even if a modern attempt to standardize English gain traction, it would simply add to the existing complexity by introducing a third major English variant while failing to supplant the existing British and American standards. No doubt, English is a mess of contradictory rules imposed inconsistently on a phonetically insufficient alphabet. But it's a lovely mess, and quite a lot of fun to play with.
The English language is very poorly organized. Its spelling system should be redesigned.

English has an advantage because it uses the Latin alphabet, which is based on vowels and consonants. However, out of all of the major European languages in the world, it lacks organization and simplicity. Perhaps the best organized language in Europe is Spanish. It's phonetic, and no matter which part of the world you live in or your audience is from, the spelling is the same. Sadly, I can't say the same for English. English is the language of travel, trade, and politics, but it lacks structure. A single vowel can be pronounced up to 5 different ways, which drives people learning it crazy. It's time to set aside a team of skilled linguists to redesign a single (borderless) spelling system for the English language.
All homosexuals and bisexuals who live gay lifestyles are perverts

We're going to be using the second definition, correct? Because it seems like you are using the first, but the first definition is a verb, and humans can't be verbs. Maybe you meant "Perverters", but this should be clarified. While male genitalia did evolve to mate with females, this does not mean that reproduction is the sole or even primary purpose of sex. I think we would be lying to ourselves if we said most people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having children. By this definition, those who use condoms, birth control, or have abortions are perverts, which is a stretch. You go on to say that when humans use their sex anatomy for unintended purposes, our body reacts negatively. To prove this, you bring up statistics on AIDS. And yet, those who masturbate, on both sides of the sex binary, don't get any STDS, but aren't orgasm-ing for the kids, so to speak. You also say that 81% of new AIDS cases are from gay (presumably) men (actually, 63% of new infections are from gay men), but this ignores the 19% of straight people with the disease, who I would assume you don't consider perverts. If so, then a better premise would be, "Those who have sex without planning on reproducing are perverts". To believe anything else is inconsistent. Then you say that lesbians are perverts for not breastfeeding, because women who breastfeed are less likely to get breast cancer. What about women who choose a career over a family? Or are women just incubators for the male seed? Are fertile women perverts as well? What about women too old to get pregnant? Are they also perverts? Gay and lesbian people aren't "perverters" because they attempt to fulfill the point of sex: achieving orgasm. The second definition is rather subjective. What is abnormal and unacceptable in Alabama is very different than in Los Angeles.
All homosexuals and bisexuals who live gay lifestyles are perverts

Let's keep it simple. Just make your point and we will see who wins Pervert - 1. Alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. 2. Person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable. The sexual anatomy of a male originally evolved biologically for sexual intercourse with a female. The intended purpose of having sexual organs and genitals is for reproduction and sex with the opposite sex The sexual anatomy of a female originally evolved biologically for sexual intercourse with a male. The intended purpose of having sexual organs and genitals is for reproduction and sex with the opposite sex. When humans don't use their sexual anatomy for the original, intended purpose, the human anatomy response negatively. This is why gays make up 81% of all new HIV cases and 90% of all new syphilis cases. 25% to 52% of lesbians are infected with bacteria vaginosis. Pregnancy and breastfeeding naturally reduces cancer so lesbians are at a higher risk of developing cancer. All homosexuals and bisexuals are perverts
All homosexuals and bisexuals who live gay lifestyles are perverts

"We're going to be using the second definition, correct? Because it seems like you are using the first, but the first definition is a verb, and humans can't be verbs" We will be using both definitions because even though humans are not verbs, homosexual behavior is an action. Therefore, the definition applies to homosexual behavior. " this does not mean that reproduction is the sole or even primary purpose of sex" This is a straw man fallacy. I clearly stated the sexual anatomy's original, evolutionary intended purpose is to have sex with the opposite sex and reproduce. You excluded the original, intended purpose in which is the meat and potatoes of my claim. You also excluded sex with the opposite sex. "I think we would be lying to ourselves if we said most people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having children" This is another straw man fallacy. You excluded 'sex with the opposite sex'. Again, you need to refer back to the definition of perversion. Remember? Alter from its original course. The sexual anatomy of humans evolved to have sex with opposite sex and/or reproduce "And yet, those who masturbate, on both sides of the sex binary, don't get any STDS, but aren't orgasm-ing for the kids, so to speak" This is a tu quo que fallacy. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are perverts according to the definition of pervert. Also, study shows masturbation has negative psychological effects such as societal anxiety, shame and guilt "but this ignores the 19% of straight people with the disease, who I would assume you don't consider perverts" First of all, it's not 19% of straight people with the disease. It's 19% of the HIV infections are heterosexuals. That very low considering heterosexuals make up 96% of the population. Gays make up 4% of the population but they are 81% of all new HIV infections. Those are epidemic proportions. When considering the population of each group, the percentage of heterosexuals with HIV is less than 1%. "What about women who choose a career over a family? Or are women just incubators for the male seed? Are fertile women perverts as well? What about women too old to get pregnant? Are they also perverts?" Again, this is a tu quo que falllacy. Fallacies don't win arguments and they are a form of deceit Also, any woman who has sex with men only is not a pervert because she's not moving away from her sexual anatomy intended purpose. She's having sex with men. Also, most elderly heterosexual women fulfilled their sexual anatomy's intended purpose "Gay and lesbian people aren't "perverters" because they attempt to fulfill the point of sex: achieving orgasm" That's not true. You are disregarding the very definition of 'pervert'. The sexual anatomy of humans Evovled to have sex with the opposite sex. That is the evolutionary, original, biological intended purpose.
Feminism is idiotic.

I agree right off the bat that gender egalitarianism is an ideal which society should strive for. However, in places such as the Afghanistan where women are blatantly treated worse than men, feminism is necessary for the achievement of that end. Feminism serves to level the playing field in places where the playing field is unequal to begin with. So by valuing gender egalitarianism, Pro concedes the debate: feminism can't be idiotic if it is working towards a cause which Pro himself agrees with.
the police shooting of Tamir Rice was justified

Yes but if you even read my arguments you would see it was unjustified The kid didn't point the gun at the officers The cops were either blatantly ignorant of the situation or they wanted to kill the kid either one needs punishment. As I showed you the Tamir Rice did not point the gun at the officers and the situation could have been easily defused Anyway I win the debate because you did not show any evidence that it was justified. So yeah XD
the police shooting of Tamir Rice was justified

Im not sure what about my phrase "This will be fun" is uncivilized or offensive in any way possible Tamir Rice was shot through the stomach after showing officers a plastic gun The official case was deemed a homicide 2 independent investigators went through the case and deemed the shooting unjustified. Tamir rice did not even point the fake gun at the officer. Sources: http://www.latimes.com... http://www.nydailynews.com... http://globalgrind.com...
Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

If a person is not aware that crime x is a crime and they do it then they either believe that action x is not wrong and would not mind crime x being done back to them or they do not care that it is wrong and do it to you anyway in which case they are not showing fairness to you and fairness to them should not be be required of you. In addition even if someone does crime x unaware that crime x is a crime court would still declare them guilty of committing the crime. For example if someone is unaware that vandalism is a crime and they commit vandalism they would till be charged for committing vandalism. In the situation where they do not believe the action is wrong if someone were to retaliate by vandalising the property of the person who first committed this to their property they would not mind as they do not think it is wrong. In the case where they think it is wrong buy do it anyway and in so show no fairness or respect to you and you vandalise their property in return you are showing them the same treatment of showing no fairness or respect to them and it becomes a mutual aspect between them. In both cases though they receive the same treatment as they have shown to others which would make these situations fair as A should not be required to give better treatment to B than B has given to A. This is because we are all regarded as equals to require better treatment for B than A would be inequality. In addition lets say a more serious crime was committed such as battery, rape, or murder to one of the retaliaters family members and seeing this person goes into extreme rage and attacks this person. It would not be fair to this person to charge them for justifiably acting out on their rage that may have even been too strong to control due to the nature of their crimes and the relationship with the victim such as their child. I feel attacking this person was justifiable because of the person's disregard for others well being and their rights to not have their person attacked. As this person displayed disregard for others well being and their rights they should not be rewarded with protection of well being and their rights. People should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else to have those rules abided to for them. If this person did not want to be attacked in response they should not have attacked someone else to begin with. To explain this I am saying that if A commits B then A should not be protected from B from as Y was not protected from B from A. This does not mean that everyone has the right to commit B against A nor does it mean Y and representatives of Y should be able to continuously commit B against A as A committed the crime once and not continuously so to forever have the right to freedom from B removed would not be justifiable.
Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

To clarify the question as I did not have enough room in the question section to fully write out and explain the question in it's entirety: Should someone be charged with a criminal offense if they commit a crime against someone in response to that person committing a crime to them or their family as long as the crime committed in response is within proportion to the original crime? If you require clarification on the question or have any questions regarding itjos debate please ask in the comments.
Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

And this is what is wrong with our current legal system. People are judge on the assumption that their actions are conscious decisions when in fact, most violent crimes are the result of subconscious conditioning. Nobody chooses to be a rapist or murderer, just as nobody chooses to not to be. The difference is our desire and ability to control our subconscious impulses. Although I agree its in the best interest of society to remove people who are unable or unwilling to control their desires, it must be taken into account that it's their past experiences which have made these people who they are and not a choice on their part. You would not seek revenge unless someone has done something bad to you or someone you love. Likewise a criminal would not commit crimes unless his experiences during childhood have conditioned him to commit those crimes. You learnt empathy, the criminal hasn't. Is he to blame for his upbringing? You know better, he doesn't. I have learnt many things in my life and one of the most important lessons I learnt was to forgive. Holding on to anger and resentment makes you bitter and miserable. It rots you from the inside and the act of taking revenge never brings you the peace you require to be happy. The satisfaction is short lived. In a eutopian society we would all grow up with the same self respect and moral values and in that case we could all be judged equally. But I believe that in such an environment, there would be no violent crimes. We would however lose our individuality.
Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

As you stated, intent is relevant, but more importantly is awareness of the crime. Awareness requires mental stability and conscious awareness of our actions. Everyone has moments where they lose control and their subconscious takes over. For some it may just be saying something you later regret saying, but in extreme cases, people can kill someone during a fit of anger. I'm sure you have heard of road rage. What I have come to realize is that ethics are a conscious awareness but our morals are subconscious. We are taught what society deems appropriate behaviour and these are our ethical values, but our moral values we learn as children by watching how adults behave. This sets the tone for our subjective moral values. A boy who never witnesses a man hit a woman will never hit a woman. No matter how angry he gets or how drunk he is. On the other hand, a boy who does witness a man hitting a woman out of anger will consider this appropriate, even if consciously he is aware that it is unethical. So during a moment of extreme emotional distress, his subconscious mind would take over and he would hit a woman. But once his conscious mind regains control he would regret his action. In fact, most of us are not even aware of what our true moral values are as we learnt them at a very early age and the memories of the events have faded. We do not realize why we do the things we do when we are angry. So to get back to our debate, if a mentally unstable person commits a crime, unaware that they are committing a crime, do they need help or punishment? Ethically the right thing to do would be to help them. But morally it depends on your experiences while growing up. If you were punished for disobedience, then it would be in your nature to punish an offender. You have no choice in the matter if you act out of anger. Your subconscious controls your actions. But if your actions show rational thinking, such as premeditation, then you commit the crime conscious of it being a crime and you deserve to be charged.