BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Isaiah 53 is Jesus

Looks like Con's account is no longer active. I guess this debate is done. Ill let the text speak for itself. Isaiah 52:13 - 53 The Suffering Servant13Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted.14As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—15so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him;for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?2For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground;he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth;like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.8By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who consideredthat he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?9And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i] and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors;yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police

In all those situations a person recording the present situation would have no detrimental affect on the officers except for the press giving a live feed. In that particular situation I could understand restricting their reasoning to restrict the live coverage but I still don't agree with it one hundred percent. The raid you speak of has been the center of much heated debate because of the excessive force being used when a only a de criminalized amount of marijuana was found. The problem with law enforcement being the only ones allowed to record such encounters is that it leaves room for further corruption. For example: The officer recording a raid could be simply looking the other direction when another officer is planting drugs. One side being entrusted with the responsibility of recording such encounters leaves room for corruption. Both the civilian and law enforcement sides should bear the responsibility. It is each sides right to have the means necessary to defend themselves such as in a court of law the defense and prosecution are both represented by attorneys. Law enforcement is here to protect and serve the people so it should be the needs of the people that come first. The people are the ones that need the extra protection for obvious reasons.
A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police

While there do need to be unambiguous protections for citizens exercising the first amendment freedom(press) to record and report police wrongdoing(as well as exceptional conduct), a one size fits all approach to this could compromise police departments' ability to conduct operations. For example, the right to use zoom lenses on police could be critical in rural environments where the police may be executing a warrant hundreds of meters from the closest neighbor. However, this same protection could put the operational security of urban police forces at risk to Organized Crime conducting 'counter-intelligence' by spying through a window into barracks or field command posts. Also, during a hostage incident, even the established press must sometimes be gagged in order to prevent the insurgents from monitoring police activity on the news. Speaking to the efficacy of mandating police record themselves(thoroughly), in 2010 a SWAT officer recorded a raid in Columbia, MO that lead to a controversy surround the shooting of a family dog, over a de-criminalized quantity of marijuana. This video started to open our eyes to the vast over-militarization of our police force, and more a comprehensive protocol requiring this be the standard procedure would be much more rational than a national law allowing anyone to record police, even if they have clear, yet unprovable, malicious intent. Police need to be granted some discretion to judge between the citizen press and a thug taking a record of the officers who may be arresting his friend, for the purposes of retribution.
A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police

Excellent point I too believe that if people were to go around recording any LEO such as an undercover officer it could have very negative side affects such as aiding a criminal escape. As with any law there are stipulations that go along with the law such as the "Stand your ground law" in Florida. You cannot simply run up to someone and start attacking them and then claim you were just defending yourself when its all said and done. A law that would give citizens the right to record interactions with law enforcements should only apply when the officer is the one to start the interaction such as a traffic stop or when an officer comes to your property. Someone recording an undercover officer should be punished for it as the officer has not engaged them. This law would be to protect the citizens from police misconduct and to validate the story of both parties. Cops are already allowed to legally record citizens even without our consent but often times their dashboard cameras don't catch the entire situation leaving gaps in the story. As for exposing traffic patrols this has been a heated debate in Florida for a while now. The people believe that flashing your lights to warn of a speed trap is a form of communication which is protected under the 1st amendment and there are some cops that will not argue that but the majority do.In 2005 a Florida judge ruled that the statute did no make it illegal to warn people of speed traps. These illegal tickets resulted in people paying over 1,042,900 to the state. Everyone should have accountability for their actions LEO included. This is just speed traps, this isn't counting all the other illegal acts that the police commit some of which are physically assaulting people. Recording interactions with law enforcement would force the police to act with proper conduct. Citizens have a right to protect themselves from an abusive law enforcement. There should also be more severe consequences for LEO that are caught in illegal acts. The first video shows the misconduct of the police but the vast majority of these situations go unrecorded. Who can protect us when the ones who are trusted to do so are the ones that threaten us? http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://www.leftlanenews.com...
A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police

Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.
Legal Prostitution

If we did that, there would be no problem. But it's pretty meaningless to spend time on far-fetched hypotheticals that would take an intense amount of effort to enact. The fact is that the sex industries are harmful. When we discuss colonialism or child labor, we don't spend time pondering, "Well, what if we made sure nobody was being harmed?" because the systems have never been that way. When anti-capitalists want to abolish capitalism, they're not talking about the Barter Islands; they're speaking of the atrocity that's depriving people worldwide--which can only be solved by abolishing it.Since the Nordic model--criminalizing people who solicit sexual services rather than the ones performing them--was implemented, THIS happened: http://feministcurrent.com...;
Legal Prostitution

I must thank you for giving me these sources, I actually learned a lot from them. Okay, this is how it is now in foreign countries. We can learn from they're mistakes. Like for example: there should be police personnel inside of each brothel to protect it from child prostitution and human trafficking and abuse of the prostitutes. We could ban registered sex offenders. We could have weekly or even daily inspections. Seriously, if we can to get it were to no prostitutes would be abused or murded, and no illegal activity going on without the police knowing, Then I think it would be okay. If we work on it enough, we can get to were no bad things like that could happen. Then we can legalize it. So tell me, if we do that than what's the problem?
Legal Prostitution

1. Prostitution should be legalized. BUT, only if it is highly regulated, like the state of Nevada, Amsterdam, and Sweden. All Prostitutes must have STD tests every week, and there clients must use condems or they will be fined. Rape and abuse must be reported. 2. If a woman wants to sell herself, that's HER choice. 3. If a woman/man is in a bad financial situation, this is a better option over working at MCDonald's and getting paid minimum wage. 4. Its better than somebody breaking into a house and raping somebody when they can just go to the local brothel and get sex morally and legally correct. And if a prostitute is raped than it will be reported and the client will suffer consequences. 5. It will generate a lot of tax revenue. 6. No matter what, it will still happen, so we should just legalize it.
marriage or free mixing

The talk of marriage vs free mixing and the consequences that come with it are the result of morals. Based on the criteria listed by my opponent such as bigamy and extramarital affairs leading up to divorce aren't supportive reasons to his argument. Things such bigamy are illegal in the United States and therefore is a much bigger problem than marriage. You don't have to be married or an adult to face problems with domestic violence, depression, or boredom. Boredom mainly is something that even friends face but on the grounds that they want the relationship to flourish they both work on always keeping things fresh in the relationship. So very few reasons actually pertain to supporting why marriage is "bad." Adultery and extramarital affairs is based then on the morals and religion of the individual as well as what it is that their spouse is into. Regardless of whether or not you approve there exists some marriages that it's a mutual agreement that they are okay with their spouse having someone on the side but they don't justify the whole. There are too many STDs as well as many other things that you can catch and aren't able to be cured out there to just have sex with any and everyone. Therefore, marriage is better.
marriage or free mixing

A proper argument is best supported when you have multiple sides and upon gaining support for all of the sides present you can put that information together to best show your knowledge and reasoning on a subject. So you can't just base things from a man's perspective and not a women's and call that a complete argument. Women are considered human too . Therefore, at times, they can't help who they like, regardless of whether it's one person or many, but they as all humans can be held responsible for how they act on feelings. Marriage is a choice that many people, believe it or not, make. Yes it is a personal choice to cheat, in any form. You aren't obligated to cheat. No one is putting a gun to your head saying that you have to but if they are that's a different crime other than what we are talking about. There have always been people who were married and contemplated what it would feel like to cheat and have wanted to but when they thought of what could happen as a result they decided not to. There are way to many STDs and diseases out here to just be with every and anyone. This isn't the time period where hippies exist. That was long ago and things have changed for a reason. If the world thinks that the chances are high for getting an STD now they will be through the roof if free mixing occurs. Your point on what you call "civilisation" is not clear so I can't argue on that until you clarify but we as humans need to remember the difference between wants/desires and needs. No one needs to cheat, in any form. It's a desire. Desires mirror wants. You don't have to have it, act on it, or do it but if you do you are help, personally, totally responsible for your actions. As for your point on bigamy. It's also in our nature to kill for our food and rank in society, going back until the beginning of time, but does that make it okay? If someone killed someone close and who you love and said they were acting on man's nature would you find it okay? You, like many other people would want justice to be served because it's simply not right. Just because you believe it to be in man's nature doesn't mean we still have to do it. For instance, just because we used to climb trees doesn't mean we still have to now. If it happened today we would find it very strange. So just because you classify bigamy as man's nature doesn't mean that man has to act human and barbaric, as you put it. You say therefore that marriage is like a cage but if you make the decision to get married why not play by the rules? Marriage, grant it, isn't for everyone but there is a such thing as staying single and not actually free mixing. If you decide to get married though you assume those responsibilities. Every decision that we make in life has consequences or guidelines we must live by. So if you decide to get married there are stipulations.
marriage or free mixing

if not fulfilling one's desire is civilisation then i think there is no gain living in this kind of civilisation. we all love our desire and all our efforts are directed towards fulfillment of our desire. we must device a way to fulfill our desire and that cannot be uncivilised anyway.i don't know the nature of woman. as a man i know only the nature of man. i can show you men who are attracted to multiple women. can you show me a woman who is attracted to multiple men?no, it is not a personal choice. if you get married and still have relation with another woman, that relation will be called either adultery(if woman married) or extra marital affair. both these things are illegal and cause of many social problems.you don't understand my point on bigamy. bigamy is legally punishable but it originates from man's nature. punishing bigamy means punishing man's nature. this practice is itself in human and barbaric. it reminds us of dark christian era.i told you earlier that marriage has its own limitation both legal and social. it is like a cage and not free air.
marriage or free mixing

The nature of man is to walk/crawl on all fours but just like all behaviors they can be learned and unlearned. So just because it's of our nature doesn't mean we have to do it. We have a choice. By nature we are attracted to people that look like us not that we are attracted to beautiful women/men. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Any person, uncivilized , would be capable of doing this as a natural instinct but we live in a world, now, where we are civilized. Also, why would all of these things be categorized as a man's nature? You have to account for a female's nature in order to make a sound judgement, even though for what you described they are pretty much the same. You stated earlier that if men didn't get married that he could have as many women as he wants. This is a personal decision. If you get married it's your personal choice to be with just one person. Bigamy is already illegal therefore it's already legally punishable. Bigamy's origin in African culture was a sign of wealth and not a man's nature. So, your point holds to be invalid. Being married isn't like being in a cage. You're free to do what you want when you want. Every marriage is different. It's all in what you make it. Marriage is just an extra official relationship with stipulations.
marriage or free mixing

1] adultery and extramarital affair depends on morality.fine. morality is not the cause. you must know why adultery and extramarital affair happens in marriage. the nature of man is such that he always is attracted to beautiful women. no man is exception.some men can hide their nature, get frustrated inside, others cannot hide.monogamous marriage is strictly against man's nature. this leads to adultery and extramarital affair.if marriage is dissolved, then man will have women as much as he wants.there will be no adultery and extramarital affair.2] bigamy is legally punishable.bigamy also results from man's peculiar nature. making it legally punishable will not solve this problem. dissolution of the institution of marriage will.3] domestic violence exist without marriage.true, but here by domestic violence i mean the violence of marital life. this also is caused by conflict between man and woman. marriage is like a cage where a man and woman are locked in. why need a cage at all? why not free air?
marriage or free mixing

When you take your wedding vows you say for better or for worse. So marriage is truly in the eye of the beholder because some of the points that you listed are, depending on your morals and religion backing your vows, against what the ideal marriage should contain. For instance, adultery and extramarital affairs are not something that's suppose to be an option in a marriage when you take your wedding vows. When an individual takes part in these acts it becomes a question of an individual's morals and belief system more so than a questionable aspect of marriage. Bigamy in most places, especially the United States, is illegal so even if that caused a problem in your marriage you could be sent to jail for approximately 5 years, in the United States. So, therefore, that's not a valid point in validating why marriage is a bad concept. That deals more with legal matters and the character of that citizen. Domestic violence is something that you don't have to be married to face. By definition it states that domestic violence is violence or physical abuse directed towards your spouse or domestic partner and it usually occurs by men against women. Depression occurs in people of all ages regardless of whether you're married or not. Depression does not discriminate to just people who are married so it's not a valid reason as to why people shouldn't get married. As for boredom that occurs all the time even in friendships but just because you get bored with a friend doesn't mean you stop talking to them. You will find things to do with them that spices up your relationship if they are a really good friend or if you at least want to see where the friendship goes. That's the same case with the a marriage just except you've agreed to always work with your spouse to get past the small things and work things out for better or for worse.
Superior Spider man can beat batman

Very few people know who Superior spider-man is truly. Otto Octavius or Dr Octopus. All these people know Bruce Wayne is Batman. Batman is the person who constantly equips 12 year old boys. Superior has an army of about 70 (ex-military) men. Spider-bots which scan the city watching for threats. They can go under water , and able to scale surfaces, they can repair of demolish technology? They can unitize facial recognition software, which gives him detailed descriptions of his intended targets. He has these giant robots which can destroy buildings with the heavy cannons mounted on them. Spider-man crushed Kingpins whole empire in 1 day, Fought spider-man 2099, Punched scorpions jaw off and beat up agent venom. Dr Octopus killed Peter Parker twice. Once when Peter was inside his body and again when he found Peter in his memories. I mean what can batman do to hurt spider-man Here's my hypothesis about what happens. Spider-mans spider-bots alert him about a bat like man running around the city. Spider-man fights batman and uses his army to attack batman, uses his flame throwers and sonic blasters on him then crushes him with a truck using his 4 mechanical spider arms. If batman escapes then spider man will slash him with his claws and track him to wherever he is. He will then blow up the micro tracers and either brutalize him, torture him or kill him.
Superior Spider man can beat batman

Batman is better spiderman can't do anything but asking little kids for candy and for them to get in his van. Batman has to verse people who know they can beat him. he does not always say i got this he fails about 2 to 3 times before he can beat them it takes spiderman about 1 trillion times and he always reveils his identity i mean batman is a better super hero the "superior" spider man now i'd like to go back and say No one i mean no one figures out his identity except Alfred and he is the only one who is not better than spiderman.