BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens

In one of my first argument's sentences, I have accidentally stated this: "in pointing out that it is possible how "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens". That can seem like a mishap and self-contradictory for the way I phrase it, however, by acknowledging that is simply "possible", it can also be viewed how I am acknowledging that the opposite is true and therefore the statement: "a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens" is still false because it is conclusive in what it states and does not mention how it is simply "possible". "a blind man cant see" is a statement that is true for the most part but generally implying that in the context of this debate is irrelevant. My arguments have considerably still not been refuted and so I urge the voters to take that into account.
a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens

The term "alien" is relevant to who/what a person thinks could be considered as an alien. Whether they mean illegal immigrants as aliens, aliens from outer space, or any other kind of meaning for the term, "alien". Therefore to say that "alien=unknown" (assuming this can be interpreted as "we do not know what aliens actually look like) is another irrelevant notion since it is up to the hypothetical person hallucinating to deem what they are seeing as aliens.
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

First thing's first, my intention of the previous paragraph was not to compare prison systems around the world, but rather to show to you that people in poverty, or even worse, war zones, would be incredibly grateful to live in the conditions provided by prisons. Now I understand, of course, that there is dark side, and that other countries treat there prisoners very poorly, but in a generalized whole, prisons are quite lenient with their captives. To be honest, it is mostly illegal to cause any harm to a prisoner within a prison. (Not including confinement and loneliness) Most situations in prisons are resolved by a vacation to solitary confinement, and physical punishment is very cautiously used. Now, you can argue with me all you want about how prison guards resort to "self-defense" and all that rubbish, but the truth is, guards aren't allowed to hit prisoners unless they feel threatened. On to our next topic though, about when you said prison is for revenge. Now, I'm not much of an emotional persuader, but to be quite honest, I DO think it's based of of revenge. To be honest, I think people like that deserve what they get, and maybe even more. The truth is, to obtain a superior race, the weaker must be purged of this world. That's how it works in the wild, and when it all comes down to it, that's how it should work for us. I'm not saying that people are animals, I'm just saying, there's a reason the weaker, less dominant animals are killed, it's so that they can't reproduce their, for lack of better words, disease. Now of course, we aren't beasts who rely on who is stronger and faster, but if somebody can't understand the simple rules that have been set for them, they don't deserve to be on our level. That's how we become superior, so to put it quite simply, the punishment we use now is ineffective and lenient towards the mercy and love of mankind. Perhaps you are one of them, and perhaps you value a second chance more then racial superiority, and I believe in that too, but the question is... how many chances are we going to give them?
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

Hello again, I: Couple things.. I'm NOT comparing our prison system to anything OTHER than our OWN sense of justice, and our OWN Constitution. That we don't treat our prisoners as badly as other countries do, is NOT a good argument for the way we treat them. Secondarily, if I WERE comparing systems, I'd MUCH rather be incarcerated in Mexico. I can say that, because I WAS incarcerated in Mexico. They're soo far behind our modern school of incarceration that they're decades ahead o us.. Now, they don't go out of their way to do anything NICE for their prisoners.. But, they also don't go out of their way to do NASTY things either. They believe their job is to KEEP prisoners in jail.. And, they do, which has NOTHING to do with making prisoners miserable, so they don't. Our visitors could stay overnight... We could buy the food we wanted.. There's much more. It wasn't good.. But suffice to say, it wasn't so bad.. Which brings up my third argument... Prison isn't for VENGEANCE.. The only reason you could believe that murderers should be treated differently than pot smokers, is if you believe prison is for REVENGE. It's not.. What makes Mexico's system work far better than ours is that they understand that.. excon
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

To put it quite simply, you're making our legal system sound worse than it is. Millions of people around the world would kill to live in these quote on quote "hellholes". Now I understand that there are some prisons in the world that are extremely harsh, but let's be honest, the people that are in these prisons must have done something incredibly bad. For instance, somebody who was drunk driving would not be sent to the same prison as a serial killer, and to be honest, I think if you killed somebody, you deserve far worse punishment than what they give you in even the harshest of prisons! That's a completely different argument though, so let's get back on topic. First of all, most prisons around the world provide things that people around the world would beg for, such as food, clothing, optional pay, education, and much more! Look, I don't want to say they're a good place to be or anything, I'm just saying that these "hellholes" you talk about usually only hold people who did something that, most likely, deserves a much worse punishment than what they are being given.
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

Hello I: Thank you for taking me on.. I'm sorry that I didn't explain my position better, and in the main, I don't disagree with you.. I have NO problem with people be sentenced to prison. Oh, I do too, but THAT'S not the basis for my argument.. I'm simply saying that the sentence ALONE is the punishment. They are NOT sentenced to be MISTREATED, and ABUSED, and THAT'S the stuff I'm talking about... Prison shouldn't be nice.. But, it shouldn't be a hellhole either. excon
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

I believe the American legal system is fine just the way it is. As far as I can see, this is the most humane punishment that we can possibly offer to criminals. Considering the people who have gotten into prison have not only broken the law, but dishonored our country, I truly do think this is, to say the least, a lenient punishment that is nothing compared to their crime. Now, I understand that most of the people in prison aren't serial killers, but rather teenagers or mid-twenties that made a bad decision, but that doesn't mean we can just let them go! We need some form of punishment, if there isn't, the people will realize that, and quote on quote "misbehave". Whether we want to admit it or not, our legal system is based on fear. The people of America are afraid to do things wrong, for they know they will be punished. That's how it is, and that's how it always will be. I am, however, a curious person, so though I think our system is perfect as it is, I will remain open to new ideas and listen to your side. So tell me, what would you do with a criminal who violated the law?
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

If you poke an animal with a sharp stick through the bars of his cage, you better not EVER let him out.. Instinctively, we know that to be true.. Yet, we poke our prisoners through the bars of their cages.. And, then we let 'em OUT.. I think that's CRAZY. I'd like to debate someone who thinks I'M nuts, and the system is just fine.. The first round is for acceptance, and the last three is where you take your best shot.. PS> I'm a newbie.. Hope I'm getting things right...
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

As long as we're crippling the opponents argument, I can play that game too. First of all, your argument is invalid because you haven't displayed any alternate solution to the problem, with no alternate solution, the only thing I COULD do is explain to you that this quite simply, doesn't happen. I agree that prisoner abuse is bad, but you make it sound worse than it actually is, because FIRST of all, there are laws set in place to prevent this from happening, and SECOND, even if this was happening, (which it isn't) you presented no way for us to solve or change the problem. There for, your argument is incomplete. Good luck, and may the best man win... P.S. ^ That's called "not being cocky" ^ ;D
We send people to prison AS punishment - not FOR punishment

Hello again, I: Whether the disadvantaged throughout the world would be HAPPY in our prisons is simply NOT relevant to my inquiry, and I addressed it above.. I guess you ran out of arguments because you went back to it a second time.. And, you lost me when you went off the deep end about superior races and survival of the fittest.. Again, it's not relevant to my inquiry.. Frankly, you haven't shown WHY punishing someone IN prison is beneficial. You just confirmed that we do it. And, you're not bothered by it at all.. It was fun, but for the reasons stated above, I believe I crushed you. excon
Sex before marriage

I'm not talking about Pornography, although I know its bad as well,for it can create many bad thoughts of girls (because its mostly guys that watch it). Yes it harms girls as well, but not as in such a way as guys. Because of its image that it gives guys, so many guys look at girls in the wrong way now, they now no longer look at girls as Gods beautiful creation or just as a woman, but as some sex image, there for it has given girls a bad image. And by the way, this is what i mean by is not the same as sex. "Pornography may use a variety of media, including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games." Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org... Its not a sexual activity between two people. But if this is what your statement, than we are basically agreeing with each other. Cause I mostly your statement didn't seem to be to different, but just an add on to mine.
Sex before marriage

Rebuttals: I will rebut Con's arguments subsequently, concurring with his original argument. "God created sex to be unique and special for a couple between a man and woman through love. But now sex has just become a object of feeling, not through love as it was meant to be" Or not. You misunderstand. There is a distinction between sexual intercourse and pornography[1]. Sex IS sexual intercourse, love making, emotional feelings. Pornography (According to its definition) is the explicit description of sexual activity, involving one's organs, intended for sexual arosion rather than emotional feelings or love. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Liberal Democracy is the most legitimate form of government

Extend all arguments. The Pro side has shown several liberal democracies in the world and how they function practically. In the second round, I showed the ideals of liberal democracy. Then I explained how it functions in theory and practice. I have provided reasons for why liberal democracy should be considered the most legitimate form of government since it balances individual rights, group rights, and the will of the majority at the same time. In ending, the Con side has failed to show Liberal Democracy is not the most legitimate form of government.
Liberal Democracy is the most legitimate form of government

The problem with many countries that are liberal democracies is that their elections are perpetually class base. We see this with the democrats trying to get the proletariat and the salariat to vote for them through social programs such as welfare and food stamps; The republicans are not that much better because they represent the bourgeoisie with their big business friendly legislation. The most legitimate form of government there could be would be a libertarianism form of government. The strongest example of a country with both personal freedom, economic freedom, and smaller government than any liberal democracy would be Ireland. 1. libertarianism the belief that there should be minimal government, slim to no rules regulating personal freedom, and little to no regulations on the economy. Basically the United States used to be the best government it could be back in the mid to late 1800's until the income tax, interstate commerce commission, and many other laws and acts were passed just so a government could be "fair"; by being fair a country becomes no more legitimate than it was before. The country's government becomes even less so due to the fact that they take rights away from certain citizens (gun laws and regulations) and certain businesses (the breaking of the standard oil trust) just because other citizens disliked what they practiced and instead of simply not participating in those activities chose to make them illegal just for the pure fact they were jealous or disagreed. This in my opinion or any reasonable person's opinion makes the liberal democracy inferior to the Libertarianism form of government, which the united states was on into the early 20th century at its height of power.
Liberal Democracy is the most legitimate form of government

Good luck. 1. Liberal Democracy in Theory Liberal Democracy is representative form of governance that provides protections for the individual and groups. This means liberal democracy must respect the rule of law to protect the rights of individuals and groups. There must be elections to keep the governments representative. Therefore, I will argue that liberal democracy is the most legitimate form because the rights of all citizens are protected under the rule of law. Liberal democracy is just not a democracy. In a democracy the majority automatically have the predominant. Meaning 51% can vote what they want regardless of the other 49%. In a liberal democracy, 51% can't vote away the rights of the other 49% because of the rule of law. In any form of autocracy where a minority dictate the rules for the majority is not always representative. Elections are not held so there is no guarantee that the autocrat will be representative. It is only under a liberal democracy where people have the capability to vote and have their rights protected. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2. Liberal Democracy in Practice Liberal Democratic countries would be considered the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Israel, and Canada. There are others as well.
Liberal Democracy is the most legitimate form of government

From what I have observed and understand liberal democracy is the most legitimate form of government. As the pro side I will argue this, so I have the burden of proof. The following terms and concepts are defined. 1. Liberalism(philosophy)-a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. 2. Democracy-government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 3. Liberal Democracy-is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. 4. Legitimate-in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. 5. Government-the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration. First round is acceptance only. And Fourth round is closing arguments with no new facts.
Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being

Pro just insists to focus on what the harmful things cigarettes can do. Pro also states that smokers smoke excessively. This however is not true. How can you gauge the definition of "excessive smoking" compared to what? To me Pro is comparing it to non smokers which is judgment towards smokers. Pro says that this addiction in the work place for heavier smokers will make them less productive. How can that be? Well Dr. Stephen Heishman, a scientist with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of the National Institutes of Health) and his colleagues studied all the literature they could find on nicotine and performance published between 1994 and 2008. In all, they reviewed and coded 41 studies and looked at how nicotine affected everything from fine motor skills to short term memory. Their results were published online in the journal Psychopharmacology. What they found surprised them. Not only does the drug help with fine motor skills and alertness, it improves short term memory for tasks like remembering a list of items. By knowing this fact it doesn't seem to me that bringing up work performance is an issue. Is it possible that the people that drink coffee and do not smoke can affect their work performance as well? It's the caffeine that gives them that short term boost then crashes on them and they can focus or do their job well that's when mistakes happen. Compare this to smokers they stand on their game shaper than ever and if a cigarette is needed then so be it the result from that is they are even more on their game. (Shaper state of mind) Pro continues to touch upon health. Smoking fact - Nicotine in pure organic form is good for your health. Nicotine is a naturally occurring compound and part of the food chain. Trace elements are found in many common foods including vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes, bell peppers, cauliflower, eggplant, chili peppers, and also some teas. Nicotine makes you feel good. As we been talking about the nicotine in cigarettes not only makes you feel better it helps improve concentration and memory and it is also proven to help a number of conditions including: Depression, schizophrenia, Parkinson's diseases and attention disorder. In conclusion, I stand by my research and argument on how smoking can benefit people in a positive light. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com... http://news.discovery.com...
Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being

Con states that only 1-2% percent of nicotine is goes in too the body. Then never responded about how the other harmful chemicals named in my previous respond like the carcinogens (cancer-causing poisons). Then talks about how we have a choices to stop if we choose. Ignoring the fact that their is a chemical substance making the brain think it needs more nicotine. Another thing is i stated we are talking about the well being of a person. Meaning how addictive it can be too smoke. Health Risk Con also ignored the fact of how excessive smoking, damages the origins in the body for long terms of smoking. Their addiction in the work place for heavier smokers will make them less productive. If they get that craving then they start drifting off thinking about smoking. As stated before on how bad second hand smoking truly is. In other world when a person is in a environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). They actually get the whole 4,000 chemical compounds in the cigarette. which 69 are consider carcinogens. While pro only states "There is only positive things to address with smokers than others think". Another thing i was to restate is how an estimated 12 million deaths within 40 years. Social effects Con stated how people with low self esteem are comfortable. This than makes it a dependent variable in the person minds. Meaning that the person with low self esteem will not be able to function. The reason why is they think they are out of their comfort zone. Then all they do is try to figure out how to get that mind-set. As stated before they will not care for who or where they are, unless they fulfill that addiction. Con never responded how impersonal kids are when young. Then making that connection of how smoking is acceptable even though its harmful. Their for making those kids when growing up addicted to smoking too. conclusion I clearly stated many reason why smoking is bad for a human well being. Even explain how bad second hand smoking is too. Effecting the people who do not smoke and hurting their health. Then how non-functional a smoker can be while getting withdraws. Another reason is how their are 60 cancers chemicals in a cigarette.
Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being

Nicotine has the 10mg in each cigarette but again only 1-2% goes to the body. Yes again this stimulates the brain and allows the smoker to become more alert. Nicotine smokers as Pro states it can become an addition. Lets address this, nicotine is only 1 addition of many in the world if you chose to look at it that way. It doesn't need to be. Addition is simply in someone's mind. Your mind is very powerful it's like a computer but we have the owner's manual to it. We always have the choice to stop if we chose. Chose is being the key word. Social Effects As Pro says "if someone does not have high self esteem this would be uncomfortable." If someone has low self esteem smoking will help them with that as it calms them down to think better and be shaper with mental clarity. This is a relief of stress. By relieving the stress they become more resourceful. When they become more resourceful they get better results so how can low self esteem enter into their lives. Now as far as second hand smoke, smokers are asked to smoke in designated areas outside the work place, bar, restaurant and maybe even their homes etc. There is no way especially now a days that smokers can be around others that do not smoke unless the non smoker chooses that. Just because not everyone smokes doesn't mean that a happy medium can be reached, which it has. There are (2) 15 minutes breaks throughout the day for everyone in the work place so this does not affect any work time taken away. If anything this will allow their performances in work to be sharp and delivered with just as much commitment as a non smoker. There is only positive things to address with smokers than others think as I repeatedly say. In conclusion, another point I would mention is for people who are overweight this absolutely curbs their appetite and will help them lose unwanted weight. This is another example of lifting or keeps up your high self esteem. http://www.3fatchicks.com...