BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Revisiting Virginia Tech: An argument about arms

We all remember the massacre that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech. It reignited a controversial argument in America about the right to own firearms. In this vein, I would like to discuss why I believe the anti-gun lobby is hyper-focusing on the wrong thing, namely, the guns themselves. I've never really understood the argument from the anti-gun lobby for any number of reasons. Its so easy to blame it on the gun itself rather than where the blame really lies -- the person wielding it incorrectly. Its a strange dichotomy. Without guns there would be no one shot to death, and yet, we seem to forget that murder was around long before their inception and would conceivably continue long after their destruction. If there is one thing that could be said of humans, its that they are incredibly resourceful. Prisoners don't have access to weapons, but that doesn't stop them from fashioning them from their ingenuity. So why blame the gun when the gun has no will of its own, rather than Cho or those who knew of his mental illness? The argument, which is incredibly specious in my estimation, is that he bought the gun the perfectly legally, therefore the system is broken. But the fundamental problem is that we are bound by the understanding that there are very real consequences for using guns inappropriately. Cho knew it, but he did it anyway. When we buy a car we know that we are not supposed to use them for vehicular homicide, but occasionally that happens anyway. When it does happen, should we blame the manufacturer or should we blame the person? Buying the weapon maybe perfectly legal, but murder is perfectly ILLEGAL. We all know that. Cho knew it. So I say stop trying to place everywhere other than the obvious. Making guns illegal doesn't stop crime because taking it away from people who use it for protection are now disarmed. The bad guys don't play by the same rules. The bad guy will always find a way to arm themselves. So why are we going to arm the bad guy but disarm the rest of us and allow us to be subjected to their tyranny? Anyone that takes this stance is complicit as far as I'm concerned.
Crime and Mental Health are linked

Although I do agree with the fact that mental illness and crime correlate, a lot of other things contribute to crime rates, such as the culture a criminal had grown in, especially ones that condone and reward violence, like in section 9 housing areas, race (according to the US Department of Justice, 52% of homocides are committed by african-americans who make up 12.3% of the total population. 1), and age (Also according to the US Department of Justice, 37% of homocides are committed by those 18-24 years old, who make up 10.6% of the population. 1) Due to the huge correlation between race and crime rates, chances are, that race does have something to do with violent tendencies. According to the US Department of Justic "In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 off enders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000)" (1) 1) https://www.bjs.gov...
Crime and Mental Health are linked

The Australian Institute of Criminology exclaims that crime and mental health have long been intertwined. Mental disorders in prison populations are up to four times higher than those in the general population. This means that Crime is linked to those who have mental disorders. There is also a strong link between illegal drugs and mental illnesses as obtaining illegal drugs is a crime. The Australian Government has a Mental health and the criminal justice system because they know that some of the crimes committed with mental illnesses. Researchers from the guardian found that 3.7% of men and 0.5% of women committed a violent crime after being identified as clinically depressed. This compared with 1.2% of men and 0.2% of women in the general population in sweden. Martin Bryant committed a crime that cannot be undone. 35 people were killed and 23 were wounded. It has been informed that he suffers from the mental illness known as schizophrenia which means that his brain works differently to ours. How can we deny the fact that he had a mental disorder? I"m not saying that all people with mental disorders are criminals, I"m saying that if you commit a crime and you have a mental disorder then the two are linked as the brain works differently. Because their brain works differently they may not be able to control committing a crime and they may not be able to stop themselves when they are set on an idea. We have also heard of Jake Bilardi who went over to fight for ISIS and sadly killed himself in the process. It was informed to us by his family that he had a mental illness that wasn"t taken care of. It is believed that his mental illness had something to do as to why he chose to go over there and blow himself up. Approximately 20 percent of inmates in jails and 15 percent of inmates in state prisons have a serious mental illness. Based on the total number of inmates, this means that there are approximately 356,000 inmates with serious mental illness in jails and state prisons. This is 10 times more than the approximately 35,000 individuals with serious mental illness remaining in state hospitals. The left over number could mean that the people don"t have a serious mental illness but it still a minor mental illness. If a person has a good mental health, they would know right from wrong but if a person doesn"t have good mental health they might not be able to control their decisions and they might not know wrong from right. Mental illness is different from mental health. Mental illness comes from bad mental health or you can be born with it. But mental health is depending on the state of a person"s mind and how well they can make their own decisions. The mental illnesses cannot be controlled as they can snap all of a sudden which makes the person commit the crime even though they don"t want to. Every 2 hours a police officer detains 1 mentally ill person.
It should be legal to take large snakes across state lines

Well if getting the permit were that easy than why would USARK (United States Association of Reptile Keepers) file a lawsuit over the listings, because the government is going to make it nearly impossible for private owners to get the permits. The USARK wouldn't sue them over nothing. The bad science I'm referring to is science they would've gotten on Discovery Channel, and other media sites. Discovery Channel lost it's credibility with show's such as Eat Alive, and the media can't be trusted, ever noticed the reason people think snakes are killers is because it's things like snake swallows deer whole make headlines, ever notice how no one ever show's how domestic these animals really can be, nope cause that wouldn't get ratings. This video is to a man who wish's to educate people instead of make money through lies, I'd trust his opinion over the opinion of 100 experts you'd see on Animal Planet. https://m.youtube.com...
It should be legal to take large snakes across state lines

The Lacey's Act makes any animal listed under it as injurious and makes a felony to take snakes over state lines. The purpose of the adding large snakes to it is to prevent non native populations from starting like in Southern Florida, bad science was used to make the rulings, and made these snakes sound killers. Now the adding of the reticulated python (the reason the boas were spared this time was a divide and conquer strategy) which has not been a problem but could be in the future is like putting someone in jail because they might commit a crime. What this act also does is make it so that owners of snakes listed under Lacey's Act can keep and even breed their animals, but what if they live on state lines and need to get it to a vet but have to travel just 10 miles across state borders, well if they do they become a felon. What someone has to transfer out of state and they can't find someone to take the animal in, that means they either have to kill it or release it into the wild thus creating the problems the Lacey's Act is meant to prevent, Lacey's Act just forces animal owners to chose between the well being of their animals and obeying the law.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Even Mill also argues that "the rightness or wrongness of an act depends not on any intrinsic worth, but on the results it produces or tends to produce." (Mill 512.1.8-10). By Mills stating this he infers that human actions whether it is moral or immoral it doesn't necessarily mean a moral consequence will fallow. Also how described in class Mill's uses his principle of utility which he explains that human actions something"s doesn"t necessarily mean a moral consequence but it will create happiness. (Mill 512.1.8-10). Mill"s principle on Utility also focuses on people desire for pain and pleasure. He explains the differences in the quality of pleasure into two categories. He differentiates the two into what someone will consider highly valuable or not but regardless of the value it is understood that the interest of the value doesn't necessarily mean moral consequence will fallow from the action to obtain the goal. (Mill 512.2.20-23)
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I"m sorry to say but you are wrong MLK overlooked violence in an effort to expose the oppressors as the very thing the claimed African American were. He did this in hope that others will see and begin to think on the subject and consequently begin to force change, as he puts it in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," "it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals". According to him this form of tension forces thinking and allows for growth. With that being said here we have yet another example of moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

No, you are still wrong because the human action that is being committed and is being considered a moral consequence, the decisions whether it is or not moral consequence still lies in the speakers moral beliefs and as we can agree that can be mutable. Going right into another example we have Martin Luther King who was an activist, and a leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement, who strongly believed that if his people will just organize themselves, their dreams of one day being free will come true. He was a pacifist, which means he doesn't believe in violence and it will be foolish of me to state he didn't do it for moral reason but he mainly overlooked violence because he understood that if his people will retaliate violently then people will view them as aggressive uncivilized people and that was not Kings mission. According to Kant, the only thing of intrinsic value in morality is revenue for duty. So the actions the king took to help free his people from slavery can be debated towards if it"s moral or immoral and that will depends on the speakers moral beliefs. That"s why you can"t state that all the decisions a human makes will always lead to moral consequences or not. Moral consequence is a dependent towards who is approaching the actions; we can even consider this moral consequence as having extrinsic value which can fluctuate towards whose being asked.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I understand how the sharing of wives in our culture may not be a practice that we believe in or value but the fact that they do it as an act of hospitality to their guest shows that technically we do share the same value as they do because we take into consideration whether or not our guest are being treated in a welcoming manner during their visit or stay with us. Thus they do show the reaction of moral consequence just as we do. Also in our culture we put our elderly as well. We put them in nursing homes due to us not having the time to take care of them and we believe e that by putting them there they will be better off. That is the case with Eskimos as well, due to the constant moving they cannot care for the elderly. Either way these are examples of two societies that are totally different to the eye but shows examples of moral consequence as a reaction to their action. Thus whether it comes off as wrong it may still have moral consequence although certain actions may be viewed differently by certain societies. The main socity to which they are doing the actions consider it to be a moral act in their culture, tribe, or town. though ones actions may be denied in one socity in the main society where the action is done it may be consider moral. in arstoles he speak of good tempered where acting quickly on your anger is good oppose to the bad tempered where keeping the anger in is bad. By acting on the anger right away those people view that action as moral. As you go on to say that not alll actions imply a moral consequence which may be true, but in the end the person committing the action must have a thought that what he/she are doing will cause a moral consequence thus ending in a positive action. Coming to an end you mention the switch of religion for convicts but if you notice they change of religion, their actions, is helping them stay away from doing a repeating crime thus ending in a moral consequence
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

In the James Rachel's paper he states how Eskimo mothers actually will actually nurture their infants for a longer period of time compared to our current culture.(James Racheles8.1.1)But they do have have practices which our society will consider immoral for example, how the husband in these communities would share his wife to any visitor as a sign of hospitality.(James Racheles2.1.2)James Rachel's also mention how when an elder is useless to contribute in a household they were left outside in the snow to die. We might see the sharing of wife and the disown of an elder immoral and label them as a society which is going "backwards" but I don't think the Eskimo community view their actions as having moral consequence. Bentham also hits on this topic with he agrees that not all human actions can be seen as immoral because different societies have different norms that can be perceived as sinful.There are human actions that can be easily accepted in one society but denied in the others and even morally neutral motives. Bentham also shows us how the principle of utility allows us to challenge our moralities of causation and rightness to achieve happiness without in fact being a moral consequence. Bentham also provides something called Hedonistic Clause, which gives the understanding on how we should choose are own actions, because not all action necessarily imply a moral consequence.(Bentham 132.2.1-7) Giving a real life scenario, there are always people that try new things and break there moral belief to experience something they feel is going to bring them happiness. For example, when people go to prison and change their religion because they feel that this other religion will cleanse them from their sins and assist them through their struggles. By these people making this type of decision, there isn"t any moral consequence towards any moral belief.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Indeed you are correct there is varying of beliefs in different cultures but at the core these cultures may shear values. For example the Eskimos practicing of infanticide as discussed in James Racheles paper "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism". They do it to save their infant from the suffering due to their nomadic lifestyle and the cold environment which possibly will result in their death regardless. Similarly in western culture abortions are practiced. Say for instance a mother found out that her fetus was developing very slowly and if it even made it to term it will have extreme medical issues a mother may opt to have an abortion to avoid her child from having to suffer. Hence, these cultures have very different beliefs but value the same things, the moral consequence which is their children not suffering up until their most likely untimely death. Thus these parents will gain either of the two bases consequences or both following their loss. Also even though the acts might seem immoral on the surface but bringing happiness to others there has been a moral consequence as an effect. They also show that they care for others feelings enough to act a certain way to bring out that emotion in the individual equaling to cause and effect.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I accept the challenge and I will prove that not all human actions have moral consequences. Throughout history there has been honorable figures that have shown by their actions that one"s decision does not necessarily mean that moral consequences will follow. It will be ignorant of me to deny the fact that there are actions that may be seemingly small that can possibly effect someone in the future but to say that "there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence" is a fallacies statement to imply. I disagree that "there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence" and these are my premises: 1.First of all, morality varies according to society, so what is viewed immoral for a certain culture it can easily be accepted in another. 2.There are situations where an individual may seek pleasure through painful acts. Meaning that the pleasure they are seeking may be seen as immoral for the individual. Not all of our actions affect those around us. 3.There are some situation where people are force to conduct certain acts that might be viewed as immoral but they don"t see it as such but as a consequence, and how the situation appears to be. 4.In many occasions seen in history, many people commit immoral acts because their act will bring happiness to others. 5.Therefore, there are instances where our action isn't in our control and doesn't necessarily imply moral consequence, so if not all human actions suggest moral consequence then the statement is false.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I argue that the possibility of human action without moral consequence is not likely; for with every action of an individual it automatically follows that there will be a reaction. Though this may not be very blatantly obvious at all times, everything that we do triggers something else, whether it is physical, emotional or abstract it is nonetheless the consequence of that action. Therefore it does follow that every human action has some form of moral consequence. My argument supporting this goes as followed: 1.Every action inevitably creates a reaction. 2.For example, pleasure and pain, whenever someone does something it always has either a pleasurable or discomforting effect. 3.If the effects are following the action it is obvious that pain and pleasure are the moral consequences. 4.In confirming that either of these was achieved following a deed, a person has begun to identify cause and effect being moral consequence. 5.Hence, there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence.
Pink (Pro) vs. Green (Con)

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the wise? I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic, he could save others from death, but not himself.
Abortion is NOT murder!

"When you say the fetus is not a human then what is it? A dog or cat?"I never said this. I am saying abortion is not murder. Read the argument!"A fetus is one of the stages of development before a human being is born. Much like a person has stages of life after being born; child, teenager, young adult, adult. In other words, no matter what stage the individual is at, it is always a person but at different stages of life. This is very similar to the stages the human being goes through inside the stomach of the mother. Firstly, it all begins at conception and at four weeks the baby or human has a brain and a spinal cord. In this stage it is known as the embryo. Then at eight weeks the baby starts to form body parts and a steady heartbeat has formed. At this point the baby is known as the fetus and is looking more like a human being. This is important because the fetus goes through stages and at what point can we agree that it become a human?"Not on point. Abortion is not murder!"Every single time fertilization occurs the result of it is always a human being ,right? or am I completely wrong...."Still not on point. Abortion is not murder!"Murder is the killing of a human being and if the fetus is not a human being then what is it?"Finally, somthing on point. To be murder it must be unlawful. That is the entire point. Abortion is not illegal, it is not murder.In conclusion, the pro-choice community should stop using this term. It is without a doubt the wrong word. Bad rhetoric.
Abortion is NOT murder!

When you say the fetus is not a human then what is it? A dog or cat? A fetus is one of the stages of development before a human being is born. Much like a person has stages of life after being born; child, teenager, young adult, adult. In other words, no matter what stage the individual is at, it is always a person but at different stages of life. This is very similar to the stages the human being goes through inside the stomach of the mother. Firstly, it all begins at conception and at four weeks the baby or human has a brain and a spinal cord. In this stage it is known as the embryo. Then at eight weeks the baby starts to form body parts and a steady heartbeat has formed. At this point the baby is known as the fetus and is looking more like a human being. This is important because the fetus goes through stages and at what point can we agree that it become a human? Every single time fertilization occurs the result of it is always a human being ,right? or am I completely wrong.... Murder is the killing of a human being and if the fetus is not a human being then what is it?
Abortion is NOT murder!

Abortion is NOT murder!Over my entire lifetime the pro-life groups have said this phrase “abortion is murder”. This is the simplest of debates.Abortion, regardless of when a fetus becomes a person, if they have a heartbeat, fingerprints, is not murder.If the fetus was given “personhood” and abortion outlawed, the proper charge might be manslaughter, but at this time, it is most certainly NOT murder! Prove me wrong! Murdermərdər/ noun 1.the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer" verb1.kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation."somebody tried to murder Joe" man·slaugh·termanslôdər/ nounthe crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.