BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

i have said that arguing against vigilantism is the main concern i have as well, in that the evidence needs properly weighed and we'd hope a good judge is the one pulling the trigger. they were trying to get him since the ninties without success. i can't speak to the details as to why, but if what i posted is true, he should have been shot. in the case of gosnell... justice came. perhaps not soon enough. id be content if tiller were locked up for life or unable to do any ote abortion again. in both cases, if we see law isnt working but babies are dying... what are we to just wait around and let them die? if someone shot gosnell while we were waiting for process to work... that's just life and a good thing at least if babies are being saved. i forgot to add in the debate, what if he was killing two year olds? and consider both if the laws were favorable for it and not favorable for it etc? are to wait for the political and legal process? and engage in that line of reasoning and questioning. especially if you add that she has soverignty here as the mother etc. even if it was legal, id say we have an obligation to act. to a large extent this is appliable w late terms as well.
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

Yet again, you focus on the problems with Tiller's actions and ignore giving a full justification for a vigilante response. Because we live in a society of laws, you have a heavy burden to meet to explain why it's appropriate to go outside of those laws to punish someone. It's not sufficient to argue that the individual's actions were reprehensible; you also have to argue why having an unbalanced crazy person show up and shoot him in church was the right answer to the problem of Tiller's behavior. Consider the case of Kermit Gosnell: http://en.wikipedia.org... It is clear that sending Dr. Gosnell to prison for the rest of his life will do far more for the anti-abortion cause in this country than killing Dr. Tiller did. Can you provide evidence that the solution for Gosnell would not have worked for Tiller? Do you disagree that the consequences of killing Tiller are worse for society than the consequences of incarcerating Gosnell? The fact that abortion doctors acting outside the law CAN be brought to justice is a further reason why vigilante murder is not the answer.
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

he should be shot because he is murdering babies. late term trivial illegal abortion, is murder. they've tried many times to get him legally but have failed. if this is the standard you want to use go for it. based on what i can tell, he's guilty though, and if he got off he got off on technicalities or against the weight of the evidence i presented. maybe the people i quoted didnt or couldnt testify for some reason. who knows. but again based on what i know, at least in theory if what i say is true.... he deserves to be shot. not even deserves for his own punishment... deserves for teh lives of future babies saved
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

Dr. Tiller was illegally killed by a vigilante in cold blood. This did not bring him to justice or shed light on his illegal practices. In your initial argument, you failed to explain why Tiller's actions justified his illegal murder. In fact, I would argue that his actions, if they are as you described them, would justify his incarceration by appropriate authorities -- not his death at the hands of a crazed individual. I look forward to reading your justifications for your claim.
Legalization of Cannabis

I'd like to point out that my opponent does not answer a SINGLE argument of mine.Dangers??? So what. Should we outlaw beer too? and Ciggars? No Clearly the answer is not prohibition. Accidental pink unicorn falling from the sky and hitting me ... it's possible...NOT LIKELY though. Just like if you have the required parenting skills you wont allow your kid close to beer or smokes. SAME WITH DRUGS.My adversary has yet to make a single valid point.
Legalization of Cannabis

"legalise all drugs.". What? legalize drugs. Let me address why that would be a bad ideaDanger to HumansThe main reason why drugs are not legal is because of danger to humans. if drugs were legal, probably you would see a surge of emergency room visits. Legalizing any drug would be a danger, because all drugs have effects on the human body. Many drugs cause addiction, which we all know is not a good thing. In America, 21 million people use drugs, and how many of these people think it's good, with about 1/3 being addicted to the drug. We were all thought at a young age that drugs are bad, and that is why they are illegal.Accidental Child ConsumptionImagine this: Your child finds some cannabis in your house. Thinking it's some kind of cotton candy, she swallows it. Children tend to do things that are not good, and what if your child got ahold of your drugs? P.S. This debate is about CANNABIS not every drug ever
Legalization of Cannabis

First , let me start with 10 reasons to legalise all drugs.1 Address the real issues. Policy makers often use prohibitions as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the real social and economic factors that lead people to use drugs. Nearly all illegal drug use is recreational. Poverty and poor education are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that we can hope to significantly decrease the number of problematic users. 2. Eliminate the criminal Market PlaceThe production , transportation and distribution of illegal drugs creates a marketplace and foundationinto which organised crime moves. The profits furthermore are worth billions which means legalisation and taxation of these drugs forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves organized crime of income and enables society to regulate and control the market 7. Restoreing basic human rights Legalisation restores our right to use drugs responsibly to change the way we think and feel. It should be your basic right as a human being to ingest whatever you wish.8. Prohibition has failed epiclyGovernments have tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually, cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Claims that marijuana prohibition is a successful policy are ludicrous and unsupported by the facts, and the idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy. Furthermore CON. .. You being offended dosen't constitute as an argument.
Napoleon should be rembered as a 19th century version of Hitler

I will now address each part of my opponents argument and offer my rebuttals."Ok man they both wanted to take over the world..." This is probably true. This is the only statement made by my opponent that is in fact valid. However, there is no verification of this idea with any form of a source, and it is something that needs to be backed up or else ignored for the purposes of the debate."... both wanted to... have the religion that they followed practiced by everyone they took over..." Neither were outwardly religious, though Hitler and the Nazis arguably advocated a form of political religion. Napoleon did not follow any particular religion. He is even quoted as saying “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." Napoleon's famed Concordat recognized Catholicism as the religion most common in France, but also gave religious freedom to Protestants and Jews. He is even credited with freeing Jews from ghettos as he conquered Europe."...plus they both just got of a war before they came into power..."I assume this means to say that both got out of a war just before coming into power. This is false: Hitler came into power constitutionally because of a provision in the German Constitution. In 1933 Germany had been uneasily at peace with Europe since the end of WWI for more than a decade."... so yeah it does not matter what era they came from except Hitler had vehicles that's the only difference."I dispute the claim that vehicles were the only difference between the eras of Napoleon and Hitler. If we're going by innovations, then this source shows that vehicles were the only difference: http://www.ideafinder.com...Otherwise, the existence of fascism, communism, Nazism, the Holocaust, and a unified Germany during the time of Hitler prove this point incorrect.I will remind my opponent that the fourth round is only for rebuttals and conclusion, so I request that he does not introduce any new arguments which I will not have the opportunity to refute. It's up to the voters after this round; I hope I have been convincing enough in my argument.Sources:http://voices.yahoo.com...http://www.goodreads.com... http://www.aish.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Napoleon should be rembered as a 19th century version of Hitler

To make the argument that "Napoleon equals Hitler" is to assume that such a comparison is even valid. I argue that it is not. The two men came from different eras and were surrounded by circumstances that were vastly different across the board. Because of this, it is very difficult to make a convincing argument for their actions being equal. However, it is easy to refute the similarities drawn in arguments supporting this concept. Therefore, I will allow Pro to first offer an in depth argument this round for why he believes Napoleon is so akin to Hitler, and then I will give a response to it in the next round. The BOP is on Pro.
Napoleon should be rembered as a 19th century version of Hitler

By version of Hitler, I mean a person who should be remembered in the strongly negative way that Hitler is today, similar to him in terms of goals, character, and sanity. Many have wrongly portrayed Napoleon as an evil man who tried to destroy and pillage as much of Europe as possible, and I argue that this is a false assertion. Please use round 1 only for acceptance and to state your position. As a rough outline for the debate, round 2 will be for arguments, 3 for rebuttals, and 4 for counter-rebuttals and conclusions.
God is everywhere!

I don't think I have much more to say. ". .. gardeners see God, climbers see God, soldiers see God. .. " But I don't. I was hoping for a more logic based argument, but indeed I think my opponent's arguments can essentially be boiled down to: 1) People have always believed 2) This is because we have a natural "instinct" to believe 3) Therefore, it must be SOMETHING that's causing this 4) Therefore, God exists Not only is this argument, again, based solely on the fact that people believe, but I find it rather unconvincing. I feel that my opponent hasn't fulfilled his BoP and unfortunately, I remain unconvinced.
God is everywhere!

I will conclude this debate by thanking, The Russian, for his participation. I am not promoting God or asking anyone to agree with me. If I were to be truthful, I feel that The Russian's last submission was just 'more of the same. Let me show you why I say this.Free Will is for another time. The concept is well scrutinized within the Genesis fable. The Russian seems to think that the human is terrified by the prospect of death and that they are vulnerably 'clutching at straws'. In truth the hardest part of death for us all is when people who are close to us die. There is a desire to hold on to them or to create a scenario where we can follow them and reunite with them in another place. This 'Heaven' thing is a human creation and is only linked to God in a fanciful way. I say this by telling you that this process is not to be observed in the natural world in any way imaginable. What dies and goes somewhere. We have as humans extended natural phenomena, ie like leaf fall, etc to create this 'resurrection' hypothesis. I feel that the sparrows in my garden hop to the same rhythm as the sparrows did in a Jewish market place in the first century. I can in truth rationalize a resurrection for me in the t my efforts now will contribute to the future. I am the future's past if you like and my legacy will be of some 'kind'.I mention these things because my opponent appears to think that this 'fear of the afterlife' is what energizes 'God belief' How could it.My opponent digs up the predictable, red herrings, ie a flat earth and superstition. The earth is essentially flat to all observations made by me and I have successfully debated a 'flat earth' on this site. We are all aware of the fact that basic 'god worship' has been hijacked for power and influence within our emerging societies. This usurping of the 'god longing' happened with the first witch doctors almost at the start of our cognitive development. It has now reached the bizarre levels of modern theological mumbo jumbo.Once again, I am not selling the ever-presence of God here. The fact is that it is there. If you cannot concede to this point, it does not matter. Most people search for god and attest to some form of orthodox theism. Their collective instinct is to recognize the presence within their existence of this phenomena. If I were arguing from a minority position then surely I would need to present more proof.Look for God everywhere, gardeners see God, climbers see God, soldiers see God..................Just look and hope that your engagement with God is rewarding and wonderful. Most hells are of man's own making.SUICIDE IN THE TRENCHES..............By Siegfried SassoonI knew a simple soldier boy Who grinned at life in empty joy, Slept soundly through the lonesome dark, And whistled early with the lark. In winter trenches, cowed and glum, With crumps and lice and lack of rum, He put a bullet through his brain. No one spoke of him again. You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye Who cheer when soldier lads march by, Sneak home and pray you'll never know The hell where youth and laughter go.
God is everywhere!

"The Russian's proposal that God belief was established as a form of delusional 'comforting' is a very weak argument." My opponent calls my argument weak, but I didn't really see any effective counters to it. He says that modern religions are clearly wrong, and I'm not contesting that. But it's clear that religion/belief in God plays a role of giving people comfort in regards to death and giving them stimulus to live moral lives. Another delusion that we've "sustained and perpetuated" in human societies is the belief in Free Will. If my opponent would like, I will briefly explain why I'm convinced that we indeed don't have Free Will, but our society (all societies) depends massively on this concept. My opponent then presents his views on the existence of time. I'm a little confused as to what the relevance of this is to the debate, but it's not really evidence of any sort. Once again, he merely presents his opinion. Time is something we use as a tool in our every day lives, and it is something that is used by scientists (particularly physicists, for example) to make ACCURATE calculations. Point being, time is used, it's practical, it's effectively real. None of those things can be said about God. Yes, we are "lost within God", which is why people believe. There are still so many things that we don't know (especially having to do with death and the afterlife) which is why the belief in God is still very much alive. But this is the "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, and these gaps grow smaller and smaller. God becomes weaker and weaker, effectively. We used to think that God healed the sick, but no it's our own cells. We used to think that God sent down rain and lightning from the heavens, but no, it's a naturally occurring, explainable phenomenon. My opponent has provided no real arguments. He has presented his opinion and that people have always believed in God. This is not evidence. It's like saying that most ancient cultures believed in a Flat Earth, and we see the flatness of the Earth from the ground, then the Earth is Flat. (Analogous to my opponent saying that people always believed in God and he himself "sees"/"feels" God everywhere).
God is everywhere!

Hi The Russian, Firstly I cannot concede to you the point that I carry sole BofP. The debate will show this to be true. I expect you to give answers that are logical and correct to all my questions which I will highlight in bold. I want to structure my submissions in such a way as to facilitate constructive interaction.I propose to show that God is everywhere, that God is a real phenomena and that God reveals itself to us all at all times.(a) Human beings are very perceptive. We have evolved within life to exist and compete on this planet with relative ease. We are a product of many millions of years of evolution. Our senses are acute and accurate and your emotive and subconscious awareness's are also highly evolved and reliable. We sense danger, we recognize anomalies, we empathize with events as they unfold before us. We have evolved these primitive abilities to a level where we now attempt to apply reason and morality to what we see. God belief is something similar.Why has mankind always perceived 'the existence of God'?Why is this belief so actual that we have retained it and developed it without any indication of doing otherwise? The answers to God are there for all to find. Here are two obvious and easy avenues of enquiry to explore.(1) Study the ancient origins of 'God belief' as it manifested itself in its various forms during the course of human history. (2) Study your world that has always exposed the workings of God to us and search for God yourself.More to come later. I expect a logical answer to my questions and if I have deviated from the actual then I expect the error of my ways to be clarified for me. Thanks
All your base are belong to us.

Five reasons to negate: 1. Only the base of the round belongs to us; this base =/= all base; ergo, not ALL base are belong to us. Negated. 2. If I owned the base, I could modify it; because I am bound by unmodifiable parameters, I couldn't own the base. Negated. 3. "You do not own the base." I don't own the base; ergo, we don't own the base. Negated. 4. I hereby forfeit any ownership rights that I might have to the base of this round. I can no longer own the base; ergo, neither can "we". Negated. 5. All base cannot belong to us, because somebody set up us the bomb [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Negated.
All your base are belong to us.

============ Framework ============ Base: Fundamental principle or groundwork, framework of the round. Us: We debaters, my opponent and I. ============ Arguments ============ You do not own the base. I took it from Dicitonary. com [1]. But even they do not own the base, this is because they have not copyrighted the words I used. So base belongs to all. Also the base of the round is not mutually exclusive, it is used by both because its in the compulsory framework, therefore accepted by both parties, and being accepted it becomes the property of both of us. As we can see all my opponents Base are belong to us. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com......
The Movie Tangled is Better then the Movie Frozen

It is actually Anna who is the main character not Elsa, so Anna's story is focused on. Not everything is white washed, some scenes like the ending show alot of the environment and even if it is white washed, Elsa's castle of ice was very impressive. Examples? My opponent failed to give them. Olaf was useful after ana's "ex" ditched her as he stayed with her. Not to mention that Tangled's ending wasn't as realistic as Frozen. In Tangled, Rapunzel cuts her hair and all her powers leave her, resolving everything when she could've done that in the beginning lol, while in Frozen, Ana sacrifices herself for love and Elsa in the end, uses her powers to make a whole community better. The ending in Frozen involves a whole group of people whereas in Tangled, it involves only a prince and a princess.
The Movie Tangled is Better then the Movie Frozen

“there doesn't need to be an explanation for a person having powers if they aren't the main focusof the story. ” Elsa is the main character in Frozen, of course we should know how she gets her powers. Disney let us know that Rapunzel got hers from her mother drinking the magic flower broth to save her life. “Frozen put alot more details in the environment whereas tangled just focus on some things like the castle. ” That’s not true at all, if you look hrough the movie you will notice that everything is white washed, that happens when you use snow. In Tangled though, the colors are beautiful and vivide. “The main character matures as she gets more experienc . ” Okay, I’m sorry: There is one character out of the whole movie who kind of matures in the end. In Rapunzel all of them do. “Olaf make use of himself while jar Jar usually cowers in fear. ” When was Olaf useful? :)
The Movie Tangled is Better then the Movie Frozen

“no explanation is given for a why that is. Therefore, it is based only on opinion” Of course it is based on a opinion, any statement “Blank is better than blank” Is an opinionated outlook, and that is what this debate is based on. “no plot needs to be given. The story is focused more on her daughter” That honestly makes no sense, if you could clarify your point that would be great. “frozen has better graphics” It may have better graphics per sey, because it was created later, but that doesn’t cover how Frozen is boring and white washed and Tangled has a ton of beautiful scenes. “character development also exists in frozen as the main character realizes she was never in love in the first place and she found out who really loved and cared about her.” That is not character development, that is plot change. “Olaf maybe Jar Jar Binks, however he is still unique as he got his nose” Jar Jar Binks has his nose, it doesn’t mean he isn’t annoying.
The Movie Tangled is Better then the Movie Frozen

1. no explanation is given for a why that is. Therefore, it is based only on opinion 2. no plot needs to be given. The story is focused more on her daughter frozen has better graphics 3. character development also exists in frozen as the main character realizes she was never in love in the first placeand she found out who really loved and cared about her. 4. Olaf maybe Jar Jar Binks, however he is still unique as he got his nose
The Movie Tangled is Better then the Movie Frozen

1) The plot makes sense. Dude, we know why Rapunzel has powers but what about Anna? No preplot? 2) Its more beautiful in scenes. The light festival alone is more beautiful than the whole movie. 3) The characters are developed. No one cared when the Queen and King died but we had empathy when Rapunzel’s mom died even though she was evil. 4) Olaf is Jar Jar Binks. Speaks for itself.
1 plus 1 equals 2

First of all, in argument 1, you divided by (x+y-3). If you substitute the values x = 1, y = 2, which are accepted as givens, then you'll see that x+y-3 = 1+2-3, which equals zero. Dividing by zero is not allowed. Second, your second article is terribly constructed, irrelevant and, mathematically incorrect. Why? Firstly, you assume 1+1=3, which you haven't proven, see earlier in my argument (dividing by zero). Secondly, please clarify your proof, as it seems to me that you went from -1 = 0 to 15 = 0, and I can't figure out how you got there. Thirdly, I can prove that 4^0 = 3^0 using mathematical fact.
1 plus 1 equals 2

Well, if 1+1=3 and 1+2=3 can't both be true then; 3^0=1 and 4^0=1 can't both be true using your argument. Just like any number raised to the 0 is 1, 1 plus any number is 3. I can prove this like this; 1+1=3 So, 1=3-1 1=2 1-2=2-2 -1=0 (-1)-15=(0)-15 You can change the -15 to something else for the rest of the proofs 15=0 15-15=0-15 0=-15 0+1=-15+1 1=-14 1+17=-14+17 Therefore, 1+17=3
1 plus 1 equals 2

Let x=1 and y=2, then x+y=3 Multiply each side by 2x-3: (2x-3)(x+y)=(2x-3)(3) 2x^2-3x+2xy-3y=6x-9 Add 3y-3x to both sides: 2x^2-3x+2xy-3y+(3y-3x)=6x-9+(3y-3x) 2x^2-6x+2xy=3x+3y-9 Factor both sides: 2x(x+y-3)=3(x+y-3) Divide both sides by (x+y-3): 2x=3 But then: x+x=3 with x=1 Therefore: 1+1=3