BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The legal system should have the option to charge juveniles as adults.

Let's begin. We have all become well-acquainted with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for the most part, the two boys who tore through their hallways and classrooms in Littleton, CO. in April, spraying bullets that left 12 students and one teacher dead. Their pictures were plastered on the covers of most major magazines; their life stories were regurgitated on every local and national news broadcast. But, we're less familiar with boys like Ronnie Vera. Last year, Ronnie, 18, entered an Arizona prison. He is serving a 25-years-to-life sentence for two counts of first-degree burglary and one count of first-degree murder. Unlike Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Ronnie did not kill anyone. He and a friend were caught stealing a bike in a neighborhood by a prominent community activist in Tucson. Ronnie turned to run. One year later, a jury convicted both Ronnie and his friend of murder. Ronnie shouldn't have been tried for murder because his friend pulled out a gun and shot and killed the community activist. Ronnie was 16 at the time. In most cases, youths under age 18 who break the law enter a juvenile court system. Ronnie, however, stood trial before an adult criminal court. He received an adult sentence, and currently lives behind bars in an adult prison. Ronnie is not alone. In its devotion to protect us from cold-blooded teen killers, Congress is now considering sweeping new legislation that threatens to put thousands of relatively harmless kids into adult jails. The trend is already well underway at the state level: From 1992 to 1995, 40 states and the District of Columbia passed laws making it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults. Some state legislatures did so by lowering the juvenile cut-off age; in some cases to age 16 or 17, in others, to age 14. As a result, an estimated 180,000 cases involving 16- or 17-year-old were tried in criminal court because young defendants were defined as adults under state law in 1994. States also enacted legislation to lengthen the list of crimes that, if committed, exclude a young offender from the juvenile system. Many youths are now automatically transferred to adult court for prosecution for violent crimes and drug offenses, even though federal studies show that older inmates tend to beat and rape teens serving in adult facilities. If these policies were merely the price we had to pay to keep our streets safe from monsters like Dylan, they might be forgivable. But the statistics suggest that the new laws are simply creating more hardened young criminals. I rest my case and await your reply.
Christianity is False

I also agree with my opponent 100%. Jesus was a prophet of God, and Jesus did not claim to be God Himself.However, Jesus did claim to be the Son of God. He claimed to be the promised Messiah. This is what historians agree that Jesus was crucified for. If Jesus truly was the Messiah, and the final propphet of God, then Christianity is true. If Jesus was just another prophet of God, and Christianity is not true, then why did all the original disciples give up their lives for the belief in Christianity?The best explanation of history for how Christianity spread the way that it did is if the original disciples truly were convinced of the claims that they were preaching. Now, what they were claiming was that Jesus was the Messiah of God, and was truly resurrected.
Christianity is False

Christianity is probably true, based on the historical evidences and multiple facts that scholars agree about.There are 12 historical facts that secular (non-christian) critical scholars agree to. They are (1):-Jesus died by crucifixion.-He was buried.-His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.-The tomb was empty (the most contested).-The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.-The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.-The resurrection was the central message.-They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.-The Church was born and grew.-Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.-James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).-Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).There are three possible scenarios: The early disciples all had hallucinations of Christ at different times and places and were convinced that it was real; The early disciples hid Christ's body from the tomb, spread the lie that he was resurrected, and were tortured and killed to protect that lie; or Christ was resurrected by God and this is what the apostle's saw and preached.The apostles directly denied that what they saw were hallucinations. (2) This either leaves the apostles lying and then dying for that lie, or the resurrection actually happened. I argue that Christ was really resurrected by God, because it is not reasonable to believe that they lied. If anyone objects to this (like my opponent), then they must give a motive for why the apostles would be tortured and killed for the lie- what was their benefit? Also, examples must be given for people who died protecting something they knew to be a lie (not examples of people dying for what they believe to be true, but what they definitely knew was false). If these two problems are not refuted, one must conclude that Christ was resurrected by God.Also, given that Christianity spread so much across many different religions and cultures show that at least the original disciples were believed by many to be sincere and credible. If these original disciples were victims of hallucinations or trickery, how was it that the religion spread so much as it did?(1) http://www3.telus.net......(2) Luke Chapter 24
Christianity is False

Jesus never claimed to be God. Give me one passage in the New Testament where he did. Jesus only preached to his nation. If he were god, why didn"t he preach to all of mankind? "Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " Early Christians didn"t even believe he was God. Mat 16:15-16 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. The Son of the living God. Not God, not a part of God. Jesus contradicts himself Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Here it states Jesus is the son of man. Pslams 146 states to not trust the son of man. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Jesus had a God. How does Jesus have a God if he is a part of God/God himself? Matthew 26:36-44 36. Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray. " 37. He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38. Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me. " 39. Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. " 40. Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour? " he asked Peter. 41. "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak. " 42. He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done. " 43. When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. Why does he pray to a God if he is God? Does God have a God or is he praying to himself? Both of them do not make sense. That is all.
Is being popular necessary for the school students

To further my argument for the given debate, popularity is always perceived as a "notorious" idea because of the "idiotic" actions that are stereo typically done by many individuals, but popularity increases social interaction. Social interaction is the process of communication among anyone's peers, and does actually benefit the students more than impact them. One example is that it creates more friendships in school, where the student will not be as "influential" in being bullied. As well as prevent any suicidal thoughts because of having the curse of "loneliness". Because of my opponent not responding in this round, I decided to leave my argument short until my opponent responds. I wish to be fair and just in this debate; not a person who "bombards" my opponent until the final round. I'm a man of my word!
Is being popular necessary for the school students

I will challenge you to this debate. When the discussion of "popularity" comes to mind, many think it is a bad influence; which it can and can't. However, if we look at the definition of popularity, it states: "Like, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group". The definition does not always refer to doing "idiotic" activities, like drugs or dating, but could refer to school studies or activities. My opponent says that a students primary goal in school is to study and work hard. I will agree on that point; however, quoted by my opponent, he said: "Making friends is a different thing". How is making friends different than the topic given? Getting friends in school is one of the few necessity's in life, so you will not feel lonely in school or in the future of your life. Being popular gives the element of social interaction, and can actually help in the students future. Of communication with others, and always having someone watch his or her back. To conclude, we all believe popularity is a negative effect for anyone's life; but don't look at the true definition. It does not refer to doing "idiotic" activities, but being favored by a particular group, which can typically be anything. Study hall, because you helped a lot of people, or simply chess club. And popularity can also help with the social interaction a student needs. Allowing him or her to make friends, and be more fluent in communication.
US citizens should have the right to bear arms

I must remind pro that this debate is about the legitimacy of the Second Amendment and his argument is hinging on the rise of marginalised parties in Europe. There are many discrepancies and irrelevancies to his deviation of the motion, such as stating that a far right group sounds like Nazis and his mentioning of illegal firearms in France, but they do not need to be considered. In concession, times of economic dishevelment does result in marginalised political parties rising in political profile, but this does not warrant the right to firearms. Further to this, Pro has not considered many of my arguments and has chosen, instead, to focus on a deviation of the motion and that being justified with a one man smear campaign of Barack Obama. This is a debate all in itself and cannot be considered as justifiable as tyranny. These speculations and generalities, such as a car crash analogy, simply do not justify his position on the motion, to the extent that his argument is faulty. Indeed, pro's position appears to support my argument that gun's are being considered for their usage, intended by the Founding Fathers, and not on their actual utilitarian use, which is a dangerous gamble to make. Pro's point of gun violence and cities is, moreover, about the failure of gun control, which is again, a separate debate. I cannot consider pro's arguments, as they are speculative and are full of generalities, with little refutation to the points I have already made.
US citizens should have the right to bear arms

Ok, first of all, i would like to point out, even though america has a high rate of gun violence, the areas with more guns ad less gun control have less crime. The violence is in cities with strict gun control. Citizens cant get guns, but street gangs sure can. secondly, even though some countries with gun control have less gun violence, they have more rapes and robberies. this is because one person cant fend off a group without a gun. The second part is this tyranny issue, con has said that Fascist parties in nothern europe have no chance of taking power. This is a very stupid statment. There are no fascist in nothern europe, but central and western europe are crawling with them. Example would be france. The Front National is leading in some polls with 25%. This is a party that has a anti-semetic history, but calls all muslims in france not a part of true french culture and nationality. That sounds quite like the nazis. Greece is falling into chaos and the neo-nazi Golden Dawn party is gaining in the polls. Fascist are a huge force in hungery and have held huge, highly racist demonstrations. I wouldn't want to be in Europe. Of course if they come to power Europe is screwed because they don't have weapons. Con says gun control will prevent fascist from getting weapons. That is false. There is a sizable amount of illegal firearms in france and they are increasing. Front National or Golden Dawn will be able to attain weapons. Actually Golden Dawn is already being investigated for smuggling guns around an assassinating people. Yep gun control totally keeps us safe. Despite all the investigations, golden dawns popularity continues to surge. They are the 3rd largest party and their numbers just surged to 10%. They even have greek celebs endorsing them. So your statement is false. We have armed fascist becoming popular and killing people. Cons third objection is that tyranny will never happen in the unlogical. That is like deciding to not use a seatbelt because a carcrash is unlikely. The constitution is being violated blantenly. Example is that Obama continues to change Obamacare even though the president is not granted the power to alter a law. Not to mention the NSA is pretty much the secret police minus the the kidnappings. Even though they are generally working for the publics safety, the NSA could easily be used to suppress the opponents of the party in power. The IRS has already been used for this purpose. If a government agency trying to suppress free speech isn't tyranny i don't no what is. The IRS and the NSA are the roots of tyranny. The rights of the constitution are slowly meaning less and less. Congress isn't granted the power to regulate commerce in a state. Congress is only granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. However this has been going on for quite a while. This right has slowly dissapered and so will are other rights without protection. http://www.nationalreview.com... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...
US citizens should have the right to bear arms

People should be allowed gun rights for two basic reasons. One people should be able to protect themselves. Gun control wont protect you. This is because any thug who really wants a gun can get one. Criminals don't obey gun laws. Meth is illegal, but any one can cook it up in their kitchen. Same thing with guns. You can buy stuff easily on a black market including guns. The argument that guns will cause unrest is impratical because the people that's will cause trouble can get a gun any way. This means a society with gun control is less safe. Even if someone cant get a gun, they can beat someone with a crowbar knowing that the person wont have a gun.The second reason is to resist tyranny. I know this makes me sound like conspiricy theorist stocking up on guns in preperation for martial law, but this is what the 2nd ammendment was inntended to do. George Orwell said, "The rifle on the wall of a labours house is the true symbol of democracy." Even though in most countries chances of tyranny and dictatorship are very slim, it is better to be prepered then lose your freedoms. A people without weapons cant resist any taking of their rights by a government. Probibility wise, dictator ship in a indistrual nation is bound to happen eventually. Considering the rise of fachist, racist parties across Europe, this may be sooner then expected. When dictatorship comes, the people will resist the loss of their freedoms, or grovel and accept their serfdom. A people armed can resit any attempt to strip them of their rights.
US citizens should have the right to bear arms

CON says this debate is about the legitimacy of the second ammendment. The second ammendment was approved by congress and the states. That makes it legitimate. It will exist until it's repealed by another amendment. That isnt that hard to understand. Back to arguments worth having, con says that I am just blasting obama and that guns don't protect you from tyranny. As of the first point, i'm not just blasting Obama. These policies started with Bush and were continued by Obama. The matter is that allowing goverment agencies the powers they are granted is dangeurus. It is hard for the people in power to not use their powerful agency for their won agendas. The current role of the NSA might not be harmful, but goverment isnt made for such power. The ability to keep tabs on anyone anywhere is the first step to a police state. At first it's just a few muslims. Then it's any one remotly arabic being spyed upon. Then its cartel leaders, crime lords and neo nazis. By these i mean any one with any remote connections to these groups. The ability to tap phones and spy on citizens are the tatics of a secret police, not the protectors of our freedoms. With this power, it is tempting to keep tabs on your rivals Nixon style. Or maybe use some IRS bullying. If you are in a tough spot and your carreer is on the line. You will play dirty. Thats how it always starts. Assuming tyranny comes to power, America is one of the only countries with the power to resist. The russian people cant overthrow Putin if they wanted. They have no guns. Gun control has been the weapon of tyranny since its creation. Japan banned peasents from owning swords. Gun control was used in the south to stop blacks from defending themselves against the KKK. I bet the Japenese Americans wished they had guns when they were deprived of their liberties and sent to concentrat....... I mean "relocation" camps. You have not made any argument on gun controls supposed benifits so we will assume it has none until u do. Until then, why would you ban guns if it dosnt effect you at all. Thats just telling others how to live their lives. No goverment can say it is ruled by the people unless the people have the right to rise up against the goverment. This is in the declaration of independence. "When a long line of grievences has accured, it becomes the right of the people to alter or abolish it." If a people cant stand against tyranny what is their to stop tyranny? The knowledge of it being frowned upon? A group will create tyranny if they know there is no threat of a revolt. What better way to stop that other then gun control? To day no one would try to abolish our republic, half the country would be in arms, without guns however, the temptation of the state is stonger. http://canadafreepress.com...
Answer random questions

1.Have you ever played the PC game called "Slender"?Slender is a first person horror game created by Parsec Productions where your only goal is to find 8 manuscripts about the Slender Man, a paranormal creature. The more directly you come in contact with the Slender Man, the faster your sanity drains.....I have never in my present life played Slender and frankly, I don't want to.2. Have you ever kissed a guy?Guy - a man.Every night before I go to bed, I kiss my father goodnight.3. On the scale of one to ten, how creative are you?Creative - relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something.If 10 means extraordinary for my age group and 1 defines as appalling, then I average around 7.4. Close your eyes. What do you see?Unfortunately, it is not physically possible to close my eyes, so this question can not be truly answered.5. What does the fox say?Say - utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.A fox cannot murmur, whisper, grunt or in any form convey words, so the fox, or any fox, cannot say anything.Your turn.....1. How many rings before you answer the phone?2. How many keys on your key ring?3. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?4. Is the glass half empty or half full?5. What is the first thing you think of when you wake up in the morning?
Answer random questions

1. "What is the last thing you watched on TV?" The last time I was watching TV was when I was about to leave the house. As I opened the door to exit my house,, I looked to my right and I saw my grandpa watching Wheel of Fortune; therefore, the last thing I watched on TV was the antenna that was on the TV. 2. "Without looking, guess what time it is" Looking is defined as "to turn one's eyes toward something or in some direction in order to see." Without looking, I need not to turn my eyes towards the time that was within my peripheral vision to see that, right now, it is 4:44 on the dot. 3. "Now look at the clock. What is the actual time" I know avert my attention by turning my eyes into the direction to the clock to see that it is 4:44. 4. "With the exception of the computer, what can you hear?" Other than my computer, the sounds that I can perceive are the sounds of the TV that my grandpa is watching, the sounds of hammers banging, music playing, the clock ticking, my brother running around, my grandma cooking and talking with my mother, chirping outside from the insects, and stomping on the floor. 5. "When did you last step outside? What were you doing?" The last time I stepped outside (of my house) was when I stepped outside of my house. That was when I had an epiphany. I was thinking of how the universe works. I stood there trying to comprehend the beauty of our environment by taking a gander at the view. Here are five more random questions I want to ask you. 1. Have you ever played the pc game called "Slender"? 2. Have you ever kissed a guy? 3. On a scale on 1 to 10, how creative are you? 4. Close your eyes. What do you see? 5. What does the fox say?
Answer random questions

1. Where was I when I answered your first question of this round?"So if I wave my arm, I can touch: a green box filled with books, a bed, a white table with magazines on top, a wire of some sort, a futon, a black table with some statues, a water bottle, a cup, dirty clothes, a broken computer, and the wall."Since you have stated you are near a bed, I am guessing you are in your bedroom.2. When was the last time you had a shower? Shower - a brief and usually light fall of rain, hail, sleet, or snow.Shower - a cubicle or bath in which a person stands under a spray of water to wash.If you mean the first definition, then the answer would be two weeks ago on Friday the 25th of October.If you define a shower by the second explanation, then it would be today, exactly 2 minutes ago.3. Touch the nearest object below you. What is it?Right now I am sitting on a brown leather couch, so technically the sofa is below me. So, the nearest thing I can touch below me is the brown leather sofa.4. How do you do?Rather well, thankyou. And you?5. Who was the love of my life? "Where were you on Valentine's day?"I was alone at my house. I was just sitting where I am right now with the computer screen in my face. This implies that your love remains with your computer even on Valentine's Day. (Sorry if that offends you in any way!)Now, here's your questions. 1.What is the last thing you watched on TV? 2.Without looking, guess what time it is 3.Now look at the clock. What is the actual time4. With the exception of the computer, what can you hear?5.When did you last step outside? What were you doing?