BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public safety in NY

Sir civilians never know why they are really stopped you guys just want to believe what you want, I work for the department and really care about protecting people , most of the time a crime is committed we stop everyone who fits the description of the perpetrator with the hope of catching him or her. Also we need "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone, with "probable cause" we have enough to make an arrest. If you got robbed for your cell phone with a weapon I bet you'll want us to stop everyone with the description you give us or if a family member gets attacked by a group of teens and is badly injured, you will want us to stop and "250" any group of suspicious teens, which is a form we fill out when we conduct a Stop&Frisk. Not all stops lead to a frisk either. Many times we I.D people when we stop them and ask the victim if him or her fit the description and when they say yes then that's probable cause to make an arrest for assault or whatever crime was committed. About your comment in warrants to enter homes, a stop&frisk has nothing to do with entering someone's home. Criminals have told us themselves that they don't carry firearms and other deadly weapons as much because they are scared to get stopped by us, if not they will carry guns 24/7 and rob people every time they can to make easy money or even shoot any enemies they have, in most cases a fight starts and then people leave to come back armed because they cant risk being caught by us with a firearm if they carried it on a daily basis like if it was a part of an outfit. Listen to a police scanner up and you'll see how often a description of a perpetrator is given for committing a crime.
Public safety in NY

The issue is not with the amount of crime that occurs, but with the right of citizens not to have their privacy violated without probable cause. There are many different options that could be used to lower crime rates, but many cannot be instituted without gross violations of a persons liberty. We could do away with requiring police to have a warrant to search our homes, and the crime rate would most likely go down. Just because something has a positive result does not mean that it is right or permissible, and stop and frisk laws are utterly unconstitutional.
Public safety in NY

I don't disagree with the results of the stop and frisk programs. They may take guns off of the streets and save peoples lives, but they still target racial minorities much more than whites. This is not something that can just be explained away. It is racial profiling, and people do not deserve to be stopped just because of the color of their skin. Even beyond the whole idea of stopping people because of race you shouldn't be able to stop people without having reasonable suspicion that they have committed some sort of crime. The descriptions you keep talking about aren't what stop and frisk is about since these are crimes that have been committed with actual perpetrators to be found. In stop and frisk no crime has been committed and they do not fit the description of any criminal. The racial profiling cannot be justified.
The U.S. culture and morals are collapsing because of excessive scientific development

Scientific development is great I believe it's the most important thing about being Human and I will now confront these issues you've brought fourth. Homosexuality- (just a short video) Abortion- I believe abortion should be a right granted to rape victims in addition the human population is out of hand. . http://www.paulchefurka.ca... Sustainability A sustainable population is one that can survive over the long term (thousands to tens of thousands of years) without either running out of resources or damaging its environmental niche (in our case the planet) in the process. This means that our numbers and level of activity must not generate more waste than natural processes can return to the biosphere, that the wastes we do generate do not harm the biosphere, and that most of the resources we use are either renewable through natural processes or are entirely recycled if they are not renewable. In addition a sustainable population must not grow past the point where those natural limits are breached. Using these criteria it is obvious that the current human population is not sustainable. Drug Usage- 1. I believe all US citizens should be allowed Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 2. the most common idea is that they prevent people from harming themselves and from causing harm to the culture. But laws against self harm always stand on shaky ground, as they are, on the idea that the government knows what's better for you than you do. 3. You don't have to look hard to find examples of lives needlessly destroyed by just marijuana prohibition laws. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans for marijuana possession every year. These new convicts are driven from their jobs and families. Then pushed into a prison system that turns first time offenders into hardened criminals. 4. Drugs have created an underground economy, where crimes unrelated to drugs but connected to those who sell and use it, go unreported. End result: real crimes become harder to solve. Remember, the bible does not cause peace through morality and is in no way good for society, and scientific is not the only thing that contradicts the bible.
The U.S. culture and morals are collapsing because of excessive scientific development

I did not say that the world would be free of war if a specific religion was globally supported. In fact, states in the bibal belt are home to more violent crimes than genrally athiest states. However, I do not see murder as the issues, the enemy. What is worse, however, is homosexuality, abortion, and drug use, all of which are more prominent in "advanced, sophisticated, progressive" society. The argument is not that murder is caused by science. The fact that is being debated is whether science collaspes the morals of society. So, in response to this, do not accuse the Bible of causing violent crimes, rather, accuse science of destroying religion, morals, and society. Sure a little science is good. Technological development is not the worst, but when it harms religion, the issues arise.
The U.S. culture and morals are collapsing because of excessive scientific development

However that is the point. Although I do not believe that the Earth is flat, science has rejected The Bible. Why listen to anything in the Bible, afterall, science declares it false? The majority of the US's population believes scientific facts over biblical texts. Those who reject certain, scientific facts are ridiculed. So, if the facts of the physics and astronomy in the Bible are not true, what makes the rest of it true? That is the exact belief that many have of the biblical teachings. Why carry basic morals, afterall, the world is not flat?
The U.S. culture and morals are collapsing because of excessive scientific development

The morals and beliefs of the U.S. are disappearing. These ideas were built by religions that founded this country in jeopardy. Homosexuality is a widespread disease that is corrupting the minds of the American youth. Abortion is not only legal in most regions, but generally accepted and support by the population. Firearms, however, are seen, by most as extremity dangerous and must be banned, while dangerous drugs appear safer and legalized. The list can continue, but what is the cause of all this positive change that is described as the future of culture? Science. Simple enough. From its beginning, science has challenged religion. Evolution is now a widely adopted belief, as Creationism is set to the side, deemed nonsense. With scientific and technological development, time becomes more valuable. Before the Industrial Revolution, weeks and months were standard units of time. The main industry, farming, required great amounts of time, making hours and even days, unimportant. With the steam engine and the railroad, eventually, the automobile and airplane, more work, travel, business can be done in shorter periods of time. Now, look at religion. Not only is science denying all beliefs and traditions, but the general public doesn't have time to go to church. Many churches only run about an hour, while some go up to an entire day. However, people can get around the world in the time it take to go to church, depending on the sermon lengths. So, why go to church? They can do so much more. Not going to church doesn't mean you forget all ideas, but their posterity will not even learn them. It doesn't help that the public school system embraces this shift. Take, for example, the African- American community, historically, the group consists of regular church goers. The African- American community has a very small number of homosexuals, compared proportionately to Caucasians. Try to defend your liberal, countercultural beliefs if you can, or support me in this battle we are constantly outnumbered, losing.
Class Pets

Yes I do agree that class pets are fun, but it can be very risky. If the pet gets out then well, goodbye. And if it dies then what re you going to do. And who is going to be providing the food, shelter, and water, and heat/coolness. You will also have to take it home and ten care for it. But if you have problems with money and can not but it food. Also, if there is only 1 class pet in a whole school, then other classes will get jealous.
The letter Q is pointless

Having said that, I have to disagree with your arguments. Your argument about needing another letter is invalid because most letters require other letters to make a word. So unless you're going to say all letters except A and I should be removed, your argument is invalid. And who cares what sound it makes? Thats irrelevant. And if you didn't have the letter Q, you couldn't spell words like "quality", "quote", or "question". So it's definitely NOT pointless. And just because you don't feel like using proper spelling and grammar doesn't change the fact that it's part of the scoring system. So, I reject your claim that the voters shouldn't consider it.
The letter Q is pointless

The letter Q is a pointless letter to have in the English alphabet because you need to combine it with the letter U to use it. in turn that makes the KW sound. there should be no letter Q because it requires 2 letters to use and makes the same sound as 2 other letters combined - KW note - the debate is about my point, not whether i feel like using the shift key or apostrophes. proper sentence structure has nothing to do with the point of the topic , unless the topic is proper sentence structure.
The letter Q is pointless

The resolution that you created says "The letter Q is pointless". If you wanted to debate the letter conjunction QU, you should have done so, but you didn't. I will be capitalizing for emphasis. Let me quote you from round one: "The letter Q is a pointless letter to have in the English alphabet because you need to combine it with the letter U to use it. in turn that makes the KW sound. there should be no letter Q because it requires 2 letters to use and makes the same sound as 2 other letters combined - KW." So here we can clearly see that you have a problem with the letter Q because WHEN USING IT TO MAKE A WORD, you have to use the letter U. When just talking about the letter, you don't have to use the letter U. The letter Q is pronounced "cue" when just talking about the letter. It's not pronounced "kwue". So CLEARLY you have a problem with the fact that Q requires a second letter when making a word. BUT SO DO ALL OTHER LETTERS (except A and I). This fact renders your KW argument irrelevant unless you're saying that ALL letters (except A and I) are pointless. And since you're not saying that (I've given you several chances to do so), I've just negated your main argument, and have won this debate. You also SAY That you're not suggesting we get rid of the letter Q, but that too is not accurate. Let me quote you again: " id like to expand this now, furthering my point, QU (2 letters) can be replaced with K (1 letter) in certain words to make the same sound." "why have 26 letters in the alphabet when we only need 25. why the extra letter that doesnt need to be there? its just extra, and since letters cant be broken , get lost or run away , we dont need an extra letter especially when it requires another letter to use it 99.9% of the time." So here we see you suggesting REPLACING Q with another letter. Well I have to ask you, if we take Q out of all words, how is that not getting rid of Q? And how is going from 26 letters to 25 letters not getting rid of Q? Your question to me: "can you phonetically spell and accurately pronounce all the words in the modern English language, the way they are pronounced now, with the following letters?: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ" My response: Again, you have made another invalid argument. It's irrelevant because you could say the same thing about other letters. For example, you could pronounce "ice" "is" So i guess c is pointless too? Finally, when I play Scrabble, Q is definitely not pointless. As a matter of fact, IT'S WORTH 10 POINTS! [1] SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE My opponent admitted to being condescending, so I should get votes for conduct My opponent never capitalized or used apostrophes, so I should get votes for S and G My opponent, being the instigator and taking the Pro position had the full burden of proof. I negated every argument he made, so I should get votes for arguments. I'm the only one who had sources, so I should get votes for sources. Basically, I deserve all seven points. Please vote Con! 1.http://www.scrabblefinder.com...
The letter Q is pointless

" The fact that you can make the same sound with kw doesn't mean Q is pointless. Maybe kw is pointless because you could make the same sound with a Q." -- wrong im talking about the sound QU makes ,not Q. what sound does Q make? i guess K. you left me no choice but to be condescending. you either read wrong, or cant understand right. you avoided my point and made up your own point up that i supposedly made, criticized my grammar while using bad grammar and have not shown any evidence that i couldnt refute with my point. i have been , and im still referring to the sound of QU and KW. you keep insisting that im not even though i made sure to write sound as many times as i could. i have no idea why you keep thinking im talking about words as my main point. maybe you want to argue words and youre reading wrong , i have no idea. "Also, if we got rid of the letter Q, we would have to relearn how to spell thousands of words. So clearly, getting rid of the letter Q is silly, and it's not pointless." i never said get rid of Q, i said it was pointless to have. how hard could it actually be to put KW where QU used to be , if in fact we got rid of the letter? its not exactly relearning. id also like to address the word etiquette that was in the comments . ive heard it pronounced etikwette and etikette , either way the KW or just the K out does or matches the QU combo. id like to expand this now , furthering my point, QU (2 letters) can be replaced with K (1 letter) in certain words to make the same sound. its about simplicity. why have 26 letters in the alphabet when we only need 25. why the extra letter that doesnt need to be there? its just extra, and since letters cant be broken , get lost or run away , we dont need an extra letter especially when it requires another letter to use it 99.9% of the time. my closing argument. this must be answered or youre obviously just dodging and have no actual point to make and are just babbling nonsense to stay in the debate hoping to find ground to stand on. can you phonetically spell and accurately pronounce all the words in the modern English language, the way they are pronounced now, with the following letters?: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ if you say yes, my point has been proven. if you say no, then you must site any words or grammatical situations in the modern english language where the SOUND QU or Q makes that CANNOT be replaced with SOUND KW or K makes note: dont try to be a smarty pants and an find 1 word out of 40,000 words with Q, if you even can.. it has to be significant enough to warrant the Q useful. also dont say you cant spell quality as kality. the K is to replace where the Q or QU makes a K sound ex: etiquette (etikette), torque (tork), qwerty (kwerty), etc etc...
The letter Q is pointless

First of all, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from being condescending. Our discussion will be more fruitful if you can act in a mature manner. Of course the sound Q makes is irrelevant when trying to determine if a letter is pointless. There's no objective reason to discriminate against any letter. The fact that you can make the same sound with kw doesn't mean Q is pointless. Maybe kw is pointless because you could make the same sound with a Q. Of course you're talking about words. I know this because your complaining about how you need to use the letter u when making words that have the letter Q in them. Also, the letter Q only makes the kw sound when used in the making of words. So of course you are talking about making words. So my point still stands. Your argument is invalid and illogical because ALL letters require a second letter to make a word (except A and I). Also, if we got rid of the letter Q, we would have to relearn how to spell thousands of words. So clearly, getting rid of the letter Q is silly, and it's not pointless.
The letter Q is pointless

first thank you for not reading and comprehending what i wrote. im 100% talking about the sound. all i mentioned was the sound Q makes . everything about the how Q sounds is 100% RELEVANT to what im talking about. how is it invalid? how can you tell me the point i was making is irrelevant to the point i just made? if i didnt have Q i could pronounce kwality ,kwote or kwestion identical to using letter Q. the fact that i have to use 2 letters to make that sound QU or KW makes , makes Q by itself pointless. im not talking about words. im stating theres is no use for Q if i can replace that letter in any situation with KW identically making the same sound. Q cannot make a sound without the letter U. the whole fact that Q exists is pointless because to you need to spell QU to use it , making the KW sound. there are already letters that make the sound of QU so there was no need to make it letter in the first place. anything you can spell with QU you can match with KW. the only modern english words that contain Q not followed by U and are not borrowed from another language are qiana, qwerty, and tranq. i cant justify having a separate letter for only 3 words in the english language. KW and K can replace all 3 uses of the stand alone Q in those words. also i dont care about scoring or starting sentences with prepositions and i see you dont care either being that you start sentences with "AND". so now that our grammar is ekwally wrong, we can get back to the point. if this was verbal it wouldnt make a difference and would be the identical information. im just making a point, not caring if i get "likes" on my grammar. i reject your claim to reject my claim on my note about grammar because you are no better. i think the voters should consider your hypocrisy along with your reading comprehension skills.
Resolved: Jesus Preached Tolerance

, differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc. , foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint. Preach [2] verb (used with object)1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc. ). 2. to deliver (a sermon). 3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc. ) in speech or writing. I am willing to stipulate that any red letter version of the Bible accurately represents the words of Jesus. I will not get into semantic arguments based on possible translation errors. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: Jesus Preached Tolerance

Pro did not prove that Jesus was tolerant. He accepted the burden of proof by instigating the debate and claiming the resolution. Every single argument that my opponent brought forth was either presented out of context or it failed to be rooted in any Biblical orthodoxy.I have provided multiple sources that directly speak on the subject of God's intolerance toward sinners. Pro has defined the son of God as some feminine, baby-kissing, hippy Jesus. There is not a single scripture that states:"Jesus came to tolerate his children." (Not literally, nor figuratively.)Tolerance allows continuance in sin. Repentance requires a "turning away" from sin. Jesus preached repentance.Pro does not understand the difference between love and tolerance. Nor mercy and tolerance. Nor temperance and tolerance. Nor patience and tolerance. Nor understanding and tolerance. Pro has failed to dispute the Achilles heel of his argument: Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' That verse teaches that a follower of Christ will be so different from the world, that he will be hated in his own house, by his own family. There is not a single measure of tolerance here. Jesus Christ demands his followers to be separated. "Come out from among them."