BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
enslaving the terriosts and war criminals

Enslaving Terrorist and War Criminals is a fair question and I am glad to accept the position of your opponent in this argument. However, I will simply begin by stating that Slavery is protected by the Thirteenth Amendment. "The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves." "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes national sins by national calamities." "The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. " However, it is wrong to lay claim or "ownership" to a person and therefore thats why enslaving war criminals or terrorists is unacceptable. http://law2.umkc.edu... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

morality noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. synonyms:ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. When deciding if something is moral or immoral one is with absolute influence and subjectivity. Morality is relative to experience. What one calls immoral another calls righteous. In other words, there is no such thing as objective morality. Many believe in the Christian Bible and look to it as a source for morality, in spite of countless orders to stone one another for perceived sins or trespasses. Its believers still cling to its passages as if it's contents were their only source of sustenance. It is immoral in some venues to dance or simply enjoy watching a movie on television. Morality regarding abortion. There are many arguments in terms of whether abortion is murder or whether abortion is a right. I am engaging in neither. My belief in regards to abortion is irrelevant to the manner in which we approach legality in America. What constitutes law? In order for something to be illegal it has to meet constitutional constraints. In the United States we operate against using subjective morality as a basis to institute sanctions. Rather, we determine legality on more of an impact basis. If an action has a negative impact and it's damage is provable it is determined illegal on a spectrum for example classes of felonies and misdemeanor. Laws are changed as individuals take argument with the manner of impact positive or negative for example: marijuana having medicinal benefits now being legalized for this purpose. We understand that if someone does something and the consequence has a negative impact on another that is tyoically illegal in our country. Stealing goods from your neighbor. We define it well enough that depending on the value of stolen items deyermines the consequence and level of punitive damage. That being said, whether abortion is legal should never be determined based upon perceived, subjective morality. As morality cannot be objective by definition, it cannot be used in merit towards the passing of laws. All humans are born absolutely free. It takes laws to remove freedoms and restrict behavior. How we determine legality and impose sanctions cannot and should never be based upon a perceived morality as morality is determined by experience. Whether abortion is right, or wrong should not be based on a moral compass, but by clear definition. For example: if we define human life as early as embryos and charge the destruction of such with murder, do we ban fertility clinics as well? Do we impose sanctions that all fertilized embryos become implanted? This is why laws and definitions are imperative to society.
Ok, seriously; VIDEO GAMES DON'T MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT

I hope we can enjoy ourselves! "And I play Mortal Kombat A LOT. That doesn't mean I'm gonna bring an SMG to school and start going on a massacre, ripping people's heads off left and right. " You probably will not, but it will certainly increase the probability of such an event happening. "2nd of all, what do you think the ESRB Rating system is for? Decoration? No! IT ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING! Mortal Kombat is rated M for Mature. .. Mature meaning 18 or Older. Nobody even fathomed people under aged children playing the bloodiest game in the USA at the time. " This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether or not video games can increase violence. "And Last but not least, Imagine the following: You come home from a tough day of school ready to rip someone's head off their shoulders. What do you do? " Wowzers! You must play too many violent video games! --------- The facts: 1. Two studies in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed - both in the lab and actual life - that playing video games like doom and mortal combat can increase "aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior. " The studies also show that violent video games not only increase the aggressiveness of those with a pre-established proclivity, but they also temporarily increase the aggressive behavior of all types of participants (1). 2. A recent study using brain-scanning technology showed that participants who played violent video games experienced a stark increase in emotional arousal (identified with aggressive behavior) and a stark decrease in areas of the brain that support attention and self-control (2). Conclusion: The evidence is damning. Video games can indeed increase violent behavior. I look forward to my opponents response and adequate counter data. Sources - 1. . http://www.apa.org... 2. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... . http://mentalhealth.about.com...
Ok, seriously; VIDEO GAMES DON'T MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT

Ok, seriously! This seems like a topic that is always on the wrong side. Nobody ever really thinks about it except to be negative, and now I will start my argument: Everyone says that the kids from the Columbine were Doom Addicts. 1st of all, I play Doom A LOT. And I play Mortal Kombat A LOT. That doesn't mean I'm gonna bring an SMG to school and start going on a massacre, ripping people's heads off left and right. The kids from the Columbine Massacre had psychological issues. Not everyone you meet on the street is gonna be an insane, psychopathic, homicidal freak. 2nd of all, what do you think the ESRB Rating system is for? Decoration? No! IT ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING! Mortal Kombat is rated M for Mature... Mature meaning 18 or Older. Nobody even fathomed people under aged children playing the bloodiest game in the USA at the time. And Last but not least, Imagine the following: You come home from a tough day of school ready to rip someone's head off their shoulders. What do you do? A) Go on a massacre B) Get in a fight with your brother C) Play Tekken and beat the Ungodly Crap out of everyone you come against Now really, witch one seems more logical? I rest my case.
true or false ? i am real hashem of jews

Is this true or false ? I am real hashem of jews, not rebirth, not attached, not israeli. I am of purity and my enemies which are hindus, muslims and christians are killing me from last 9 years and taken dont know how much property and my jewish religion does not knows it. Some jews even did not let me enter into my small synagogue. Am i truly 100% hashem of jews or what do you think that hindus and muslims and christians are killing me since 9 years and maybe more then 9 years. What spirits believes of different religions ? i want to know debate on spirits and myself.
true or false ? i am real hashem of jews

let me tell you a story and you tell me if you like my story which i practically tested. i claim to be original hashem and current hashem is evil sinner. So the story begins like this which is based on reality and original truth. There is a young man he prayed for all religions and could not believe in any gods because all gods of all religions forces human to first sin and do prayers by putting fate of them in human stomach and put spirits in human body and mind and when human sins that all religions gods says human has sinned and punishes human, in the mind of young man all gods are not even recognized as mad gods because nobody will punish human by first forcing them to sin by putting spirits inside them and then punish, if you ask the same question with doctor who are these gods and they will say all gods are not even mad they are pyscho no they cannot be psycho but evil sinner because they hide something from everyone there existence with which they will be finished if everybody comes to know there original truth. Now the young man does not get believe in any religion gods in whom he has prayed because he comes to know original truth that all religions gods forces humans to sin and prayers and lies clearly by saying they live by there decision. When young man comes to know more original truth that all religions gods holy books verses are spirits and they dont have understanding and consciousness and life how dangerous they can be when any human thinks bad on them or any of there gods when speaking truth about there gods as he practically test everything in his reality. Because when any human goes against any religion gods there holy book spirits comes and says they are family of there god and forces human to sin by doing anything and they even erase sins. The young man does not get believe in any religion gods, do you think this young man is true or false. God is of purity and never wrong or like evil sinner, this young man commands his spirits to finish all religions holy books who are too dangerous by whom any human life can be finished and becomes sinful. Do you understand something from the story of young man, who is your god ? can you confirm.
shoul farm kids that are 14 and 15 have there liseonse

Can some young people handle driving? Yes. Should we give all adolescent kids drivers licenses as long as they work on a farm? That's the discussion being had. That's how legislation works. The responsibilities of a farm kid does not inherently prepare them for highway driving or public roadway laws. The GDL laws mentioned are essentially drivers permits, not licenses. A person with a GDL is given less allowance than a full fledged driver for very good reasons: statistics showing higher rates of distracted drivers within the age group, and science as to why certain decisions might be made by an adolescent driver. If the counter argument is that the statistics and science are wrong because, anecdotally, certain kids fail to follow the laws outlined by the GDL[1], iit's hardly agreeable that they've earned the trust of more responsibility. There is a lot of responsibility in farming. And farming is not something I ever claimed to know a lot about. What I do know a lot about is legislation -- how to find it and how to read it. In this instance, the discussion includes the agricultural section of the Wisconsin Child Labor Laws[2]. These laws state that, in the specified instance of family related farm work, the use of "self-propelled vehicles" is okay for 14 to 16 year olds, only under "certain conditions." These conditions being private farm land. This inherently discloses public roadways which requires a license to drive on. The reason for all of these laws are statistics and scientific reasoning. They are made not only to protect the kids but also the people they share the road with. Granted, Burk may know some very good adolescent drivers. Does that mean we should blanket legislate for all children of this age to have the same driving capabilities as an adult? To reiterate Bruk's argument, many adult, fully licences drivers aren't very good. So how did they pass? They met the requirements of the test. That shows that it's possible to pass without being prepared mentally or physically for the road. It's not proper legislation to allow someone to be hurt or killed before stopping the person from driving on public roads. To allow kids to be put into dangerous situations based on anecdotal evidence of which admits to the inability to handle the responsibility of the law in the first place is neither reasonable nor careful reasoning to make such legislation. So, no, children should not be govern more opportunity to hurt themselves or others.
shoul farm kids that are 14 and 15 have there liseonse

yes you do have a point but there are kid that can diver better then people that have had there license. I a farm kid. my young brother can driver better then a lot of people I know. if you can pass the test right a way then kid that are 14 or 15 in Wisconsin we have to be 15 1/2 to get are license do I think 14 isn't that bad to have there license. if you think you know a lot about farming and you don't it funny. kids that have grow up on there family farm have more responsible I think it fine. there kids that don't follow the law of only having one friend not 4 that are on GDL. so farm kids would be able to handle the responsible.
shoul farm kids that are 14 and 15 have there liseonse

While farm kids do have many responsibilities on a farm, law makers, and even farm owner have a responsibility to keep everyone safe. The younger the employee, the more prudent that safety measures should be considered. For an adolescent, making an exception to give them a license to drive on a public roadway does not increase their safety. Driving laws in general do not allow an adolescent to drive. A sixteen year old is allowed a driving permit and must have that permit for 180 days before getting their license, which is considered probationary until they're eighteen.[1] This demographic, of fifteen to nineteen year old, "has the largest proportion of drivers .. distracted at the time of [a fatal crash]."[2] The reason for the aforementioned statistic likely has largely to do with the fact that the brain "[does] not fully [develop] until ... age 25."[3] Specifically, the adolescent "brain's reward system becomes highly active ... [making] adolescence ... more interested in entering uncertain situations."[3] Driving can be incredibly emotionally stressful, and a sixteen year old is far more likely to respond poorly to road rage or bad drivers than a twenty five year old, or even make bad driving decisions themselves. It says in the Child Labor Provisions, that they were enacted "to ensure that, when young people work, the work is safe."[4] Does putting an adolescent into the above mentioned situations seem safe? We do allow children of this age to drive on private farm land and build up their motor skills in that way, but putting them on a public roadway, in potentially hazardous situations goes completely against the entire purpose of child labor laws. So, are our laws correct? Do to the less refined motor skills and mental abilities of adolescence, and the purpose of our laws being to protect our citizens, yes, preventing an adolescent from driving public roadways is a law that makes sense. And, making an exception for an adolescent simply because they work on a farm does not make sense. https://en.wikipedia.org...[1] http://www.distraction.gov... [2] http://www.npr.org...[3] http://www.dol.gov...[4] http://www.dol.wa.gov... [5]
My opinion is as good as anyone else's opinion!

I have done my research now and am now convinced that in some cases my opinion isn't as good as someone Else's. Now that I know the definition of " good " (valuable)I have changed my mind. My first debate and my first lost on debate.org, but I have learned and I would like to thank you. Your examples really made me change my mind. ( especially the medical related one. Ive also learned to do my reaserch before setting a debate
My opinion is as good as anyone else's opinion!

There is a 750 character limit in this debate. Opinion: A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty [1] Pro's sole contention is that if someone believes something to be true, it is just as valuable of an opinion as someone who might be older and more experienced. I negate. Various degrees of knowledge or experience mean certain opinions have more weight. For instance, say I follow football every week and Pro does not. If you're looking to bet on the games, who's opinion is more valuable - mine or Pro's? Similarly, in a medical emergency, I'm sure you'd prefer a doctor's opinion to my own. More in the next round :) [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
My opinion is as good as anyone else's opinion!

I'll start off by saying that i am 14 years old. I believe that my opinion is as good as anyone else's no matter what. Recently in my relegion class my teacher happened to disagree with this statement replying that someone older than me with greater knowledge has a better opinion than I. This is where i justify the difference of opinion and fact. My opinion is something that is true to me and that i beleive is true, and a fact is somthing true proven with some sort of knowledge. Just because you are of higher knowledge than I dosent give you the better opinion. Therefore my opinion is as good as anyone else's.
Locke and Hobbes

According to John Locke, humans are naturally moral and reasonable. According to Thomas Hobbes humans are naturally cruel and evil. In my opinion, Hobbes is correct. Hobbes believes that one person rules a whole government, and that is necessary to keep the order in society. The only role the Sovereign has is to protect and keep the peace and not to resort to chaos and anarchy. What are your thoughts? (might be helpful to look up more on Locke and Hobbes)
This house would ban animal testing

My opponent spends nearly 100% of his final speech talking about how I haven't addressed the fact that he's found alternatvies to animal testing. This is blatantly false, as I've been constantly pointing out that he hasn't been responding to my argument about how his alternatives FAIL. Like, I can't stress how big of a damning mistake my opponent is making this. He's putting all of the proverbial eggs in this "there's another choice than animal testing that we can do, let's do that one! " while ignoring the argument I have that says that these different choices don't replace animal testing and aren't as good as animal testing. Sorry, I'm about to get really, really informal. Dock me the conduct point if you want to. When he says:"And his refutation to my argument about using other methods is weak and ignorant, the same kind of ignorance that caused the dark ages, a period of time where no attempts were made for science, mathematics, agriculture. Because "what we have is good enough" and we don't have to strive for better. The fact is if we don't strive for better and simply settled on what we have, we'll never improve, we'll never go forward. And since my opponent cannot prove that there aren't better methods out there to animal testing, I can only assume that I have won this debate"LMFAO. ROFL. 1. Notice here how there's not actually a response to my argument here. All he's talking about is how my mentality is that of the Dark Ages (nice touch, by the way) with no explanation as to how this applies to my argument. So I get the free route of just saying ad hom and peacing out.2. This is blatantly not true. I'm actually striving for improvement constantly. I'm taking a system that's given us so many medical advancements and saying "this isn't good enough, let's enforce existing laws better to make sure that it doesn't abuse animals unfairly. " 3. I'm definitely proving that there aren't actually any better methods out there that can replace animal testing. That's the entire point of the Murali evidence which specifically goes into how current alternatives just aren't as good or don't actually replace animal testing. So let's wrap this up. This entire debate has come down to whether or not there are feasable alternatives to animal testing that can replace it (for some reason). I'm extending out the Murali evidence which is explicitly saying how each and every current alternative just won't replace animal testing for numerous reasons. He hasn't put a single response to it all debate long.
This house would ban animal testing

I'll start by responding to my opponent's claims, then defending my own.He states: "But the real question is at what cause? ... use of as many as 12,000 animals."This point effectively is just saying that the advances we've made today aren't worth all the suffering we've caused to animals so we should stop testing on them since it hurts them. There are tons of responses you can make to this.First, there's no reason this unnecessary suffering has to occur, and my opponent doesn't give one either. Just because some mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean that those mistakes must continue to be made. The simple answer is to just make laws governing the treatment of animals more strict to ensure that no undue suffering is inflicted onto animals during testing and that, if some suffering must be inflicted, that a) it's done humanely and b) is done properly (i.e. we're not just randomly poking at animals with sticks to see what happens).Second, refer back to the Stills evidence I gave last round where it's talking about all the medical advances that have come from testing on animals, both human advances and animal advances. This means that by testing on animal we're finding ways to make their lives better, which solves for animal suffering on a much larger scale over the long-run. Third, this suffering works against my opponent. By just denying animal experimentation and just leaving current projects in stand-still, it makes all the suffering of animals that has brought them to this point in vain. If animals must suffer, the only way we can possibly justify it is by gaining something of use from it, i.e. medical advances we can use to improve the quality of life of humans and/or animals. If we stop testing now, we'd have just been testing on them and causing suffering and not gotten anything from it, which means they suffered for nothing. He states: "Inefficiency. ... we have the technology to find better ways and more efficient ways."This entire paragraph is him ranting about how immoral animal testing is and how it isn't effective but a) doesn't respond to how many actual advancements we've had, and b) doesn't respond to where I'm talking about all these other ways he's trying to talk about don't even compare to what we can do with animal testing.He states: ""dosomething.org""I'm gonna go ahead and posit the idea that a site that encourages activism is probably going to have information that skews sides and debates in the favor of the activist position...Since that's all that was posited I'm just going to leave it there.