BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are speeding fines nothing more than a thought crime ie. George Orwell 1984

Firstly speeding is not an action as stated. Driving a car is the action. Speeding is a perception. What is speeding to one person may be a Sunday driver to another. As speeding is just a perception, matter of perspective, if it is a crime at all then it is most definitely a thought crime as no harm has been done. As for speed causing accidents, that is a common logical fault. Most accidents happen at low speed, in car parks etc, the fact that some happen at higher speeds is pretty much just a statistical certainty. German autobahns and Some Australian roads have unlimited speed limits and yet have no higher a rate of accidents. In short speed doesn't cause accidents just bad driving causes accidents. That does not mean that a police or government which makes millions on speeding fines might portray it differently as they clearly have a vested interest. But like a die hard Arsenal fan refereeing an Arsenal football match. As for alleged speeding and drink driving it is obviously just a false logic argument as not all people who get speeding fines have drunk alcohol and drink driving is dangerous as it changes our ability to drive. Most drink drivers actually drive what they believe is slow to avoid trying to be caught...of course in reality this just draws attention to them, and perhaps the swerving all over the road. As that is a seperate crime it is not covered by this debate. In summary speeding fines are nothing short of a revenue raiser. Speeding being a matter of opinion and not a fact. Of course the obvious argument that if you want to avoid road accidents and deaths you only have to ban cars is a compelling one as driving cars is a luxury and not a necessity. As driving is allowed there will always be a certain amount of risk. And a car travelling 5 km faster does not increase that risk half as much as someone who has bad driving habits.
Are speeding fines nothing more than a thought crime ie. George Orwell 1984

Definitionally, your argument is dead in the water since a thought crime is by definition having thoughts that violate some sort of law. Speeding is not a thought, it is an action. As to why speeding should be, and is, illegal, here are some reasons: 1) It puts the health and safety of those around you at risk. ~30% of crash deaths are speeding related http://www.iihs.org... 2) An increase in speed limits, basically seeing what happens if we let people go faster, significantly raises the rate of traffic accidents. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3) It provides a legal basis for penalizing people for driving at unsafe speeds. Eg people racing in a school zone. 4) Speeding and DUI are correlated. This gives police a means to detect drunk drivers before they crash into a pedestrian. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov... These facts can, in general be summarized into the premise "Obedience to speed limits increases safety for everyone on and near roads, and violation of speed limits risks the health and safety of everyone on and near roads." Most people who are speeding have no need to do so. It is morally wrong to unnecessarily risk the health and safety of others. Therefore it is morally wrong to violate speed limits. This is clearly not a "thought crime", and if everyone decided to ignore speed limits, then that group decision would statistically be causative of many deaths and injuries. This is an active crime that really kills people. A commenter likened speeding to randomly firing bullets into the air. This is a pretty accurate comparison. Now, I want to take a moment to address how crimes are penalized. One major factor in the sentence received is the intent of the criminal. If you were to kill someone deliberately, you might get life in prison or a death sentence. If you accidentally killed someone, you would get a fairly minor sentence in comparison or maybe even no sentence. We consider the intent of the actor when sentencing and this is because, in general, we hold people accountable for actions they intended to commit. We would not consider someone a genius for falling asleep on his keyboard and rubbing out a cure for HIV into the word document he was working on, and we would not consider someone a monster for slipping on a wet floor while holding a knife and accidentally stabbing a baby. This is a good way to see things because it encourages trying to act in a morally good fashion and trying to avoid morally wrong actions and makes it clear that what who want to punish are people who attempt to do things that are immoral because there people are serious threats to our society.
Abortion

Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress. Source http://womensissues.about.com...
Mike Huckabee... Dangerous, and bad for America.

Well, I'm not going to debate you on the Iraq War. I've got different views and friends in the military. I'm also a future Army reservist... (I'm already enrolled in Spring classes and will head for basic in August.) I'm actually a history minor and I know a lot about WWII. Neville Chamberlains appeasement policy towards the Nazi Regime... so on and so on. One thing that I think that we can agree on is that Hillary needs to be kept out of the White House. Let's lower Government spending. Lower taxes. Get rid of the scandals. Let's live up to what the U.S. Constitution has in store for our country. Good debate! I still like Huckabee, but you beat me... fair and square. Good job man!
Mike Huckabee... Dangerous, and bad for America.

"You've obviously studied more about Huckabee than I have. Good job." lol, I just know what The man did to my state and don't want it to happen to my country... and can you believe I held back? I didn't even mention any of the scandals... "I just like Huckabee because he supports our troops, will fight the terrorists on their turf, and he has the same values and beliefs that I do." Well, I see this war as in vain... and with that said, the only way to support our troops is to save their lives so they don't die in vain. Both the "support our troops" remark and the "fight them on their own turf" are both right wing propaganda, and were both used in WW2, only... By the Nazis... Study your history. Those who apposed the attack on Poland were told that they didn't support their troops and that the preemptive war was necessary to protect "Homeland security" But the big question is... Do you really know your enemy? Or do you know what you've been told about your enemy? Do you know why they attacked us... Ron Paul has been attacked by many right-wingers because he says that it is because of our foreign policy.... yet, our own CIA has said the exact same thing. They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we are over there. Don't believe me... listen to the mastermind>>> "The following is a translated full transcript, provided by the U.S. government, of Osama bin Laden's videotaped message aired on the al-Jazeera satellite television network." http://www.washingtonpost.com... "Should a man to be blamed for defending his sanctuary? Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us. This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed repeatedly for years before September 11th." And if you study Osama's history, you will also find out that he was, rich, well educated, and a engineering major. And if you study into it more, you will find that he wasn't even the mastermind. He was just mad at America for what it had done and continues to do. So Osama would use his wealth to finance groups that wanted to attack American targets. Did you ever knowdis that 80% of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Want to know why? American troops and bases in Saudi Arabia... Their holy land. "Ron Paul doesn't want to fight in Iraq. That's his belief and he is certainly entitled to that. I just believe in this military effort and I know that we can win it." No we can't when this war... It is perdicted that to "get the job done" it would take "at least" 6 more years... Just like the soviet union, Iraq has become our Afghanistan... And if we continue on this path any longer, our entire economy will collapse. I know alot more on the war and the mideast... but i'll save that for another debate. I have fun debating you! Happy New Year!
Mike Huckabee... Dangerous, and bad for America.

You've obviously studied more about Huckabee than I have. Good job. I just like Huckabee because he supports our troops, will fight the terrorists on their turf, and he has the same values and beliefs that I do. Ron Paul doesn't want to fight in Iraq. That's his belief and he is certainly entitled to that. I just believe in this military effort and I know that we can win it. You win this debate.
Mike Huckabee... Dangerous, and bad for America.

Mike Huckabee has the United States in mind. Ron Paul is not as "cool" as you think he is. He is a second-rate congressman from here in Texas that no one had ever heard of until he started his "anti-war" bandwagon and college students jumped on. I've researched Mike Huckabee and his tax increases were for good reason. Arkansas' public education & road system benefited from this. When your predecessor is Bill Clinton sometimes you have to clean up his mistakes and you take the brunt of the blame. How did Bill Clinton help Arkansas as a state? In essence, Mike's tax increases could have been avoided had Bill Clinton taken care of it when he was in office. Claiming that Mike Huckabee's followers are fanatics, as you do in another debate, is clearly just an immature assumption. You don't want religion pushed down your throat and I agree with you. The government should never become a Theocracy. But, Mike Huckabee's faith is very appealing to evangelical christians, such as myself. We all share common beliefs and values. So for you to imply that we are all fanatics is like me saying that all Ron Paul supporters are crazy. It's just not true. The reason you like Ron Paul is because you share common political beliefs with him.
Mike Huckabee... Dangerous, and bad for America.

The Mike Huckabee Forums posts a set of pictures that show Chuck Norris kicking our Constitution and being upheld by God's Hands for it! Huckabee is not a Real conservative, He is Very fiscally liberal, and has said that if Rudy, a Social Liberal known for being very immoral, got the nomination... he would support him over Ron Paul who is one of the most moral and upstanding candidates I know. He destroyed the republican party here in Arkansas! And we routinely mention him by the name TaxHikeMike. I just call him dangerous, and bad for America.
International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.

In the last World Cup, England's match with Portugal ended 0-0 after Portugal's Christiano Ronaldo got England's star player, Wayne Rooney, sent off. http://www.thesun.co.uk... http://www.thesun.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com... England subsequently lost the match on penalties, which was a cruel way to exit the tournament because penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not. However, the stalemate had to be broken one way or another but I contend that a fairer and more entertaining method of deciding the winning team would have been for the players to have a massive great brawl in the middle of the pitch. On that occasion, all the England players would have been queuing up to give Portugal's dirty, cheating, pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo a proper kicking and I suspect I wouldn't be the only England fan to say that that spectacle alone would have been worth the price of the ticket. Furthermore, even with ten men against their eleven, I bet our boys would have given those Iberian tricksters a right pasting and could then have gone on to win the World Cup.
International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.

With many thanks to my esteemed opponent for his considered response, I should like to rebut his rebuttals as follows: 1 - Public opinion Au contraire, my friend. People love violence. People used to pack the Coliseum and other amphitheatres during the Roman Empire to watch gladiators kick each other's heads in. Has public opinion really changed that much in a mere 2,000 years? Or is it just that political correctness has meant that extreme violence is perceived to be in some way undesirable in today's society? After all, when it all kicks off outside a nightclub at closing time and a couple of blokes who have failed to pull in the dash-for-gash start knocking seven shades of **** out of each other to relieve their frustration, do you tut disapprovingly and walk on by, muttering things like "I say, what disgraceful spectacle" and "utterly shocking behaviour, how perfectly ghastly" or do you stop and egg them on by shouting "aggro, aggro!" and maybe sticking your own boot in every now and again? 2 – It is true that soccer players are role models for school kids and that fighting on the pitch might encourage boys to imitate them in the playground. This is a good thing, however. Much better than bringing knives or guns to school, surely? 3 - Red Cards. Soccer as a sport should be allowed to evolve. In 1823, a pupil at Rugby school picked up the ball during a soccer match and ran off with it and the opposing team chased after him, caught him and kicked his head in and this is how the sport of rugby football started. http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com... Similarly, when future international soccer matches end in a stalemate, wouldn't it be fun to see the game decided by means of a massive great punch up? 4 – Grudges You'd think that a huge scrap between players from the same club opposing each other in an international match would breed resentment between them, wouldn't you? I thought that Rooney would have kept his promise to split his Manchester United teammate Ronaldo in two when they returned to the club after the summer, but he didn't. He should have, but he didn't. 5 – Penalties are thrilling True, they are thrilling, but also nerve-wracking because of the uncertainty, which can be dangerous for fans with high blood pressure. Settling the matter by means of unmitigated violence would also mean that professional footballers such as Newcastle United's Joey Barton might get a place in the England squad. http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://uk.youtube.com... Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.
Different realms of reality

Gigantic Block of Text deals 50,000 damage to 9spaceking, nearly destroying him. 9spaceking uses "search up realm on dictionary.com", healing 1,000 health. Definition: 1. a royal domain; kingdom: the realm of England. 2. the region, sphere, or domain within which anything occurs, prevails, or dominates: the realm of dreams. 3. the special province or field of something or someone: the realm of physics; facts within the realm of political scientists 9spaceking searches up reality on dictionary.com, healing 5,000 health. definition: the state or quality of being real. (the other meanings were pretty the same) so now, which "realm" was pro talking about? royal domain of reality. Reality is not a person, so no. Region of reality: "reality" is simply what is real, so the region is everywhere, including the universe. We live in the universe. There might be multiple universes, but this is not confirmed, as stated in http://ed.ted.com.... Futhermore, universe is defined as "all existing matter and space considered as a whole", which means everything makes up the universe, making it impossible to have many universes. (Example: even if there were a googol galaxies yet to be discovered out of our discovered "universe", you still cannot say there are two universes, because by the definition of universe, all those googol galaxies are included!) finally, the last definition of Realm: "the special province or field of something or someone", but this is similar to the region definition. As you can see there can be no "multiple realms of reality". (horah, got 10,000 hp from a health potion!) There are many flaws in your Giant Block of Text. Just to name one, time is not always consistent. Why is this? We base time on how long it takes the earth to do one full turn-around (one "day"), and how long it takes to revolve around the sun (365 "days", or one "year"). But it is not always like this--one day, eventually, the sun will die out, and we won't have the sun to revolve around. Thus, one "year" will change. (unless we somehow revolve around a new star or planet that coincidentally, takes one "year" to revolve. You might argue a "day" will never change, but if an asteroid big enough to cause damage to earth earth terrain even after it burns in the atmosphere, the earth might be slightly made bigger or smaller, and thus, one turn-around would be different, and a "day" would be changed. 100,000 damage to your monster! In conclusion, I've got 100,000 health now, your gigantic monster's down to 900,000 health, and you've got messy bloody hands to clean up. Oh, and BTW, I kidnapped your princess. >;)
Jogging shirtless

A soaked shirt evaporates slower and keeps body hotter than taking it off making the jog and run easier than they would be if one were in hotter conditions or a tougher gradient of ground. The army sometimes trains by carrying heavy things or putting rocks in their bag just to make it harder than it should be in the 'real' situation where one would need to use the muscles to either save their life or impress others. The best fighters, athletes and sportspeople of any sub-genre of physical competitions and feats all train a lot harder than they want to do it in general. That's how they become comfortable with the usual level.When running, one should keep the shirt on, as oppose dot being shirtless so as to make it harder and get the muscles working harder than normal in a smaller amount of time so as to increase the efficiency with which they build their endurance and cardio in general.
Best Joke

Two guys are drinking at a bar. The first says "Do you ever start thinking about something, and when you go to talk, you say something you don't mean?" The Second guy says "Yeah, I was at the airport buying plane tickets, and the chick behind the counter had these huge tits, and instead of asking her for 'two tickets to Pittsburgh' I asked for 'two tickets to Titsburgh' The First guy says, "Yeah, well I was having breakfast with my wife last week, and instead of saying 'Honey can you please pass me the sugar?', I said 'You've ruined my life you F*CKING B!TCH'
Best Joke

Three men, a doctor, a lawyer, and a biker were sitting in a bar talking over a few drinks.After a sip of his Martini, the doctor said, "You know, tomorrow is my anniversary. I bought my wife a diamond ring and a new Mercedes. I figure if she doesn't like the diamond ring, then at least she will like the Mercedes, and she will know that I love her."After finishing his scotch, the lawyer said, "Well, on my last anniversary, I bought my wife a string of pearls and a trip to the Bahamas. I figured if she didn't like the pearls, then at least she would have enjoyed the trip, and she would have known that I loved her."The biker then took a big swig from his beer, and said, "Yeah, well for my anniversary, I got my old lady a t-shirt and a vibrator. I figured if she didn't like the t-shirt, then she could go fvck herself."
Best Joke

The other day I was sitting in a resturant and I noticed all of the waiters had spoons in thier front pockets. So I flagged one down and I asked him"Hey what's with the spoon?" And he says to me"Oh our restaurant has hired consultants and the consultants say 2 out of every 5 people eating will drop a spoon. So in order to save time, we've all been equipped with clean spoons. If a patron should drop a spoon, we give them the one we have then, take the dropped one to the back to be washed and that becomes our carrying spoon." I was sitting there thinking, that's smart, but when he turned to walk away, I noticed a string coming from the zipper on his pants. A quick look around showed all the waiters had strings coming from the crotch area. So I say to the waiter "Hold on man, the spoon makes sense but what's with the string?" He says to me "Consultants again. Apparently we don't wash our hands enough when we go to the bathroom so in order to not get germs in stuff in the food, we don't even touch our penises, the string is tied to it and we just unzip and pull the string when we need to go." He started walking away but I stopped him and asked "Wait a minute dude. Everything you say makes sense, but how do you put your penis back in your pants?" He leans in real close to me and says " I don't know about the other guys, but I use the spoons"
Best Joke

A man gets pulled over by the police for speeding ten miles over the speed limit. The cop approaches the car and taps on the window. The driver reluctantly rolls down the window and says "I have a gun in the glove box compartment and a dead body in the trunk". The police officer looks confused and says "Excuse me?"The man repeats "I have a gun in the glove box compartment and a dead body in the trunk."The police officer takes a step back, drawing his gun and radioing in for back-up.As the second police officer arrives on scene, the first police officer has already gotten the man out of the car and into handcuffs.The second cop opens up the trunk to find there isn't a dead body.He looks in the glove box compartment and cannot find a gun.The second cop asks the citizen "This officer told me you had a dead body in the trunk and a gun in the glove box compartment."The citizen laughs and remarks, "I bet he told you I was speeding too."
Best Joke

I've seen this done before and since all I have so far are serious debates, I figure I ought to have a relaxed one for once. How this debate works: Round one is acceptance. Round two each person posts one joke. It may be a joke of any kind, so long as it is funny.Round three each person posts a second joke. Same rules as per jokes apply, just must be funny.Judges judge based on who posted the funniest jokes.