BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

No, its not okay to simply whip out your six shooter and blow his brains out. This is not the wild west. People have rights and among these rights is a right to a trial by jury. If this right isn't protected what's to stop someone from locking you up permanantly for not mowing the lawn? You may be mistaking this guy for bob which would be horrible since that would make you a murderer. By doing this you are also endangering the wildlife ( what if you miss and hit a mama bear? what will happen to here cubs?). But on a more serious note, you do endanger the lives of others and yourself by escelating the situation needleesly. There is also no reason to think the authorites can't handle it. Assuming you know his location, and given that this is a dangorous serial killer the cops will be all over this guy, besides given that this is a state park there may be park rangers nearby that are better equiped to handle the situation. Finally if you insist on pretending your John Wayne and confronting him, you still have a moral obligigation to allow him a chance to surrender. If we do not recognize this, we again create a slippery slope. Do we really want to live in a society where suspected criminals are shot on the street without any attempt to apprehend them?So to sum up my points ( in case they were lost in the retoric)You should not shoot Bob because:He might not be Bob at all, but just An inoccent look-alikeEven though he may be a serial killer, he still has a right to a trial. If this right is not upheld it creates a slippery slope. If you escalate the situation further than neccasary you do more harm than good because while no one was previosly in immidieate danger you have created a lethal situation.Given that you have the opportunity to report his location without him knowing, it is likley that the police will be able to handle it more effectivly.Since Bob is not currently a threat to anyone, he must be given a chance to surrender.
The god of Exodus 13:17-40-33 was inspired by a volcano.

Moving PillarsA volcanic plume can contain some fiery particles it can also travel many miles and as I have already stated that the plume can move very far from the mountain.I don't quite know what you were saying here: "But, if the volcano you're referring to is Mount Sinai, there is no way it could have looked down upon them."Please could you elaborate on what you mean.Tidal Wave""Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." Once again, we see that wind was the cause."This is a supernatural claim and not substantiated with evidence. I am using this ancient book to show what an ancient people might have interpreted a volcano to be, I am not taking everything said here as fact. In fact the reason I am wondering what these people might have seen is because I wholeheartedly reject that book. These people had no idea what they were seeing, they simply tried to describe it as well as they could in the context of their own superstitions. If these people saw a tidal wave they would have described it as they did.God On The Mountain"I don't believe that there's any proof that these people were oblivious to the existence of volcanoes."When Pompeii erupted in 79 AD no one knew what was happening, they attributed it to their own gods. Despite having an empire spanning much of Europe, the middle east and north Africa they didn't know what an volcano was and I highly doubt that the Egyptians or the Jews knew what a volcano was."Especially if there was an active volcano close enough to the Red Sea to cause a tidal wave as my opponent claims"That's not quite how it works it really depends on the overall geological activity."The Israelites were in Egypt for over 400 years" Many active volcano's don't erupt for thousands of years, also I doubt that the " The Israelites were in Egypt for over 400 years" as there are no records of this, in fact the Israelites seem to have come from the Canaanites [1] and this story was an aural history long before it was written down. [1] http://www.rense.com...
The god of Exodus 13:17-40-33 was inspired by a volcano.

I can think of no clever opening remarks, so I'll just jump right in! Moving Pillars- In Exodus 14:24, both the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire are described as "looking down on the Egyptians." I suppose that if the pillar of cloud had been by itself, then it could have been a volcanic plume, but we see that the pillar of fire was also present. Now, volcanoes are indeed fiery! But, if the volcano you're referring to is Mount Sinai, there is no way it could have looked down upon them. This is based on the fact that the Israelites traveled away from the river for around 20 days before they reached the mountain.[1] Tidal Wave- With regard to the cause of the Egyptians drowning, the Bible does give an answer to the cause of the water moving unnaturally. Exodus 14:21 says "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." Once again, we see that wind was the cause. God On The Mountain- I don't believe that there's any proof that these people were oblivious to the existence of volcanoes. Especially if there was an active volcano close enough to the Red Sea to cause a tidal wave as my opponent claims. The Israelites were in Egypt for over 400 years, in that time, you'd think they'd figure out what a volcano was if there was one nearby.[2] Sources- [1] http://www.bible.ca... [2] Exodus 12:40
The god of Exodus 13:17-40-33 was inspired by a volcano.

Moving pillar of fire Volcanic plumes do move [1]. Due to wind currents plumes can move and the ash can spread even further. Even just the first level plume (that directly from the crater) can move several kilometers away from the volcano due to wind currents [2]. In certain conditions the ash cloud could have actually descended to ground level and this would have meant the Israelites would have been inside the ash cloud, making more sense of your translation (which I of course accept). I feel you have not refuted my initial point. Potential Tsunami I suggest that the drowning of the Egyptian army could have been loosely based on a real tidal wave that drowned a small number of soldiers (now I should point out that this was never recorded by the Egyptians) but this seems more likely. You say that :"We see here that it was wind that caused the water to recollect in its natural position instead of a tidal wave. " a smaller tidal wave could sink back. Very little force is required to drag down a heavily armored soldier and a small tidal wave caused by tectonic activity could cause that. I should hasten to add that there isn't enough in the bible to make any conclusions on this specific point. God On The Mountain Lets think about it, if you were an ancient people who had never heard of a volcano before how would you explain it? I feel it would sound very like this. The Commandments Expanding on the original point the commandments in exodus are not particularly original. For instance Exodus 20:13 is show to have already been in effect in Egypt by Exodus 2:12-1. And the idea of burn offerings (commanded by Yahweh in Leviticus 1:1-17) was shown to already have been in effect as a a burnt offering was made by Noah in Genesis 8:20. But going past that the biblical commandments mirror many other earlier systems of law such as the code of Hammurabi [3]. As it seems there are no major advances in morality or reason here it seems as if another explanation should be sought. I think you have not sufficiently refuted my existing argument. [1] . http://www.metoffice.gov.uk... [2] . https://vhub.org... [3] . http://eawc.evansville.edu...
The god of Exodus 13:17-40-33 was inspired by a volcano.

Wrapping It All Up- "I will demonstrate with another example, that of Atlantis..." I see what you're saying here, but my question remains unanswered. How do you actually decide which parts of the story are unacceptable? Are you merely throwing out what you see as being supernatural, or is there more? If Plato fabricated one part of his story, then there's every chance that he fabricated more or all of it. In order to find out what inspired Plato's tale, you must accept some part of it as truth. The same standard applies to the account given in Exodus. It's clear that you do not accept Exodus as pure truth, but you do seem to believe that some part of it is true, otherwise you wouldn't spend your time trying to figure out what's behind it. Earlier in this debate, I assumed that you believed in the account of the journey itself (minus what you call "supernatural events"), but now you're saying that that account is also false. This brings us to the claim made by my opponent that the Israelites actually started their trek in Canaan as opposed to Egypt. One of the many problems with this idea is that, if it's true, it totally discredits the Exodus account. And if that happens, you're, once again, left without a leg to stand on. If the people started in Canaan then they wouldn't have crossed the Red Sea and they wouldn't have stopped at Mount Sinai, because their destination was.... Canaan. The whole point of the Exodus was to get the Israelites into Canaan.[1] Therefore, by making the Israelites origin point (at this particular time) Canaan, the account given in Exodus becomes a complete myth. There is no longer anything factual behind the story that you can accept as truth because it's all a sham. Yet my opponent still asserts that the action of The Lord, if not the entire journey, that's recorded in Exodus was inspired by a volcano. So, to summarize my statements throughout this debate: My opponent may have found some evidence that supports his theory, but it simply doesn't fit with the rest of the story. On the contrary, my opponent's evidence perfectly fits both the theory that I'm defending and the rest of the story. I want to thank my opponent very much for his time and thoughts during this debate. God Bless! [1] Exodus 3:8,17; 6:4,15; 13:5,11 and MANY more.
The god of Exodus 13:17-40-33 was inspired by a volcano.

Supernatural Claims vs Substantial Evidence"Then how can you take any of it as fact? You seem to be using a double standard here. You believe that the people of Israel did go through some sort of journey, during which they walked across a seabed and had some sort of experience involving a mountain, based on the words of the Bible. But then you say that you "wholeheartedly reject that book." So I'm truly curious to know how you separate the Bible into parts that can be believed and parts that must be thrown out."I will demonstrate with another example, that of Atlantis. We could all say with relative certainty that the story of Atlantis as described by Plato never happened but we can speculate over what inspired the story. We could speculate that the story of Atlantis might have been based on a flood that berried a low lying island in the black sea or mud flats in the south of Spain. Or Atlantis might have been based on an island volcano like Milos that erupted destroying a city. We could also speculate that Atlantis was merely a cautionary tale. But none of those speculations require us to accept the supernatural claims of the Atlantean myth.The Volcano Itself"Where exactly is this volcano? Are there any scholars or experts that have stumbled across a volcano that erupted during this time period on the Sinai Peninsula? Is Mount Sinai itself a volcano?"From what I can tell there are no active volcanoes on the Sinai peninsula but this assumes that the Jews came from exile in Egypt, it appears more likely that the Jews actually came from the Canaanites based on similarities in language and ways of worship [1].If this is correct we are looking for a volcano in what is now northern Saudi Arabia (because of the town of Yahu where the Jews are thought to have origionated from). And we find several [2].Overall The Exodus account has too much in common with a volcano to not have had some influence. Describing the plume of a volcano, geological activity taking place at the same time and an ejection from the volcano itself. I thank my opponant for deabting this topic.[1] Robert K Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, Sheffield Academic Press (1997) pp. 74-87 [2] http://www.nibiru-planetx.com...
The god of Exodus 13:17-40-33 was inspired by a volcano.

Pillars I apologize for the misunderstanding! I was assuming that in your argument the pillar of fire was the volcano and the pillar of cloud was the plume (which would would have meant that the volcano moved). I see now that you were saying both pillars were the plume. Supernatural Claims vs Substantial Evidence “I am using this ancient book to show what an ancient people might have interpreted a volcano to be, I am not taking everything said here as fact." Then how can you take any of it as fact? You seem to be using a double standard here. You believe that the people of Israel did go through some sort of journey, during which they walked across a seabed and had some sort of experience involving a mountain, based on the words of the Bible. But then you say that you "wholeheartedly reject that book." So I'm truly curious to know how you separate the Bible into parts that can be believed and parts that must be thrown out. With regard to The Lord being the cause of the waters moving, you say "This is a supernatural claim and not substantiated with evidence." I believe that there is evidence. In fact, you seem to be accepting the evidence while rejecting the claim. The evidence that God parted the Red Sea is that the Israelites walked through it on dry land. The evidence that God appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai are the Tablets of Testimony and Moses' glowing face[1]. As I said before, you accept that these events did take place, but you try to give them an unbiblical origin. There are two problems with using the Bible as a platform to attack the Bible. The first is that if you succeed you're left with no platform upon which to stand. For example, if you can prove in this debate that the Hebraic details of the Exodus are incorrect, then how can you continue to believe that the basic story of the Exodus (given by the same Hebrew author) is true? The second problem is that if you fail you've succeeded in strengthening the Biblical claim. You will end up building up the idea that you tried to tear down. The Volcano Itself I have a few questions regarding the volcano in question: Where exactly is this volcano? Are there any scholars or experts that have stumbled across a volcano that erupted during this time period on the Sinai Peninsula? Is Mount Sinai itself a volcano? I look forward to your response as we move into the final portion of our debate! Sources [1] Exodus 32:15-16 and 34:29-35
David Cameron is most likely going to assinated by someone by the election

This debate is on the topic "David Cameron is most likely going to assinated by someone by the election". Assination is defined as "When a person accidentally kills or murders another person by sitting on their face with their a**".[1] David Cameron is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.[2] The next UK election is to be held sometime this year.[3] Accordingly, my burden is to demonstrate that it is at least somewhat improbable that David Cameron will be assinated this year.Let's examine what circumstances would allow David Cameron to be assinated. In general, the primary methods for killing are shooting, stabbing, choking, and punching - sitting on someone's face probably comes near the bottom of the list. That being said, it has happened before.[4] However, per the definition of 'assination', it is not sufficient to simply crush someone by sitting on their face - it must be accidental. This eliminates some very reasonable possiblities (like a group of Muslim extremists kidnapping Cameron and crushing his face) - almost all of them, in fact. I cannot find a single recorded instance of someone accidentally dying by having their face sat on. It just doesn't happen. Ergo, it is very unlikely that this will happen to David Cameron, especially prior to the election, which means that this resolution fails and a vote for CON is warranted.References:1. http://www.urbandictionary.com...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
should cannabis be made legal

A. If we legalise rape, murder, stealing, coke, PCP, etc. Less people would be going to jail too. I see no justification there. B. You only get arrested for weed for the intent to sell it. Same law goes for legal drugs. If your not permitted to sell it to the public, and there's intent to sell, you goto jail. What's your point? C. So there's justification to sell narcotics no matter what it may be if it's to support one's family? They'd still be selling it illegally. My opponent hasn't realized is the United States has laws and stipulations that comes with selling legal drugs. You would have to be permitted to sell marijuana. These people that sell it to "support their families" would lose twice as much. Not only would it be sold in stores but it would take away the power of that drug dealer. Everything sold legally in this field has to be passed through the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). This being said, those people would still go to jail if caught because what they sell still isn't legal. They'd probably get in even more trouble via tax invasion and getting audited. Plenty more but I rest my case.
should cannabis be made legal

If the USA goverment were to leagalize cannabis it would save unknown amounts of taxpayers money because not only jail cost for the people who are put in jail because they are caught with it. The goverment would also save on tracking and busting dealers who may just be trying to support his or her family. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to carry quarter of a million dollars worth of grow that much but put a reasonable allowance on it. Like for example your allowed to carry 8oz of it and you have to have a license to sell or grow it. America is broke, we need a way to get taxes the was a financial statement that by 2020 America will have owed China enough money that they will have owned America. We need money and one in three Americans smoke weed so if we can tax it we will approximately get 39.7 billion dollars in taxes if weed is taxed and the government has been missing all of this since at least the year 2000. So if taxes for weed were at 10% the government would have been making this since like I said the year 2000.
should cannabis be made legal

Ever hear the saying, "Two wrongs don't make it right." Implying both cigarettes and alcohol both being factors that are wrong. Which just because they are wrong for being illegal, doesn't make weed right to be legal. Also, I bet you didn't read that story. There are plenty of reasons why weed isn't legalized across the United States. Not only on a financial view but also on weed impairs vision to people and haves some of the same temporary side effects, another being it slows down reaction time although weed appears to make people more aware. Imagine all the idiot drivers that drink and drive. Then all the idiot drivers that text and drive. Both illegal, but both are the leading causes of car crashes and deaths via car accidents. Now imagine a whole new set of people that will be prone to this, it's in the millions. Also if it is fully legal across the United States this is set to cause millions of more people driving impaired on the road. Don't we have enough of idiots driving impaired on the roads as it is? It might even cost more tax payers money because not only do they crackle down on drunk driving at it is, now they might even need to give police budget a way more then necessary budget based on this fact alone. Millions of more people with this to add on to the drunk drivers. Might be called in for more officers and road checks. Things like that. But that's just a theory. Other's think great it'll bring money and lower the cost. Correct it will bring money but not as much as you think. Taxes are so high right? But cigarettes and alcohol alone bank in billions of dollars in taxes. There are way more users of that just with one but both combined then weed. On the other hand it'd imply the cost of weed to go down. This is incorrect, not only would it be taxed and go up, but the fact is the weed isn't costly on the legal status, more on the lines of how much quality and quantity there are. Thus being said, there are many key factors that are more than just biased same old opinions of advocates of weed would say. Another brought up the question if it is legal, then it would lower crime rates and gangs. How does one draw to a conclusion like that is completely hearsay. A. Crime rates don't lower just because something illegal becomes legal, yes for having intent to sell weed (by possessing weed plants, or a lot of weed) but if you have only enough to just say you was going to smoke it. More than likely they will confiscate it and give you a court date to pay a fine for having it. B. Gangs wouldn't automatically stop if it did. It might even make them act out more. Even steal from stores to get weed. Nevertheless. Plenty of examples why weed being legal is not better than illegal.
should cannabis be made legal

Yes some states may have already legalized it but if the united states of America legalized it that may solve this economical crisis that we are going through. Because millions of Americans use weed, and really what's the difference between weed and tobacco. Because really tobacco causes people to pay millions of dollars every year in health care expenses and weed does help with medical conditions like glaucoma for example. And I'm not saying that weed wouldn't but it could also might lower the suicide rate in America because instead of people going through drastic measures because of bullying to the extent of taking their own life, the could use weed as a stress reliever.
should cannabis be made legal

A. It's war on one drug your talking, just weed. War on drugs implies other drugs. - War on drugs: Coke, heroine, crack, PCP, etc. B. Weed is not in the constitution illegal anywhere specifically. Thus being said every state has the right to legalize this themselves through a vote. There are a few states that have already done this via voting. Some have for medial only, and others have fully. http://www.rollingstone.com... Look at the United States on this, it shows it. http://www.ehow.com... C. Read every answer why Marijuana is illegal. http://civilliberty.about.com... Here's a quote from http://www.cnbc.com... why we shouldn't. "Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while federal and states collected an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes. These figures show that the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue collected, and that the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times the tax revenue collected. This is an economically disastrous tradeoff. The costs of legalizing marijuana would not only be financial. New marijuana users would not be limited to adults if marijuana were legalized, just as regulations on alcohol and tobacco do not prevent use by youth. Rapidly accumulating new research shows that marijuana use is associated with increases in a range of serious mental and physical problems. Lack of public understanding on this relationship is undermining prevention efforts and adversely affecting the nation"s youth and their families." That's just two paragraphs on why we shouldn't legalize marijuana. Read the full story I dare you. Also it makes complete sense.