BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I ought to be allowed to kill the man who molested my son

CHILD MOLESTATION.How many cases do we have of people molesting bear cubs?If you found a bear cub in the wild, you wouldn’t stop and play with it, harm it or MOLEST it. You’d run, knowing where there is a cub, a dangerous and wrathful mother bear is also nearby. She is far more dangerous to humans, because she’s held to no laws.This is exactly the same principle you should have to heed within humans. You feel my sons butt, you will feel my wrath. That’s the unspoken threat, the problem is, the law tells me I can’t harm such a monster. Nobody fears being put in prison and having meals made for them every day, everyone should fear the wrath of a raging father held to no particular law.Why would my opponent protect a deranged man who took a job at an infant school in order to prey upon the vulnerable and innocent?A man who has monstrously defiled no end of child anus.This is the man my opponents defends. Any attempt to suggest this man deserves to live is preposterous. Should we keep him caged up like an animal and pay for his miserable existence? Or should we just end all the evil that he is?The answer is quite clear.It currently costs £40,000 [A] per year to house an inmate within jail. This is all tax payer money, we certainly shouldn’t be paying for the evil crimes of that man. It’s his turn to pay, with his life.That man is 32. Child molestation is punishable by 1-30 years in prison [B] This means he will be out by 62 at the latest. Once out he’ll have the freedom to molest more children.A molester dying would not further the emotional distress that my child is facing. Do you believe my child cares about that man? They hardly knew one another, it wasn’t like they were dating.He will rest assured knowing that monster is dead. A rebuttal of my opponent’s rebuttal. For the record I am emotionally supporting my child. I can kill a man and support my family. “Many inmates are more than happy to commit vigilante justice against child rapists” My opponent attempts to refute my arguments by telling us that child molesters will get beaten and killed in prison anyway. He uses this as an argument in favour of the current justice system. This tells us that my opponent concedes to child molesters deserving death. I would therefore like to thank my opponent for helping my arguments overcome any issues concerning morality they may have had. We agree it’s not immoral to kill child molesters. "You shouldn't be allowed to mess up your brain" Don't tell me I might get hurt, don't tell me that killing will mess with my mind. I've shot at a group of dangerous boars with a hunting rifle where the single bullet penetrated through one boar and managed to hit 2 others. The two other boars were squealing like cute piggies, trying to run, but too much of their blood had drained. And so they lay there in horror as I walked over to them and began to smash their cute innocent heads in with a rock! AND YOU DARE TO TELL ME THAT I’D GO CRAZY AFTER KILLING A CHILD MOLESTER? I ALREADY AM CRAZY! [A] https://www.theguardian.com...[B] http://www.childmolestationlaws.com...-
I ought to be allowed to kill the man who molested my son

Rebuttal"What your child needs most right now is lots and lots of love"I think he's had enough love from numerous bum hole fingerings, don't you?"You will be sent to prison for a maximum of ten years for second degree murder"If I wasn't allowed to kill him then yes, but i'm arguing that I should be allowed. Therefore your argument is not valid.Arguments-He can not fit into our society ever again as his sexual desire is children. He has acted upon that desire once, we would be stupid to give him another chance and another victim.-The alternative is to pay for him for the rest of his life in prison. Why should I give money to feed a man who has just brutally penetrated my child's anus? Please tell me, i'm curious as to your reasoning.-Allowing the father to kill him would serve as a loud and clear message to any other would be child molesters. They'd know that preying upon children would potentially get them killed. -Some men are institutionalized and seek ways to go back to prison. If it so happens that they are sexually attracted to children, then they'd bum a child as a way to get back into prison. For them it's a win win and ultimately this proves no real justice has been served by keeping these sort of people alive and breathing. These points are important. If my opponent does not address them, i'll be forced to extend them into the next round.
I ought to be allowed to kill the man who molested my son

What your child needs most right now is lots and lots of love and support from his family. If you go through with those actions, you will be sent to prison for a maximum of ten years for second degree murder. Not only will your child have to go through to pain of being previously molested, he will also have to go through an even greater level of suffering by not being able to see his father for years and having his father turned into a murderer. Killing the teacher will only serve to benefit you and no one else. Your revenge will only serve to satisfy your bloodlust, while the aftermath will hurt you and everyone else in your family. Not only will your family have to suffer emotionally for you being sent to prison, but some of them may not be able to look at you the same way ever again. Your children may learn to fear you rather than love you. Your son needs a loving father more than he needs a dead rapist.
I ought to be allowed to kill the man who molested my son

Very recently my son was brutally molested by a balding man. This man was his teacher, someone who should ensure my child's safety and protect him from harm. Instead he was pushing his fat grubby fingers deep into my sons anus. My beautiful son was attacked, his innocence stolen. I have every right to end the life of this predator. -That man is sexually attracted to children. You can't undo that, he will always be a threat to society, prison will not rehabilitate that. -He preyed upon the most vulnerable members of society, infants. Do we really want to be paying for his time in prison? CCTV evidence shows him touching my sons butt in the 'play ground.' My son gave an account of having things inserted into his butt hole. Many other children also came forward claiming the teacher put his finger up their butts. This man should die by my hands.
Winter Regular Final: Gun Ban

This is a debate between TUF and myself for the Winter Regular Tournament hosted by Fortis. This is the final match, meaning the the victor is the winner of the tournament. ResolutionThe United States should enact a nationwide ban on all firearms by the state and federal governments.TermsUnited States: refers to both federal and state governments, this helps to focus the debate on the issue of a gun ban, rather than the role of a government, or other irrelevent issues.Should: I’m going to use Whiteflame’s definition, “This simply designates that we are engaged in a policy debate, and therefore what should happen. This is distinguished from 'could,' as what we are discussing is whether a ban should or should not happen, rather than whether it could given current impediments in Congress and elsewhere. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases."Firearm: Any kind of gun.Ban: legally prohibitRules1) No forfeits2) No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. suffering doesn’t exist, humans deserve death, etc.)3) My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions4) For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate5) The BOP will be shared. Meaning that Pro has to convince the judge of his stance despite Con’s reasons, and Con has to convince the judge of his stance despite Pro’s reason.6) Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.Round StructureCon should present his case in R1 and Pro present his case in R2. No new arguments in the final round (R3 for Con and R4 for Pro). Con must waive his final response. Thanks...to TUF in advance, I'm sure this will be an awesome debate!
The Democratic Party fights for Jewish values.

It's ashame you didn't get a chance to take you turn, so I'll make mine short. Here are 3, what I would consider Jewish values with a little description. • Social Justice: Engaging in acts of loving-kindness or repairing the world, and encouraging creative & strategic action in addressing social issues. Repairing Iraq and helping them become a democracy and free people is part of this. • Spirituality: Experiencing awe, wonder, and amazement in that which is greater than ourselves through the exploration of faith, belief, and life's 'big' questions. Democrats have done nothing but hurt religion specifically Christianity and Judaism. Religion is offensive to a small percentage of the population even though the majority believes in a higher being. Never the less, minority rules and Judaism is cast aside. • Israel: Exploring educational, cultural, or political aspects of Israel or advocating for Israel as the Jewish and democratic state within secure and recognized borders and as a member of the family of free nations. The Democrats want nothing to do with helping Israel and are becoming more anti-semitic everyday Congress is in session.
The Democratic Party fights for Jewish values.

The Iraqi War caused the collapse of a secular dictator. This collapse created an open terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East and an empowered Iran. It was because of the fall of Iraq that Iran is able to act so freely outside of its borders. The Iraqi War worsened Israel's security. The Nazi regime of Germany (1933-1945) painted a picture of the Jews as money-grubbing and selfish. Voting Republican supports this image. What the Jewish community has learned from the Holocaust is not to be intolerant of the heritages of others, to take advantage of your civil rights, and to keep watch of the government's abuse of power or negligence of a constitution. The Democratic Party embodies these values to a far greater extent than the Republican Party. The Torah tells Jews to be guardians of the earth. Whether or not global warming exists, Jews have a responsibility to protect the air from pollution produced by greed and ignorance. A large percentage of the Republican Party is made up of radical Protestants. Jews are largely Democrats in order to keep the country free from a wide-spread purging of Muslims, free from blind loyalty leading to fascism, and free from a government of people who believe they are warriors of God. Historically, Jews have advocated dignity and intellect. George W. Bush is a veritable crusader against Jews in this manner. The only reason the Republicans are so intent on supporting Israel is because they'd hate to see their adventure in the Middle East become a complete and utter failure. Saudi Arabian terrorists attacked New York on September 11th, no Iraqis and no Iranians. The reason we won't attack Saudi Arabia is that we're attached at the hip when it comes to oil. Whose fault is that but George (H.)W. Bush and his Republican cronies. The Iraqi invasion was merely a distraction from the fact that we got bored looking for Osama bin Laden. The Democratic Party, the party of separation of church and state, the party of workers' rights, the party of civil rights, is the party that best embodies the values of the Jewish faith.
Legalize Arrenged Marriages

If my parents would decide who I would marry I would be more likely to rebel against that. And I'm probably not the only one who would do that. They probably run away if they absolutely don't agree with there parents decision, and that isn't fun for anybody. (The cultures in which this takes place at the moment this is of course not really the case, but if we would make it something that's ok in the west this would happen.) You also take away the falling in love part of marriage which is the most important and if they are not compatible on a emotional level they just won't be happy, at all. It doesn't matter how well your astrological thing matches the other persons. Also people in the west really like to get divorced and no one cares about that. Why would they care if it happened with arranged marriages?
Captain America is better than Iron Man

If you think it's unheroic to find a smart way to win, instead of risking your life every 5 minutes , then you're severely crazy. The only reason Captain America is even still alive is because that's the way the script plays him out to be. As for Iron Man "just being a philanthropist." Are you really saying that's a negative thing? The definition of a philanthropist is: a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes. I don't know about you, but that's someone I would strive to be. I guess you're just an immature human being that doesn't care about anything in the world, except Captain America, now that's a great life.
Captain America is better than Iron Man

Steve Rogers: Big man in a suit of armour. Take that off, what are you? Tony Stark: Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist. Steve Rogers: I know guys with none of that worth ten of you. I've seen the footage. The only thing you really fight for is yourself. You're not the guy to make the sacrifice play, to lay down on a wire and let the other guy crawl over you. Tony Stark: I think I would just cut the wire. Steve Rogers: Always a way out... You know, you may not be a threat, but you better stop pretending to be a hero. -The Avengers Captain America is a strong leader and took his role in the Avengers seriously from the beginning, unlike Iron Man. Without his suit and his money, Tony Stark is nothing but a guy with a bad attitude. Unlike Iron Man, Captain America does not need a metallic suit to look strong. I know you would say he was a science experiment, but then couldn't the same be said about Spider man being bitten by the radioactive spider, or Wolverine who had an operation on his whole skeletal system, or Banner who emitted to gamma radiation. The back stories are all what matter. How did they become what they are?
Captain America is better than Iron Man

Take away the serum and you may get humbleness, but thats not enough to fend for himself against opponents. At least iron man has some muscle in his body and can hold himself up in a fight. Iron man was also willing to risk his life in the avengers for the better sake of the U.S., a very big act of selflessness if you ask me. As for women captain America will make out with the first bimbo with boobs he sees, Iron man however, is content with his lovely Pepper Potts.
Captain America is better than Iron Man

Captain America was given this opportunity, because he has the heart to serve his country . Other than Iron Man, who only cares about himself and women. He has olympic level athleticism,and peak human physiological conditioning,master martial art agility, wields vibranium steel alloy shield, and excellent field commander. Without iron man'so arc reactor, all he would have is himself. Take away Captain America's serums, you would have a humble man willing to serve his country for the better good.
A Circle can fit into a square hole.

Yes a definition is needed. You have not mentioned the fact that if both are the same square area then the circle will not fit into the square, thus defeating my opponent's definition. My opponent has not given any proof that the amount of situations is half/half, only that there are 2 variables, claiming that it would work half of the time. He has not actually done any calculations! Therefore, the opposition continues to stand, having defeated the proposition.
A Circle can fit into a square hole.

No size definition was needed. The motion states can, which as defined before means "the ability to do" obviously a circle has the ability to fit into a square hole because there of circles of all sizes in the world of Geometry. So we must assume there are an infinite number of sizes for circles and squares. If there were 10 sizes of circles and 10 sizes of squares, than 1/2 of the shapes would fit. If there are infinite numbers of circles and squares, then clearly half will fit together. Not only do circles have the ability to fit into square holes, but half the time they do. The Motion Stands.
A Circle can fit into a square hole.

The motion clearly states, "A circle CAN fit into a square hole" Not "A circle ALWAYS fits into a square hole" "can" defined by dictionary.com to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to. Obviously a circle has the ability to fit into a square hole because a circle with an area of 2cm squared will definitley fit into a square hole that is 4cm squared. Even if the fit is very tight, it still means it can fit. Therefore my argument may often be false, but has the ability to be true, which is all that matters.
A Circle can fit into a square hole.

Definitions: Circle: a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. Square: a rectangle having all four sides of equal length. Fit: Being able to exist inside a larger object. 1. A Square Can fit into A circular Hole My contention today is that a circle can fit in a square hole. This is because if we take a various size circle and put into a various sized square hole, it will fit. There will be a little unfilled space. But it does fit. I have a small points because his debate is centered around refutation. Thanks!
something can not be true and false at the same time.

It could be argued that the writer is delusional, medically or through a substance. Could have multi peronality. This could allow both letters to be true or both letters to be false. This again means the letters have no point and are meaningless. The second letter he received may not have been the intended second letter the cousin was going to write. Perhaps people found him and made him to send the letter saying it was a lie. What the senders knows and what the receiver reads and believes will be 2 different things. So the truth would still be the truth just unknown to the reader. A false truth is not a truth. If a word can be read as true or false doesn't not make it true or false. If I write life and death to make them.both look like each other that does not make anything alive and dead at the same time. It's just ink. So it's neither true or false. If want to break it down you could say it's neither words as the letters used have been altered from the alphabet look to adapt your point. They are not true letters. The cat may be dead. It may be alive. This is true. However if it is alive it's alive. If it's dead it is dead. Just because we do not know whether it's alive or dead doesn't take away from the truth. Quantum mechanics are just another new way for us to understand certain things. Is it the answer to everything of course not. There is so much out there that we are unaware of. The word true exists for a reason. If something can also be false it surely was never true. If there was any form of falsity it is not true. True can only be true. False can only be false. You could argue maths teaches 2 negatives make a positive do 2 wrongs make 1 right. Opinions can be true and false at the same time but opinions aren't true or false they're just a thoughts. For example Hitler is a bad man. Some will find that to be true some will find that to be false. Would an ant think it true? No the ant wouldn't know any different. Same as how we are when understanding the universe, what it consists of, why it's here, how it works. How can any human say this is true or this is false. The truth will still be truth and false will be false. Sorry for rambling. Hope it makes sense. Got baby tonight and she take up a lot of my attention. To sum this all up though of course somethings can be true and false at the same time. I think the only valid point I can put forward against that was- a truth alcan only be a truth otherwise it was never true to begin with.
something can not be true and false at the same time.

Well, hope your friend is convinced enough.1. My Liar paradox, as well as the ones listed afterwards, is simply and illustration of reality. I may have breviated them for the sake of remaining lazy. If you'd like, I could create a scene in which they may or may not be truth or falsity.Suppose you get a letter today, and it reads as follows:"Dear cousin, I'm sending you this letter because I am onto a mystery. It seems that there are people smuggling stuff into New York. I've already found the truth, the second letter will be completely truthful and show you everything. I'm confident that something is up, just trust me."Then the mailman stops you and says he forgot to add on another letter."Dear Cousin,Sorry, I was wrong. Ignore the previous letter, it's simply a mess of lies. All of it. Sorry for the excitement I caused."Given that you recieved them moments apart, what would you think about this? Did your cousin really find a mystery, or no? They cross-reffer, and they were obviously sent at the same time, so there cannot be any talk of him changing his mind. Give me a truth factor for either of the letters, and I will show you how it simply won't work.The only answer is that only PARTS of these letters is true, and the rest is false. Therfore, it is a combination of both, and is TRUE and FALSE at the same time. Or...Suppose you get a card with words printed on either side. The first side says "All of the next statement is true", while the flip side says "All of the other statement is false". Determine a truth value for either. They are a combination of both truth and falsity, therefore they are both true and false2. In his second rebuttal, my opponent stated that "it is both true and false". Because the very word appears subjectively as either true, or false, and it's actual truth value doesn't matter. 3. Yet one does not know if the cat is dead, or alive. The statement "The cat is dead" has a roughly 50% chance of being true, and a 50% chance of being false. Because reality is presumed from the beholder, we really have no bearing on wether or not the cat is dead or alive. And so, summing up both probabilities, the cat is both dead, and alive.Besides, you are arguing agaist the existence of quantum mechanics. True, one doesn't necessarily have to accept the theories, but they do explain a lot of different things.
something can not be true and false at the same time.

Thankyou for the response it was well written and has some valid points. As you are aware I have only put this debate forward to show another individual that you can be both true and false at the same time. Due to this i find it hard to counter as I agree with what you have put forward. I don't use sources. I'm not a reader so I have no terminology I can use. Subjective and objective truths and falsity have no meaning to me. I can only put forward my views which are based upon my nature and my experiences. First I will use your definitions of true and false.you definitions being about fact and reality. My problem here is your liar paradox is neither fact or have any value in reality. I'm sure there is a term out there to define this but I do not know it. My point is its a phrase of no meaning so is neither true or false. Its just pointless. In fact that applies to all step one paradox. Step 2 the written word which appears to state true and false again is meaningless. Though it is both true and false it can easily be argued that it is neither true or false just ink on paper. Step 3 the cat. If it is alive it is alive. If it is dead it is dead. It is not both alive and dead. Thats similar to if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise. Well yes of course it does. If something is true then it can only be true otherwise there can be no truth. If there is no truth then everything is merely an opinion which we use other people's writings to justify our stand point.