BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Juveniles deserve adult punishment for adult crimes.

Thats not my point. The simple point that I am trying to make is whether juveniles who commit adult crimes crimes of the most sinful nature do deserve adult punishment for their acts of omission and commission. The oxymoron nature of the topic that you understand shall be clarified by me.. First off all I am supporting a hypothetical law in which the juveniles who have committed adult crimes shall be bound be to get adult punishments which they DESERVE. Now what you are understanding is that they should be given punishments with adults which is not my point. My point is simply that all these "Adult Crime" com-miters shall be consolidated put together and be in separate cells or jails where they will get adult LIKE punishments but not punishments with adults. Secondly another very important point is that these reformation schemes and programs are of no relevance to the juveniles of such horrendous doings. They are above the bar to be accepted back into the society without have an effective and efficient reformation that in their case can come only through punishments which in today's date are of adults. Therefore here we can conclude as able citizens of the society that "Juveniles Deserve Adult Punishment For Adult Crimes". Thank you all the readers for patiently listening to me.
Juveniles deserve adult punishment for adult crimes.

A very good evening to all the people present and reading this excellent debate here. Now starting with, I would like to begin with that yes Juveniles is in the comprehension of the world itself is anyone below the age of 18. Now when we say adult crimes we are referring to all those horrendous crimes like murdering, raping stealing and sexually assaulting. Now here is a keyword of this debate "deserve". Now when we incorporate deserve in the debate we are condensing ourselves to this very debate as to whether juveniles deserve or do not deserve adult punishment for the sort of adult crimes that they have done. Now as reports have bluntly spoken that juveniles at most can get a punishment of 2 months in the reformation center as the current law supports and after which they have to be freed. Now the question here arises is not whether they are morally sound enough, that they are mature enough as this will be flattened in a short time. At 16 you are allowed to have boyfriends and girlfriends. you are allowed to drink and smoke. you are allowed to play games like call of duty and god of war and then we say that they are not knowing enough to know what a murder is! What killing is ... Isn't it but obvious that Juveniles in today's date deserve adult punishment for adult crimes. We all are aware of the murders that 16 or 17 year old do for getting money. We all are aware of the atrocities committed by them and by putting blinds towards it we are just progressing towards a worse tomorrow. I am sure each and every person reading it today would agree that yes one out of the 7 convicted against the !6th December,2013 victim (Nirbhaya or Damini) was a Juvenile. It is also proved that he was the one who committed the most horrendous act that day inside the moving bus. Thus my question there goes that this person being a juvenile has been acquitted from charges because of being juvenile. Therefore I request each and every person reading this today to cast an affirmative vote for a better tomorrow and not put blinds on the reality.
Does Censorship Reveal Society's Lack of Confidence in Itself

Censorship Reveals Society's Lack of Confidence in Itself because of multiple reasons. When the government censors media and TV, they do it because they are not confident about their own people. They are not confident that riots will start, protests will happen, and that people might even lose their lives. The government is controlling our lives this way. We have the right to look at anything we want, but it is our decision whether we want to view it or not. We make the decision, not the government. That is why our society is so unbalanced. It is lacking confidence. And you know what is so funny. As the people, we are not confident enough to voice our own opinion about the censorship. Let me ask you: Would you be confident enough? No. The answer is no. Which is exactly why censorship affects the confidence in our society in a negative way.
Challenge Me

So, I post a gigantic story of a thrill seekers haunted house that I took immense time to think about and write about, and my opponent replays with a measly detail of something they didn't find suitable? It wasn't even an incorrect detail? Next time I will definitely not be taking open debates so I am not accepting a challenge from an opponent like this that is either too lazy to debate or just confused on actually what a debate it. I apologize to the audience as my opponent has wasted all of our time here and has embarrassed themselves along with me for thinking it is a good idea to have a random person challenge me. I was ignorant to believe that people like my opponent don't exist on this site, when rather people like my opponent unfortunately do.
Challenge Me

Greetings, I have been off of this website for well, a long time. I come back to a site with not nearly as many open challenge debate options as there were before. So why not start a debate with amorphous potential! This round, my opponent will accept my debate and provide a topic for us to debate. My opponent must state which position they are for and provide me with for say a "fighting chance". If my opponent clearly sets me up for failure they are willingly agreeing to a forfeit. YES. If you are deciding to accept my challenge you must pick a topic that is able to be debated from all different angles, if not I shall accept an automatic victory. Now with all of that out of the way, pick your topic opponent. I await a challenge.
Challenge Me

Yeah "dude" I know you're not lying and I correctly interpreted what you wrote. I see what has happened. You (my opponent) are too lazy to read my argument and debate and also probably not skilled enough to debate therefor you're fixating on something that I literally interpreted the right way so that you can provide an excuse for not debating. My opponent is a waste of time and everything that he/she says is a waste to even read as it doesn't make sense, is illogical, and flat out annoying that I had to write all of that for my opponent to literally be a waste of a debate account. I apologize for people like my opponent existing on this website, and for people like me ignorant enough to debate them.
Harry Potter films *are better than* The Twilight Saga films

Jeez, pro, you really enjoy cutting off your opponent's balls right off the bat, don't you? I feel vaguely ashamed I am going to have to rescue Edward's sparkly butt in this debate. As pro, understand that the burden of proof is upon you. Be prepared to defend and prove your claims. First of all, Wikipedia is not a valid source. If you want your figures to stand you will have to quote its references (bottom of the Wiki page). Obviously, the commercial success of each respective series is not cornerstone to this debate. You would not give your opponent an unassailable statistic and attempt to call the resulting farce a "debate", so I am going to assume you are also contending the "superiority of quality, condition and effect" of the Harry Potter films as opposed to Twilight. First: Harry Potter has had nine years (2001-2010) to hype up its source material. Twilight has only had two (2008-2010). Already the conditions are inherently unfair and stacked against Twilight. Second: Commerciality does not imply superiority. Opium was a commercial success for the British during the Opium Wars in China. McDonald's is a commercial success. You have not proven how Harry Potter is superior in "quality, condition and effect". Your sole point has been debunked. Next round, for the sake of a good debate, I expect you to come forth with ulterior proofs instead of hiding behind one statistic. Good luck.
Harry Potter films *are better than* The Twilight Saga films

Background Info: -Harry Potter film series (2001-present; will end in 2011) -Twilight film series (2008-present; will end in 2012) -definition of "better" = something superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better" (Google search; type define:better) Money-Wise: Wikipedia's List of "Highest-Grossing Films of All Time" http://en.wikipedia.org... The Harry Potter series is ranked #1 as the highest-grossing film series. With 6 films released (as of 10/10/10), the series has made $5,412,496,909 worldwide. An average of $902,082,818 per film. The Twilight Saga is ranked #13 on the list. With a 3 films released so far, the series has made a worldwide total of $1,794,457,054. The average of each film being 598,152,351 per film. Obviously, the Harry Potter series has earned more tickets with more fans, because: $902,082,818 > $598,152,351
Elephants should have certain inalienable rights.

Similarity does not equate to "they must be equal". Let's take a rock - most of these have carbon. We have carbon in us. Therefore, they should have inalienable rights. Um ... no. Similarity doesn't mean that you SHOULD do something ... pro doesn't offer a reason WHY this is so, just that it *IS*.Inalienability is only possible when a state can protect the rights in the first place. I may have the hypothetical right to life without a government, but that right is not INALIENABLE if I do not have a government to protect this right. Elephants should not have rights because nobody should have rights. If pro's claim that "what humans have, elephants should have" holds up, then they must concede that because people should not have inalienable rights, ELEPHANTS should not, either!Pro doesn't attack the idea that the government (the entity that controls rights) is bad with any logic, just saying that it is invalid. A sore loss for pro.
Elephants should have certain inalienable rights.

"Pro just doesn't offer any links between having a smaller brain at birth than in adulthood with providing inalienable rights. He just says that they are similar thus they should have rights. " Con Humans have been given inalienable rights. Pro has proven elephants are very similar to humans. Since elephants are very similar to a creature that already has rights, humans, its a very small leap to state that elephants should have the same rights as humans. The only way Con can wiggle out of this is if Con states that nobody should have inalienable rights, which is exactly what Con states in Con's rebuttal. "sentience->suffering->inalienable rights? ?? ? How exactly is this a valid mode of thought . .. a robot can be coded to see itself in a mirror, but it shouldn't have inalienable rights - for it lacks the 'human-ness' that rights are constructed about. " Con A robot that advanced should have inalienable rights also. As for lacking the humanness there are some who think that humans are extremely advanced robots. The wiring in our brain is similar to those of computers. DNA is a storage device not that much different from a hard drive on a computer. "My case will hinge on the idea that if you have a State to protect rights then you are the main cause of all problems in the world . .. the framework that the Aff is arguing for necessarily requires the existence of a rights-protecting State - if they advocate against the existence of such a State then they concede the debate. " Con Con seems to be arguing nobody or nothing should have inalienable rights. Neither man, beast, nor robot. Pro has no idea what Aff is or stands for. Pro disagrees that a state's enforcement is necessary for inalienable rights to be respected. Think of two cooperative humans. Human A makes a noise that annoys only human B. Human B says "please stop that" person A agrees and stops making the noise. Families function all the time by respecting each other rights. Often strangers cooperate, think two vehicles passing each other on the road and no law enforcement in sight. The strangers cooperate not out of fear of the state but because they don't feel like getting into a car accident. Pro contends that inalienable rights are achievable through cooperation and a state is not necessary for these rights to be honored. Thanks for the debate, looking forward to Con's response. Elephants should have certain inalienable rights because they are so similar to a being that already has such rights, humans.
Elephants should have certain inalienable rights.

Elephants should have certain inalienable rights because they are sentient and have nearly the intelligence of humans. Claim 1: elephant brains are similar to humans. Warrant:" Interestingly, the growth and development of the elephant's brain is similar to that of mans. Both the elephant and man are born with small brain masses. The mass of the new-born elephant's brain is 35% of that of the adult, while Mans is 26%. Thus, there is considerable growth and development as the calf grows up. As the mass of the brain increases, so does the learning ability of young elephants. Not surprisingly, evidence gathered from both anatomical details, as well as from behavioural studies, suggest that the elephant is a very intelligent animal. :)" [3]. Impact: Elephant should have at least some of the rights humans have due to similarities. Claim 2: Elephants can pass the mirror test for sentience. Warrant: "Elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror, joining only humans, apes and dolphins as animals that possess this kind of self-awareness, researchers now report." [4]. Impact: Elephants are surely sentient and can suffer. It is clear that elephants should have at least some inalienable rights. Thanks for accepting the debate. Links 3. http://elephant.elehost.com... 4. http://www.livescience.com...
Elephants should have certain inalienable rights.

I accept.My case will hinge on the notion that having inalienable rights is necessarily harmful to ALL living things, not just elephants or humans, because it requires the existence of the State. Rights are bad for all living things because having a State to protect them is bad.You can argue first, that was just what my argument was going to be about (unless I change my mind) - you have the BoP.
Elephants should have certain inalienable rights.

Resolution: Elephants should have certain inalienable rights. This is a normative resolution. Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Elephant "a very large gray animal that has a long, flexible nose and two long tusks" [1]. Inalienable "impossible to take away or give up" [2]. Links. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content...

/"I accept my opponent's definition of democracy except for one part. Part 3 is in, somewhat, contradiction with part 1. If we have representatives such as the electoral college, a president can loose the popular vote whilst winning the electoral vote thus it is not majority rule. But if this doesn't become an issue in the round it doesn't matter."/ It doesn't exactly matter, but democracy was meant in it crude form, by the people for the people. /"I would like to define censor which is thusly: "To examine and expurgate."[1] edit: "To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable"[2] restrict: "To keep or confine within limits"[3]"/ Accepted. /"I first have a question on my opponent's position. What do you mean by " if it respects the essence of democracy"?"/ Essence of democracy is that the people are the source of political power. That the government in power is in power because it has been elected by the people. /"My position is that the government should be allowed to regulate or censor material if it is a threat to our national security or the lives of our troops and/or civilians."/ Please elaborate. My proposition: #1 When a government tries to regulate Television programs it deems unsuitable to be watched by the masses, basically it gives the following message: You are old enough to decide who should run your country, but not old enough to decide what to watch on television. And no, that's not enough, it further adds, I'M better than you ignorant people, let me make the decisions for you. Let me decide what you *should* watch. If I don't like a program, if it interferes with my social beliefs or faith or whatever, I am the master of my remote. One cannot expect a bill by government to restrict the right to choice of the very people that elected it. #2 A government has been put into place to run the country. Regulating the television content is in no way its jurisdiction. If it tries to censor the say of some, for whatever reason, it is, curtailing the right to speech of some individual, which is not its job. A producer/ or any citizen of a country for that matter should be able to express his/ her views on the television, it is entirely upto the *public* whether they want to watch it or not. Censoring/ editing/ restricting the views of any proportion of the society is in direct contradiction of the right to freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right in a democracy. Not writing too much in the beginning of the debate, I'll expand later.
In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content...

I accept my opponent's definition of democracy except for one part. Part 3 is in, somewhat, contradiction with part 1. If we have representatives such as the electoral college, a president can loose the popular vote whilst winning the electoral vote thus it is not majority rule. But if this doesn't become an issue in the round it doesn't matter. I would like to define censor which is thusly: "To examine and expurgate. "[1] edit: "To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable"[2] restrict: "To keep or confine within limits"[3] I first have a question on my opponent's position. What do you mean by " if it respects the essence of democracy"? My position is that the government should be allowed to regulate or censor material if it is a threat to our national security or the lives of our troops and/or civilians. [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content...

In the first round, we just state our positions. And state definitions and sort. We begin the actual debate from the second round. Democracy: 1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2.A political or social unit that has such a government. 3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power;Majority rule. 4.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. My position is that the government should not try to regulate any of the television content if it respects the essence of democracy. Looking forward to the debate.
god is not "one" therefore god is a fraud

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"Who is this "us" and "our"? Us and our states that there is more than one god. Its not singular folks and does not leave any room for the imaginationation to roam. Psalms 82:1 "(A Psalm of Asaph.) God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."Well that one is pretty clear. Plural people. So there is more than one god. Duh.Here"s one that may be stretching it and it all depends on your scope of things and if you are smart enough you don"t believe in neither" Many believe that the son of god, jesus, is a god, thus that"s TWO gods!Then god has to be a buzzkill "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" "gods" again, plural. Strange isn"t it that this almighty god would create other gods for others to worship. And yet this god of the bible gets jealous? Well the idiot names himself "jealous". Go figure. EX 34:14So if you believe in god ehhhhtttt bbzzzzttttt wrong answer. Your entire religion has just been twarted and debunked!!!So your job for this debate is to prove that your god somehow is worthy of cause and has meaning and you can actually prove that this god of yours exists. - Gods of the bible RULES FOR THIS EXQUISITE DEBATE:Absolutely no idiots will be accepted as contestants for this debate who obviously don"t know what they are squawking about who have to thus invent excuses and flat out lie in order to gain grounding points which would be accepted as negative absolute zero. That would mean that I can target you for some cheap shot insults in which you would rightly deserve. Got it? Absolutely no creationists will be accepted for this rambunctious debate. Why? ALL CREATIONISTS, no exceptions, none, are completely and totally worthless. They cannot even stand by their product when it comes to testing it. Because if they could, then they would put their god on trial again. So why haven"t they? Its because they are not stupid. They 100% know that they will flat out fail. That"s because all they have to go on is faith and faith cannot be proved.
god is not "one" therefore god is a fraud

Didn't read it. There's nothing of value that you have to say because you are really not that bright. Your smugness that is a part of you is just so soft as cushiony down. Did yah get to watch 60 minutes last night? Its estimated that there are now 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. 10x what was originally thought. That means 2 trillion black holes at least. So this mythical god of yours would be creating at least 2 trillion big blank nothingness whereas there's only been an estimated 106 billion humans souls to walk this earth. So your god favors blank black holes, nothingness, BY FAR over humans. Its not even a contest. Kinda tells us, namely man, just how deeply YOUR god cares about man which in comparison to black holes is negligent and is one big time loser.
god is not "one" therefore god is a fraud

Indeed we are done with this "debate" if you want a summary of this debate in 12 seconds go to I was hoping for more of an exchange of ideas instead of insults and evidence that he does not care for debate. To my Christian brethren, please don't waste your time debating this guy. I would like to conclude this debate by saying that my opponent has shown me that his intention for all the "debates" that he engages in is to slander demean Christianity. He is not interested in a respectful debate and dialogue. If you reading this debate and want to engage in a respectful discussion and debate with me, don't hesitate. If you want to show the kind of debate attitude that my opponent has shown me, please don't waste my time. In conclusion, if you want to experience the hope that you can only find in Christ go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want me to be a guest speaker go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want to debate me on another format other than debate.org go to http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... God bless!