BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Captial Punishment Doesnt Go Far Enough

Alright. This is my first debate in a long while, so forgive me for being rusty; to clarify, I'll just be going through and offering a couple of key reasons why my opponent's proposal oughtn't be implemented. 1. Deterrence The death penalty, as criminologists agree, does not tend to deter crime [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...]; in fact, statistics show that states which employ the death penalty tend to have a higher violent crime rate. I'm no criminologist, but after researching, an educated guess tells me that a pre-death penalty will fare no better in deterring crime, and may even be more detrimental to the cause of deterrence by encouraging people to commit crimes, since, according to the system, they're "likely" to do so, anyway. 2. Legality Refer to the 5th Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. By enacting a "pre-death" penalty for people "likely" to commit a crime, my opponent is clearly in violation of constitutional law. Additionally, the 8th Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment; considering that the penalty proposed by my opponent is being imposed on people who haven't yet committed a crime, I would say that such a punishment is both cruel AND unusual. 3. Proportionality My opponent seems to be advocating this penalty for ANY potential wrongdoers; the problem is that, within our justice system, punishment prescribed by the judiciary must be roughly proportional to the offense committed. In a world where people can be murdered by authorities because they are "likely" to jaywalk or litter, there is clearly no concept of justice left to defend. 4. Standards As of yet, Pro has offered no standard by which to judge how likely someone is to commit a crime. It could be said that everyone on this planet, including my opponent, is affected by human nature - this means that, to some extent, everyone is motivated by greed; therefore, everyone could be considered "likely" to commit theft; therefore, by Pro's logic, everyone ought to be subject to this "pre-death" penalty. This is an absurd path that Pro is asking us to follow. Additionally, I would like for my opponent to note that the real world is nothing like Minority Report [http://en.wikipedia.org...] - we do not have "precogs" who can predict murders prior to their occurrence. Once again, I eagerly await a standard by which we might fairly determine who is "likely" to commit a crime. I'll turn it back over to Pro for now. That is all.
Captial Punishment Doesnt Go Far Enough

Hello Debate.org I am debating to affirm the resolution that the only effective way to prevent crime is to enact a pre-death penalty. Now let me explain what I mean by a "pre-death penalty" is means in its most basic form that anyone who is likely to commit a crime should be put to death. The way that it would reduce crime is that it would act as a determent and people wouldn't even think of committing a crime OK,Thank You Bye
Pair of Pants(PRO) vs. A Pant(Con)

Answering your grammar question, 2 pairs of pants would be called just that, 2 pairs of pants. When I said that they were two different articles of clothing, I thought that it came with the understanding that they would be used together. You said, " typically used to describe the outer garment and under garment as a pair, and became so synonymous with what you wore on your legs that they never bothered correcting it when pants or a pair of pants as we know them now were invented." The undergarment under your pants is what I'm assuming is what is covering your lower half, to some extent. This is due to the fact that your crotch and backside would not be protected very much, due to the pants being two legs that are not connected at all. If they became synonymous and then were attached to each other, the resulting pair of pants is still, by that standard, two articles, and therefore is a pair.
Pair of Pants(PRO) vs. A Pant(Con)

While pantaloons used to be 2 separate leg pieces with no hip or crotch that were typically worn under your trousers, they were rarely used separately, and were made 2 parts mainly for convenience and ease of manufacturing. Making 1 garment that could easily fit, be adjusted, be comfortable and be cheap enough to bring in any revenue from the masses was too difficult at the time, so instead they resorted to the easier to make, easier to sell and easier to replace, pantaloons. Those, however, are not pants. Pants and the term "A pair of pants" was typically used to describe the outer garment and under garment as a pair, and became so synonymous with what you wore on your legs that they never bothered correcting it when pants or a pair of pants as we know them now were invented. So if the under and outer garment was called a pair, than 1 on their own should be called a Pant. One grammar question that I find interesting is if you could call 2 "Pairs of pants" a Pair, and if so, would it be a pair of pairs of pants?
Pair of Pants(PRO) vs. A Pant(Con)

Hello! Welcome to Debate.com! I believe that pants should be kept the way they are, because of many reasons, but one I will discuss now is the fact that pants are essentially two objects, and two objects that are meant to be used together are by definition a pair. This brings me to my second point, which is that originally, pants WERE actually two different articles of clothing. You put each one around one of your legs and then tied them around your waist. Somewhere along the line, someone had the brilliant idea to connect the two to create 'one' cloth that you wore. http://www.sandiegoreader.com...#
Pair of Pants(PRO) vs. A Pant(Con)

This is a debate on whether we should keep calling pants (jeans, shorts, khakis, etc. ) a pair of pants, rather than calling one of them a "pant". No trolling. I am on the side of continuing calling them Pairs. Cite all of your evidence. definition: Pant- an outer garment covering each leg separately and usually extending from the waist to the ankle "usually used in plural . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
My 100th Debate: A Duty to Rescue

PrefaceThis is my 100th debate, and I am looking forward to it! I was discussing this topic in the forums, and JonBonBon expressed her interest in doing her first serious debate on DDO with this topic, so naturally I had to accept. I look forward to having a superb discussion on the issue. You must have at least 2,000 ELO to vote on this.Full TopicThere ought to be a duty to rescue.TermsOught - moral desirabilityDuty to Rescue - an ethical compulsion for one party to come to the assistance of another party in peril if rendering that assistance does not unduly jeopardize the safety of the rescuing partyRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive Cases are PresentedR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to JonBonBon; I eagerly look forward to a this debate!
yo mama jokes

Yo' Mama is so fat, when she visits the doctor, they need a forklift to get her on the examining table. Yo' Mama is so nasty, she flosses with bacon. Yo' Mama is so fat, the hippos at the zoo get jealous of her figure. Yo' Mama is so fat, NASA used her to plug a black hole. Yo' Mama is so stupid, when they said, "Order in the court," she asked for fries and a shake. Hope you're having a great St. Patrick's day everyone! ;)
yo mama jokes

Yo mamas so ugly, they filmed "gorillas in the mist" in her shower. Yo mamas so ugly, she has to creep up on water to get a drink. Yo mamas so lazy, she got a remote to operate her remote. Yo mamas so fat, it looks like she is trying to smuggle a Volkswagen. Yo mamas so stupid, she ordered a cheeseburger and said " hold the cheese". Yo mamas so clumsy, you were born.
yo mama jokes

You didn't say how many to put, so I'll put 5: Yo' mama so fat, one day she jumped rope and the Earth shifted it's axis. Yo' mama's so stupid, she sleeps with a ruler by her side to find out how long she sleeps. Yo' mama's so fat, her shadow weighs 50 pounds. Yo' mama's so dumb, she stuck a phone up her a** and thought that she was making a booty call. Yo' mama's so nasty, she stuck a cucumber up her a** and pulled out a pickle. ;)
Should same sex marriage be legal

Civil union. They are still keeping same sex couples separate from opposite sex couples. They give them part of what they want but not all of it. It really makes me sad how we feel the need to make something new just so same sex couples won't be able to get married but we can still say "It's the same thing." This is a simple human right that all humans should be able to have, not just same sex couples. I do not know if I am interested in the same sex or the opposite sex. I would like to know that whatever i choose I will be able to marry my lover in the future. I do not know why anyone should have to settle for a civil union. I think it is so stupid how same sex couples are not allowed to be married. You are entitled to your opinion and your beliefs, but so are they. I am sometimes ashamed to be human. We fight against each other on little subjects like same sex marriage. Kids shouldn't grow up worrying about be attracted to the same sex. It would have been much easier to just let them get married, rather then allow them a civil union. I would love to live in a world were people are not treated differently because of the sex they are attracted to or there skin color or anything that doesn't concern who they are deep down inside. I have at times thought that I was attracted to the opposite sex, and then worried what other people think. It made me cry I had thought I would lose all my friends, that I would be persecuted, and my family would dis-own me. I had thought about suicide. Then I remembered that God loves all of his children and for some reason this is forgotten. I have no idea why this is still a problem. Just let them get married. I have felt like I would rather die than live in this world, for fear of bring treated differently. I hate how we can't just give them the basic rights they are entitled to. What happens in the bedroom is nobody's business. I want my little sisters, my little cousin, my friends, me, and everyone to be able to live in a world where we are all accepted and we can marry who we choose and not have to settle for a civil union.
Should same sex marriage be legal

Throughout history there has been a great amount of hatred towards religion based on their association with government. A key example here is France. The French clergy imposed their way of life upon the Frenchmen and did not have to pay taxes. They lived such a lavious lifestyle while many of their church goers were increasingly poor. The anger at the church caused the Revolutionary’s to defame Christianity and they even set up their own Pagen church. Today, with the popular opinion of the public swinging towards tolerance and even Pope Francis permitting this we must get religion out of the government completely. By doing this we must privitize marriage. How do we do that you may ask? It is as simple as from the government recognizing Civil Unions instead of marriage. That way the church may protect marriage and the government does not interfear with it.What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. [1] Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.The same sex over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriagenot closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)[2] Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. [3] Civil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. [4]Now we have officially eestablished that Civil Unions are more popular, effective, and more economically sound. Sources1. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)2. ( http://www.lambdalegal.org...) 3. ( http://www.people-press.org...) 4. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
Should same sex marriage be legal

Why shouldn't same sex marriage be legal in every state? Some of the states have already decided to legalize it. A piece of paper isn't isn't gonna solve it all but it's a good place to start. The states should just legalize it and move on. It really isn't that big a deal. There are hundreds of more important issues. It will just cause more problems the longer we delay it. I don't know why we would want our children to grow up in a world where people have freedom, but they really don't. Honestly me and my friends talk about this too, and nobody disagrees with same sex marriage. They feel the same way I do. We have always felt this way, we don't understand why it is such a big deal. Please explain to me why it is such a big deal. I do not understand why a women and women or a man and a man can't get married. I do not understand why they are treated differently and why they are persecuted. I don't understand why we do not have acceptance for them yet. It hurts my heart to know that we live in a world filled with so much hate that some would rather die than be who they are. I do not know why we would want to be the cause of that hate.
Word Battle !

Eugoogoolizer- One who speaks at funerals. Why it's humorous: Has anyone ever gone to a funeral and burst out laughing when they say the word "eugoogoolizer"? Maybe it's just me, but that's a hilarious word in such a circumstance. http://www.urbandictionary.com... Fact: The average person is either amused or deathly afraid (hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, a fear of long words) of "eugoogooolizer." Either way, I urge you to vote Con! http://phobialist.com...
Word Battle !

Epistemology- the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge [1] Many generations of philosophers to come should focus on Epistemology mainly because it focuses on why we think the way we do. This is crucial in taking steps towards a better world because the mindset one has influences all said actions. Therefore Epistemology is a very interesting word and you should vote for Epistemology as being the most interesting word in the round. Thanks to my opponent for a accepting the debate. I hope the word you pick is interesting :') Vote Pro ! http://en.wikipedia.org...
Knowledge is a farce

By definition you cant prove for 100% that unicorns don't exist somewhere. The scientific method is a methodology used to determine what is and is not true because unlike other mythology's it can make predictions and has a long history of making successful predictions. I would also argue that there some things that are demonstrably true, the Earth is not flat, gravity exists, we all experience time.So saying just because a malformed question that misplaces BoP has a possibility of being either right/wrong thereby it is just as credible as what we can test to be true or not true is absolutely absurd.
Unconditional love is a spiritual/philosophical ideal that humans cannot fully give or receive

For starters... What happened to round two? 1) You are incorrect about Jesus being the, quote "spiritual expression of God within a human vessel," and "he was not truly human." Since, we are arguing within the context of Catholic spiritual belief, as my argument was made in, you should consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It clearly states that, "The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it." C.C.C. 464. In this debate thus far, we have assumed all Catholic Teaching to be true. Since the above passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Catholic Teaching, it must be presumed to be true. 2) As for your other argument, quote, "In reality, many of the major religions have various "conditions" that are supposed to be met by true adherents. Within this framework, religions are conditional organizations, because of their practices and restrictions." The Catholic Church does not even have restrictions for being a part of it, much less for loving God. The Catholic Church especially does not presume to dictate who can and can't love God! Which defeats your argument that the Church has "conditions" for unconditional love. Also, there are no restrictions on who can be Catholic, even those Catholics who are excommunicated, contrary to popular belief are still members of the Catholic Church, they are just not entitled to the ordinary privileges of being a member of the faith community. The Catechism says the following on the matter, "Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them." C.C.C. 1463. Ergo, none of your alleged "conditions" have anything to do with unconditional love.
Unconditional love is a spiritual/philosophical ideal that humans cannot fully give or receive

"Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man. He is not 50/50, but 100/100. Ergo, since Jesus is true man, but also true God, humans CAN love one another unconditionally, because He did, and he was human, it is just a matter of finding the right human". Although this response is based on religious beliefs, I will respond briefly within the Christian belief framework. From the Christian spiritual or philosophical viewpoint, Jesus was supposed to be the spiritual expression of God within a human vessel. Within this religious context, he was not born as others "human," because he was perceived to be "born without sin" and not through the usual human manner of conception. From this specific religious viewpoint, he was not truly human, but a spiritual vessel sent by God to demonstrate God's unconditional love of humankind through his death. Within a Christian framework, Jesus would have been above the human condition and, therefore, not subject to the "flaws" of humankind, which includes the limitations of loving unconditionally. In reality, many of the major religions have various "conditions" that are supposed to be met by true adherents. Within this framework, religions are conditional organizations, because of their practices and restrictions.
Unconditional love is a spiritual/philosophical ideal that humans cannot fully give or receive

1) Humans, are incapable of loving one another unconditionally, however we are capable of loving God unconditionally. Anytime time God "disappoints" a human, that is simply ignorance, and/or a failure to even attempt to understand God's ultimate plan of sheer goodness. I am not stating that humans can understand God's Plan for our lives, however we can understand that God has a Plan, and that we are all part of that plan, and that everything God does is a part of that plan. 2) Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man. He is not 50/50, but 100/100. Ergo, since Jesus is true man, but also true God, humans CAN love one another unconditionally, because He did, and he was human, it is just a matter of finding the right human. With that, I am open for Cross-Examination.
The sky is not blue.

Hello, this is my introduction. And now, I would like to point out that this is a completely pointless argument because the sky is most definately blue. First of all though. I would like to set perameters for this debate and give defintions. The definiton for "is" shall be "perceived as". And "sky" will be defined as "What you see when you look up outside during the day excluding any possible foreign objects, I.E.: planes, birds, UFO's, Superman, Flying Pigs, etc.
The United Kingdom Should Leave the European Union

As the con forfeited the last round, I shall simply extend all of my responses from the previous round and proceed to my conclusionConclusionWithdrawal from the European Union would be disastrous for Britain and British people. Brexit would cost the British economy nearly a million jobs and leave even more British people out of work, and it would halt the creation of nearly 790,000 new jobs in Britain over the next ten years. These losses would be very harmful to British businesses and the British workers. And as Workers are the backbone of the economy, if workers are left on the streets without a job, the economy will grind to a halt. It would be even worse for workers given that withdrawal from the EU would mean an end to important worker protections like limits on weekly hours, paid maternity leave, equal pay for women workers, guaranteed breaks at work, anti-discrimination protections in hiring, health and safety protections and minimum amounts of annual paid holiday. These hard-won protections would all be lost if the UK were to leave the EU, and it is highly unlikely that the Conservative Party would re-establish these rights into British law. Furthermore, with all of the problems that are seen in Europe today, it is vital that reforms are made to make the EU more transparent and democratic. In order to help bring about these changes, however, the UK must remain in the EU, so that it will have the ability to impact the European Union and make the vital changes it so desperately needs. Because of this, I can see no reason as to why the United Kingdom Should leave the European Union.