BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
why should teachers be armed

Guns are dangerous and immature students will want to play with the gun because they think its cool so they might end up injuring themselves. Having teachers armed shows that violence and weaponary is okay and it sets a bad example for kids and kids can get scared and lose trust in their teachers if they have guns with them all the time. And if teachers prefer not to carry it around with them because kids are scared of them and they put it in something like a safe, if a bad guy goes into the classroom, the teacher cant just be like "Oh wait a second, let me get my gun out of the safe to shoot you first." Teachers are only supposed to educate, not go through training to get rid of bad guys. It's expensive for the training teachers will need to handle guns. Instead, schools should have a better security system or have special trained people to roam around the school to protect the students.
why should teachers be armed

Debating isnt about whether you think your right or not. Its what the audience thinks. And you shouldn't say the same thing over and over again (circular reasoning) , like about the school shooting, since i already told you that if the school had better security then the students and teacher wouldn't have died. What has happened is in the past so you cant change it anymore. Instead you should think about how you should improve in the future. You can do that by not arming teachers, but hiring special trained people ( like cops or gaurds) to protect the kids just in case. We can use the money on the guns for teacher to use on hiring gaurd- like people for school. And if a bad guy knows that a school has protection, then they will be less likely to attack it.
The Death Penalty

Declarations say NO! "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.E., cannot be sold, transferred, or removed)." -Wikipedia As stated by Wikipedia natural rights are universal to all human beings despite culture, customs or beliefs. The crime of capital punishment, is that it violates several articles of the declaration of universal human rights. First it ignores Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." By denying the defendent the right to life. Next it violates Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Clearly capital punishment is Inhuman and by subjecting a person to forcible death, the cruelty is blatantly apparent. In conclusion capital punishment should not be justified . It is not only invalidated in the declaration of universal human rights but our own declaration as well. The discrimination of criminals is evident when capital punishment is used.
The Death Penalty

Well then answer these questions Q: Doesn't the Death Penalty deter crime especially murder? Q: Don't murderers deserve to die? Q: If execution is unacceptable, what is the alternative?Q: Have strict procedures eliminated arbitrariness and discrimination in death sentencing? Q: Maybe it used to happen that innocent people were mistakenly executed, but hasn't that possibility been eliminated? Q: "Cruel and unusual punishment" -- those are strong words, but aren't executions relatively swift and painless?
The Death Penalty

'An Eye for an Eye' mentality has never convinced me. I, personally, see no logic in killing someone for killing someone else. In no way am I trying to excuse formidable crimes such as Rape and Murder, but a lot of these people, do indeed have mental health issues and putting them in a mental asylum is the way forward; depending on the case, obviously. Also, there is no reason to suggest that because someone who has raped someone at the age of 18 or 19 cannot go on to have a normal life. They can acknowledge what they've done, but obviously, that comes down to the person. Then there is the whole issue of if they actually did it or not. Plus, I happen to agree the majority would rather face the quick way out rather than 'rot in jail' - I certainly would!
The Death Penalty

I belive in the death penalty for many reasons but here are the big ones for me: 1. Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole. Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life. 2. It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it has affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes. 3. The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase. As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty. Green Garage 4. It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions. 5. Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate.
Decrinminalizing (Not Legalize) All Drugs (controlled substances)

Unfortunately Pro has failed to understand my position and his responsibility in this debate. He writes, "The topic at hand was to be the discussion of whether or not to Decriminalize All Drugs, not to Legalize." He's correct. His burden was to prove that drugs should be decriminalized. My burden was to argue against decriminalization and in favor of something else. I chose to argue against decriminalization and in favor of legalization... which, as Pro and I have both pointed out, are 2 different things. Pro mistakenly says, "My opponent on the other hand failed to submit a con based argument... that actually relates to the subject of this debate and of the argument that I made." That is completely false. As I've already explained, Pro's burden in this debate was to prove that drugs should be decriminalized. I had to argue against that, and I did. I do not favor decriminalization over drugs but rather the legalization of drugs. Once again, Pro agrees and even explains that the two are different things. I have fulfilled my burden and Pro failed to address any of my claims (only went on a tangent about how I failed to perform when in fact he is the one who is confused). As I have explained in the previous rounds, I favor legalization over decriminalization (hence me negating the resolution and arguing against it as Con). I pointed out how the benefits of decriminalization all apply to legalization, and also added additional benefits of legalization over decriminalization. Furthermore, I gave an entire other argument which my opponent has not one addressed. I mention in all previous rounds (to remind my opponent who seemed to have missed it and/or just blatantly ignored it) that there are lots of reasons why perhaps not all drugs should be legalized OR decriminalized. In both situations, I argued against decriminalization. Therefore I have completely fulfilled my burden and Pro has not once addressed my contentions. Thanks again for this debate, and I hope upon reading this round's clarification you understand where I was coming from, Pro. Good luck.
Decrinminalizing (Not Legalize) All Drugs (controlled substances)

Topic: Decriminalizing (Not Legalize) All Drugs (controlled substances) Websters Dictionary Definitions: Pro adverb 1. in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc. noun 2. a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate. 3. an argument, consideration, vote, etc., for something. Con adverb 1. against a proposition, opinion, etc.: arguments pro and con. noun 2. the argument, position, arguer, or voter against something. The topic at hand was to be the discussion of whether or not to Decriminalize All Drgus, not to Legalize. To legalize drugs would be, by definition, to make legal; authorize. Decriminalize, by definition is, to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against. The basis of my entire argument was that by doing so we would save money, get rid of crime, etc. My opponent on the other hand failed to submit a con based argument (definition above for what con means by definition, not what my opponent may have thought it meant for this debate) that actually relates to the subject of this debate and of the argument that I made. In fact my opponent debated the legalization of all drugs rather than why all drugs SHOULD NOT be decriminalized, that would be the role of the con arguer, my opponent failed to do this. My opponent if anything gave a pro argument that could have be taken into consideration by me to use to simply make the argument to decriminalize marijuana for the medical purpose along with the several other reasons I have listed. I do not feel the need to even repeat my argument once again due to the fact that I have actually argued this debate correctly and have given a true pro while you have given a slightly off topic pro argument instead of a con argument that disagrees why all drugs should be illegal or possibly another way to save money or alternate punishment for drug dealers. But once again I hope that my opponent can actually submit an actual con argument and until then hope that the readers see that my points are not only a strong argument that supports the pro, but is a pro argument. If my opponent can not come up with a concrete con argument in the final round I hope the readers see my points and vote affirmative.
Decrinminalizing (Not Legalize) All Drugs (controlled substances)

Thanks, Pro, for the response. In the last round, Pro repeated several of his R1 arguments: Decriminalizing drugs would... 1. Release prisoners on minor drug charges, saving citizens a whole bunch of money 2. Reduce the cost of drugs, making citizens safer 3. Encourage Social Darwinism (let the druggies die off) He has also said, "Now I cant really argue medical marijuana due to the fact that I intended this debate to be about decriminalizing drugs so that the petty drug dealers and abusers do not cost our country the billions of dollars to keep them locked up." I understand that he didn't take medical marijuana into consideration when starting this debate, but still it's an argument in my favor. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Pro has simply repeated the same goals. As I've proven in the last round, legalizing drugs accomplishes those same exact goals as decriminalization. Therefore, Pro has given us no incentive to decriminalize drugs. On the other hand, I offered a handful of reasons to completely legalize drugs. So, I've given people an incentive to legalize drugs over just decriminalizing them (because legalizing them accomplishes all of Pro's goals and more). Therefore you have no reason to vote affirmatively. Moreover, Pro did not even begin to touch upon my argument that certain drugs like heroin, crack and meth need not be decriminalized. I offered an argument in R1 explaining why these types of drugs can and should be illegal, ie. the cost of health care for those who get sick from these drugs and their effects on society (causing people to become delusional, violent, etc.). Again, Pro did not combat any of these points. I'll send this debate back over to him for the final round during which time he can hopefully refute my R1 contentions. Good luck!
Decrinminalizing (Not Legalize) All Drugs (controlled substances)

First of all, thank you theLwerd for taking the con side of this argument. Looking at your profile and record, win or lose i'm very happy to debate with someone that seems to know a little bit about presenting a good argument.... So here i go haha decriminalize: to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against As I said before "decriminalize" drugs so that not only save money from the war on drugs but also to release prisoners in over populated prisons that cost roughly $35,000 a year when you could simply buy them all heroine, coke, etc that they want and there is no need to mug you or I in order to get there fix. To buy a crack addict $2,000 of now decriminalized and far cheaper crack you are not only saving countless tax dollars over years of time just for that one person. Now I think we can all agree that over a limited time if you or I were to take drugs like heroine, crack cocaine, meth, or anything for that matter we will die rather quickly. As you put it perfectly Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, the strong live while the weak perish, the tax paying law abiding citizen lives while the blight of society, the addict dies slowly and cheaply. Cruel? You or I didnt help him put the needle into his veins, he has done it to himself and has saved us all far more money. Now I cant really argue medical marijuana due to the fact that I intended this debate to be about decriminalizing drugs so that the petty drug dealers and abusers do not cost our country the billions of dollars to keep them locked up, in some cases far longer than murders, sexual predators, and the worst of the worst that receive parole far faster due to the flawed punishment system. My argument is to simply save our country money by keeping the real criminals behind bars and the addicts either in a pine box, or somewhere other than a prison where he or she will costs us tens of thousands of dollars per year.
That there is more that unites us than divides us

Second round - Initial arguments. Third round - Refutation. Definition (simplistic) That in society today, there are more factors that stimulate unity rather than division. Allocation (for second round) 1. Accepting Diversity and Rejecting Discrimination. 2. The Death of the Stereotype. 3. Leaders and Conformity Good luck to whoever accepts challenge, looking forward to debating this topic.
That there is more that unites us than divides us

I now wish to outline certain points my opponent has made before producing my argument. My opponent has stated "In the past, society was rejecting of diversity and conformity reigned, however today we have a different set of values" however it cannot be spoken for all majority's. Values are a intricate belief systems which include morals. There are different beliefs in different society's, a persons value may vary between cultures and therefore produce a distance or dislike between culture clashes. It can be somewhat different to offer acceptance and friendship to someone who strongly values something one may dislike. This brings me to the point of "confrontation" a state of conflict between two antagonistic forces, creeds, or ideas etc. Confrontation is a everyday part of life displayed between forces, personal and government relations. My opponent has also stated "structured social classes and statuses are now extinct in society" this statement is on false pretence, structured social classes are necessary and applied even in the government. If we gave all power to the lower socioeconomic we would be in crisis. We are divided into tax codes, entitlements and judged constantly by the educational decisions we make (this is demonstrated in income). If there was no social class, oppression would not exist but their are various oppressed and marginalized people in society. Given the facts I also believe legislation is creating division in society due to the fact it is designed to create more futuristic problems such as freedom empowerment, this enables childcare owners to offer more freedom and no discipline and with a evolving world whereas it is common for women to work and be independent they are dedicating their children to childcare facilities. This is offering generations to be offered no discipline and therefore disempowering educators and putting the power into children's hands whom are not able to shape or offer themselves reasonable formity. Creating generation Y. Generation Y has value system complications such as less respect for others. Evolving technology is also creating barriers between people, with more and more cars being driven on roads, road rage occurs. With new televisions being produced lower socialization occurs, money is believed to be needed and people become more self involved as prices rise. Society becomes somewhat divided between dedication in achieving "the latest" rather than the consideration of others. We also have television expectations on what we are expected to be such as skinny models or somewhat famous or popular, this then becomes our drive rather than self worth. Contention 1: Legislation and government justification is encouraging social class division. Contention 2: Generation Y is now existent and creating education and disciplinary complications. repercussions include generations with low respect and positive input. Contention 3: Evolving technology is producing self involved people and shaping or value system for the worst.
That there is more that unites us than divides us

Definition accepted, but (obviously) I am arguing the opposite... 1. Accepting diversity and rejecting discrimination. Society has progressed from the hateful chaos that was discrimination. Yes discrimination is still existent, however not to the degree or size that it was before. Our world has realised that differences are a part of life, and that they shape our character, culture and personal identity. In the past, society was rejecting of diversity and conformity reigned, however today we have a different set of values, we realise that discrimination is not acceptable and differences are. For example, could you imagine, even as recent as 50 years ago, the uproar if someone was to suggest that gay marriage should be legalised. Being just a little bit different was frowned upon, but we can see today, with the openness of gays, that that is a false allegation about reality. The reality is that we have moved on, society has progressed to be accepting of other cultures, religions, appearances, races, sexualities, and even gender. Conforming to a social expectation...I think not. Trends exist, but we no longer conform. The point I am trying to make is that unity has become the social norm, and in a society that is so accepting it is easy to be united rather than divided, because structured social classes and statuses are now extinct in society. I'm really sorry but I have some assignments due tomorrow that I have to work on today and tomorrow. Would i be acceptable for me to continue my last two points in the refutation round, as i will not have time today or tomorrow. (It would be acceptable for you to do half your case in the refutation round as well).
Anthropogenic climate change.

What a disappointing debate. The instigator did not provide one thoughtful argument that mankind is causing climate change, only a source that sates 97% of government funded scientists want more funding to study the issue of CO2 causing climate change. Since, scientists just don't know what the cause it requires more study. Yet, alarmist activists want every human on the planet to reduce their living standards based on possible impacts. While, the respondent to this debate provided a simple common sense discussion about the small amounts of CO2 mankind produces compared with nature. Man's less than 4% annual contributions to CO2 emissions would be considered a measurement error in a science lab. If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4% difference between results it would be considered a success. Yet, alarmists are using this tiny amount as the basis of their argument. In any other context this would be laughed at. Most people that live in cities look around only noticing the tiny part of the planet that men have modified for their comfort. With mankind's continued fight against nature, it would take back the urban areas very quickly. Nature is a robust and complex system. The planet Earth has taken a beating in the past and will in the future. Life will survive, as well as mankind. For a person to state that nature can not handle a 4% increase of CO2 in a complex system is simply naive. The instigators responses were at best weak. The accusation of a cherry picking fallacy is fallacious at best. The total CO2 emissions were included to demonstrate the extremely small amount that mankind was responsible for. Thus, bring in nature's capacity to absorb large amounts of CO2 was not necessary. A 4% error in nature's absorbing capacity and all of mankind's CO2 has be removed from the system. Looking at the IPCC's numbers nature absorbs more than it produces. Using the alarmist's logic, if mankind was not producing excess CO2 the earth would be on the verge of global cooling. There is very few alarmist out there that would be calling for mankind to increase CO2 emissions in this case. Anthropogenic climate change on Venus is a tough sell but I'm sure welfare scientists have requests for funding in at this time. Mankind does not understand planet Earth, and have a geographic advantage. Any attempt at understand Venus' climate is a pretense of knowledge. It could be there is a lot of CO2 due to heat, instead of the opposite. In total, the con side of this debate has provided the best arguments against anthropogenic climate change, by simply pointing out the small amounts of CO2 emitted by mankind