BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should not ban the deah penalty

Counter Argument 1)"These reasons emphasize the importance of capital punishment for the betterment of human society." Imagine if the innocent person was convicted, and that person was you. Example: Stanley "Tookie" Williams. 2) My opponent has forfeited a round. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1)The Salem Witch Trial. Many women were executed because the people thought that they were "witches". Historical fact. 2)Archbishop of Washington, said "...the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing." 3)Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that "...there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent." 4)Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment." ______________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1)http://usliberals.about.com... 2)uspolitics.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/death_penalty_2.htm
We should not ban the deah penalty

Counter Attack 1)For his number 5 argument, about "would you kill?", yes, because if you were emo, you would do that. 2)For his number 1 argument, wrong. Example: Home invaders. They would definitely try to murder you or hold you on hostage. They aren't afraid. 3)For Counter argument 1, there are many ways to stop someone from doing a crime instead of executing them. Examples: living in the city dump with fences around the dump with little food so they won't die but it will teach them a lesson. 4)For counter argument 5, you can always pin the crime on someone else easily by using the other person's fingerprint on a clear piece of tape or ink. 5)For counter argument 4, you can always use the lie detector instead of killing them or even interrogate them. (Not the bad way) Defined- to examine by asking questions. You could put them in jail or in the city dump instead. 6)For counter argument 6, some people are atheists or polytheistic. There was this Christian I know that does not support the death penalty even though he prays to God every day. 7)For counter argument 3 about racism, this is false because in http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... , people with darker skin are truly more likely to be killed in Philadelphia and in the United States; therefore, my opponent's counter argument 3 is false. Arguments 1)"The government should not be deciding who is to live and who is to die. " ~ www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688 2)My opponent has stated a lot of "I"s, therefore, I will not answer those questions because they aren't true facts but they are his opinions. So, this cannot be used against me for any of the rounds. Sources 1)www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688 2)http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
We should not ban the deah penalty

Greetings debatefreak22, 1)He has stated: "Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections." Think of this: You are also killing someone. Isn't that a bad thing? 2)My opponent has an argument on his number three. So it's like: We're occupied, we have to kill you. That is unjustified. 3)The Death Penalty is unjustified and racist, because 50% of the white do not get killed if they commit a horrible crime, whereas if you were from a different race, they would kill you with a higher percentage. 4)The judge could also sentence someone to jail, even if the convicted person was innocent. The convicted person would not even have a lawyer because they were poor, so they would get hanged for no reason. 5)There were 23 deaths in the 20th Century that the victim was innocent. 6)As said in www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688, the death penalty is unjustified. 7) This is economically bad to the population. Sources: 1)www.middleschooldebate.com/documents/deathpenalty.pdf 2)www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688 I await my opponent's response. Good Luck!
We should not ban the deah penalty

[1] Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Capital punishment has been a way of punishing people since ages. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Capital punishment is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections. 1) The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense. 2) If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him capital punishment would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals. It seems to be an appropriate punishment for serial killers and for those who continue to commit crimes even after serving imprisonment 3) Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for the convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death. 4) Capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Some people strongly believe that a person who has taken the life of another person does not have a right to live. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice. 5)It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment. These reasons emphasize the importance of capital punishment for the betterment of human society. However, there is another section of people who believe that it is an immoral and unethical act of violence. [1] http://www.buzzle.com...
Carly Fiorina would make a better president than all other candidates.

Carly Fiorina is one of the most accomplished CEO's to date, being the first woman to become the CEO of a Fortune 20 company, she was extremely successful in her early life at AT&T as a management trainee. Quickly moving throughout the ranks to become one of AT&T's shining stars and person pushing AT&T into new standings. Carly spearheaded the effort to lead Lucient, AT&T's Western Electrics and Bell Labs division spin off, and achieved one of the highest IPO's IN US history, at $3 billion. Carly while at HP, brought the company into the 21st century with a charitable program called "Technology for Teaching", helping to bridge the technological gap in impoverished countries. She also streamlined the sales staff with increased standards on sales performance, as well as the overall product line consolidating several products to remove overlap. (1) Carly had a number of goals at HP, namely being strategic long-term outlook, cost-cutting and sales development. She met and exceeded these goals while at HP. (2) She has taken hard positions on key issues and has plans to back those positions. (3) She has plans to base our government spending on a zero base budget to find where our tax dollars are going and cut what is necessary or shrink the allocation based on demand. This will allow a number of bloated government departments to slim them down to a realistic sum. She opposes the Dodd-Frank Act recognizing that it supports large banks becoming larger and making the barrier of entry to the market higher. Carly has taken hard stances that may be unpopular to some however she was not bending her beliefs for a vote. This is what makes a person great and allows you to see there character. I do not see this open blatant honesty in any other candidate other than Bernie Sanders. The test of a political character is what they will not do for a vote. Sources 1. http://www.biography.com... 2. https://hbr.org... 3. https://ballotpedia.org...
Looking for a member of the Pacifist Party of America

The United States is drowning in debt, yet we continue to spend so much money on the military. The only reason we spend so much is because the military industrial complex bribes our politicians to continue spending so much money. We could use that money for so much more instead of building weapons thy we will never use or ever need. An invasion from who? That's just paranoia. Th United States will not be invaded by anyone. So why do we need to continue spending so much on a military that just collects dust?
Looking for a member of the Pacifist Party of America

Firstly, I'm not advocating for a ban on guns, including assault weapons. We don't need chemical or biological weapons and we will never use them, ever. So theirs no need for them to exist, all their doing is taking up space and time. Second, we spend more than the next 14 world powers on defense. 14, that incredible, more than Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea and all unfriendly countries and rivals. Why do we need to spend this much? Were trillion of dollars in debt, have millions of people in poverty and we're spend all this money to maintain a military that will never be used. Some paranoid people say that we need a strong military to counter Russia and China, but let's get real we're not going to get invaded by China. Secondly we have military bases all over the world. Thousand of troops still remain in Germany. Why do we need to keep spending all this money on troops in Germany? I thought conservatives and libertarians were supposed to be fiscally responsible. Terrorist are not going to destroy America. It's not going to happen, that's just paranoia. And the only reason terrorist hate us is because of our pro war policies in the first place. If we weren't getting involved in the Middle East so much maybe people wouldn't be do inclined to hate us. And why do we need nuclear weapons anyway? Why do some countries need to process weapons That can destroy the world? And I'm advocating for universal disarmament. That includes all other superpowers. http://t.ritholtz.com... http://www.cfr.org...
Looking for a member of the Pacifist Party of America

While I don't nukes, in my mind as long as the other guys have them, we need them. Besides on universal disarmament, as long as one still exists anywhere, America needs one. On the border fence, I think it's not needed, but we need to cut all these welfare programs that bring all these illegals here. In case you were wondering, to reduce cartel activity, legalize weed and allow for more 2nd Amendment rights down there by the border. You mentioned disarmament. Does that include citizens? (Because that's usually what I think when I hear that.) If so, I don't think that would work. Lastly, military spending... in this day and age where terrorists seem to destroy everything we hold dear, it's just plain crazy to try to reduce the military. Awaiting your responses, HoneyBadger
Looking for a member of the Pacifist Party of America

Hello, thank you for starting this debate. Im not a member of the pacifist party but i have a very similar ideology. lets try to be civilized and good luck. I am going to be taking the stance that the United States and every country in the world should undergo unilateral disarmament. Most importantly eradication of all chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. A huge reduction in military spending and size. Also, a removal of the border fence and an end to the war on drugs. I hope its ok but i don't want to argue over gun rights and the second amendment because i am a libertarian on this issue and i think that enforcing a ban on guns is contradictory to pacifist principles. You start, good luck
Looking for a member of the Pacifist Party of America

Now, I'm calling out any member of the Pacifist Party of America to explain what they believe. Before I go any further, I am a hardcore conservative Libertarian creationist capitalist, so that's the view I'm coming from. So, without further ado, let's get this show on the road. From what I've heard about the PPA, they want to abolish chemical, atomic, and nuclear weapons, get rid of the military funding, do away with immigration laws, opposes the 2nd Amendment, and wishes to end discrimination" by muscling through an amendment to the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong. I will be awaiting an answer.
I have a worse case of gonorrhea than you

my gonorrhea's so bad that when b!tches ride me they feel like they in florida, cause i got motha fukin palm trees growin from my d!ck. when i cum it fu*kin rains coconut milk and dat sh!ts sweet. I find wildlife in my rainforest all da d@mn time. i mean it's like im a biology project that raised a bacterial colony on my own d!ck
Round #6

"That is obviously new math"That's 1st grade math of 3 multiply of 2. It might be new for you because you are too old, but not that new for us students. My opponent says that it is completely false, but what he says is false, as it shows "This round has not been posted yet" 6 times in this debate. There can also be 4 rounds, 2 rounds, 6 rounds, 8 rounds, and 10 rounds. So, I am correct that there is a round 6. You yourself conceded in the first round, saying that there are 6 rounds, and you lose because you said that there was a round 6, and you lose against it. And, you called me bacon, which is bad conduct.
Bible has Flaws

Ive answering his questions, and using clear points and reasoning, and even basic logic to some of his questions. Most of my early rounds were of 8,000 letters all based around answering his questions. Take for example his question about God isnt able to forgive Jesus. I replied "Jesus is a sacrifice, not a murder victim. Jesus did not sin, so why would God need to forgive him?" It seems Aceviper2011 has questions which he does not want answered, and points to make about 'bible' which he'll change into any god whatsoever so he can officially try and win a debate. If this is about winning a debate, they I suggest you made more accounts, debate yourself, and vote for yourself. This debate started with questions, points, replies. But after Round 4 which you said would be "very hard for me to answer", due to you confidence in your questions and points. I replied to every-single-point, using easy to understand logic and reasoning. You couldn't find any fault in my replies, so you decided to change you 'approach.' This is childish behavior. At the very least, show in your replies your cross checks to -all- of my answers, A,B,C,D,E,1,2 and several comments you made. --- For readers and Aceviper2011, this is the sole reason i didnt want to debate Aceviper2011 a second time. His attitude changes, and his 'approach' suddenly changes whenever he cannot answer questions. In my last debate he spent his -entire- debate yelling at me that I dont even understand my own debate. And here, he even placed the ground rules for his own debate, and now says I dont understand it, and that he changes it at round 5? I feel you have alot to learn about debating topics other people give you, as well as understanding any topic you come across. This isnt a personally attack, and ive never resorted to calling anyone such things as you have. Insulting someone to prove your point is correct means nothing. I think if you look back at my questions and actually want to understand your claims the bible is flawed compared to my -very- easy ability to reply to everyone of your essays, you may understand how lacking your argument really is. Lastly- Aceviper2011, if you hate the bible and people who believe in it, then simply say so. Dont make up ideas that it's flawed, only to have someone prove you 'idea' has no actual facts. People in the western world would learn alot of they dug into other religions historical findings, and compared that to the bible - because people of the west hold gold, yet claim it's dirt because of foolish reasons made by haters of the bible with little facts. If your goal here is to win a debate, then i suggest making another account and voting for yourself is a good idea. If your goal was to learn something, then i suggest you should study what ive said, or if you just wanted to yell at someone again, then im glad i could be of assistance. Albert.
Bible has Flaws

I accept. Since I stand on Con, and i already believe the Bible has no flaws, i have no material to present...unless people want me to list endless teachings on which prove there are no flaws. I think people and my opponent may find this a waste. I think Aceviper2011 has alot of interesting topics to bring up, which i can respond to. *One thing, is it ok if we use a number or something to indicate what we're talking about? I know that we refer to topics frequently, and sometimes we talk about the topic with different additions, so i hope i can keep it clear for others to see and understand what we're talking about without getting lost.
Bible has Flaws

Since I am pro i will have to show evidence and proof of flaws the bible does have, this debate will be diverse meaning anything goes, any source can be used upon with debators explanations, also predictions, and end of world, also wrong and right can be used to prove points and arguements also. LIke i said this debate is diverse can be about anything as long as both opponents can prove there arguements if the bible is flaw or not flaw. Con position is the same thing, he can use science, and the bible as he please any website, source anything he needs to prove the bible has NO flaws. I used my first round to explain the rules and guidlines as everyone can see there simple. both opponents just have to prove and argue with no restrictions if the bible is flaw or not flaw.
Feminism

Since my opponent failed to post an argument, I will assume he/she means feminism in America. I consider myself a feminist because... 1. Women are horribly objectified and demeaned in high school especially. If you look at any study done on the topic, you will find that as a girl gets older, she devalues herself more and more. Why you may ask? Well, look at the title of this point and you'll know why. I consider myself a feminist because if girls are given the support that they need emotionally and mentally, they hopefully would see themselves as people, equal in every sense, human. Without people willing to defend women against things such as sexual harassment and objectification, we couldn't call ourselves evolved as a species. I do want to clarify that I'm not a feminazi. I don't protest because a woman didn't get enough screen time, no, that's not me at all. I am in it because as human beings it is our responsibility to help our fellow humans and by calling myself a feminist I can effectively identify with people as someone who will not be a sexist jerk. vote me
Agnosticism over Atheism.

"As you stated, agnosticism believes religious and metaphysical claims are unknowable. And atheists don't necessarily hold that to be true. Meaning that atheists believe that wether or not religious claims are correct might be knowable. The reason agnosticism is more rational is because it is completely irrational to say that religious claims are knowable. We understand god to be a being/presence that, among other things, is able to defy scientific laws. Since the only way we humans know of proving or disproving theories is scientifically, and god defies science, we cannot prove wether or not god exists." The Scientific method is not the only way that humans can try and understand the world around them. A scientific argument is empirical in its nature, but we can still try to understand the world around us using deductive and inductive reasoning. There are various non-scientific arguments against the existence of god, they include: the problem of hell, the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, and many others http://en.wikipedia.org... If god were not acting upon the physical realm then it is true that god would not be able to be empirically tested for, but that in and of itself poses a problem; agnostics would then only be able to state that only god we would be unable to know about would be an immaterial, and incredibly deistic god. The likelihood of his or her existence would be on par with that on an immaterial and invisible wookie that does not exist in the physical realm. How is it less rational to reject the belief in either of these things than to just remain indifferent towards as self identified agnostics would?