BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rapist should be given death penalty

1. The Death Sentence is not "Just" - Under any CircumstanceA "Just Act" usually means that it is an equanimable act. On its face, "death" is not nearly as punitive as rape may warrant. On the other hand, rape is not as final as death - which precludes the possibility of any life.Consider: What if the person didn't actually die? What if the offender just thinks they died, but the offender lives? 2. A Death Sentence for Two?True Justice also brings life. And, death is not sufficient to bring life.There are many possible paths for this life to happen. And if one of those paths is to ensure that the offender lives - then that possibilty for life is impossible following a death sentence.What can bring life is to know that it will never happen again, that the offender has had a profound change of heart - incapable of doing it again, deeply remorseful.Constraining Justice to "Equity" is an archaic, devolved, concept.3. The Spirituality of "Death"Perhaps religion argues that when you die - you will immediately face punishiment, even torture for your crimes.Is it possible to weigh some "Incomprehensible Death" with any other crime, (those we can actually comprehend)?And does such an incomprehensible punishment necessarily relieve pain we feel presently?4. A Just Resolution:Our society seems "stuck" trying to force victims to believe, - "It will be over, when they are dead." We lure them into a false belief, and tell them "their death will be meaningful".But - can't their life be more meaninful?We already know that traumatic experience isn't necessarily "resolved" from that death.But, what IS just is for life, vitality, and wholeness, to be restored to the victim. No amount of death can ever do this - not any more than someone can quench thirst, with an empty glass.
Rapist should be given death penalty

In Conclusion, I would like to Add ...My Opponent Said:"4. What if your daughter for example is a rape victim. what is "just" punishment for the rapist?? What is just for you? I am convinced that you could say could " DEATH SENTENCE"."1. Arguing for the Death Penalty is Understandable:While I was reading and responding to that question my opponent wrote - ... Someone very close to me just looked at me, in shock, wondering how I would react. I could not have possibly anticipated this question. I was literally shaking.To be clear - I absolutely agree with my opponent in this way: a Parent's heart about these issues can never - no - they must never - be invalidated.They have every right to feel that way, to feel - and to know - that imputing the Death Sentence would be just, and would fall within "Equanimity".But even if the Death Penalty is Just, even Reasonable: it is not necessarily true that the Death Penalty is "moral", nor even a wise and fair action - which also advances life.2. But, a Cycle of Death Cannot Restore a Broken Life:Many of us are first-hand witnesses of how anyone could be decimated in circumstances like these. And in the context of traumatic experience: we also know that "Death" can be incredibly toxic - and usually never affects just one person.Because of all of these reasons - the Death Penalty should be beyond consideration - especially when hoping to restore the heart of someone desperate to find life again.
The G-7 Should Fund a 400 Billion$ Proposal to End World Hunger

Responses to your arguments For your fist point I will say that yes there are starving people in every country and In my proposal the food would go to every starving person. Not just the ones in certain country's. There may be a population increases but this can be counteracted with what you just said, distributing birth control. This could be done along with giving food. Not just one or the other. For you list of question's 1. The community would be given the farming education by hired experts that have much crop growing experience 2. Locals who are educate by the experts 3. Send a few people to about every 5th village or so and the people in that village can distribute crops to the nearest 5 villages. 4. By a team of experts to decide which plants are the best for different climates. Also a lot of plants like squash, gourds, hot pepper's, watermelon, green beans, rosemary, basil, pomegranate, Malabar spinach, and Nopales grow well in hot and very dry desert like climates. 5. There would be everything done possible to prevent crop failure using modern farming technology 6. Only for a few month's as plant's give off a lot more seed's then are needed to grow them Figuring out the details of this would probably cost quite a bit of money but it would be extremely small in comparison to the total cost I do realize that doing all of this is very expensive and requite much effort but in the long run it will do incredible good and will allow 3rd world countries to finally get a foothold on the global scale. I agree with you a lot on your proposal as 3rd world countries do have many other problems but if we give them something to start with. After that they can go on by themselves with relying on other countries. We can do all of the things you talk about like giving country like these proper birth control and help rebuilding there infrastructure. All of these thing can happen while also solving world hunger and we don't need to just chose one of these things to solve.
The G-7 Should Fund a 400 Billion$ Proposal to End World Hunger

My side of the argument may be the darker side, but it is more realistic and practical. Pro's solution is one that is utopian in nature, and if history is any indicator, then it simply won't work. I'll go into some reasons why. To begin, this idea would necessitate a tax increase in countries that already have homeless and starving people within their own borders. None of this extra tax money would help the needy citizens of their own country, despite the extra money coming out of people's pockets. Sending food to starving communities may seem like an obvious solution, but it really adds to the problem. Feeding them will only cause a population increase, leading to more people that have to be taken care of by us (those 7 countries). A more reasonable and long-term idea would be to distribute birth control to the area in order to make sure pregnancies only occur in situations where a child is wanted and could be cared for. This would be much cheaper and would help the problem instead of adding to it. In addition, this idea raises many questions. How are we going to teach isolated communities how to farm these crops? Who will plant the crops? Are we going to send multiple people to each little village? How do we choose crops that are good for the climate? What happens if crops fail? How long will we keep sending them seed to plant? All of this and more would need to be figured out by the government(s), who would most likely have to hire more people, adding to the expense. Overall, in a realistic examination of the plan, the food sent would increase population, and the crops set up in these African villages would take a lot of time, resources, and effort, which is expensive for crops that could fail with inexperienced farmers. I propose a different solution. I mentioned birth control earlier, and it would also be beneficial for volunteers to go over and provide knowledge and manpower required to build up infrastructure in the villages. The societies need to be elevated from within instead of being pulled up by the world powers, for if they are pulled up, then they will continue to rely on others. We need to look past this band-aid solution to a much deeper problem.
The G-7 Should Fund a 400 Billion$ Proposal to End World Hunger

According to the United Nations about 21 000 people die from starvation or hunger related causes every day. Most of these deaths take place in Sub-Saharan Africa, The Middle east, and Oceania. The united nations has estimated that it would cost about 30 billion U.S dollars to feed every starving person on earth for 1 year. As for my 400 billion dollar proposal about 1/3 of that money would go to feeding starving people around the world for the next 3-4 years or so and the rest would go towards building sustainable agriculture in famished areas in that 3-4 year period. The USA would pay for about 1/2 of it, japan for about a 1/5 of it, and the rest of it would be paid for by Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy combined. Though 400$ may sound like quite a lot, in reality this is only about 1.5% in extra taxes per person living in these country's. Finally it is our responsibility as humans to help those who are starving and for the reasons above this is not very expensive. Comparatively the Iraq war, a war that should not have started in the first place costed 1.7 trillion dollars, over 4 times more than the proposal that is was just talking about.
Can Kuwait be considered the only "working" Arab Democracy in the Middle East

I thank my oppenent for conducting this debate. My effort for this debate is to clarify what Kuwait logically is, and why the government that Kuwait possesses is more beneficial. I offer the following terms: Considered-think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic is a form of government or country in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. The burden for pro is to manifest evidence that vindicates Kuwait's people are deciding upon issues through town halls or ballot initiatives. Kuwait should be classified as a republic, because repesentatives are the ones who wield power. Works Cited: http://www.bing.com... http://www.thisnation.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Can Kuwait be considered the only "working" Arab Democracy in the Middle East

Kuwait has been a very progressive society even before 1961. People of all walks of life, be it foreign or local, came to Kuwait and called it home. When Kuwait declared independence in 1961, Emir Abdullah Al Salim Al Sabah helped drafted constitution that served as a starting point for Democracy in Kuwait, and certainly in the Arab World. I suggest you look in the Kuwaiti Constitution, in Article 6: Article 6 Kuwait's system of government is democratic; sovereignty is vested in the Nation as the source of all authority; and the exercise of that sovereignty shall be as set out in this Constitution. This article GUARANTEES the democratic nature of the state. Also note in Article 7 of the constitution: Article 7 Justice, freedom and equality are the pillars of society; and cooperation and compassion are the firm link binding all citizens. This further guarantees the right of Freedom to all Kuwaiti citizens. Kuwait is a prime example of a working progressive democracy in the Arab Middle East.
eagles should be forced to wear shoes

Meh. I'll probably forfeit the last round. Maybe not. This debate is too exciting! Definition: Eagles - A soaring bird [1]. You'll notice that none of the other definitions for eagle apply; the rest have to do with coins, seals, etc. -- none of which can be forced to do anything. So I assume this ridiculous resolution is aimed at the only definition of eagles which applies, and that is the bird. Note that "eagles" cannot reference a player on a sports team called The Eagles or else that would have had to be specified either in the resolution or in R1 by Pro in order to not be considered abusive. Arguments: (1) At present, there are no shoes that currently fit eagles properly therefore you might not even be able to force them to wear shoes if you wanted to. (2) Pro hasn't explained why eagles should be forced to wear shoes, and of course he cannot offer any "legitimate" arguments in the last round that can be counted, since doing so in R3 is considered bad conduct and prohibited by debating standards. Therefore, none of what he says in R3 will matter anyway and he won't even have the opportunity to try and pretend to respond to this spam debate which I doubt he is literate or intelligent enough to do anyway. (3) Forcing eagles to wear shoes provides no immediate or long-term benefit to either humans, eagles or anybody else. (4) The use of force imposes upon rights; not everybody believes that animals - including eagles - don't have rights and Pro hasn't proven that they haven't. I s'pose I'll leave it at that for now... And with no affirmative arguments to be counted, the resolution has just been successfully negated. Conclusion: My opponent is a troll who presumably has no life and no friends outside of teh internetz, so he created this spam debate for attention because he's too insecure to see a psychiatrist or school counselor about his problem (if he even acknowledges that he has a problem). He may even be a college student, which in turn makes him more pathetic (Askbob - is that you?). Nevertheless, he obviously had no intention of arguing in a debate-like fashion leading one to presume that he took this debate for lulz @ whoever accepted this debate and tried to argue it legitimately as I have just done. In reality, I have nothing better to be doing at the moment (my girlfriend is cooking me breakfast and I'm killing time before we eat) so responding senselessly to this is really not a bother. I type fast anyway. In the end, I don't really care if Pro is lulzing away at me so lulz right back. I win. I win this debate, and I win at life. Ciao! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
sex offenders

Con presented no arguments so I shall provide my own:Sex [1] Offenders should recieve a second chance because...A) Everybody deserves a second chanceB) Sex offenders can always be forgiven if they prove that they will not have sex againC) Sex offenders should be punished according to their crimesD) After being punished, the sex offender should be set freeE) Sex offenders can always be forgivenF) Sex offenders should be punished, but it is inhumane to punish somebody for life.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

All of your points are invalid and are based off of feelings and opinion. There is no evidence of any of this other than so called "witnesses" where anyone now days can go around claiming rape. Most rape case allegations are credible because they are real. Patrick Kane (a hockey player) was dropped of rape charges because, well simply, there was no rape. This comes with being famous and people will do anything to gain more publicity, so until I see actual evidence he is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

The new child rape allegations against Donald Trump are credible. First and foremost the plaintiff has an witness. [0] Donald Trump has been accused by his ex-wife, Ivana of raping her. Jill Harth accused Trump of sexual assault. Selina Scott accused Trump of stalking her.Top this off with Trump being an overt misogynist. Since misogyny and sexual assault are linked, Trump is at more likely to commit sexual assault. [1]"“The first reason, and this is one of the implications, is that sexual objectification really involves reducing someone to their appearance or sexual body parts. So that reduction? That can be problem,” Gervais said. “It sets the stage for things like dehumanization and enacting violence for example, sexual violence toward women. Dehumanization and objectification also lead to even graver things like genocide. "[2]"Transcript of How objectification leads to violence towards women" [3][4]Finally, most rape case allegations are credible. " 5.9 percent of cases were provably false." [5]" That leaves 35.3 percent of cases that led to formal charges or discipline against the accused." [5] I think the allegations are credible and there is good chance, about 30-40% Trump committed the deed. Of everything here, the 35.3% conviction rate of rapes is what convinces me. That means, there is a good chance Trump not only commited the deed, but the allegations are credible. Thanks for the debate. Sources0. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...1. http://www.vice.com...2. http://www.kvnonews.com...3. https://prezi.com...4. http://plato.stanford.edu...5. http://www.nationalreview.com...
Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

Since this is the last round, I will not post replies since my opponent cannot respond. My likely rebuttals can be guessed from previous replies, and in some cases I have gone over this material already. In the first round, I claimed there is reasonable doubt on Jesus' historical existence. If you agree with this after our debate is concluded, vote Con. Otherwise, vote for my worthy opponent. "I thank Con for participating in this informative debate." Thank you as well. It has been not only informative but quite enjoyable.
Is Tracer (Overwatch) a good hero

Alright. Thank you for making this debate. As you said it yourself, Tracer has really low health and her guns are weak. Her recall ability has a 12 second cool-down. It rewinds her health to what it has been 3 seconds before and the process takes 1.5 seconds. A sniper like Widow-maker or someone who can teleport like Reaper can take her down as "Recall" doesn't fully recover her. Her blink ability is like Reaper's "Shadow step". Only thing is, it cannot blink up. That is something that enemies can take advantage on. Also, blink has a 3 second cool-down. 3 seconds is not that short when you are playing Overwatch. Enemies like Roadhog actually have high health so you can't really just make a kill with one shot.
Is Tracer (Overwatch) a good hero

Ok thank you for joining this debate. Tracer may have low health and not do much damage, but she has a super fast ability to move and can use her rewind ability to heal herself. She can also use her fast movement to go to health packs, which can heal her. Using her blink ability she can be annoying. I am a great Tracer, I blink backwards to avoid Roadhogs's chain and then make the kill.
is school boring

hey bro Nah im not a teacher but a yr 10 student --16 meridian school is my school. it is a branch of oneschool ... i am in no case a teacher pet but rather enjoy time with fellow students and doing L2L which is where the students are just given core subjects and a few lessons a week and the rest is just study (lessons without a given subject) or tutorials (lessons where the teacher is available of that certain subject and can help us ) which are in the learning center which is a big room with different areas including quiet rooms collaborative areas and individual cubicals. (more info should be on the websites if you google search them). As an added bonus all students are given laptops of their own to research and do work on with emails and such set up, (these of course are highly monitored and watched to make sure we are doing school work other wise may be confiscated :(:( always a catch.... ) ummmm my advice to a younger student would be to get work done fast and enjoy the rest with books, sport games, other students, etc. however do NOT do it the other way around and have fun then do work but rather reward the work with fun... use goals and that stuff to make good time management and use school time wisely so you can have fun outdoors or on the comp. also what school do you attend and are you from Australia or where?? and thanks for making this debate it you have helped me to realize how much more fun i could have at school on top of what i already do. P.S. everyone has bad days and boring days i know - i am not a maniac that LOVES school i just enjoy it because i have to go to it :):) thanks again and looking forward to your response... Tom is actually my name!!! hint hint..
is school boring

No, school is not boring. when you are at a good school with teachers that understand you and know you and students who are all!! good friends, you start to see that the work becomes fun and imboring (if that is a word) and therefore is not boring. if you disagree with me then you should try a day at my school. a massive school with campuses all around the world. Therefore, I am right in saying school is not boring. Thanks for your time!!!
Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime

I would like to point out before I begin that it is the burden of the PRO to prove that ALL 50 fifty states should be allowed to carry a firearm and that by doing this, crime will effectively be reduce. Because my opponent has not provided any definitions for his or her debate it is safe to assume that the definitions I post in ROUND 1 will thereafter will referred to as the definitions of the debate. Definitions: 50 states: Implied by the PRO to be the United States of America. Right to carry a firearm: Commonly referred to as each individual allowed the right to carry or house a firearm. Firearm: A small arms weapon, such as a pistol or rifle. Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. I would like to begin by refuting my opponents case. (1)I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U. S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. First off, this does not support the resolution in any way. There is no evidence backing up his position. However, this is just a brief roadmap of my opponents contention. I will point out that U. S. citizens could easily receive guns. Once the gun is bought, there is no concrete way of tracking the gun. Making it easy for lets say, a person above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes, to purchase firearms and supply other people. I will save my arguement about decreasing crime rate for later. (2)"I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities. " The fact of the matter is, a knowledgable thirteen-year-old can find his or her parent's firearm and easily turn off the safety mechanism and inflict damage upon themself or others. As seen in the Columbia School Shooting, it is already too easy for children to get guns if they wanted. Now with every household in the 50 states carrying a firearm, as my opponent is advocating, it will be even easier. Because my opponent has provided a small paragraph of information I will stop here. It is key to remember that my opponent must effectively support the claim that ALL 50 states be allowed to carry firearms because it reduces crime. I have not posted any sources yet, as I am allowing my opponent to first and because I am running out of personal time for this. Thank you for this debate.