BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

Thanks for the quick response Pro. Since my opponent has not posted any points for his side, and only posted rebuttals against my side, my following arguments will only consist of counter-rebuttals. Deterrence, CounterMy opponent states here that based on an assumption we can justify the death penalty. He seems to support this with the idea that there is no evidence to show that the death penalty doesn't deter. However I disagree, the fact that there is no evidence the death penalty deters is clear evidence that the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Until it can be statistically shown that the death penalty saves lives, we as a society cannot allow and cannot justify its continuation. A Moral Argument, CounterI've already explained my viewpoint, and really our two mentalities are matters of opinion, so all I can say is that it's up to the readers to decide which they agree with more. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Ghandi.[1]Getting the Wrong Guy, CounterMy opponent doesn't think innocents are wrongfully executed anymore, but his claims are un-sourced, and thus un-provable to the readers.Price, CounterMy opponent justifies the death penalty's excessive cost by saying the responsibility of the price is on the people who set the prices, not us who decide to keep killing criminals. Certainly, average people like you and me didn't set the price, but that shouldn't completely eliminate our accountability. The price may not be within our control, but whether or not we put money that could've been spent on schools into funding executions is in our control.Source:[1] http://www.quotationspage.com...
Death Penalty

RebuttalsDeterrenceThere's no evidence that the death penalty does, indeed, deter people. However, same goes with the opposite. However, it is more preferrable to assume that it does indeed, deter people because the power of suggestion influences people's decisions[1], and you would think that people are deterred since they don't want to be penalized by death. A Moral argument I believe that if someone murders (act of unlawfully killing someone[2]), that act warrants the death penalty, meaning that they deserve to be penalized by death, so both sides (The victim and the criminal) come out evenly and equally. That can be called retribution. Getting the wrong guy I don't think this would happen anymore. Why? There is a 25 year imprisonment beforehand. And during that period, you will be DNA tested to realize if that person was rightfully convicted or not. Price Although the price is relatively expensive, that's really on those who imposed it, not us. If that person approves of the death penalty, they would have to suffer the consequences going along with that. I await my opponent's next set of arguments. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Vegetarianism

Particularly yes, I do. I find a pepperoni pizza to be rather delicious, and hamburger very enjoyable, and don't get me started on a good steak. The attraction to eating animals is the natural human state. By that I mean that we, by nature, are omnivores. Omnivores mean we can eat not only animals, but plants. There is nothing wrong with following a process that we naturally have. In fact, you owe your humanly life to the eating of meat. Meat is a stupendous source of protein, which powers and builds the brain. Without meat, we would not have evolved from our ape brethren, instead, we'd remain among them. As australopithecus, we ate many fruits, but that doesn't get one far brain wise, but it will make you energetic. When we found an animal carcass, we ate it because we could. This mix of two foods gave us a tremendous edge over the animals that maintain themselves on either extreme. Meat eaters are clever. They use strategy, planning, timing, scouting to find prey. Not only that, but they have a strong social basis (do you have friends? Guess why, Ms. Predator) Wolves, lions, and hyenas are good examples. Herbivores, the peaceful sort, are fast, mellow, and have good senses/reflexes but that's about it. They are not very social, nor do they have a strong intelligence. Antelope, Deer, Caribou (common preys) only stay together because there is safety in numbers. They show little remorse over the loss of fallen brethren, and will commonly leave them when faced with danger for their own sakes. They fall prey to traps by predators, and often fall to natural dangers. Their senses make up for some of it, with superb hearing, strong senses of smell, and vision. Humans have used both to their advantage. We are social, have good senses, strong intelligence, moods, and reflexive. In a sense, we are what we eat. Bears follow the same diet that we do, as well as raccoons, some foxes, and apes. All of which are some of the cleverest, social, and naturally well equipped species on the planet. If your issue is on animal cruelty, then I agree with you. I still think we have a right to eat animals, but we don't need to make them suffer before the process. I'd purpose larger containment's and more human treatments of the animals so they can live happy, healthy lives. When it comes to the actual death, they should be hunted so that their death applies to natural law, rather than executed. Hopefully these explanations have covered whatever the true question you were trying to get at is. The joy I get from eating meat is nothing more than what my body is naturally capable of. If humans were naturally only vegetarians, then I would agree that we should not eat meat. But we are omnivores. Not carnivores, not herbivores, but omnivores. Now what further arguments do you have on the topic?
Vegetarianism

I must disagree. We have discovered the nuke, yes, but that is only cause for us to get smarter and find a way to basically un-invent the bomb. We've grown to an age were we use the smarts from being a predator and are applying it to new ways, specifically invention. But it is not always positive. In some ways we have hurt ourselves more. This is what I mean by taking away peoples stupid choices. People now are making very dumb choices. The reason seems to be general laziness. Our society has developed to a point were we are competent in our survival skills. We sit around, we eat constantly, we pollute the Earth. There are some cases were it may be better that the peoples choices be limited for their own good. Lowering the availability of meat to be thrown around willy nilly may benefit the people, even if they don't like it so much. We need brains more now than ever, meat will help that, with a balance of plants, but never the less. That is just my opinion however, not in regards to whether people have the right to eat meat or not. I still say we are given a right by our nature to eat meat. We are omnivores, able to eat meat and vegetables. We can survive on a vegetable only diet, but it will have negative intelligence effects. I have shown that we as a species have benefited from meat, and it is very probable we will continue from its consumption. My opinions on meat limitation and animal rights are my own and given out only to quench the curiosity of panthercub21, and should have no effect on the peoples vote. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Vegetarianism

Unfortunately, I am under 18, so I was not able to see your gruesome YouTube video. Points to you for finding it, though. I do acknowledge that in order for one being to live another must die. Even Disney realizes that (check out the lyrics for the Circle of Life from the Lion King). However, it doesn't mean that we must consume animal corpses - we could easily live off of plants. Since we have evolved to the stage of making nuclear weapons, I hardly think that continued consumption of meat is needed for advancing on the evolutionary scale, if you are postulating that what drives evolution is the need for improved hunting skills. I didn't mean to say that I was holding back any ideas - if you noticed, the "more about that later" was taken care of in the next paragraph. Interesting statement: "This means that I am for taking away peoples stupid choices for their own betterment". Care to elaborate?
Vegetarianism

I very much agree with your stance on animal cruelty. I guess that what really got me was researching the conditions that animals live in, and how they are typically killed. I have no fundamental argument with eating meat (although it is not nessisary to survive, but more about that later). As you pointed out, humans are by nature omnivores. I do have an argument with supporting an industry that treats living beings in such a manner. You made an interesting suggestion for how to kill animals for humanely. But do you really think that hunting them is a more humane way to kill them? Also, how would that affect the economy if animals were hunted instead of mass slaughtered? About the point that eating meat makes you smarter and faster and are proving this because meat eating animals are smarter and faster..... Unless you believe that eating the same diet as a certain type of animal makes you more like that type of animal, that argument doesn't make sense. Diet is only one part of what powers an animal, and the speed of animals is dependent on their body structure. They are built to hunt, but could survive just as well in a zoo without ever hunting or eating meat in their lives, provided that the nutrients were provided in some other manner. Care to add some philosophy and economics into the discussion?
Abortion

I assume we are just going straight int arguments and rebuttal as you have set out no structure so will open my case by rebutting yours then put forward my argument. I also assume from your opening that we are less debating the entirety of abortion more whether or not it should be considered murder. killing someone can come under many names each with their own punishments and emotive triggering depending upon where in the world you are from. For example, I am from New Zealand where capital punishment is never given out in the modern court. So who's system of law do you wish to go under because all western law has cases of manslaughter which will come into my argument later. Are you suggesting we try people for homicide who get abortions because if so then are we also going to trial any woman whom has a natural miscarriage for manslaughter(told you it was going to come in later) because that is unjustifiable punishing someone who unbeknownst to them couldn't have a child because their body has a certain imbalance of one thing or the other but you will put them in jail for many years because of that. Also, what about in cases of rape where a woman is raped then has an abortion are you going to give the woman who has an abortion a life sentence and the rapist is less given that most people would consider the victim here to be the woman. Murder and an abortion are very distinct this is because abortion has the ambiguities of when a fetus is considered alive. it also can be the result of another abhorred crime rape. Your definition of Homicide - the deliberate taking of a person"s life by another person. however this differs from the legal definition of rape as we can see with a quick google search Homicide - the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. so Abortion cannot be considered under this definition as it is not due to the act or omission of another (which in this case would be the fetus). and like the definition says not all homicides are considered crimes so even if we allowed abortion to be considered homicide that doesn't make it a crime that we should place next to that of murder like my opponent would have you believe.
Abortion

Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person"s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate "procedure" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone"s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court"s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court"s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn"t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything?
Refusal of Service in a Business

My opponent's round 2 argument was an attempt to refute one of many examples- "Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?" . I will remind everyone that I only need one successful example to win this debate. (see round 2 note)Now I will discredit his refutation.con contradicts himself by saying "it should be allowed to refuse service to someone in a business setting"What other setting is there when it comes to the right to refuse service?"you'd still be refusing service to those who want to use their right to assembly"The bill of rights guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". It does not however guarantee that a sign maker will have to sell them signs that contradict his or her personal beliefs. A certain sign maker refusing them service in no way takes away their rights and freedoms. Maybe try another sign maker?Con unsuccessfully tries to connect the constitutional right to assemble and the right to refuse service. A private business owner (the sign maker) who happens to be an environmentalist is in no way required to sell people signs that say Global Warming is a Farce! This is not stopping them from assembling somewhere and is not infringing on their first amendment rights at all! The connection simply does not exist.You're move Con...
Refusal of Service in a Business

My opponent states that you can refuse service to someone who wants to assemble and, "make signs," for that protest. My argument to that is this. Even though That it should be allowed to refuse service to someone in a business setting, you'd still be refusing service to those who want to use their right to assembly because, even if, they might be discriminating another group of people; they have the right to protest and give their views on that subject that they would be talking about, but it must be peaceful and lawful.(Even though it is morally wrong and illegal to discriminate, they have the Right to Assembly which would trump the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a court room if it is brought to that conclusion). The law and civil rights give you that freedom to assembly as stated here in the first amendment ( http://www.law.cornell.edu... ) "The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief." YES, it may be morally wrong but it is covered by the first amendment if it is for PEACEFUL and LAWFUL purposes. My point is this; YOU cannot refuse service to ANYONE even if they are black, white, Hispanic, Jewish, catholic, Baptist, a white supremacist, gay, lesbian, atheist etc... You CANNOT refuse service to anyone REGARDLESS if they are going to assemble or not as it is protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT.
Refusal of Service in a Business

Note* Con claimed "This debate will be about the refusal of service to in anyone in a business setting". Therefore the burden of proof is on me to show that in at least one, reasonably possible, scenario that the right to refuse service is justified. He must defend his claim that refusing service to anybody is wrong.The right to refuse service is an extremely important aspect to any capitalist nation. The law is not there to promote discrimination, quite the opposite is true in fact. Just as I can't force private citizens to participate in something he or she "finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful" I also can't force a "Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork.I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary." (http://themattwalshblog.com...) Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white? Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally? Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes “marriage equality”? http://townhall.com...)In this great nation of personal freedoms it is wrong to refuse somebody the right to hold to their own personal beliefs. The right to refuse service is necessary for individuals and businesses to maintain those beliefs. Back to you pro
Refusal of Service in a Business

This debate will be about the refusal of service to in anyone in a business setting. There are no rules on this one. First round will be for you to introduce your argument and acceptance of the debate. My Opening Thesis: Even though People who own businesses believe they can refuse service to anyone they deem unfit in society. In other words; they would be discriminating., I am against it. because discrimination is not only morally wrong, but it is illegal in the US. The civil rights act of 1964 states in Title II that, "Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term 'private'."
On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

I accept. I should also like to point out that the burden of proof is shared in this debate; it is not sufficient for me to just display that Capitalism is flawed and bad, I must also display how Communism is superior. I accept my opponent's definitions for "Capitalism" and "Communism". I would also like to make it known that, by these definitions, "Communist" nations, such as the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and others, are not actually Communistic, and therefore, any arguments which criticize communism on the basis of those societies alone are invalid; they were not, nor will they ever be, communistic.As a final note, for the purposes of this debate, it should be assumed that a Communist society is possible in theory, as we are not debating whether or not such a society is possible, but whether or not such a society, if it existed, would be superior to the form of organization we have now. The pragmatics of it of course are up for criticism, but for my opponent to try and argue that such a society cannot exist is both a fatally flawed argument, and a completely irrelevant one.With that said, begin your argument.
On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

Resolution "On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism"better for mankind - increasing the well-beingcapitalism - an economic system where the means of production are mainly privately owned and people earn a portion of their income from trade. communism - stateless, classless society, where the means of production are owned colectively, and the idea of private property is non-existant. Money is also non-existence.Debate rules:1. No semantics. 2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.3. No new arguments in the last round.4. Mainly Text-only debate. However, pictures and graphs can be used occassionaly (so long as they are not predominately text). 5. All source material must be easily accessableFor purposes of this debate, I will not debate a "pure" capitalist system. However, I believe Hong Kong and Singapore are model capitalist nations. While I do not support United States model completley, I am most familiar with it and will also use its capitalist institutions as an example.
Our National Motto Should Remain "In God We Trust"

I will start by refuting his arguments. My Opponent: "So let me ask you, shall be include that in our motto? Shall we edit the motto to say "We Shall Not Tolerate Any Other Religion Than Protestantism, In God We Trust"? I highly doubt you would say so, seeing as how absurd this is. So really, if you want to pull out the history textbooks it's actually more of a backfire. The Pilgrims didn't leave the Church of England to advocate freedom of religion, they left because they wanted to be the persecutors instead. " That is totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, the United States doesn't just favor protestantism, this is why it isn't in the motto. The fact of the matter remains that the Pilgrims left England to escape from religious persecution and that without a strong faith in the power of God the history books would be vastly different. A nation that doen't remember where it came from is a nation that doesn't know where it is going, this is why it is in our motto. My Opponent: "So many other things happened during/near the founding of America but how come they aren't in the motto as well? Why don't we talk about the driving out of Native Americans, or perhaps the widespread occurrence of slavery? The answer is simple - it's because choosing to include religion in our motto just because it was part of our nation's history is arbitrary, it's like saying Hitler and Stalin are evil because they have facial hair. Essentially, it's a non sequitor. " Because those things don't make any sense. The national motto was established in the 1950s, far after Indian relations had improved and after slavery was abolished. A national motto must be relevant. My Opponent: You see, these are all the first definition that appears. It's quite obvious that the most commonly used definition of God is an "omni-entity", not a vague phrase such as "all perfect higher power". Sure, there may be fringe definitions such as calling your idol a god, but everyone realizes that the context of the motto is very different. I got my definition of God through my own definition, because definition varies to person-to-person. The term "God" has no intrinsic meaning, as does anything. We only assign meanings to terms based on our own experience. Therefore, if you decide to agree with the dictionary definition and the national motto offends you, you have no one to blame but yourself. The motto isn't the source of the problem, you are. I yield things back to my opponent.
The next major Muslim power will be Turkey.

Resolved: The next major Muslim power will (very likely) be Turkey.Rules:1. No trolling, flaming, semantics, lawyering, etc.2. First round is acceptance and debate clarification.3. All source materials must be easily accessable.4. Whoever accepts this must have won at least fifteen debates.Definitions:Turkey: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Power: A very powerful and influential nation.Map of all Muslim countries: (Any country at least 60-70% Muslim is eligible in this debate.)