BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Child molesters should tortured to death.

Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. For those not familiar with my understanding of debate, you're free to read my profile. With that said, let us proceed: The information in my opponent's opening argument is quite brief. All he says is the child molesters should be tortured to death and die the most painful and agonizing death possible. That is all. Notice how my opponent provides no premises to support his claim; notice how my opponent does not tell you WHY child molesters deserve such cruelty. An argument cannot exist without logical premises, so there's no reason to consider what he has stated in round 1. Now I will tell you why child molesters should NOT be tortured to death for the crime of molesting: Although molesting is a pretty terrible crime, molesting does not involve anything that it homicidal. Therefore, the argument that the loss of one life justifies taking the life of another (in the sense of what is advocated for the death penalty) cannot even be introduced here (not that I am in any way advocating validity of that argument here). Child molesters do deserve retribution, but definitely not a death penalty ( an inhumane one at that). This is the only reason I will provide in this round. I'll add more to (and clarify if needed on) my argument in round 2 (even if my opponent chooses not to do the same).
Day School is better than Boarding School

Both day school and boarding school are imperfect, but boarding school can take a place day school never will, teaching true independence and for many offering their only source of stability. For most people, the average public school will fail them, yet even through homesickness, so many boarding schools do well and prepare children for real life, even if the parents must sacrifice time with their children. Please consider both sides, and hopefully vote Con! Thank you.
Day School is better than Boarding School

Boarding school might be called a home away from home and people might be of the opinion that the parent will have more time to him/herself but truly, day school is better. Why should a parent be looking for 'me time' when the child needs to be cared for and loved by the parent? No matter what age the child may be, in my opinion, day school is better for that child than boarding school. I shall conclude this debate by urging the voters to please vote for Pro. Thank you.
Day School is better than Boarding School

Day school primarily only gives parents control over the students home life. It is common for parents to have no clue what is going on at school, and only really know what is given to them in the form of grades, no more then boarding schools. Public schools have, over time, become increasingly distant to parents, the only true remedy for this being homeschooling. Most parents don't even know what their children are really learning from school at all.One example of how this can happen even with basic grades: http://educationpost.org...Interests other than school are very often still accessible to students in boarding schools. Many are even focused on extra curricular subjects.Some that encourage art:http://www.boardingschools.com...Not to mention that living at school, with or without many extra curriculars, encourages a focus on study which is good for finding a collage and in the end, their success. The limit of parental involvment has its upside as well, helping to encurage healthy independence in a world where many young adults live with their parents.https://www.cbsnews.com...Any transition is hard, but they will survive and possibly thrive after they become used to it. I moved a lot when I was young and my father died. I ended up okay, and if the parents feel boarding school is the best option the kid might end up more than okay.Having most of your friends in school both isn't uncommon or necessarily bad. Not to mention living together may strengthen those friendships to the point of almost being family.Bulling is a problem that all schools have, I know I was bullied harshly being forced to sit between lunch tables on the floor, people trying to fight me, constently being called names and even my friends being targeted. I know people who have dealt with much worse, even having been sexually assulted by other students, this being in public schools.According to this 1/4 students are bullied.https://www.stopbullying.gov...
Day School is better than Boarding School

Day schools are a better option for those parents who wish to have close supervision over their children. Day schools enable constant parent-teacher contact and this enables the parents to be able to monitor the progress of their children in terms of both academics and extracurricular activities. This is also an important aspect of a day school. Parents can provide moral guidance if they are in constant contact with their children and this is possible only if the children are admitted to a day school. Remember that education doesn"t only happen at school, where teachers are often under strain to stick to the curriculum and focus on exams. Children's other intellectual interests can be kept alive (be it literature, politics, art or drama), by spending evenings and weekends at galleries, museums and with friends from outside of school. More so, it can be difficult for a student to adjust to boarding school because she has been placed in completely new surroundings with unfamiliar people and circumstances. Time spent with family and friends from home becomes limited, which can make the transition seem harder. A personal life away from school is also difficult to maintain due to the high expectations of academic excellence in a typical boarding school. Also, extracurricular activities provided by the school often occupy a student's time after classes and on the weekends. And although rules and guidelines are needed to implement discipline in students, oftentimes a boarding school student must strictly adhere to even minor rules or risk expulsion. The presence of bullying and related problems is another problem in boarding school. Boarding schools are not immune to problems with bullying (as is sometimes documented in the media). (1) https://www.urbanpro.com... (2) https://www.keystonetutors.com... (3) http://classroom.synonym.com... (4) http://www.ourkids.net...
Day School is better than Boarding School

A good boarding school has its place.In a military family for instance, the inconsistency of moving every few years or even sometimes months could have a negative effect on some children's psyche. Going to a boarding school could provide a sense of stability.In military families children are more likely to be bullied, get into fights, and abuse alcohol. Some of this could likely be due to the lack of stablity in a military family.https://news.usc.edu...The same could apply to children whom's parents recently went through a divorce, and in some cases children of missionaries that served in dangerous places.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Boarding school also can be a good option for families living in poverty, dangerous communities or homeless families if they are given some kind of assistance to pay for it.In cases of homelessness and poverty a good boarding school insures a meal everyday.In all three cases it ensures a safe environment, and a decent education that could pull a family out of trouble or even save a child's life.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The act of living away from home could also serve to foster independence as adults, allowing them to move out sooner and be more prepared for collage life. Acording to my source 78% of boarding school students feel prepared for collage vs 23% of public school students. And 50% of boarding school students go on to earn advanced degrees vs 21% of public school students.Though their parents do end up less involved they still do see them and it can foster a strong sense of independence.http://www.boardingschools.com...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day School is better than Boarding School

Day school students enjoy an enriching education and strong relationships with their parents, who can more effectively support their academic success. Parents get to play a hands-on role in helping with homework and projects, which can contribute to their children's academic success. Volunteer opportunities for parents at day schools allow them to make a difference and feel connected to their child's school. Also, boarding schools now come at a vast expense. An analysis by the Good Schools Guide shows that the average annual cost is 27,600 pounds, before allowing for any extras. In comparison, the average day schools cost 11,709 pounds per year. The Killik Private Education Index shows that fees have increased by more than 300% since 1990 (at roughly four times the rate of inflation). Staggeringly, if current trends continue we will be looking at fees of 61,000 pounds by 2027. It is undeniably something to consider carefully before committing. And that's just in the UK alone. In case of any sickness or injury, parents can be with their children immediately if they are admitted in a day school. Some children require parents to be constantly by their side, especially if something untoward happens. Day school students are also better able to build roots in their home community and take advantage of local career opportunities when they graduate. Sourcing: (1) http://www.ourkids.net... (2) https://www.urbanpro.com... (3) https://www.keystonetutors.com...
Golden Goose love

PART 1. Men. You should see those saucy girls they're healthy and amazing. Beyond that though, Mark was a friendly kid too and could be located sneaking about in Goldie's skirt, sneaky sneaky and Burl staked him out and the kid loved it, G.G.G. application for sure, smooth interchange of motion (applicator supplied). Jimmy the chipmunk was in a hurry, he was from a French village and imported really reliable fries which are oh so important for parents these days, hectic lives hectic people and G.G.G. cooking applications, pre-coated (oven bake at 200C for 20 mins). Yes all credit to Barclay, he could keep it in and was able to thrust. William was prepared G.G.G. pre-applied (applicator supplied) he was a young pup and Al was one too, Barclay was prepared and willing to assist in all aspects, he could manage the two for sure, they were begging and it wasn't inhuman, contrary to what Des and May might say. Des was pissed by the way. Want some exercise girls? Step this way. Forget the aero's and biscuits May. Legs and hips, top drawer accessorise for sure. All girls together and unlock the private drawer, preferred equipment and they're gluttons for the burn at a rate of 400 vibrations per minute they can't go wrong (G.G.G. hand lubrication).
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Hello all! This debate is on the abolishment of the death penalty. This is one of my favorite debate topics, so I hope for a great challenge!Definitionsdeath penalty: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. abolishment: to end the observance or effect of LayoutRound 1: acceptanceRound 2: ALL arguments presentedRound 3: rebuttal (no new arguments)Round 4: rebuttal pt. 2 (no new arguments)Round 5: conclusion/closing statements (no new arguments)Please note that this debate will be carried out in a formal manner, with extensive arguments that are expected to be well-written and respectable.--------------I will argue on the pro side, claiming that the death penalty should, or ought to be abolished. I await acceptance of this debate.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Any arguments that I did not give another rebuttal too, I didn't think anymore needed to be said on it. The voters can see the points we both made and decide. Pro's points simply were not good enough for me to waste much time on anyway, so my not replying to his every point (if I left out any) is not admission of defeat. Pro continued to argue that because retribution is SIMILAR to revenge in ONE aspect, this makes them both wrong. .. I don't see the logic. I gave the dictionary definition for revenge, which was: "Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return. Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards. [1][2] In ethics and law, the aphorism "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a principle that means that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the infraction. [3]". https://www.google.com... This is a more full quote. I will let the voters read and see for themselves if capital punishment is revenge because it is like revenge in a SINGLE point, or if it isn't revenge because it DIFFERS from revenge in MANY other points. Pro never even gave an argument to show that revenge is actually wrong, he only assumed it was, so I had no argument to respond to. Finally, he argued that it makes no sense to keep capital punishment because its more expensive and has no deterrence effect, and I have tried to show him it was not supposed to have a deterrence effect so it has not failed its purpose in any way. I also showed him that prison also has no deterrence effect, yet he doesn't consider that a waste of time. I also showed him that the costs of capital punishment can be reduced. Pro still has not answered my question about if a person who rapes and kills or commits certain atrocities is not WORTHY of capital punishment. He hasn't told us if Hitler DESERVES the death penalty. I guess he can't answer that. But go on about how I didn't reply to his round 3 arguments?
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God

The proposition on offer is that according to a body count derived from the time period over which the Bible gives a history, Satan has killed far fewer people and is thus more moral than God. ************************** According to: ( http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... ) God has killed some 2,301,427 people. According to a count here: ( http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... ) Satan has killed only 10 people that God shares at least some responsibility for ( Job's 3 daughters and 7 sons). Thus, it is plain to see that by a Biblical body count, Satan is more moral than God. AFFIRMED.
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God

The argument is not solely based upon the body count but the morality of God and Satan. God is not some evil dictator like you believe Satan started up in heaven and cast down for betraying God. God allowed Satan to betray him BECAUSE OF THE FREE WILL given to Satan. As with your argument with the baby, what has the baby done significant in the world? I know you're thinking ohhh the baby so harmless so helpless but that baby hasn't done anything wrong and gets to go to heaven without living through the world that is torment. How many people has Satan created? NONE so where does Satan get the right to corrupt innocent men? Again free will for all men and creatures. Satan would not want to kill any of his human servants anyway because with one corrupted man he can corrupt even MORE!!! He wants to create as much evil as possible and thus the more evil of man the more inhabited of hell. The path to heaven narrow and that gates of hell broad. How many people do you think were killed by the corrupted human servants of Satan? It is beyond counting the sinners of Satan. You are right Satan has killed fewer of man instead he tried to kill angels and God and rule over men who are weak and easily corrupted. Satan has lied and poisoned was it not Satan who lied to Eve as the snake? Was it not through Eve that Adam was cast out from his paradise? Satan knows the difference between right and wrong here you are correct but Satan deliberately chooses wrong. Great debate by the way.
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God

I suppose my opponent's definition of moral will work... Again, we are back to the notion of whether or not killing people is right or wrong. It is clearly wrong, so my opponent cannot get off the hook by stating that killing people is moral only when God does it. That simply sounds silly. Responses: >> "What you call circular reasoning is simply giving you a chance to use sarcasm to embarrass me with your coke can remark." Your comment about God being moral because his purpose is to be moral does not need my help with a coke can to be embarrassing. >> "God never says killing is wrong or immoral he says don't do it because VENGANCE is his." Was there some part of "Thou shalt not kill" that you didn't understand? And if vengeance is God's alone, doesn't that indicate that it's morally wrong according to God for man to take revenge on man? Furthermore, most of God's killings are not revenge - they are simply wanton murder and disregard for human life. >> "If Satan was so moral why would he sentence men to their doom to make them suffer for all eternity in a fiery prison?" Two problems here - first, I never said that Satan was moral - just that he was more moral than God. And furthermore, it is not Satan that condemns people to hell - judgment is reserved for God. GOD sends people to hell, not Satan. >> "God however gives us hope of following his laws we will dwell and prosper in a place that we will forever be happy." Considering some of God's laws include taking the women of conquered nations for your harem, keeping slaves, and killing homosexuals, this doesn't seem like such a moral God... >> "If one man will kill a million but knowing this you commit murder and kill him have you not saved millions from death and emotional torment?" Well this would definitely be an example of a moral action. However, God spends a good deal of time smiting babies... who are fairly unlikely to go kill a million people. God smites with wanton disregard, not just the evil ones. >> "I will tell you that your argument was solely based on death caused by the greater power but the main focus was that Satan was more moral than god. Which is clearly wrong Satan simply does not have the means to harm people physically or even more would be dead." My opponent contends that my argument is incorrect because Satan doesn't have the means to physically harm people, even though he is capable of possessing them with demons, and in the book of Job, kills 10 people. Seems to me there is a problem with his line of reasoning. ********************************************************** The body count still stands: God: 2,301,427 Satan: 0 If killing people is immoral, then God is more immoral than Satan by a Biblical Body Count. AFFIRMED
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God

I will start by giving the definition of moral –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. What you call circular reasoning is simply giving you a chance to use sarcasm to embarrass me with your coke can remark. God never says killing is wrong or immoral he says don't do it because VENGANCE is his. If god was immoral why would he threaten to punish those who commit murder in cold blood? Why would he threaten to punish thieves? Or rapists? Satan encourages the acts that will get them punished by god. Satan is the king of hell and god tells him one day he will throw Satan into the fire with all of Satan's followers. If Satan was so moral why would he sentence men to their doom to make them suffer for all eternity in a fiery prison? God however gives us hope of following his laws we will dwell and prosper in a place that we will forever be happy. Satan makes the corrupt and the corrupt punish the righteous opposed to god who destroys the corrupt to protect the just. If one man will kill a million but knowing this you commit murder and kill him have you not saved millions from death and emotional torment? God does what is right Satan is there to corrupt that which is good. I will tell you that your argument was solely based on death caused by the greater power but the main focus was that Satan was more moral than god. Which is clearly wrong Satan simply does not have the means to harm people physically or even more would be dead.
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God

>> "Satan cannot be more moral than god because of his direct intentions to harm people. " Intentions are not the standard of review - a Biblical Body Count is. >> "How can Satan be more moral than god when he directly is a creation of god! We are no better than those who create us! " False - It is easy to conceive of a moral God that creates a moral being with free will (that subsequently becomes immoral), and then this moral God commits immoral acts. If I recall correctly, Satan fell from grace before the timeline of the Bible begins, so this is a perfectly plausible. Judging by the Bible's body count, God has committed more immoral acts than Satan. >> "If you'll recall in Job Satan tells god that Job is only faithful because he has not been physically hurt and then Satan asks god for the permission to harm him and god says yes but don't kill him." Our wonderfully moral God grants Satan permission to harm others so he can make a point. Great. >> "Satan himself tried to fight god and that is how he wound up in hell. The bible also clearly states that Satan will try to deceive and and manipulate to get as many as he can in hell with him." Wonderful. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about how many people God killed compared to how many Satan killed in the Bible. >> "God is more moral and just because that is his purpose." That's circular reasoning. God is moral because it is his purpose to be moral. Uncompelling. That's like saying "My coke can is a coke can because it's purpose is to be a coke can." >> "As for Job and his family they were all resurrected and Job healed and PROSPERED past his one hundreds in age!!!!" Wonderful - more ammunition for my argument. I shall apply this to the count. ************************************* The current body count stands at: God: 2,301,427 Satan: 0 According to my opponent, God raised the people Satan killed, making the contrast even clearer. I'd also like to call attention to this point that my opponent makes: >> "But for your argument that god has killed more than Satan this is true but it is his right and those who are not right in the sight of the lord will be destroyed!" It seems he is of the opinion that an omnibenevolent God has the right to commit immoral acts. Furthermore, he has conceded the notion that the Biblical Body Count delivers God as having killed far more people than Satan. If killing people is immoral, then God is more immoral than Satan by a Biblical Body Count. AFFIRMED
By a Biblical Body Count, Satan is More Moral than God

Satan cannot be more moral than god because of his direct intentions to harm people. How can Satan be more moral than god when he directly is a creation of god! We are no better than those who create us! And Satan does not have the direct ability to harm us because god made it this way! If you'll recall in Job Satan tells god that Job is only faithful because he has not been physically hurt and then Satan asks god for the permission to harm him and god says yes but don't kill him. So Satan gives Job boils and such. But for your argument that god has killed more than Satan this is true but it is his right and those who are not right in the sight of the lord will be destroyed! Satan himself tried to fight god and that is how he wound up in hell. The bible also clearly states that Satan will try to deceive and and manipulate to get as many as he can in hell with him. God is more moral and just because that is his purpose. As for Job and his family they were all resurrected and Job healed and PROSPERED past his one hundreds in age!!!!