BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty is just

"My opponent's response that the government is a mechanism is ridiculous. I was referring to the members of the government. If an organization has committed a crime, it is not the actual organization itself, but the leading members who decide the actions." --> Ok, i will concede my opponents point for a second. However, let's look further then what is written. What is the difference between a murderer and the members of the government? Answer: A murderer kills in cold blood, kills an innocent and has a malicious intent to do so. Compare this with the government. The government is not killing with a malicious intent, but only as a means to create proportionate justice. --> He drops my point about legitimacy, extend this. The government is killing another human. This violates every right. We should just reform and rehabilitate these criminals. These people may be reformed and then become prominent members of society. --> This does not violate the rights of the criminal because by committing a crime, namely a murder, they loss their rights. Thus a mechanism is needed to create justice. Also, rehabilitation has been proven to be a faulty system, and only hurts society more then it helps. "The time in jail is not irreversible. As I said in the second round, there have been many exonerations. Some have been lucky, and some have not. However, if we support putting criminals in jail, rather than execution, we can prevent some of the innocent people from dying." --> My opponent doesn't understand. I was saying that the time already taken up is irreversible. I.e. you cant go back in time. As to your response about your skepticism on Ruben's innocence, the news stated that Ruben Cantu WAS INNOCENT. --> The news may have, but not the DA records. Also just because the news says something, doesn't make it right. Check a more credible source. Overview Argument: My opponent is debating points about why the death penalty may not be the best punishment, but he never argues why it doesn't conform to standards of justice, which is what the debate is about. Is the death penalty just. Voting Issues: 1. The affirmative better upholds justice. I.e. the criminal is getting what he/she deserves as a due punishment. A) Scale of Justice --> Went unrefuted B) Social Contract --> Went unrefuted 2. My opponent debates application rather then principle, thus not in direct link with the resolution. 3. My opponents case can be dropped because I have adequetly refuted what he has brought up, and the majority he dropped throughout the 3 rounds.
The death penalty is just

Thank you for replying. My opponent's response that the government is a mechanism is ridiculous. I was referring to the members of the government. If an organization has committed a crime, it is not the actual organization itself, but the leading members who decide the actions. The government members decide who is executed, not the organization itself. My opponent's response to the government's loss of life is similar. The government ITSELF does not have the right to life. However, according to your allusion to the Bible, "He who shedeth mans blood, he too shall have his blood shed." This not referring to the government itself (I keep repeating this), but to the people working in the government. My opponent is incessantly asserting that the government is a non-individual. However, all members that reside over the justice system, namely the Death Penalty, are guilty, as I have stated above. The government is killing another human. This violates every right. We should just reform and rehabilitate these criminals. These people may be reformed and then become prominent members of society. < Yeah, so is the time in jail.> The time in jail is not irreversible. As I said in the second round, there have been many exonerations. Some have been lucky, and some have not. However, if we support putting criminals in jail, rather than execution, we can prevent some of the innocent people from dying. As to your response about your skepticism on Ruben's innocence, the news stated that Ruben Cantu WAS INNOCENT. We are not doing anything about the government officials because we still think that the death penalty is just. Thank you very much for debating me on this topic.
The death penalty is just

Thank you for replying so promptly. That means when the government kills the criminal, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death. If that is true, then why is our government still here? This also goes for Locke's Right Violation Argument. Then the government loses their right to life as well. Are you saying that all punishments must be dealt with in the reciprocal action? No, it is not just to steal from a thief or to rape someone who has raped. This is because we must set an example, not take an eye for an eye. However, when one is put in jail, they can be taken out at any time. The death penalty is irreversible. Ruben Cantu, a 17 year old teenage boy in Texas, was wrongfully accused and executed on the charge of murder. However, the eyewitness there recanted (to revoke the claim) after the execution that he was pressured by the police to identify Ruben as the killer. This is just one of the many cases of innocent deaths by the death penalty system. Out of 86 death penalty exonerations (withdrawals) in Death Row cases, 45 of them have been eyewitness errors, just like Ruben's case. 10 cases were actually because of snitching. 17 cases of government misconduct. 8 false confessions. 9 junk scientific proof cases, and 29 other miscellaneous cases. Is this enough proof? We are not debating whether or not the UN is a perfect organization. The UN does not have to be right all the time. Who's going to shed the government officials' blood? They're killing people too. Ok, so the criminals are executed. However, according to the Old Testament, "He (The government) who shedeth man's (criminal's) blood, he too shall have his blood shed." Again nobody's going to shed the government's blood. Thank you for taking the time to read (observers) and the time to debate (opponent).
The death penalty is just

Dear Ladies and Gentleman, First of all, I would like to specifically define the topic. I do not believe that our death penalty system in the United States of America is just. Some people may have heard this before, and I will use it now: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing is wrong?" I belive that is true. Our death penalty system is designed to execute criminals who have murdered a person or maybe even more. Their crime is the act of killing people. So we kill them to show that they should not kill? Where's the sense in that? Also, what if they haven't even killed anybody? There have been many accounts of innocent citizens who have been executed. Killing is just wrong. That's what the death penalty is trying to prove. Except it's failing. We tell them killing is wrong, so we kill. They could just be imprisoned. I believe that it is better to rehabilitate than to execute. The death penalty is racist. Overall, a black person is more likely to be sentenced to Death Row than a white person. The UN opposes the death penalty. End of discussion. The New Testament tells us that we should be like God, and that we should follow Jesus' example and show mercy. Now you probably think, "Did the killer show mercy?" No. That's wrong. So should we condescend to that level where we show no mercy and kill? NO! Thank you for taking this time to debate
The United States should cease production of the penny

Pro had set path of instruction for how he felt the debate should go. Con did everything within an ability to follow that instruction. Pro made all legitimate claims for reason to stop minting the penny. I agree, I too felt the penny should go at one time. Why attack a legitimate claim that is actually part of the job the penny is used for, something I did not know at the time. Just as the cost of production is a gauge on a much larger machine. Yes it cost more to make then the materials it is made of. There can be a hundred good reasons to hurt someone justification never makes it right just necessary . 1.Pro is incapable of understanding what the actual pennies value is. It is unclear if I can explain it to every-on let alone just one person. I will try any-way. The penny is the same as the small line on a clock that equals seconds. These lines cost more than they are worth to put on the clock, we actually don"t need them. Why have they? Simple they are part of that measurement device. Do you have to use them? No! Of course not. Do other people need them? 1.(A) The people who use the penny the most do not always touch the penny. So it is understandable how some-one does not know that a penny is actually a negative number outside cost in an economy gauge (measurement). It is not just one number it is two numbers, first number is .01 the second number is .0001. 100 points of measurement make up one dollar multiply that 100 by, 0001 and the answer is .01 one-penny. This argument and number three are connected. 2. The money is being sent inappropriately, not will be. One of the highest cost of the penny is not the production of the penny it is enforcing the law that should have protected the penny. The penny has been used as an inexpensive way to mine metals directly out of an economy. This is where a 2.41 cost ratio of roughly 3 to 1 is minimal as the cost to enforce the law is substantially higher. This cost can be seen as $3.00 dollars or greater to every .01 penny in production. ( 300+ / 1 ) It is this cost which has been squandered on other things. 3.The penny has lost its buying power. It was lost, it had buying power at one time. There had been many things a penny could by with its value. Where did it go? Pro should be telling is why we do not want that buying power back. Not telling us why he or others do not want to do the work to get that power back. It is not better than the National clock it is tide to debt. Amendment to Conclusion of: Federal property does not accept the penny. "There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents." Rebuttal: So you do not see that the United States Armed Forces is one of Congresses biggest money pits as an issue? In a simple common defense to the general welfare, the United States might be in much better shape Dollars and Cents had some people been Forced to count penny instead of spend dollars. By the way admitting publicly that the United Stat
The United States should cease production of the penny

Before I begin refuting my opponent's claims, I would like to point out that he did not attack any of my arguments, merely defended his own. This means the arguments I made still apply, which means that my opponent tacitly agrees to the statements: 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. (On my opponent's case): Their #5 argument is not proven correct. These issues by their own merit ceasing production of the penny, en though I will now move on to attack my opponent's case. This first part isn't an argument, and has no place 1:This argument makes no sense. My opponent claims that the penny is .0001% of a dollar, even though it is exactly 1% of a dollar. This argument also makes no claims as to why .0001% of a dollar is a good system for a coin. 2:My opponent claims that the money would be spent inappropriately elsewhere. First off, he supplies no reason why the money would go towards the wrong spending, so it is safe to assume that the money would be spent in equal percentiles of current tax distribution. Second off, the idea that money spent to produce spending would go to illegitimate spending is exactly wrong, because producing pennies is the exact illegitimate spending that my opponent warns against. This means that my opponent agrees spending money on the wrong things is bad, yet refuses to see he is arguing for one of those systems. 3:Yet again, my opponent claims pennies are better economic indicators than the Debt Clock without providing a source of evidence, merely asserting that this is true. Also, the Debt Clock was not a part of his original argument, which means that this is a new argument and not a defense for his older argument, showing that pennies are not good economic indicators. 4:My opponent claims that the nickel will be next, which is not his original argument here. On the contrary, his original argument was about increased cost in bulk purchases, which is false. Also, my opponent claims that nickels are .05 cents, even though they are 5 cents. My opponent finally claims that eventually the nickel will suffer the same fate, and at that point, it would be justified to remove it for the same reasons proven here today. This last statement is not an argument, and also has no evidence to back his claim. At last, I would like to show why the Pro won the debate 1)The Pro defended and attacked all issues presented, while the Con did not 2) The Pro consistently used evidence to prove their side of the debate, whereas the con did not 3) The Pro has shown a consistent understanding of what each coin is worth in relation to the dollar, whereas the Con and repeatedly shown that they do not know the percentiles and costs of each coin.
The United States should cease production of the penny

Much of this argument will be tied into convincing those who are reading, and can vote. But, like the penny those who cannot vote, still have a valued by opinion in this matter and can be counted by their comment. The penny"s value is beyond its own self-evident worth it will be proved to be a reflection of our labor. The penny holds a liberty which serves and greater good and is worth in its added cost beyond face value. 1.The Penny is a part of an impartial system of measurement and as a part of the system it is expected to be held as part of its measurement and value. Not a just cost and value. When it shows a negative number by its own profit. It is a part of the overall machine showing wear or abuse in that system. The penny is simply just .0001% of a dollar. The measurement outside of its well-known value is a direct relationship to our method of keeping time. Its transposition is to the ten-thousands by volume. 2.The pricing of metal makes it profitable to harvest pennies out of an economy. The obligation behind all taxation is immediately to the United States Connotation Separation process. The removal of the penny means an instant pay raise for inappropriate spending. Spending which should have been going to safeguarding the harvesting of United States Private Property, its penny and the value by weight of metal. The pennies copper or metal is incapable of self-regulation. The Federal Reserve Note in line behind every penny most certainly has this ability. It only fails when squandered elsewhere. 3.The penny is an economic indicator to inflation it is part of a clock system. I have recently started argument that the national Debt Clock is indeed inaccurate. Part of the inaccuracy is how it aligns Debt spending by its lowest value. The mistake is in increments. The lower values in debt accurately run backwards as mentioned in my opening reason the penny has a negative transposition valued at Ten-Thousand. The hard thing to want to take is this measurement is for loss not profit. In the Axiom of GOD we TRUST, the reason for this somewhat obscure logic all people want to know about the possibility of loss first as an indication or warning. 4.The pennies worth for harvest was not always 1 cent it was driven by inflation. When the pennies is gone that means the nickel is next in the line of inflation driven harvesting. Instead of 1 cent it will be .05 cents which is taken. The Government has always operated by rounding up to the nearest .05 cents. To justify this action which can destabilizes an impartiality, how any-one can say this action of round up has improved cost is hiding the examples of its overall performance. After all the Governing body has been collecting four times more than the rest of the Nation and the rising spending provides us with a quarter or less in stability or progress.
The United States should cease production of the penny

In this speech I will be showing that my opponent's arguments are flawed 1. My opponent relates pennies to time, and shows how it correlates to time. My opponent does however, not show a correlation since their is no explicit or implicit link that they make between time and pennies. In fact, the average person who pays with pennies will spend 2 seconds extra per penny at the register. That means that my opponent is exactly wrong, pennies in fact take our time away. 2. There is no cost for ceasing production of the penny. Although my opponent may have misunderstood the resolution as pennies are now not accepted, the resolution simply asks whether production should be stopped. As I stated in my case, pennies actually cost billions of dollars a year to manufacture, so this argument falls. 3. Yet again, no link is made between the claim and the proof. My opponent states that pennies are economic indicators, but offers no evidence, either objective or analytical. This means that this argument should be ignored due to the lack of support. 4. The resolution clearly states ceasing production of the penny and not removal of it as legal tender, so this argument is also not relevant. 5. I am not sure what my opponent is attempting to claim, but it appears that they are claiming hackers steal pennies by the 5. We can safely assume its irrelevance in the matter.
The United States should cease production of the penny

1.To understand the penny's value you must look at time, as the penny equals the second, and how it relates to trade within it, to know the penny is not just the .01 cent you are giving up in an economy, it is the seven numbers .02, .03, .04, .06, .07, .08, .09 in a clock. The time increase can be seen in seven new numbers. That increased will run .05, .10, .15, .20, .25, .30, .35 .Who among us really needs less time? 2.The cost of discontinuing the penny will instantly mean a direct sale tax increase across the boards. As these determinations may be based on the dollar but paid by the penny. 3.The cost of a penny is an economic indicator. What indications will be lost or hidden when it is removed from production. 4.When the penny is taken from an economy there is no longer the lowest proportion savings relevant to time set in production cost within manufacturing goods. This means instant higher cost in bulk purchased materials. 5.Nobody by the hacker ever thought to ever steal a penny. They do add up quickly and you want to it x5 . The pennies cost was never recoverable it serves a different purpose in the axiom. It has a logical reason of value no self-evident.
The United States should cease production of the penny

I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41" to make a 1" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny.