BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we abolish death penalty

First off lets define Death Penalty: (A sentence or punishment of death by execution.) The death penalty should be used for "cruel& unusual" crimes, serial killers and the string of cops that seem to keep murdering their girlfriends/wives, when there is no doubt as to their guilt. It's not about wanting to "get back" at someone or even deterring others, it's about protecting our society specifically from that person and not wasting our precious tax dollars on someone who can't be released or rehabilitated. Yes, you could argue that the punishment itself is cruel & unusual, but in some cases, it is a necessary evil. The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don"t.While the death penalty should be maintained, it is important that stipulations be made on how it is implemented. Many people wonder if victims and their families should have any say in whether or not prosecutors seek the death penalty. In the Holmes case, Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler personally talked to 60 family members of the Aurora victims and his office as a whole reached out to about 800 relatives of the victims in order to help them make this decision. It is my personal opinion that victims and those related to victims in any way should not have a say, because then you are dealing with vengeance, not justice. Once that line is crossed, it is not fair to say that someone should be put to death because it is not decided by an unbiased, unrelated third party. Sources: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...=
Disney should stick to 2D animation.

Despite the release of 'The Princess and the Frog' and soon-to-be released 'Winnie the Pooh', Disney has yet to be exclusive to 2D animation like they used to. Personally, I grew up on classics such as the Lion King, Robin Hood, etc, and I hate that children of this current generation may not be able to view pure Disney art as it should be. I will allow whoever picks this up to start the arguments. Thank you to whoever accepts this and good luck! :)
In a democracy civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

By forfeiting the last round you must agree with me when I say: C.D. Justifies Violence C.D. Hurts Democracy Social Contract theory disallows C.D. All of these contentions prove that Civil Disobedience is not an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. Also, you must realize that first, Justice is subjective. You would agree with me. SO if Civil Disobedience is used, it gives any person, majority or minority, a voice andthe right to break a law. Since Justice is different for everyone, people will never come to a concensus on a specific law. If people continue to break laws in that situation, then anarchy would rise and the "democracy" you present is no democracy any longer. Without C.D. a government listens to all of the people. When the voices of the public are heard, then there is no reason for C.D. If an unjust law is needing to be shown to the public, a peaceful protest, one that is given to us as a right through the first amendment and doesn't break the law, is something that can be used as an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.
In a democracy civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

First of all, the Intelligent Singaporean was only used to introduce the basic premise of the results when C.D. is justified. In this case, it will never work. The IS. is a blog yes, but a blog by the Singaporean Government so it has all the credibility. Civil Disobedience never includes self-inflicted violence. The Buddhist ritual rights were taken away and so through Self-inflicted violence, there is no justification that C.D. will work. Social Contract Theory is disallowing C.D. because first of all Social Contract Theory Gives these obligatory rights to the people (in a democracy): 1) They must abide by the consequences of breaking a law. 2) If in a democracy, the laws made (corrupt or just) by the people, must be followed due to the government system. Basically, by Number 2, if laws are made by a person, then that same person must obey his/her own law. If not, Civil Disobedience has no effect. By the SCT disallowing C.D., non-violent protests against a law that you don't like will never work. Also, going back to your Lamichhaney card of '06. : "USE OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS A GREAT LEAP FORWARD IN DEMOCRACY-- Lamichhaney '06 [Bhupal; "Democracy, Injustice, And Civil Disobedience;" Scoop Independent News; 25 May 2006; The same method Thoreau prescribed to pressure the American government to abolish slavery has now become globally accepted as a powerful, non-violent democratic means to force unjust opponents to incorporate change. People in various countries have adopted this peaceful political tool to unseat unjust, tyrannical governments. How could Thoreau have imagined the legacy he would leave to peace loving people a century later and beyond? This was another great leap forward in democracy." First, who is Lamichhaney? What credibility does he have? Use of Civil Disobedience is a great leap forward in democracy? When was there ever a true Democracy on the face of the earth? What examples can you personally come up with from 2006? He states that Thoreau, the man who shaped CD, "prescribed to pressure the American government to abolish slavery has now become globally accepted..." Again I ask: Who? Who is accepting his word? And for what propose? Is there a Democracy today that no one is aware of? This card has too many flaws to be used at all. As of right now, Lamichhaney is not credible. Also, going on with those questions: CD protects democracy? No. It does not, there is no evidence of ANY democracy that has undergone CD. Overall, your evidence dates back to a time where there was no Democracy. All of your evidence is based on "analysis's predictions" to CD in a "democracy.
In a democracy civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

the intelligent Singaporean is a blog so that makes all of their evidence from that source irrelevant in today's debate once civil disobedience turns violent it is no longer c.d. and if the government is performing violent actions against it people for disobeying the law this only dramatises the injustice upon them if social contract theory disallows c.d. can you give me an actual example of social contract theory? no the imaginary world where imaginary people come together to form an imaginary government may not allow c.d. but no where has social contract theory been used as a form of government to rightfully rule the people.
World War 3 After Math

Let's get this straight world war 3 is going to happen and if it does no one is going to win. I say this because if North Korea bombs us first we automatically go to war with them but it won't be just them it would be there allies also for example Russia and other countries. It's the same if we bomb them we all have allies but no one would win it would just be a war that no one is gonna win. It's just a lose - lose situation and of course terrorist groups are gonna get involved such as ISIS so basically no one is gonna win. All that is gonna happen is all of our countries going to war for no reason and the aftermath is gonna be horrific everyone is gonna die either because of the nuclear bombing or just the pollution that it's gonna cause.
Climate change

Global Warming (or climate change in the hot way) is the thing. It is a win or lose election debate topic. It is also very contested in the public field (media). The IPCC states that it exists and that it is human induced. State intervention is often motivated by climate change concerns. However there are many scientists, people and companies that contest climate change or human induced climate change. They have interesting arguments. I believe that they are mistaken. I define human global warming as the abnormal and significant increase of mean global temperatures caused (in part) by human activity. I expect to win if i can show that 1 climate change (in the sense of global warming) exists 2 it is caused in a significant degree by human activity I consider that my opponent wins if he/she is able to negate either of the above. I will affirm 3 arguments to sustain my position: science cvasi-consensus, observable events in the world around us, mental experiment. At this moment there is near consensus between scientists that global warming exists and is human induced[1]. The scientific model is quite simple to understand and makes sense. It is clear that the weather is influenced by many factors, and some are more powerful than others. The greenhouse effect is a powerful factor as shown by the super greenhouse effect on Venus. [2] Green house gases have increased at the highest level in the last 650 000 years after the industrial revolution. [3] To bring the scientific argument down to the human level and to avoid an authority argument i will point out that ice caps are already melting, the first drowned polar bears were found, more violent weather is happening etc. What is more, the arctic ice shows an increase in carbon concentration and temperature.[4] The mental experiment part is more complex in the sense that it involves the concept of positive feed-back. The oceans trap carbon while they are cold, when they heat up they release carbon. This a positive feed-back loop and it means that things will only get worse.[5] . Humans have reached a level where they can affect the climate. Acid rains and other city related weather are examples of humans influencing weather. In conclusion, from the scientific, factual and mental experiment arguments I conclude that global warming exists and it is human induced. Looking forward for a good debate. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu... [3] http://news.mongabay.com... [4] http://www.heatisonline.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Olympics are not the measuring rods for sports

Olympics are the world leading sports event ! 200 nations and 11,544 athletes (Rio 2016 participant) take part on this big competition. There are around 8,000 sports in the world. As you said there are a lot of native sports for some countries. If unpopular sports will be part of the Olympics, the number of nations and athletes that will take place will be very low. It won't have the desired attention from the people. So, the audience and spectators, numbers will be low too. Maybe Olympics are focusing to the most popular sports, which will attract more people and athletes all over the world.
Ouran Highschool Host club is the best anime in the world

From what I can understand, this debate is somewhat petty. Because I have been in no debates thus far, this seems to be a starting point. I have seen this anime, and while I do appreciate it, I believe that it will be hard to prove it to be the "best in the world". You have one round to prove otherwise, Pro. Let's make this clear though: you must prove definitely that "'Ouran Highschool Host club' is the best anime in the world"
Ouran Highschool Host club is the best anime in the world

Ouran Highschool Host Club (OHSHC) is far superior to all other Japan-made anime shows. It is full of gripping testimonies and the lessons that racial nationality doesn't matter! This also includes education to children about transsexuals, homosexuality, incest, and good and bad awesomeness. I DARE YOU TO ARGUE WITH ME... SUCCKKKEERRR
Gun restrictions would be ineffective

I agree with your statement about terrorists seizing their weapons illegally, but why not make it more difficult to obtain a gun in the first place? This would make America a potentially smarter and safer community. Terrorists main goal is to invoke terror amongst groups of people, either killing them or just to scare. Although, obviously, terrorists aren't the only people who use guns to hurt other people. People against gun restrictions need to take into consideration that many individuals every year die from accidental gun deaths, suicides, and the facts that arming everybody isn't going to help and neither are assault weapons. "From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.* Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005"2010 were under 25 years of age.**" *&**(http://smartgunlaws.org...) "As of December 23, a total of 12,942 people had been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide."*** ***(https://www.thetrace.org...) These statistics show that the death rate caused by guns has only gone up rather than stagnant. Only to add to this, according to afsp. org states that firearms account for fifty percent of all suicides.**** ****(http://afsp.org...). Arming everyone with guns won't help keep America safe, and assault weapons only add to the reasons why we need stricter gun laws. People who try to step in and take down terrorists with their own guns/weapons, for example, are only more likely to be killed by the terrorist themselves. Furthermore, assault weapons won't protect them any more than a standard gun would. In closing, we will never be able to fully control gun laws to where nobody will be able to own a gun-I am against this myself-and criminals will always break the law. However, with stricter gun laws we can slowly begin to lower the amounts of accidental deaths and suicides which guns are responsible.
Gun restrictions would be ineffective

It's alright :-) I can always re-issue it. Gun laws simply would not work. In fact, most terrorists seize their guns illegally, so laws wouldn't help with that. Many people seem to think that guns are the only way to murder these days. They are definitely one of the most effective ways, but not the only. Then there are bombs, like grenades, suicide vests, and time bombs. Following that in most effective ways, there are cutting instruments like knives and swords (yes, people can still get their hands on those these modern days). I'm guessing all of you guys out there have gotten a paper cut. What if that was your jugular? You'd be dead. Then there's killing with body parts. These include fists, feet, and even fingers, which can kill by pressing down very hard on another's temples for approximately thirty seconds! In fact, knives are used in killings five times more than rifles! Here's a chart of which instruments of death were used in monitored killings: http://www.nationalreview.com... . So my first argument is that guns aren't the only way to kill.
cultural acceptance of homosexuality is damaging to society

DefinitionsCultural: of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society. Acceptance: the action or process of being received as adequate or suitable, typically to be admitted into a group. Homosexuality: romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. Damaging: inflict physical harm on (something) so as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function. Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. (All definitions from google dictionary)Burden of ProofThe burden of proof is on Pro. I will allow him to make the first statements. Good luck.
should not true stories be aloud in articles

Dude... This is a debate... Debate!_____________________________There are several reasons why untrue stories should be allowed in articles.1. If we did not allow untrue articles, how would we enforce it?2. If we did not allow untrue articles, who would decide what articles are untrue?3. If we did not allow untrue articles, that abridgement of the 1st ammendment might be used as precedent for future precedent for further violation.
White people are better than black people.

Black people are equal to whites, and I will PROVE IT. Ozone is depleting [1]. When Ozone has depleted sufficiently, harmful UV radiation will bombard the Earth [2]. This can cause cancer [3]. Fairer-skined people will be at a severe disadvantage. Black people, however, are nat- urally resistan to UV radiation [4]. They will be able to survive the radiation bombardment longer than whites. Michael Jordan, who is regarded as the best at basketball, is black. Michael Jackson, who is regarded as the best at dancing, was black. Usain Bolt, World's Fastest man, is black. This shows that black people are better athletes. Eminem, who is regarded as the best rapper of all time, was black. Eminem also had an IQ of 140 [5]. This is important because this shows that rap musis, which is black peoples' favorite music, was composed by a genius. Motzart and Beethoven, both of whom had an IQ of at least 180, are only listened to by 4% of people [6], which means that black people listen to more geniusly composed music than whites. Black people age slower than whites [7]. They then get more life experience than whites. The most important point, the twist to my argument: Black people are white people. [8] This means that black people are as prepared for life than whites. White people are a species of black people, since everyone evolved from black people, so everything good you attribute to white people are actually attributed to blacks. In the areas I have mentioned, black/brown-skinned black people surpass white-skinned black people. In other areas White-skinned black people surpass black/brown skinned black people. But since both species are black, they are equal. This position isn't against the rules because I have argued against the position that whites are better than blacks. This fits the definitions; White people descended from Black People, who were from Africa. http://www.epa.gov... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... http://cancer.stanford.edu... http://anthro.palomar.edu... http://www.chacha.com... http://wiki.answers.com... http://colonizespace.blogspot.com...
White people are better than black people.

As it is understood, climate change is existent [1], which means that there is more atmospheric carbon dioxide, which means higher temperatures universally. The colour black absorbs light [2], and since light is quite high in temperature already, being near something that's black will be extremely unpleasant in the future, and even today in certain areas and certain times of the year in places. This brings me to my next point.Camouflage It is not known what other species will evolve into. This, of course, means that they could evolve into things with the desire and capabilities to kill humans. This idea is starting to enter the world of science, as is evident from Professor Hawking's (the most intelligent man living) thoughts [3]. So, when this happens, we will need to hide, and to hide, we need camouflage. As I said before, being near something black will be very unpleasent, so the chances of black people surviving are very little, unless of course they run away [4] (To clarify, no racism is implied, I was simply pointing out the fact that the fastest man is black) This means that white people are in fact better than black people, because they have a much higher chance of surviving for a lot longer.RappingAs is evident, an overwhelming amount of rappers are black [5]. But, the thing is the the vast majority of intellectuals hate rap because iit dumbs down people who listen to it. Here is an example of a typical rap:I wake up and my brain knows (knows)Gonna kick some hoes! (hoes)Gonna pick m' nose! (nose)Gonna eat m' clothes! (clothes)'Cuz I'm a winner!The extreme effect then gives person(s) the desire to become a winner and to therefore do all the activities mentioned in the video, so we end up with a bunch of idiots. So, white people are better than black people becausew they don't make people dumber. ConclusionI have given two scientific arguments to support my side, and they come complete with sources. Sources [1] http://climate.nasa.gov...[2] http://science.howstuffworks.com...[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[4] http://deadspin.com...[5] https://www.google.co.uk...
White people are better than black people.

At school, there was always this black kid. Here he is: http://www.cricketbread.com...Anyway, there was this black student in our school, and he loved rapping. Sorry, I spelt that wrong. He loved wrapping. So much in fact that he wrapped everyone's presents.Clever and creative jokes aside, there was a black child in my school and he loved rapping. He always rapped about how white people can't rap. This is probably why he got the title 'That weird kid'. One rainy and windy afternoon, my friend and I were conversing in the bushes. I said 'We should call black people 'poo people' My friend was gobsmacked, perhaps he just didn't understand. 'Get it? Because white people are better than black people.' My friend then said 'I'd like to inform you on the discrimination located in your suggestion. As parents and teachers always tell us, it is unfair and morally incorrect to say that one group of people is better than another group of people when you don't know all the people of either group personally' I was very impressed, especially since he was only 6 years old.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether white people are better than black people.
is it ok to have electronic in class and to use them in class activities

You have no specified the classes that you think you should be able to use electronics. In classes such as math and math related sciences, you could use electronics such as calculators to help you. But, my opponent has not specified what electrics should be used. An Ipod(touch) or Ipad could distract other students and could be used to cheat. Also class is a time to learn thus, anything that would keep you from learning would be counter-productive. Please expand your side of the argument so that I may make a more directed counter-argument.