BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

Greetings. Are you a PF debater? I am policy. First I would like to define the word 'Justice'. Justice: rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice. This is a people's defintion and is the best one in the round. Civil Disobidence can not be an appropriate weapon simply because the word 'justice' implies obeying laws. 2) In a democracy: I also would like to disagree with your implications of this phrase. The resolution does not state, 'in models of a democracy' or 'countries that consider themselves a democracy'. The fact is is that the emperical examples of civil disobedience were never in a democracy. The Civil Rights Movement suffered from unconstitutional Jim Crow Laws. They also denied African Americans the right to vote. That is not a 'democracy'. Gahndi certainly was not in a democracy, but rather an empire. 3) If everyone was civily disobedient, we would end up in anarchy. Everyone has different views on different political situations. This does not mean that everyone can protest without obeying the law. For instance, I disagree with the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush defends it. If no one were to take the tests, what you be the point? Many people are opposed to the Iraq War because it is unjust, but if everyone disobeyed laws to protest, we would have to make more of an effort in our country to deal with this, and the problem in Iraq would only get worse. 4) Even peaceful, Civily disobedient protests can escalate into violence. For instance, there was immence rioting when Ghandi was arrested, as well as when MLK was. 5) Civil Disobedience is not the correct way to get your message across. There is the court of law that exists in a democracy, as well as peaceful protests that obey the law. That is what MLK advocated, and even told people to not bail him out because he believed in the system. Now onto your points- 1. < > As in my first point, these were not in a democracy. He cites Rosa Parks, but again, that was under unconstitutional Jim Crow Laws. And they he says, "Boston Tea Party is an example of civil disobedience and that united the colonies to fight for their freedom against England." 'Fight for their freedom'. That does not sound like a democracy to me. 2. < > As I have said in point 5, there are other ways, like the court of law. Our country is a 'democracy', and we have the right to a SPEEDY trial. It would be eaiser to obey the law and get your point across then not obey the law and get your point across. 3. < > That may be true for certain laws, but not others. Laws that violate the constitution aren't 'in a democracy', so my opponent can not make this argument. Also, there are many laws that are being broken that are just. Most are. For example, robbing a building. The robber is obviously breaking the law, but that does not mean that he is moral, because he is against that law. It is for these reasons that I negate the resolution, In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.
death penalty should be abolish

Yet there is the major issue now of overpopulation in prisons in America so certain criminals are being let out due to that issue so people who are in prison for a life sentence with good behaviour and "rehabilitation" they are being released and causing more of a danger to society again. So you're saying we should put these prisoners to work instead? In other words the government gets cheap or free labor while screwing over the little guy and taking away work from the people who actually need the work and money. How is allowing a monster to work helping anyone? Answer? It isn't. Giving them the death penalty is what these inhuman people deserve for the unspeakable crimes they have committed. We do not lose our humanity in taking the life of a person who has committed acts of such evil, we are protecting future victims and punishing this person or crimes worthy of death. Also many families also want the person who took their loved one away to die, their will always be families who have lost a loved one to a murderer who would rather them rot in jail than death whereas there will also be many who want that person to die for stealing the life of their loved one or ones. Also the cost itself is debatable as well, all agree the initial cost of the death penalty process is quite expensive but in the long term life in prison can cost even more. Also there are laws protecting mentally challenged people and children from being given the death penalty so your argument there is invalid. Also by the sounds of it the governments you are talking about there are corrupt ones anyway which even if they didn't have the death penalty would still scurry off certain people and have them killed in secret anyway. That is not the death penalty it is an assassination that even if the death penalty was abolished would still happen anyway. In America you get judged by a jury of your peers you have evidence brought before the court to prove your guilt and even when found guilty are still given certain rights which protect you. Death is never the soft release death is the final release and most of these criminals would rather life in prison than the death penalty and the ones who don't care are the ones where life in prison wouldn't cause them any suffering anyway because they don't feel like we do they are inhuman. In the end the death penalty shouldn't be abolished it is a punishment reserved for those certain monsters that commit such evil acts that letting them live is the crime. In conclusion I believe I have given enough reason to show why the death penalty should not be abolished.
death penalty should be abolish

look! Nowadays almost every State in the U.S has life in prison without parole. Moreover, states without death penalty have much lower murder rates. Unlike decades ago, a sentence of life without parole generally means exactly what it says - convicts looked away in prison until they die. Why you do not think about public works instead of giving them death penalty? The most imporant thing of giving those public works instead of giving them death penalty? The most important thing of giving those public works is government will have a benefit. For example some countries work on this system and by this they get benefit from prisoners. Why do we have to kill them when they can do such kind of things? Inspite of the fact we are not lose our humanity too. Many family members who have lost their relatives to murder feel that the death penalty will not heal their wounds nor end their pain, and the extended process prior to executions can prolong the agony experienced by the family. Funds now being used for the costly process of executions could be used to help families put their lives back together through restitution, crime victim hotlines, and other services addressing their needs. Also, when the death penalty is administered by systems and Governments that are sometimes discriminate against the poor, the mentally ill, religious minorities, women and even children it cannot be allowed to continue and must be abolished. Some people are lost forever and in my point of view some murderers and other perverted people will suffer more in jail. that's why, capital punishment is a soft realise!
death penalty should be abolish

So say the unthinkable happens and someone you love and care for is viciously killed by someone who had killed before and will kill again, this person gets caught though, are you saying you would rather this person get a life sentence instead of the death penalty? Also say a murderer who was eliglbe for the death penalty but got life instead, while in prison proceeds to kill a guard in cold blood this guard had a family and friends that had this murderer gotten the death penalty instead would not be mourning the loss of a loved one. You say life in prison is worse than death? I know prisons are bad but getting 3 square meals a day a roof over your head and bed that's better than what the homeless and poor get yet these vile people who killed for the sake of killing are getting to live out their lives even though they took the lives of others. Now I'm not saying all murderers deserve the death penalty but there are people out there who commit such atrocious acts of violence they do not deserve to live they are the embodiment of evil that would keep killing until they are dead. These people who deserve to face the death penalty do so not because they made some mistakes in life they do so because they killed innocent people and destroyed families lives.
death penalty should be abolish

Nowadays I know that in our world to exist violent killers are so dangerous and despite the fact the right way for them is life sentence. Moreover the death penalty is the easiest solution to get away from the problems that they have done. Also escape of the solution is not easy to do. Although if it will happen, it's better than death of guiltless person and such of situations was in the world where suffered innocent people. I recommend you to watch the speech of Bryan Stevenson "We need to talk about injustice" on ted.com and after this video I hope that you will think deeply and change your mind in a good way.
death penalty should be abolish

First off I think my opponent has taken the wrong stand and should not be con since your argument is for abolishing the death penalty whereas the con in this debate is not to abolish the death penalty. With that in mind I will debate for the con even though it says I'm for. The death penalty should not be abolished some monsters out their deserve to die simple as that, child murderers, serial killers, terrorists, mass murderers and many other inhuman beings deserve the death penalty. To say that makes us no better than them is a completely false argument because we are stopping a very severe evil. These people who commit these acts worthy of the death sentence aren't human they are remorseless killers and fiends who committed horrendous acts against others. Ending their lives is what they deserve for their actions.
death penalty should be abolish

I think that death penalty is too cruel. In spite of the fact that somebody kills someone it does not matter that our society has rights to kill too. It means that we are murderers too. I believe that istead of death penalty it's better to give them life sentence. Because life without freedom, it is the worst think in our life. Also, we knew such situations were suffered innocent people and it is awful. That's why, before talk about every kind of death penalty, we must think about the meaning and the reason of this punishment.
Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

I'm very sorry for the delay, a bunch of things keep getting thrown my way ie:debate team, english project, work, catching up to skip pre-calculus and go straight to calculus and etc. I'm truly sorry for the wait, but here's my rebuttal :). -"The benefits point" Nonetheless the relationship has to be part of the government for such things like custody and child support to exist. Otherwise, as boyfriend/girlfriend one would be required to do so while those married don't follow the same principle. Under such logic, people would be exempt from man things, because the government can not associate with marriage or aspects of marriage.-The "contractual argument" Again i provide the example of a prenuptual agreement. It seems the opponent overlooked this. The choice to mutually settle who gets what in the event of a divorce can easily be settled under marrital terms.-The "runaway point" The difference is that under marrital circumstances (follow my first point) an individual can be prosecuted for things like child support when found.-The "marriage-government" sum up. The idea of marriage under government, as i've stated before, allows an individual the choice of marriage. It allows an individual to decide upon marriage to another person regardless of religion (as well as religious differences). It exists because it allows, it does not take. A marriage under a government does not exist for prejudice or religious promotion, it exists for beneficial purposes. Throughout this case, nothing pointed to the idea that marriage under a government exists for something other than beneficial LEGAL purposes. So there is no harm of marriage being a prat of the government.Voting Points-My agnostic/athiestic argument from round 1 stands (tie this in to the marriage government argument)-My option argument from round 1 stands (tie into marriage-government argument)-My benefits point from round 1 stands(link to runaway point, benefits point[r3], and contractual argument)-The Con case stands while the Pro falls since Pro could not provide an argument as to why marriage under government is detrimental. In other words, the pro could not uphold the implied burden(that marriage should be seperated from the government because something detrimental can/has occur[ed])
Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

I agree with the general definition that you provided as it would make discussing the concept much simpler. - From many of the arguements that con has provided, it can be concluded that the main benefits of recognizing a marriage by government, would be to protect a child's well-being and provide legal recognition. - The argument con provided for children's well-being forgets that not only married couples are capable of having children. Whenever issues as such rise up (even in couples who are not married), the matter can still be resolved (and is resolved) by legal-means. - The recogntion of marriage by law, suggests that certain legal-contacts (shaped by a third-parties ideology) should be imposed on a couple upon divorce or marriage. While if marriage was to be kept for the individuals' to decide on, contracts of the sort could still be made but with mutually agreed on property division formula. - " If one party felt like it, they could just take off and drop their responsibilities. " A good point, but considering the fact that there have been many cases of parents simply running away from their families even while they are married. This point doesn't offer anything other then emotional appeal. To make things simpler, the act of marriage itself cannot be in the government for it will always insult another groups definition of marriage. The contracts and benefits that legal recognition of marriage can provide, can be and are already being offered for couples who are not married. (Wills, Contracts and Child Support don't require a marriage status). I urge a Pro vote for these reasons, and await a response :)
Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

Anyways, let me begin. First, I must agree, the definition i provided was a very limiting one, yet it was meant to serve as a basis. Observing the various spans of the definition can provide a better definition. Marriage=The state of being united to a person/people of the opposite(or same) sex as partners in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law -An analysis narrows this down to people only since it is provided the marriage must be consensual and contractual (in casemy opponent felt like making outlandish arguments)-To my athiest/agnostic point. One can take in numerous factors ie: an orphaned couple that want to engage in marriage,an eloping couple etc. Nonetheless, a marriage under government consent provides much simpler means to engage in the act. Furthrmore, it creates a contractual engagement (putting more emphasis on engaging in the act and maintaining the relationship). -Yet, the contractual recognition provides more to the couple. If said couple were to divorce, one party of the ended marriage would maintain custod over a child (and be legally backed), would recieve child support/compensation(again legally backed) while the other party would be pressed to do so. Such things provide a more suitable life fore the child and a much more resolved divorce due to the fact that if an individual were not to live up to their responsibilities, the law would take effect whereas under Pro's world, no such thing would happen. -My opponent never provides the "freedoms present" that he speaks of nor emphasizes how this is beneficial. -Frauds can occur as well under non-legal marriages ie: an individual constantly asks for monetary items, then flees. As for the love point, it is provided that a couple marrying is already engaged in some feeling of love. And even if love weren't involved, there is a reason prenuptual agreements exist, for the very frauds you speak of. Another point is that non contractual marriages can be more likely to result in divorces since there is no binding agreement. If one party felt like it, they could just take off and drop their responsibilities. -A governmental recognition still entitles the parties of the marriage to undergo said marriage anyway they please with the addition of laws meant to be beneficial towards at least one party under an circumstances. -Lastly, my points of government benefits, options, and circumstantial situations can remain evident throughout this rebuttal and can then prove that i continue referring back to my case. Thus you deduce the arguments presented also act as reinforcements towards my case. I urge a Con vote and await my opponent's response.
Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

Sorry about the long response, my internet provider screwed me up.I thank my opponent for his response.- "Marriage=The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law...`` Marriage is defined differentely by different cultures, in order to accept this premise then you need to assume that other defintions don`t exist, which is not logical. The only defintion that does persist in all cultures is uniting two or/and no more people.- "An Athiest/Agnostic can not proclaim marriage under a church and must instead..." Marriage does have to be identified by the church, in fact depending on your religion and philosophy, it is enough to be identified by the parents. - By not having an institute of marriage in the government (where one must obtain a license to marry or recieve legal premission to marry), the freedom and options avaible to individual increase, for obvious reasons.- When a marriage institute exists in government (like ours), many frauds and misfortunate cases are likely to occur. When a couple is not bound to each other by law, but by "love" or religion, that couple is more likely to have mutual benefits for each member since the notion of being bound to their partner with free-will and not by the threat of property loss makes the couple look for real connections with one another. I know this by looking at the number of people who are much happier prior to the property-division institute of marriage.- Lastly, it is discrimatory to choose one defintion of marriage over another, you can't force a catholic to accept marriage as "between two persons", a mormon that it is between "no more then two individuals" or a gay-person that it is "between one man and one women". In order to protect each groups definiton of marriage one must get rid of the government involvement in it.I urge a pro vote and await a response.
Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

-First off, marriage is incorporated into governments to identify the conditions of the government. By doing so, the government can learn what it must to better their citizens lives (and customize their benefits to meet couples, families, and etc. ). Since this leads to a better condition of living, this becomes morally permissible. - Marriage=The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Even if one were do disregard the law portion, this definition outlines that a 3rd party must recognize a said marriage and adjust its interactions to the couple and not per individual. -Take on an Athiest/Agnostic view. An Athiest/Agnostic can not proclaim marriage under a church and must instead, do so under a government. To standardize such an action, government marriage is able to all under that government. Furthermore, it standardizes a type of marriage regardless of religion (which becomes permissible since the government does not acknowledge on religion/belief/practice over another). -Finally, it allows an option for those who prefer to profess marriage under a government. Leaving an option looks to and individuals autonomy and respects their decision under that government. It allows individuals to have the marriage of their choice, a choice that the government must recognize since it exists to serves the people's benefits and desires. I urge a Con vote and await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

Argument: - Marriage is a personal choice, a religious one to some people. It is my belief that there shouldn't be a government institution of marriage.- For many people, marriage posses a different definitions, in some cultures marriage is viewed as the prime institution for procreation, in others it is a transaction made between the father and the husband. And in contemporary-culture it is a loving institute between two individuals.By "changing" the definition of marriage in courts or even having a definition for what is clearly a religious and/or personal choice, you are always bond to have resistance and violation of individual-rights.* I'm still new to this site, so be nice ^.^
Does this poem capture the anguish of ageing

I would also like to apologize for not posting my arguments until now. Because I am posting them so late in the round, I would like to open up discussion in the comments section, so that this debate remains fair. 1. ) I would like to point out that my opponent provides no support or evidence as to how these quotes support the resolution. The resolution was: "Does this poem capture the anguish of ageing". My opponent shows quotes from the poem, yet does not connect them back to the resolution. If my opponent cannot explain how these quotes show suffering, then how can he expect us to look to this?2. ) My opponent has not proven, or even begun to show that anguish and aging are mutually inclusive. The statement that he makes, is based on the assumption that as you age, you will be in more anguish than you ever were when you were younger. This assumption is in no way backed up by logic or fact. Many people believe the exact opposite, showing that this statement is untrue. While often times, ageing may bring more physical pain, it may bring mental peace and security, as wisdom often accompanies age. The point here is that aging does not always bring anguish, and for my opponents argument to function, this would have to be true.
Does this poem capture the anguish of ageing

I present this qoute to illustrate the anguish this poem shows quote "orchid flowers crusted with dew under moonlight sparkling pearls dangling off petals pinkish hue jasmine petals intricately laced cover window sills branch dappled with moss thru window spreads in glassy pool lotus bloom float as o"er head orioles on leafy limbs to the moon sing peony flower wet with dew drips petals faded beauty in chrysanthemum robes of silken yellow studies pallid face in mirror of silver bordered with simurghs face a drop of white snow does no more glow white finger her red carnelian lips do trace with no one to taste "neath skirt of sendal silk "
Does this poem capture the anguish of ageing

I argue this poem capture the anguish of aging-by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean http://www.scribd.com... from preface Preface Quickly spring passes autumn winters are long flower blooms then faded becomes alone in scented rooms petals weep no more the honey dew does seep the bee to fresher blooms their company to keep colors faded to pallid hues withered wrinkled petals no one wants to view in the night to pick no one comes to pluck