BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

The death penalty does not cost as much money, as to situations in which we simply followed previously listed propositions 3 and 4. Video and scientific evidence are far more reliable when compared to eye witness reports, which are unreliable, and most likely what you are referring to. My opponent's economic argument is therefore invalid when placed alongside propositions 3 and 4. My opponent argues that life in prison is worse than death. In prison, your family members can still visit you. Can family members visit you when you are in a coffin? When you are in prison, you live. Life is far more valuable to any given person than is being mocked and occasionally hurt by peers. You can still form friendships in prison. You can have dreams in prison. You have consciousness in prison. It is for these reasons that I state that life in prison is not as bad as death. My opponents' statistics are questionable as they do not have a proper source or study cited, and are therefore invalid. The death penalty, unlike what my opponent stated, is constitutional. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states: "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law." The 14th Amendment states: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law.". Not only do these amendments support the death penalty, but the Supreme Court noted that when the Eight Amendment was written regarding cruel and unusual punishment, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State. The US Supreme Court, for over 200 years, repeatedly declared the death penalty to be constitutional (except for the time span between 1972 to 1976). Fear is a strong deterrent. Death is a greater fear than an environment in which you are not in peak physical condition and are socially unaccepted by some others, just as you will see in the rest of the United States (only with less violence outside of prison).
Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

The death penalty is a process in which convicted criminals are executed by government authority. While many countries have stopped this act, the United States continues it to this day. This penalty is virtually useless at a deterrent. It also is prone to error, killing wrongfully convicted people. The Supreme Court should rule the death penalty as cruel and unusual, prohibited by the eighth amendment. Because the death penalty is often used in an arbitrary manner where it is allowed, the capital punishment has been reduced dramatically. Even so, it still uses a tremendous amount of money. Capital punishment also fails to deter major criminal activity, as evidence has shown. The connection between more/less frequent use of the death penalty and major criminal activity show no relationship. Would you feel okay if the man who tortured and killed your family was simply and painlessly killed, only to escape the mental anguish having to be dealt with in prison, where the people there won't be very kind to you? The death penalty is unconstitutional, violating the eighth amendment as cruel and unusual punishment, and the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees equal protection and due process, as ruled in the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia by The Supreme Court. Statistics show that people who murder white people are much more likely to be sentenced to death than those whose victims were not white, and that black people who kill white people have the greatest chance of receiving a death sentence. The death sentence system is far from the most effective system we the people can use to get crime off our streets!
the i dont know position means, i know its false

all the knowledge i have is from my sensory experience, yes i have plenty of memory.. religion is not true, thats why you have to believe in it, because you dont know is true, and not that religion is true logic is observation, log i see logic is absolute, no belief involved, i know you cant close your eyes and read on if you are human like me, so its resonable to keep them open, logical anything that is created or constructed is a machine, and nature is life, so i am not created, cause and effect i have no beliefs, matter is eternel, no beginning and no end, only now religion is belief, unknown, not real, if its known, its not a religion i see rocks, there is no religion in that statement for me logic is by default eternal, as any cause is cause by another cause, a first cause is impossible. imagination is false religion is illogical, belief is illogical, while the opposite of belief is knowledge, is logical there is no logic in fantasy reality is logic
the i dont know position means, i know its false

know=sensory experience belief=imaginary i have no beliefs, and i agree atheism is about beliefs, specifikally disbelief, the no position my position is different, i know god is false, got several proofs for it now know=logic cause+effect=logic i know you cant close your eyes and read on, close them now and read on to prove me wrong, but of course if you have transparent eyes lids you can prove me wrong nature=logic=log i see gods will is written on nature, thats why it seams appealing, but dont buy bull i can see nature, no need for belief in god. i can pick up a book, and read it beneath an apple tree, but i can let the book program me and tell me i shouldnt reach up and take an apple to taste it because the apple is not good to eat, but am i going to listen to the book, or taste the fruit for myself? im not hinting at the evil tree story, just apples in general, a book could say stupid things like this for me to believe in ok here is the logic that prove you are wrong, cause and effect:anything that is created and constructed is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature religion is false by default, as i dont know is true, thats why i can at best imagine and believe in religion
the i dont know position means, i know its false

know=physical experience=matter=true=now i see that i dont see a dog in my room=i know i dont know a dog in my room religion is unknown by default for it to be religion, if i know it i dont have to believe in it, if god was walking around mountain high telling and comanding us to do stuff there would be no religion about it belief=theism=religion im not talking about knowledge, i dont know is a position on an imaginary claim, the maybe position. religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge if i ask you, am i wearing a hat right now, you have no knowledge, no facts, no memory of that, it is imaginary, and you dont know it like you know you are reading these words on a screen religion is false, no need to disprove what hasnt been proved you dont have to imagine tomorrow? pick up the 0 sodas from the floor that you can comprehend you cant you cant experience tomorrow without your imagination any false answer is imaginary, 1+1=3=false 1 stone in my hand, and 1 more stone in my hand, is 2 stones in my hand, and i have to imagine a third knowledge is irrelevant to this debate, religious claims being unknown only 3 positions exist, yes no or maybe, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know, theism, atheism, agnostic, positive, negative, balance
the i dont know position means, i know its false

If I misunderstand anything, please clarify for me in your next response. I take it you mean that the two statements or positions "I don't know" and "I know it is false" mean the same thing. That is false. Although, it is possible, I admit, that someone could say "I don't know" while having the knowledge that they themselves indeed do know, and that they know "it" (which might be a claim or position, because only concepts can be false) to ultimately be false. But people can be truthful. If someone is truthful in their position in not knowing, then the lack of knowledge in the position does not determine it to be false in their minds. People's lack of knowledge in their position in a matter does not determine what is true or false to themselves. In the same way, the lack of knowledge doesn't make something false to people, as you claim. I don't know if it will rain tomorrow. My lack of knowledge doesn't suddenly mean I know FOR SURE that "It will rain tomorrow" is a false statement. That would be absurd.
100 debate challenge 1: This House believes single-sex schools are good for education

Full Topic This House believes single-sex schools are good for education Rules1. Pro accepts the sole BOP2. No forfeits3. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate4. No new arguments in the final round5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere6. No semantics or trolling7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's presents his CaseR2. Con presents his Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case and Crystallizes
100 debate challenge 1: This House believes single-sex schools are good for education

This is not a policy debate. Me and my opponent have the same BOP. He has to show that single sex schools are good for education. I have to show they aren't good they are either average or bad. My opponent basically concedes that boys attending single sex schools are more likely to be divorced which obviously leads to more single parent homes and what not. Single sex schools give kids less experience with the opposite sex which leads to more sexism in the work place. Therefore vote for me.
100 debate challenge 1: This House believes single-sex schools are good for education

Thanks Con. Con's points were as following: Same sex schools harm girl's education Boys suffer increased mental health problems It deprives multi-gendered experience So. I will address them in turn. Same sex schools harm girl's education Con provides no argument here, thus it can be dismissed out of hand. Pro provided one timely india article to substantiate his claim but does not show how it substantiates his claims. Upon reviewing the article I can find absolutely nothing which alludes to single-sex schools and only talks about a general gender biased literacy gap. It does not establish: That same-sex schools *caused* this drop in literacy Take into account complicating factors (such as other social gender-biased influences) Any *general* trends about single sex school education If we compare Pro's one study, to mine, which were reviews of *thousands* of independant studies! and which control for complicating factors, it is clear who's position is grounded in the facts. Boys suffer increased mental health problems: Note that Pro's own source (which is an independant newspaper article... And hardly credible) states: "Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys " both in terms of academic performance and socialisation." This seems to be a case of Con cherry picking the facts which make his own position more appealing and ignoring the other findings. Furthermore absolutely nothing in Pro's article actually alludes to *mental health*, this claim is entirely fabricated by Con and hence can be dismissed. On the issue of increased divorce rates for men, so what? How does divorce correlate with being unbeneficial given the 'merits' of marriage is a contentious issue anyway? Ni statistics were providd in Pro's source so it is impossible to tell whether the purported effect in divorce is 0.001% or 100%, we are left to take their word on the size of impact and imagine what it might be. Without the percentage facts we can not reasonably make an assessment that it significantly has any effect on same-sex education whatsoever. To give an analogy, you can remove your spare tyre to reduce your cars weight and increase fuel efficiency, but the gain is probably so negligible that it's barely worth discussing. It deprives multi-gendered experience: I will quickly concede that boys/girls in co-educational environments will have more experience with the opposite sex. I question the impacts this has though, and Con has provided no evidence or studies which attempt to quantify this on any level. Is there an appreciable difference in how boys/girls interact in the real world? We are left speculating by Con, which is simply not adequate for a policy debate. Evidence is king. Back to Con.
100 debate challenge 1: This House believes single-sex schools are good for education

Schools teach students a lot more than just the 3 R's (reading, riting, rithmatic). The education you get goes way beyond that. So if kids do get an education which would equate to the same amount of knowledge in the 3 R's in single sex schools as they do in lot's of sex schools than I still say they lack a lot of the knowledge that comes with recieving an education in multi gender environments. Preparaton- My opponent is correct in saying that there is little evidence that the education recieved in a single sex school would be superior to one in a Co-ducational school. http://www.theguardian.com... I seriously have to rush this out de to my crappy timing. I'll do rebuttals next round and will be forced to condense them down to shore up any missed points in this rrushed argument. 1. When kids get into the work force they will often have to work in multi gendered facilities. If they don't get used to this type of environment early it may have negative impacts on how they perform at their job. 2. It's bad for boys because they often get mental health problems and suffer more from divorce later than if they were in a mixed school' http://www.independent.co.uk... 3. These schools harm girls education. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
The Bible is reliable

The Bible consist of 66 Books that contains information related to history, religious doctrine, practical wisdom and so on. Each narrative has its own merits and should be interpreted within the context it is written. I think it is often not putting things in context that creates problems. An example is the inscription on the cross. Three different versions are given of what was written that do not essentially contradict each other but omit information. It is also said that the inscription was written in three different languages. The different accounts may be explained that the writers were quoting what was said singiling out the account based on a particular language. Due to translation the accounts may differ in the language it was written. Taking that into account there is no conclusive proof of a contradiction and it is plausible the accounts are reliable although different in detail. Awaiting your arguments. Thanks again.
cell phones

I would first like to start my argument by pointing out that my opponent has only stated ONE opinion with no supporting details as to why kids should have cell phones in school. And now, on to my stand point. Kids should not have cell phones in school because they are a distraction in the classroom to the teacher and the entire class. If the phone where to go off during a lesson, the teacher would have to stop the lesson just to address the student. This takes away time learn from everyone. Cell phones should also be banned because they tempt kids to cheat. Most cell phones have Internet access as well as a calculator application or installment. this can be a way to find answers to tests and quizzes, which is the stuff they should have known in the first place. and third, cell phones keep students from learning as much as they could without it. The distraction of cell phones causes learning to be restricted. sure they can listen, but paying complete attention causes more learning. I look for to my opponents rebuttal.
The Way video games are demonized in the news

Now I want to talk about one more thing witch I think is the reason the news demonizes it. Some games are easy to download and you don't need that much info to get it. These M rated games are on adds everywhere on your computer. Some kids secretly download them on their laptops. If you were a parent and you found out your child was playing M rated games on their computer. The fact that anyone can download these of course there is going to be something bad in the news about it. But video games can get great reviews on the news too. On these servers Like minecraft you cant track this sort of stuff. Some of these servers are owned by multiple people so kicks bans are harder and they cant monitor thousands of people all at once. This is why video games will be looked somewhat bad in the news.
The Way video games are demonized in the news

Well Yes it is concerning that a First grader is playing GTA and also the jokes and such on an online venue such as minecraft doesn't reflect the gaming community it reflects upon the person playing the game and as for kids playing these violent games it's up to the parents to watch what they do and what they are viewing as a parent they take that responsibility to do so. As for the no blocks that's because servers can allow people to do as they like they control that server they can put restrictions on them if they like but it's up to the person in question and most servers prohibit the use of bad language or bullying. And yes lots of games have violence in them but think of this GTA V is a massive piece of social commentary you may ask how well it's meant to parody and reflect upon our real life society and make fun of it the how women are sexualized in the real world and are always used as sexual objects in commercials it talks about that the corrupt politics the moral issue of torture the way our world is bred of violence and injustice GTAV takes a kicking at all of that it has been way more involving and telling us about what's going on then any anti-gaming piece ever has and people who get angry and throw there profound cuss words and speeches at GTA cause there kid got hold of it should just be better parents and as for getting punished on the Internet as I said before many servers on any game can be monitored and they can get banned or kicked to stop bullying online
The Way video games are demonized in the news

Okay yes I have played these games to. But I have notice that there is more bullying,sex jokes,bad language in them than reality. This has made me concerned. Some people are fine but on minecraft were there is no blocks people can say what they want bully and not get punished because you have a shield at your identity. Some people have this behaviour in the real world. In 6th grade for me these "jokes" started coming a lot. For my dad it was much later. People can download free games that have violence and content that they should not be seeing. I have seen a first grader playing grand theft auto. How he downloaded it on an ipod for free. People think this is alarming and I don't blame them
The Way video games are demonized in the news

Well games aren't at all making killing glamorized all publishers and developers all just want to give the player an enjoyable experience and not to make killing look good and on top of that reason games exist is to have these power fantasy's that can't and shouldn't be done in real life and I've played video games since I was 5 and I have never came with intent of hurting someone because I don't have a weak mind most people don't let video games change them but I do agree with you on the fact the news doesn't matter but the more the news says something to more idiots believe it and the more strikes and anti-gaming groups get started. Games are meant as entertainment not to make you think killing is fun :/
The Way video games are demonized in the news

The news does show a good point. Now most of the popular game includes killing or sports. People are just trying to stat that these games are not that great. This is putting an allusion that killing is fun. That is total bad because there are so many gun jokes and threats. Why its because these games are turning them into it. At least sports games can make them fit or have a fantasy dream team. Games are also additive and cause headaches. It is just putting other peoples thoughts out there. You can get a column that supports it if your that desperate. This is why the news does not matter.
The Way video games are demonized in the news

I don't believe that the way the news makes gaming look. They use gaming as a reason for mass murders and violence in the world and saying that people should have monitored play time and watch their purchases this is moronic. Anyone that has a functioning brain should realize that gaming is an entertainment medium nothing more and they never decide to talk about the mental illnesses of these people most if not all of them have been diagnosed with one or more mental or psychological traumas and illnesses. Another part of this is the fact that they attack gaming all the time going as far to say it causes cancer just to try and make dumb parents swoop their kids away from gaming. This could also be an effect of gaming being a widely popular use of entertainment pretty much stomping the competition of television or movies and other things like that mostly because it's and interactive experience more in depth and enjoyable then anything else cause you're involved in it. The news is taking hits at gaming and it only makes them look dumb no piece of entertainment inspires people to go and do mass killings unless under influence of mental disability and any news outlet saying other wise is full of contrived slobbering idiots.
euthanasia should be banned

Euthanasia means terminating a person's life if he/she is suffering from an INCURABLE disease.It doesn't have anything to do with the diagnosis of the doctor - whether it is right or wrong.For example, the case of a lady nurse Aruna Shanbaug who had been in a vegetative state and is alive just because of the care given by the staff of the KEM hospital Pune. I think that if u see her photos would never support banning euthanasia as you may understand the need for euthanasia by seeing her in a still-worse stage. There is no meaning in her life and also would be regretting herself thinking that she is a burden to the others which she is not able to convey to any one else, hence she is in a still-worse mental state too.There are so many other examples throughout the world which may convince the people the need for legalizing euthanasia.