BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That we should abolish the death penalty

In round 2 my opponent made the following points: -Killing murderers makes us as bad as they are -The death penalty is irreversible -Death penalties cannot be carried out in a humane way In the 1st point, the opponent says that "If we start killing murderers we are sinking to their level." This is not the case. Killing serial killers does not necessarily make us as bad as them. If this was the case, the death penalty would have been long gone by now, or we would all be shanking each other or carrying around a burden of guilt. The 2nd point my opponent makes is that the death penalty is irreversible. To an extent, this is true, but the fact of the matter remains that their victim's death is irreversible (if it's a murderer we're talking about) as well. There is no way of bringing that said person back from the dead, so at least they can rest easy knowing their killer will share the same fate as them. The last point made by my opponent is that there is no humane way of carrying out the death penalty. There is no humane way of carrying out a MURDER either, but that doesn't stop serial killers from carrying out the crime. Forms of the death penalty include: Electric chair, Lethal injection, and hanging, among other things. Hanging is almost immediate death (most of the time), Lethal injection is almost painless, other than the shot, and the electric chair...well, it's only a few jolts of electricity going through you, and then there done. Thank you for an awesome debate(one of the best i've ever had) and i hope we can debate again soon, since your one of the best dam debaters i've seen in a long time. And most importantly, vote me
That we should abolish the death penalty

So my opponent raised four key arguments in his speech and they are as follows 1. The death penalty delivers justice 2. The Death penalty will deter people 3. The death Penalty is required due to overcrowded prisons 4. The death penalty reduces prison violence. On the first point the death penalty is not necessary to achieve justice life in prison is a suitable punishment for even the most severe forms of crime. We just don't believe as a society in an eye for an eye. We don't rape rapists as punishment for example so its unclear why we need to murder murderers to have justice. On the second point, my opponent simply asserted that future lawbreakers would be 'rattled' by hearing about others being executed. In my first speech I offered you detailed analysis about why this would not be the case due to the fact that most violent criminals aren't thinking rationally about the consequences of their actions. We heard nothing in response to this material from my opponent. On the third point that prisons are overcrowded, the maths just does not add up for my opponent. Last year in the USA there were 34 executions. The general prison population is over 2 million. There are simply not enough criminals put to death for them to have any impact on the overcrowding. Dispersing those 38 criminals would not make any noticeable difference. On the final point that having violent offenders behind bars causes prisons to be violent my opponent also runs into a numbers problem. Its pretty laughable to suggest 38 men will cause rates of violence behind bars to dramatically increase. Prisons are inherently violent places because they house violent criminals. You would have to kill a hell of a lot more people if you wanted to get rid of anyone who might become violent or try and harm another inmate. This point is proven by the fact that states which have the death penalty still have violent prisons, despite the fact they kill some of their worst offenders. I proudly propose.
That we should abolish the death penalty

The death penalty is not immoral. Think of a murder charge: the family of the victim will never see there loved one again, and want justice. The death penalty has been around for centuries, and many guilty people, that actually did do a crime, will be convicted and justice will be served in the form of a death penalty. Yes, some innocent people were killed for acts they did not commit. But killing murderers and others will rattle some future lawbreakers and, shown the punishment, wont even think about attempting to do it again. Another reason the death penalty is good is overcrowded prisons. Prisons these days are getting overcrowded, which can lead to more violence and death of guards or other prisoners. Certain prisoners , such as serial killers, among other things, will easily kill other prisoners or guards if they wanted to, or that said person annoys them or gets on their nerves. Why waste all that food, supplies and space for people that are serial killers and child molesters, when they can hold it for more petty crimes, like robbery or assault. This could potentially also lower the amount of casualties in prison riots, as with less aggressive people, there would be less cause for such a thing to even take place to begin with. My claim remains that death penalty is a good idea and we should continue this practice.
That we should abolish the death penalty

The death penalty is immoral. If we start killing murderers we are sinking to their level. Society should hold itself to a higher standard. Even though moral codes differ, most agree on the point that killing is objectively wrong. And this point is not merely a philosophical one. The state doing morally wrong things has real world consequences. If we actually want to have a society which values life and discourages violent behaviour then we must be a society that leads by example. We must set the precedent that the right to life is inalienable by refusing to kill even those who we think deserve it most. The states ability to condemn violence and killing is severely diminished if those two things are part of the criminal justice system itself. The other reason the death penalty is immoral is because its irreversible. Many innocent men have been sentenced to death and then later exonerated. For many it is too late. We should let guilty men live rather then risk innocent men dying. Many crimes which have the death penalty as a punishment have a history of wrongful convictions. We think that these wrongful convictions are really unavoidable because evidence can be misleading and juries and judges are prone to human error and bias. The negative must be prepared to say how many innocent men he is prepared to have die in order to have the death penalty for the guilty. On this side of the house we think one wrongful death is too many which is why we happily propose. Finally on this moral question the death penalty cannot be carried out in a humane way. Firstly their is something cruel and unusual about keeping someone locked up after you have already told them they are about to die. What's more their is no good method for executing people. The electric chair, lethal injection, the noose and the firing squad have all been known to fail leaving the victim in terrible pain. These criminals weren't sentenced to torture which is why we happily propose.
That we should abolish the death penalty

My argument will rest on two premises. Firstly that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and secondly that its too immoral to use even if it did. I will use this first speech to outline the former and my second speech to explain the latter. To assume the death penalty will deter anyone assumes they are thinking rationally which most who people who commit serious crimes often are not. Broadly people who commit violent crimes can be grouped into four categories. Those who act in the heat of the moment and don't stop to consider the consequence of their actions, those who are mentally unstable or delusional and not in a position to weigh the consequences of their actions , those who are arrogant enough to believe they won't get caught and finally those who are rational and weigh up the risks before committing their crime. Obviously in the first 3 category will not be deterred by any punishment. As for the last category I think firstly that this is the smallest category but secondly that most people who do consider the consequences will be just as likely to be deterred by life in prison which is also a pretty terrible punishment. So in the end the death penalty isn't really stopping anyone. Then there is a fifth category, those who commit crimes for fame or Glory. In these cases the death penalty actually encourages criminals to commit crimes because they want the notoriety and fame that comes with becoming a Martyr. In these cases we think that a lifetime locked in a cell would be a bigger deterrent then death.
Capital Punishment.

As much as your arguments are compelling I would like to refute them, by following Kant's rule of morality as an initiating point. Kant’s universal law of morality Kant's moral system is based on rationality. It attempts to show how any rational being would agree to universal moral laws. Its influence has been enormous and modern philosophers still use Kant's ideas as a starting point for discussions on morality. Now then that we have established the baseline of what is universally moral and immoral, I can argue that sinister crimes such as rape, murder and even blackmail. They are all considered evil acts that pry upon the freedom of others. That we can agree on, no? If the world were to tolerate such human, who willingly dehumanized the value of their own race for some psychological reason or perhaps a motive. The world would be in such chaos, given the sinister would know that they can achieve their ends through devious means and still get away with it. Therefore, it is only logical that Justice upholds a firm stand against such people. In order to hinder the rate of crime. People who do not mind ending lives of others on any grounds should be eradicated. That is justice, they took the lives of others so it would only make sense that they are executed and not murdered. Notice that I used the term 'execution and not murder' as they are not remotely the same. Murder: the crime of deliberately killing a person. : something that is very difficult or unpleasant. Execution: the act of killing someone especially as punishment for a crimeUnlike murder, execution is not biased to emotions, madness, or subjectivity. It is very objective and reasonable. Why was X executed? Because X took the life of Y. Does executing X undos Y's fate. No, but it hinders the possibility of A taking the life of B UtilitarianismUtilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives. Classical utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In simple words, it is the way one helps himself in the art of decision-making. This philosophy supports the notion of capital punishment, as it does in fact stand for the well being of the majority. Based on this method of thought the majority outweighs individuals. I believe it would quite reasonable for the justice system to impose harsh punishment upon whoever tries to cross the sanctity of other's own freedom, should be eradicated from the society before his horrific acts influence others. Also bare in mind that the capital punishment is only applied upon supreme crimes. That fact in itself classifies these offenses as immoral to society and humanity all along. I look forward to your upcoming arguments. Thank you for your time.
The Cato Institute does not deserve respect or credibility

The Cato Institute (www.cato.org) is a influential American think tank, headquartered in Washington D.C. According to the 2011 Global Go To Think Tank Index, Cato is the 6th most influential US based think tank, ranking 3rd in Economic Policy and 2nd in Social Policy. It was founded in 1974 by Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane, and Charles Koch. In this debate I will argue against the widespread respect it garners from the academic and policy communities and instead portray it as a bastion of simple propaganda and special interests.
confederate statues should not be in places of honor

the military things they are known for is the civil war, which is about slavery. robert e lee for example, head of the confederacy. it would change things if the focus was on them in non civil war roles or as nonconfederate soldiers in the USA, but the defining feature of the confederacy is founded on slavery. if there were some who were pro slave rights, i would need more information. some citations would be helpful. this would probably only be incidental though, cause what the south features when they feature the confederacy is the leaders of the keep slaves movement.
confederate statues should not be in places of honor

confederate statues should not be in places of honor the civil war was about slavery, plain and simple. if you look at the reasons stated for the war, it always went back to slavery. only in the abstract was it about states' rights, and there has been a misinformation campaign to retrospectively say that's what it was about. research history and you will see the truth. so do we want statutes of men who led the fight for slavery? maybe in the same way we'd want a statue of hitler, maybe at a museaum, but not out in public spaces of honor.
The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute CAH's

>I regret that my opponent forfeited the round. >The assumption of drops (mad last round) is upheld because my opponent has made no comment otherwise. :: Voting Issues :: >None of my arguments have been challenged. They all stand. >My opponent's case is convoluted and does not make any conclusive arguments. >My opponent has dropped both his case and my own. >My opponent presents no reason to vote for himself. >There is no reason to vote for my opponent. >I thus urge an Negative (CON) ballot as it is the clear choice. Thank you.
Kids who lie to their parents

Con "I honestly can't have such a debate with an illiterate drug addict person" Con concedes the debate. Round 2- Con threatens to rape me. Round 3- Con calls me the N word. Round 4- Con calls me a drug addict. Con has consistently failed to address my arguments. Con drops my argument that school curriculum isn't always correct. Con drops my argument that cops are fascists. Con drops my argument that drugs are fun and so is underage sex. Con drops my argument that teachers are pot smoking hippies. Con drops my argument that his parents don't want to share their stash of drugs. Con has yet to address if we should allow are parent's to rape us.
Kids who lie to their parents

" ARE YOU SERIOUS?" No I'm wylted. " You are definitely one of those 'niggas' who have cocaine every year. " Only if I have enough money left over after picking up some prostitutes. " weren't you taught in school that drugs are bad? " I was taught Pluto was a planet. It is not. http://www.google.com... I was taught Newtonian physics. It's wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org... I was taught the first president of the United States was Washington. He wasn't.http://www.marshallhall.org... The one thing school taught me is teachers are full of crap. If a teacher tells you drugs are bad it's only because the curriculum tells them to. In reality teachers are a bunch old school free love pot smoking hippies. Teachers love pot and LSD. " Why do cops arrest you for doing drugs? " Cops arrested black people for sitting in the front of the bus also. http://en.wikipedia.org... Cops are a bunch of fascists who love attacking our civil liberties, just ask those hippy teachers of yours. " Open minded parents have passed through certain harsh circumstances so they prevent you from doing it because they CARE" My dad raped me. He doesn't care about my well being. Also you say parents care but you quote no sources. Parents keep you from doing drugs because they don't want you to steal their stash. Parents don't want you doing illegal stuff because they are liable for your actions. Parents know underage sex is fun. They know drugs are awesome. But they have to pretend to be against them because they can't afford to pay for your legal fees. Con in round 2 threatened to rape me. Con in round 3 called me the N word. Con has dropped argument that past presidents did drugs. Con has dropped my argument that drugs are cool. Con has dropped my argument on the benefits of adderall. Con does not refute nor acknowledge that being honest with your parents leads to getting raped and murdered by your dad.
Kids who lie to their parents

Look kids have to lie to their parents, because parents just don't understand.http://www.metrolyrics.com... " So you preferred to get raped? " 1. You can't just go around threatening to rape people. Please deduct conduct points for con threatening to rape me. 2. I was raped once by my daddy. My daddy made me promise to not tell anyone or he would kill me. I promised to keep it quiet, but I lied to my dad and called the cops. Now I don't get raped anymore. If I didn't lie to my dad he would have killed me or if I was telling the truth he would still be raping me everyday. Lieing keeps people from being raped not causes rape. "drugs" 1. Drugs help you succeed in life. Did you know that both Obama and Bush did cocaine, and Clinton smoked weed. 2. Drugs make you cool. Come on listen to a Snoop Dog or Miley Cyrus album. 3. Drugs get you high. Being high makes you feel good. 4. Lots of college kids are doing adderall to focus and get better grades. Bottom line is drugs are awesome. No one regrets doing drugs. As a matter of fact if you ask your parents when was the best time of their life they will point to their teenage years. Then if you ask them when they did the most experimental drugs they will also point to their teenage years. This is not coincidence. Kids lie to your parents, otherwise you will be a square and have no fun.
Kids who lie to their parents

Many kids nowadays lie to their parents , to meet their lovers or go to a party. that is an unacceptable thing . If the place the child was going to is safe , the parents would have let him go there. Plus, many mothers don't accept the relationships in the age of 12->16 yet those girls mostly say that they're going to the library and meet them! The last point is that the mother can be religious so she doesn't allow her daughter to wear hot shorts and a crop shirt. However, this daughter actually buys these kind of clothes behind her mother's back and when she wears a crop shirt she'll wear a jacket so her mom won't see
Black people should *not* have to pay extra taxes as compared to other races

Due to high black crime rates, blacks should pay extra taxes. Not necessarily more than other races, but a 10% extra tax for being black. This might sound racist, but it's not, my friend. Black people often use food stamps, and their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight (which kills plants, herbivores, and carnivores; this also reduces total amount of sunlight we can harvest). Thus, an extra 10% tax for blacks is very reasonable and justified.
Black people should *not* have to pay extra taxes as compared to other races

This is fairly simple, aside from how blatantly racist Con is. The resolved was that:"Black people should not have to pay extra taxes as compared to other races.Con then opens stating, "not necessarily more than other races, but a 10% extra tax for being black."I don't think I should need to dignify the rest of this nonsense with a response but will if need be. For the take of saving face (though this isn't something I think Con cares much about, I'd recommend conceding.
Death Penalty

Solitary confinement is a completely different debate then this. I was just giving an example of where they would be if not sentenced to the death penalty. If someone was not put to sleep, then they would not be able to simply "roam around." They would be in a high security prison. Why would you want to KILL people who KILL people to show KILLING people is wrong? That is a hypocritical statement. "Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population." ~http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... People would be SAVING money, especially tax payers, so YOU would be saving money if the death penalty is abolished. Then, you can use that money to pay for making more prisons to contain the criminals. That would not nearly cost as much as these executions would. Once again, 1/7 people are innocent who are sentenced to death. That is an unsettling number, for a country which wants to be fair and serve true justice. Even though they are criminals, they still have families who love and care about them. What makes it fair to make their families' suffer when they are innocent people? That does not make sense either. Statistics have failed to prove that the death penalty deteriorates murder or crime. "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." ~http://deathpenalty.org... The death penalty supports racism. What about religion? The death penalty goes against many people's religions. That is against amendment 1 of freedom of religion. Mentally ill people are executed. People who are mentally ill are expected to not be under control of their actions and should not receive such harsh of punishments, which is incorporated in the law. This does not stop 1/10 people executed to be mentally ill, which is legally wrong. http://oadp.org... The death penalty gives publicity to criminals who do not deserve such publicity. Some criminals may be acting out to get attention, and the death penalty may be supporting that. Ever think of that? It is true and it happens often, if you don't believe me then check the news.
Death Penalty

This is completely relevant to the topic we are debating. I said if this man was in a death sentence, this guard wouldn't have been killed. You said that they would be in solitary confinement. When people are in solitary confinement, they con get many side effects. http://www.afsc.org... says that solitary confinement can cause visual and auditory hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise and touch, insomnia and paranoia, and uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear. This contradicts your whole claim of morality. What makes solitary confinement moral? Inmates convicted of murder, take up space in prisons. The less people they have in the prison, the less money they spend on taking care of inmates and the more money they spend on making the jail a safer, more secure place.
Death Penalty

That argument does not make sense. If someone committed such a vicious crime that they would get a death sentence, then if the penalty is abolished, they would get a life sentence. The would not be able to "roam around," because if they were that dangerous, they would be in either solitary, or a high security prison. That can occur in any prison who does not have control over their inmates. This has no reflection or relation to the topic we are debating.
Death Penalty

The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.