BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty should be abolished

I also thank the readers who will take the time to read and comment on it. I shall be arguing the following two points: a) The death penalty is financially much more costly than a sentence of life without parole (as paradoxical as that sounds), and b) Maintaining capital punishment reduces our credibility with the global community. First, maintaining the death penalty is costing States quite a bit of money. A 2008 study report performed on the cost of the death penalty in California found that the estimated annual cost to that state of the death penalty was $137 million per year, and that the cost per year with the inclusion of a necessary fair trial system would increase to $232.7 million per year. This same study found that the cost estimate for a system that imposed a maximum of life in prison instead would be $11.5 million per year. [1] This means that, abolishing the death penalty in California alone would save $221.2 million per year. To put it into perspective, that's $221.2 million more put into education, labor, and social services. Second, we are facing an enormous push from the global community to abolish the death penalty. According to Amnesty International's website, an average of 3 countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1990, and overall use has decreased dramatically. [2] One of the major countries that Amnesty pushes to end the death penalty is the United States. Every day the United States resists removing the death penalty, we drop our standing in the international community even further, and in the decade-long wake of the incredibly unpopular 'War on Terror', we can not afford to lose any more reputation among the international community. Therefore, we need to abolish the death penalty, to stop wasteful spending that could be put to better use, and to increase our image with the rest of the developed world. 1:. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2:. http://www.amnestyusa.org...
The Death Penalty should be abolished

I thank whoever accepts this challenge in advance; it's my first time debating on this website! The Pro in this debate will need to prove that Capital Punishment is overall detrimental to the United States' well-being. The Con will need to prove that the Death Penalty is beneficial to the United States' well-being. To clarify, by well-being I mean 'the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous' (1). Round 1 will be for acceptance, Round 2 for opening arguments, Round 3 for rebuttal of oppenent's points/new arguments, and Round 4 for Rebuttal and Conclusion. Thanks again, I'm really excited! 1: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Death Penalty should be abolished

well lets conclude: from this debate we come to the following facts: 1] death penalty causes additional expenditure. 2] people like serial killers, mass murderers, terrorists do deserve to die. following is a list of capital crime currently existed in usa 1] murder + robbery 2] murder + kidnapping 3] murder + assult 4] murder + repeat murder(serial killing) 5] murder of a public officer 6] murder + crime against minor 7] aircraft hijacking 8] train wrecking, 9] treason 10] drug trafficking 11] sexual assault 12] rape of a minor 13] terrorism source:http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com... now so many capital crime. thats why there is huge expenditure. among these crimes, according to me only some crime deserve death penalty. they are: 1]terrorism 2]treason 3]serial killing if the govt. declares these 3 crimes as capital crime and rest are non capital crime, then it will save huge money and keep society clear and safe. so the conclusion is keep death penalty for these 3 crimes mentioned above and eliminate death penalty from rest of the crimes.
The CIA is a terrorist organization

It's mmadDerom, two D's. Sorry but it's my name. Sorry for the delay, life happens and it happened to me. You can obviously give any number of examples where the CIA engaged in "terrorist" acts on face value. Does that make it a terrorist organization? Of course not. Does counting cards make one a "cheater"? Using your definition our military is a "terrorist" organization as well. The CIA does MUCH more than act as an agent of terror. In fact, the majority of your arguments have NOTHING to do with terror at all. Instead you choose to use this forum as a bully pulpit to complain about U.S. foreign policy. The CIA is first and foremost an intelligence agency. Have people died in their efforts? Absolutely. Do they use terror to obtain information at times? Perhaps. Is their main focus to sway world opinion by use of terrorist acts? NO WAY. To compare the CIA to Al Quada or other terror organizations is insane. Welcome to the blame America first club.
The CIA is a terrorist organization

I was hoping for an actual argument, but I guess I'll have to wait until the next round. Since everyone on this site is too lazy to use an actual dictionary, I will continue the legacy. To define terrorist, we obviously have to define terrorism. Merriam-Webster online defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion." Therefore a terrorist organization would be a group of individuals with the same goal in mind while using that terror. To continue we should define terror. There are several definitions for terror on M-W, the most pertinent being "a state of intense fear," and "violent or destructive acts committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." Since this second definition seems biased in my favor, I will provide the dictionary.com definition as well: "violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion." Now that I have defined terrorism, terrorist organization, and terror, I feel that there should be ample reason to define the CIA as a terrorist organization. I used the example of the 1963 coup d'ï¿½tat in Iraq in my essay, but I will provide some more examples. In 1953, the United States' CIA instigated a coup in Iran which removed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq from power and placed the Shah Reza Pahlavi in dictatorial rule. His brutal reign lasted until the revolution of 1979. All of this was done because Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry and took profit from the British. For aiding, the United States were able to begin refining oil. This was their only motive. In 1954, President Arbenz seized land from the United Fruit Company, a United States owned merchant, and granted it to peasants, along with some of his own private land and that of some wealthy landowners. The United States, again through the CIA, instigated a coup that removed Arbenz from power and placed Colonel Armas in his place. A long period of violent rule began, all for United States profit. In 1973, following President Allende's nationalization of many profitable United States' industries, the CIA once again intervened and placed the brutal General Auguste Pinochet in power. Things went from bad to unmentionably worse in an already dysfunctional Chile. I could continue, but I lost this post once already and don't feel like typing everything over again. The United States has had many foreign investments, despite the founding fathers' extremely negative view on imperialism and colonialism. Since the inception of the CIA, it has been used as the terrorist branch of the United States, providing training to many guerilla forces in native countries, pumping propaganda against nationalist leaders, and most importantly, using the threat of Communism as a justification. The CIA instigated terror in the United States people (definition 1) and used terror (definitions 2 and 3) to remove such leaders from power that would not give the government what it desired in terms of resources, profit, and "free trade."
U.S.A. should stop selling firearms and change the gun law. (continued)

The previous one didn't had enough rounds for the debate. Also, im not convinced about cons arguments so im making a continued debate. But since the original CON doesn't want to continue with this and TPF wants to continue in his place, I allow him to take his place. This is the arguments of the previous debate and my arguments against it. "So the reason you are posting this is that your saying that guns are used in crime and to kill. So next thing they should do is ban knives, forks, pencils, pens, because all of those can be heals against someone to either kill or injure someone severely." We don't ban knives, forks, pencils, etc, because they are accepted in the social life. We use knives and forks to eat, and its socially accepted. We use pencils and pens to write things in books and its accepted too. But what kind of a person sits at dinner with a gun on his table? What kind of person uses a gun while writing a book? "The guns come from out of country sources, I don't know how much you know about this type of things but any gun can be traced back to its original buyer and they catch him, then get him to tell them where there guy is. Just like drugs they don't buy them from stores they get them for out of country sources." You already figured out how the guns can be traded or smuggled. But, smuggling weapons is hard and running away from cops forever is even harder. The illegal arms dealing will be solved and if no weapon gets sold legally, there will be no easy ways anymore to get your hands on a firearm. "Lets just restate, guns don't kill people, the person having the gun kills the person. Guns aren't dangerous at all if used properly." How is it not dangerous? In any way you use it, you can wound someone and even kill someone. An exception is if you shoot it at a dummy or something. But not the one that is being shot is always wounded, many gunners and especially the inexperienced ones breaks their arms just by firing the weapon. Idebate15 thinks he has won the debate, but i doubt this debate has ended yet. (lack of rounds)
Existence of objective morality

As per rule #1, drops are concessions. My opponent has droped all of my arguments and refutations by forfeiting the last round and so they stand. To summarize them, so far I have argued that no feature of the world is prescriptive in that there can not be a presciption without an agent to fulfill it. Saying that one should not kill is a meaningless statement if there is no one to kill or ponder the morality of killing. Moral values and judgements are inherently conditional to human thought and so they cannot be objective in the sense that we have defined it. My opponent responded by trying to redefine morality to fit his argument. This was a violation of rule #3. Acceptance of this debate implied acceptance of all definitions. It was on his re-defining of morality that his entire case rested. He then accuses me of strawmanning the hypothetical imperative without showing how or why. In short, my opponent brought an argument based on a redefinition of morality which was expressly forbidden in the rules that he accepted when he accepted this challenge. His supposed refutation of my claim that moraliy is conditional to subjective values and desires thus does not stand.
Existence of objective morality

It seems as though I have some time on my hands, so I figured I'd give this topic another try.DefinitionsObjective- to have existence independent of human thought or opinion; as opposed to subjectiveExistence- to have actual beingMorality- a categorical prescriptive requirement. Meaning a binding 'ought'.Rules1.- Drops are concessions.2.- No semantic or abusive arguments.3.- Acceptance of this challange implies acceptance of all definitions, rules and other clarifications.ClarificationsThe BOP will be shared. We both must bring a case and refute the other's in order to win the debate.All deities or gods will be assumed not to exist in this debate.
The obese are immoral

With thanks to my opponent for joining this debate, I would like to reply to his comments as follows: I accept my opponent's point that morals vary from society to society, but every society agrees that taking a child's life is immoral, and I shall explain why this is relevant shortly. It is also true that we are conditioned by society to put our own personal wealth above charitable donations and pretty much everybody, with the possible exception of tramps, monks and students, could live a more meagre existence and give the remainder of their disposable income to good causes. However, that is not at the heart of the issue here. The crux of the matter is that there is only so much farmland on Earth and because the obese eat more than their fair share, it cannot sustain the whole of the world's population. By depriving people in the Third World of their daily sustenance, grossly overweight people are, in effect, eating starving children's lunches. Here are the facts: a normal adult consumes 2427 calories per day, 533 or 18% less than the 2960 calories an obese consumes. Source: . http://environment.newscientist.com... A baby requires 1000 calories per day so every two days each obese is personally responsible for the death of a Third World baby – over a period of 40 years that's 7300 infants' lives a grossly overweight person snuffs out for the sake of their own selfish greed - Saddam Hussein got hung for less than that. Though my opponent digresses from my central argument that the obese lack morals, I do, nevertheless concur that in previous times overweight women were considered beauteous, as is evidenced by the depiction of voluptuous nudes in countless Renaissance paintings. Times have changed, but even today, there are some men that actually prefer bigger women, just as there are some men that prefer older women, or underage girls, or other men, or animals, or even inanimate objects - yes really, I saw a documentary about a bloke who lives near Seattle that has sexual intercourse with his VW Beetle – it was most disturbing! However, the majority of men, given the choice, would opt for a stunning blond cheerleader over some doughnut-devouring dropout from the fat farm who looks like a pig in knickers!
The obese are immoral

Immoral = involving right and wrong I would agree that having a 7 course meal in front of a starving family to be immoral. However, the debate topic is generally speaking about the obese excluding those who have metical conditions. I'll just start off by stating a few things and you can argue your side. 1) Society generates our views of moral and immoral. So what a southern American citizen, like myself, views immoral might be completely different from a citizen in Hong Kong, or even New York. 2) Time changes our social rules. Now, we have a very specific scale of obesity according to height and gender. Centuries ago, there was no such thing. In fact, being "plump" (now considered obese) was a sign of wealth and class. So in that aspect, if you were starving, you were a peasant, which was acceptable. 3) You're saying that instead of eating that 7 course meal that far surpasses what our society says we "need," donate money to charity so other people can eat and be healthy as well, right? Every culture, and every individual, has a standard of living. I bet you live in a house or apartment, probably have furniture, a t.v, a nice bed, refrigeration, a/c, etc. You can probably live on a quarter of the expenses your living on now and still be better off than those that are starving. However, that is all you know, that is how you were brought up and anything less would be uncomfortable (just an example). Those over seas, in Africa, who are starving know little more than being starving. I'm not saying that is right, or wrong. I'm simply stating that the definition of right and wrong changes. Basically, immoral is a word that changes by culture and over time. My country condones luxury living first, and then giving to charity. Other cultures differ, which is similar to the over all principal of morality. There is no concrete definition for being moral.
Tale Of Our Hero Kvng_8

There once was a hero named Kvng the eight Who came onto this site carrying his hate And debate he did make about one guy backwardseden he was called Kvng's tongue cried and made fun of the evils backwardseden has done But none was bolder than the claim That Kvng will ban him from the domain Kvng's words were rather massive But his actions were sadly passive And days went on but backwardseden remained And the Kvng's claim ground has not gained But Kvng did threaten again and again But all of his threats were just as in vain As all that he had was just his word which had the persuasive power as much as does turd In banning backswardeden, He succeded did not And his failure forgotten be won't And history will tell us the tale Of his bold claims and their epic fail
the miami heat is the best basketball team of all time

Players point. I agreed to the point of Dwayne wade being good, but my opponent also agreed to the point of MJ being amazing aswell. So now it comes down to the backups. With Chris bosh out then it's only lebron. who is already disputed. And you say tht lebron is this season MVP even though he's already recieved it two other times but has yet to win a championship. I would also like to note that MJ won MVP five times andstill managed to get more championships then MVP awards. The pro did not attack my backup players at all so this leads to them being superior. Former Champions pointOkay They were champions in 2006. But the bulls were champions in 1991,1992,1993,1996,1997,1998So lets compare: 6 championships versus 1. Overall pointMy opponent's point about current cannot weighed heavily because this debate is talking about dynasty teams and not seasonal teams. Even if the miami heat win this year it will still be two rings against three. So Judges ask yourself these questions. .. .Who was more successful? Who won the most? Who has more championship rings?
the miami heat is the best basketball team of all time

first my con said that Dwayne wade is good and if the bulls are so good then why are they not in the east finals guess who is in the east playoffs the Miami heat. okay in the 90's the bulls were good because of mj 23. so what if bosh is injured he is still boss. also Lebron won mvp. also my pro said former champions. go Miami please dont vote me bad because i was not here on round 2
the miami heat is the best basketball team of all time

! "But aside from that lets get to the debate. My opponent gives the miami heat as the best basketball team ever, instead of only disputing this claim I will also give the team that i think is the greatest. That team is the mighty 1995-96 Chicago Bulls[1]When addressing my opponents claims I will also give the comparison to the Bull, by making my case out of his case. Player's argumentFirst of all Chris Bosh, one of my opponents star players, is injured[2] So this take away one third of his "boss" playersAlso it has been commonly known that the "star" Lebron James is not clutch at all[3] But while I will agree Wade is decent He certianly does not deserve the title of "Boss". But three players(Actually two) Can not carry a team to being the best, A Diverse team full of amazing players ad better than two/three decent players. In fact on the game on May 15, 2012 Lebron James and Dwyane Wade accounte for 52 of the measly 75 points[4]Like the Heat does have a big three that does a high percentage of the scoringThese three were Dennis Rodman, Scottie Pipen and Micheal Jordan. But the back up players are great tooWith Steve Kerr(the most accurate 3-point shooter in history, Toni Kukoc(The season NBA sixth man), Luc Longley(Highest blocks per game on the team and the first Aussie in the NBA) and more, you have great backups, in the case of Chris bosh, if someone gets hurt. Former Champions argument. While this argument can't really be applied, It allows me to use the 1996 bulls as my representive team. Also I would like to note that this bulls team won a total of 3 together and 6 in the 90's. I would also like to note that getting close doesn't make you the best and that you cannot predict the future. Also some quick arguments about my teamHas the best regular season record at 72-10The big three of the Bulls were all elected to the NBA-All Defense Team-First TeamI will post more if my opponent does not forfiet the next round. . [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://bleacherreport.com...[3] . http://onebasketball.wordpress.com...[4] . http://www.nba.com...
Free market capitalism

This is an interesting topic to debate about, since "Free Market Capitalism" is indeed only one form of Capitalism. I will debating to you why free market capitalism isn't the best economic system for a country. I will be explaining to you alternative forms of economics and why they are far superior to Free Market Capitalism. (Definitions):Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. (Curtesy of a quick google search! )Free Market Capitalism: A system of economics that minimizes government intervention and maximizes the role of the market. According to the theory of the free market, rational economic actors acting in their own self interest deal with information and price goods and services the most efficiently. (Full Definition in link below. )[1]I am eager to critique your argument! (Links)[1]. http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;-Thank You, Bisking
Everybody (including me) deserves to die and fry like an eternal sausage in fire of hell

No, I am accusing you of being an idiot. If everyone lived forever, then we could keep repopulating and repopulating. Then our offspring don't die, so the Earth become flooded with people! There is death because we evolved that way. Our human organs can not last more than 150 years. Some people don't deserve to die. Like, I can say thisWhen people go to Hell, they suffer,God is good with no evil,Suffering is evil,Humans that are bad go to hell,God lets them go to hell,this would make God not perfect.You see! Even God isn't perfect, yet, he made heaven! He made our ancestors! He will take in his children!
Everybody (including me) deserves to die and fry like an eternal sausage in fire of hell

you say we don't deserve to die and God is forgiving..........so why do we die? if God is forgiving and we don't deserve to die, why are we under death penalty? If nobody ever died, then how could overpopulation be a problem? Overpopulation is supposed to be a problem only becasue of death. If we don't deserve to die, then God is unfair to make us die, right? You are accusing God of being unfair? who do you think will win that argument, you or God?
Everybody (including me) deserves to die and fry like an eternal sausage in fire of hell

He made.us die because there would be over population if we lived forever. We rot because.of bacteria consuming our tissue. Adam and Eve never happened Sin is what we humans make of it. God didnt make us to.be perfect. Nothing is.perfect NOTHING. We dont deserve to die. The line between good and evil is non existent. God is infinitely forgiving. Even if.you.don't believe that, then you.must believe god is forgiving. Humanity can be a beautiful thing. Love, caring, kindness. These are all of man's redeeming qualities.
Everybody (including me) deserves to die and fry like an eternal sausage in fire of hell

If you are good, why is your rotten body rotting? If God is infinitely forgiving, why must you die? The point I am arguing is we deserve to die because we are not good,,,,,,imperfect is not good........if imperfect can be good, where do you draw the line between good and bad? The tiniest bit of bad is all it takes to make good go bad, and corruption, rot, decay, death is deserved because we all have bad in us........so none of us are fit to live on earth, so we die, and none of us is fit to stand in front of God since we have nothing in ourselves to hide the bad from God's eyes.........He created us to be good but we all have gone bad and we all deserve to die and we all deserve to be cast away from our Creator into the firepit of hell forever which is the only way the bad can be prevented from polluting God's heaven