BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Serial Rapists and Murderers should be subjected to capital punishment.

Honestly if the family of the victim seriously wants someone to put to death because it will help with their loss then they should get some help. My family went through a tragic loss of my uncle two years ago due to a drunk driver. In court I asked if we could put him through rehab, because he was an alcoholic, and the judge agreed to it for six months and if he didn't change he would go to jail. Four months later he completely stopped drinking and reunited with his two sons. As of today he is in the community college getting a bachelors degree in business and works at our local bank. Even though I can never fully forgive him for the pain he has caused my family I wouldn't want him put to death. As for the serial killers without mental issues, which the number of is very few, I believe they should receive jail time and in jail we can put them to work doing jobs that aren't desirable to the general public.
Serial Rapists and Murderers should be subjected to capital punishment.

I believe that most people that commit crimes such as murder have mental problems that can be solved with the help of therapy. Now while killing them off might seem like a good idea due to the positive effects that it will have on prison occupancy, it is still not a good solution. The chemicals that are used to give the death penalty have extremely high costs so the firing squad will be put into place. After one person goes through killing someone who can't even control their actions due to mental deficits they themselves will have mental problems of their own. I just think that therapy to these criminals is the best solution to the problem at hand.
Serial Rapists and Murderers should be subjected to capital punishment.

Criminal scum like serial rapist or murderers almost always have something wrong with them. Because of mental instability, they are declared innocent because they we're not "thinking in the right mind" when committing a crime, and to me that's absolute rubbish. These people have no positive effect on a functioning society, so why do we send them to jail to rot for the rest of their lives? Honestly, I wish I know, It's simply unreasonable. Our prisons are already being overcrowded, and out of a survey undertaken by the British Ministry of Justice, 60% of short-term prison sentence offenders that committed crimes will re-offend, showing the hole in the reasoning that jail "corrects" poor social behaviour. Having me and my conscience think about past deeds makes me learn nothing. Capital punishment should be brought back to straiten up those who challenge the authority of the law, to remind those that taking a human life while lucid will result in you losing your life. Family's are never really satisfied when a murderer who killed a loved goes to jail for 20 years. Eventually, he will be free again, and whether he has a change of heart or not, he will be able to commit more crimes, and ultimately the the family who was wronged will not be completely satisfied. I believe jail should be reserved for major first-time convicts, those who have been to jail and committed a crime yet again have shown they cannot correct their ways and should no longer linger in our functioning society. Sources, The Economist, The UK Express, ICPS
Is genocide acceptable today based on the issue of overpopulation (and terrible human beings)

Regarding over 300 animals have gone extinct can you give me some sources regarding that? And do you ever heard of "survival of the fittest"? While it is true pollution, discrimination is cause by certain human, that does not mean that all human cause that. Lets say that A murder B, A did not put on trial but instead C (relative of A). So you saying it is fine to execute C just because C is relative of A? You see, we cannot just point a finger to overall of human population just because certain people do wrong. Instead we should punish those who do it instead. Regarding overpopulation, we have another alternative right? Im pretty sure we have the technologies to make colony on moon or Mars, or even Dyson sphere if we put all of our effort to that.
Is genocide acceptable today based on the issue of overpopulation (and terrible human beings)

When answering this question think about the fact that ever since humans stepped foot on to this planet, over 300 animals have gone extinct, we have caused major cases of pollution, and we have been extremely successful at mistreating our own species (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). Also, with 7 billion people on this planet we could kill 70 million and it would not harm us. 70 million is 1% of 7 billion after all.
Hitler has other attributes besides his racism than should be considered more often

In 1914-1918 Hitler found a divine cause in his life which would take him away from his life as a painter. He volunteered to join the German army in WW1 hoping to contribute to the victory of Germany and the german people. During this time he developed a strong loyalty to the german people and the german nation and would repeatedly risk his life on the battle field heroically delivering important messages across the battlefield. When Germany lost the war he was very grieved and sought to bring it to its former glory. so in fact before he became chancellor he was obsessed with bringing Germany back to glory and that was his true goal. Being 'racist' was a smaller part of that larger goal of protecting Germany. and any racism commited was for the higher goal of protecting Germany rather than to be racist just for the purpose of being racist. Also I'd like to point out jews are not a race but a religious group. Thus anything done against jews was not racist but religicist. Communists like jews are not a race but instead an evil political party so according to the definition of race given, anything hitler did against jews and communists shows he made actions that did not inolve race. His actions against marxism has nothing to do with race since any race can be communist. So therefore attacking Jews and Communists are non racist actions.In conclusion, Hitler's higher goal was to bring Back germany to glory. Establishing aryans as the master race and jews as the hated religion and communists as the hated party would unite germany so that germany could achieve it's higher goals but this in and of itself was the higher goal. Jews are not a race but a religious group so any persecution against them shows he was more than racist. Communists are people of a political party so likewise actions against them are not racist and when hitler takes actions against jews and communists this shows he is doing nonracist stuff and thus more than just being a 'racist' bastard.
Hitler has other attributes besides his racism than should be considered more often

For years before Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, he was obsessed with the idea of race. In his speeches and writings, Hitler spread his beliefs about racial "purity" and in the superiority of the "Germanic race""what he called an Aryan "master race." If one were to go through and actually look at the ligature that he wrote one would see that it was concerned with nothing more then the extermination and alienation of races he deemed inferior. For Hitler, the ideal "Aryan" was blond, blue-eyed, and tall. He was convinced that there could be no "pure" world without certain people exterminated from it. I would like to close my opening statements with a brief definition of the word racist. A person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others. I leave you all with that to think about and hope for an enlightening and educational debate today.
Hitler has other attributes besides his racism than should be considered more often

Many people associate Hitler with being a 'racist bastard' but he has done many other things that should be regarded as noteworthy and many even praised for. For example during the few years before the WW2 he brought germans off the streets and into offices. Death rates declined. Literacy rates increased. Fewer babies died of disease. By 1939 Germany thanks to Hitler's leadership Germany had paid back 90% of its debt, removed france's poisonous tithes on germany's people industries, and defeated the much hated treaty of versailess. He also sent soldiers into Spain to prevent them from falling into a Communist dictatorship just like America did in Vietnem but cared enough about the welfare of Spanish people to save them from the red threat rather than abondoning them like the Americans did to the vietnamese. They also helped Hungarians and romanians fend off Soviet attacks, drew off the pressure on Finaland from Soviet attacks and reinforced Iraqians in their struggle against a British tyranny. Hitler also improved Germany enough from being a war torn and bombed country with riots all over to a united country that would win most gold, silver and bronze medals. Let's not forget when Health care improves fewer people die so Hitler in fact saved lives and that should not be disregarded.The focus of this debate is whether or not Hitler was more than his 'racist' policies. Pro/I will be argueing for there was more to him and Con will say he was only about being racist. No exceptions, if you want argue other stuff then do so in comments. Mentioning arguments and accusations other than those I just mentioned will reslut in lost/forfeiture. By accepting this debate you agree to abide by all the rules!!
God will let you go your own way all the way to Hell

God will let you go to Hell. If you think God won't let you go to Hell, please tell me why. "God does not exist" is not the debate, the debate is not about the existence of God. This debate is about you going to Hell and God not stopping you if you don't care that you are going there. This debate is not about "Hell does not exist" or "God does not exist". This debate is about why God should not let you go to Hell or why He should let you go to Hell. God is God. No "define God" demands. Hell is Hell. real fire where sinners are confined in the heat forever. No "define hell" demands. Let's just have a debate. Hell is reasonable and fair, it is appropriate justice from God against His creatures who have rebelled against Him and not sought His mercy. You can't say you have sought God's mercy if you never turned away from your favorite sin, be that pride or perversion (or both)God will let you have and enjoy all of your sin as you go your own way, and He will let you go to Hell. He loves you and does not want you to go to Hell, but He will let you go there. Anybody who takes this debate and says "you have to prove God is there" or "you have to prove Hell is real" or "define God" or define "Hell" forfeits this debate. If you don't' want to debate the topic, don't accept the challenge. If you violate these requirements, I will repeatedly copy and past these requirements in place of my arguments and declare that you have forfeited as clearly spelled out in these guidelines. You will probably win because a lot of voters have no respect for rules (which by the way, is their problem with God), but I will not argue anything other than within the debate challenge and guidelines, If you do not argue within the guidelines, we won't have a debate, and you are going your own way and you can guess where it will get you. By accepting this challenge, you agree to all terms.
God will let you go your own way all the way to Hell

My opponent seems to have missed the following in the opening remarks which he was supposed to agree to in accepting this challenge:Anybody who takes this debate and says "you have to prove God is there" or "you have to prove Hell is real" or "define God" or define "Hell" forfeits this debate. His opening question and comments are in direct violation of the agreement in accepting this challenge."Anybody who takes this debate and says "you have to prove God is there" or "you have to prove Hell is real" or "define God" or define "Hell" forfeits this debate. If you don't' want to debate the topic, don't accept the challenge. If you violate these requirements, I will repeatedly copy and past these requirements in place of my arguments and declare that you have forfeited as clearly spelled out in these guidelines""If you do not argue within the guidelines, we won't have a debate, and you are going your own way and you can guess where it will get you By accepting this challenge, you agree to all terms."We can have a debate if my opponent will argue within the guidelines. This debate is about God letting a person go to Hell. It seems my opponent only wants to talk about himself, or why people believe in God, or his personal philosophy about working for what he wants and the power of his imagination. . Those things have nothing to do with this debate. My opponent has said nothing to argue from the Con position of this debate. If my opponent does not argue within the guidelines and remain on topic for this debate, then we do not have a debate.
God will let you go your own way all the way to Hell

Um where's proof of God existing? Can't prove Santa or the Easter Bunny. On the contrary, I understand people believe in God because of hope and faith. . Although don't have any intentions forcing beliefs and other views. You have a right to believe in God. However, as for me not sure. I do believe life the chooses are up to you per set I want a German shepherd. It doesn't happen with a magic wand (even though it feels like it) truth you have to earn the German Shepherd. By working hard of course! Here's another thing as long as you believe no matter the impossible it will happen. Failing doesn't give a right to stop.
Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

P1: Property rights are well founded My opponent does not argue against my premise, which showed that property rights were well founded. Not once does my opponent try to argue why allowing businesses to have rules is a bad idea, whilst I have provided several arguments to affirm that it is a good idea. Therefore my opponent has conceded that property rights are well-founded. A1: It is against cinema rules in many places My opponent’s final counter-arguments against me arguments here are undermined extremely heavily by their moral shortcomings, which I will address under the appropriate heading. Also, since my opponent has not touched my initial premise arguments, and since this argument logically follows, it should follow that you should not sneak snacks in to the movie theatre, if it is against the rules of the business (which I have shown that it is in many places, which my opponent does not deny. Besides, if it was okay with the rules, you would not have to sneak the snacks in, would you? ) A2: Moral consideration This is my opponent’s final argument. It could have two different meanings, due to its vagueness: “I see your point but if we could bring in our own snacks, which wouldn't then get caught, then no trespassing which would result our problem or even at least sign a petition and lower the prices. ” The latter part (non-bolded), which pertains to way in which the situation could be ‘improved’, are irrelevant to whether we should do something in accordance with the current rules. My first interpretation: He argues that no trespassing would occur if no one was caught. This is akin to saying that if you murder someone and no one ever found the body, then that is morally permissible because the body was not found. Since my opponent has completely ignored my moral framework, he instantly concedes that his arguments are immoral, as they have been reduced to ‘don’t get caught and it’s not a crime’. This is a morally repugnant idea, which I have shown to be wholly unfavourable (through Kant’s universality moral law, which is never mentioned, let alone addressed by my opponent). My second interpretation: ‘*If* we could bring in snacks’ is not part of the resolution. The fact is that you are not allowed to (hence the sneaking), therefore you should not, for moral and legal reasons. If you were allowed to bring them in, then there would be no debate. The fact that this is a debate proves that snacks are not allowed to be brought into some movie theatres. Conclusion – why I have won this debate 1. In a moral sense, my opponent’s arguments are atrocious, and for whatever reason, he completely ignores my (Kant’s) moral framework 2. My opponent never rebuts ‘why property rights are a good idea’ 3. My opponent has no response to ‘if you get caught, you are trespassing, yet my opponent thinks it would be okay to stay’ (what I argued) 4. My opponent’s arguments are entirely unsourced. He did not even provide the source that he said he would. As a result, a lot of what he says are bare assertions. Meanwhile, important claims of mine are sourced (and my opponent never questions the legitimacy of them). 5.
Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

P1: Property rights are well founded Still dropped, since I will address the trespassing contention elsewhere. A1: It is against cinema rules in many places “Anyway how is this trespassing though tres"pass…Saying that trespassing specifically means a me not my snack. It still makes no sense why its a wrong . Yes but if the theatre would allow you to bring your own snacks what if they don't have a snack that you like? ” As I argued earlier (in the opening round), a business has every right to property laws, one of which includes trespassing. The business has every right to ask you to leave the property, which would likely happen if you are caught breaking their terms of service rules. Saying that “they don’t have a snack that you like” is not grounds in which to break property law/rules, as I have outlined in A1 and A2. To clarify, trespassing is wrong because: 1. It is illegal 2. It is immoral 3. It breaks your terms of service with the business Also, to be clear, how does trespassing play into this? Here’s how: 1. You sneak food into a movie theatre 2. You are caught 3. The business asks you to leave 4. You say no because you say you should be allowed to do it C. You are now trespassing, as the owners of the land no longer give you permission to be there Besides, this is only one of the components of my entire argument, so there are other parts which negate the resolution. The moral consequences come well before the trespassing ones (the fact that you are knowingly breaking rules in the first place), and so even if my opponent is right with his trespassing objection (which I absolutely do not concede in the slightest), the moral issue is still upheld. As this is my opponent’s sole contention that has not been addressed or dropped by my opponent, I am still winning this debate despite his arguments here, because my other objections come before the trespassing issue. I could leave this round blank and I would still be winning. A2: Moral consideration Still completely dropped, and I do mean completely. Counter-arguments: All of my other counter-arguments (besides the one addressing trespassing), are dropped.
Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

I am truly sorry for forgetting my evidence I will tend to that next round. Anyway how is this trespassing though tres"pass /G2;trespəs,-G6;pas/ verb gerund or present participle: trespassing 1. enter the owner's land or property without permission. "there is no excuse for trespassing on railroad property" synonyms: intrude on, encroach on, enter without permission, Saying that trespassing specifically means a me not my snack. It still makes no sense why its a wrong . Yes but if the theatre would allow you to bring your own snacks what if they don't have a snack that you like?
Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

P1: Property rights are well founded My opponent never touched this premise, thus it is conceded (so far). A1: It is against cinema rules in many places I will address my opponent’s indirect counter-argument to this later. Although, my opponent has failed to address components such as: 1. Why he has the right to break property rules 2. Why he has the right, if caught, to illegally break trespassing laws Therefore, these parts are to be extended. A2: Moral consideration My opponent has completely failed to consider the moral implications of ‘Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theatre’. There is not a trace of my arguments here in his counter-response. Therefore, all of my arguments here have been dropped, which is enough to win me the debate. Counter-arguments: “we are still paying for the movie. ” This does not excuse rule breaking, as part of the service is obeying the rules, as I have already argued. “Isn't snacks considered 'belongings' though just as if a cell phone was consumable we wouldn't be allowed to bring it in. ” I have outlined several sources that indicate bringing food into the movie theatre is not allowed. My opponent’s unfounded semantics on the word ‘belongings’ does not refute any of my examples. “Here is an example of a guy who thought the price of M'Ms where ridiculous look under 'Here"s a copy of my original Wise Bread post:'” I assume that you forgot to post your example, but even if someone found the price to be ridiculous, this is precisely your original argument that I have already addressed (see CA1: Expense is Irrelevant). The price of the food is irrelevant. If you do not want to purchase the movie theatre’s experience, if you want to break their rules, then do not purchase the experience. Paying for a ticket does not excuse you from breaking their other rules. “I am saying people should be allowed to bring in there own food they wouldn't have to 'sneak' as you defined in your argument. ” This is entirely incorrect. The resolution pertains to ‘sneaking’, which is something that my opponent is trying to affirm. I did not make the resolution; I am not the one who defined the debate with the word ‘sneak’. My opponent did! Here, he is trying to blame me for arguing against the resolution! “Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theatre”, is the resolution.
Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

Sorry for not posting I was out of town anyway we are still paying for the movie. Isn't snacks considered 'belongings' though just as if a cell phone was consumable we wouldn't be allowed to bring it in. Here is an example of a guy who thought the price of M'Ms where ridiculous look under 'Here"s a copy of my original Wise Bread post:' I am saying people should be allowed to bring in there own food they wouldn't have to 'sneak' as you defined in your argument.
Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season.

This debate steams from an editorial article from yahoo.com. (http://sports.yahoo.com...) Other than taking the pro position and explaining this debate, I will allow my challenger to go first. In the event that Roger Goodell suspends Micheal Vick from playing in the NFL (National Football League) next season for most (More then 8 games) or the entire season then Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League), the new indepedent league set to compete with the NFL as minor league in the fall of this year on Fridays.
Resolved: College atheletes should be paid

College athletes spend an average of 43.3 hours dedicated to their sport [1]. Why should they only be paid what their tuition is worth, when coaches and other people profit off the NCAA and make millions of dollars? Paying college athletes would make the sports more competitive. Athletes would work harder to be more valuable. This wiuld make the games more exciting. It would also prevent college athletes from struggling financially. Paying athletes also allows them to leave school with more than just a degree; they can also have a savings account. Perhaps some of them will invest their money and learn maturity. There are ways to pay college athletes fairly that do not necessarily burden the schools, but reward the players their due compensation [2]. I can expand on this in the next round. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...