BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty in Iowa

Jared J 12 December 2014 Dead Wrong About the Death Penalty The Death Penalty, the ultimate punishment. But is it worth it? The death penalty was outlawed in Iowa in 1965. Now people think we should bring it back. Iowa should continue to not have the death penalty and use the alternative, life in prison. This is because it has some major flaws. First and foremost death penalty states have higher murder rates. In 2013 the average death penalty state murder rate was a 4.4. While non-death penalty states murder rates where a 3.4. (DIPC 1). Since Iowa has a murder rate of only 1.4 there is no reason to switch. Also death penalty states make up 75% of the top 25 highest murder rates in the country. Thus proving the death penalty does not lower murder rates. Murder rates are not the only thing the death penalty rises, court cases are also affected. Court cases that seek the death penalty cost more than those who do not. A Death Penalty Advisory Committee study shows that death penalty seeking cases cost on average $395,792 to the defense. While only $98,963 for non-death penalty seeking cases. Their fore death penalty seeking cases cost 4 times more than non-death penalty seeking cases. Definitely not worth the money. Overpriced court cases are not the only problem in the courtroom innocent lives are also at stake. The number of innocent lives put on death row is too high to be worth it. Since reinstatement in 1973 "at least 121 people have been released from death row". At the same time "over 982 people have been executed" Thus an 8 to 1 innocence rate. If your car broke down 1 of every 8 times you drove it you would no longer trust it and have it fixed. The death penalty needs fixing some may say that no executed person has ever been executed. But we have come to close in the past to let this happen in the future.(Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab 1) Iowa should continue to not have the death penalty. It does not lower murder rates; it raises court costs, and has a high chance of convicting innocent lives. The risks are not worth it let the death penalty stay dead. Work cited DPIC. "Murder Rates Nationally and By State." DPIC. N.p., 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. .m. "Innocence (In Support of the Death Penalty)." Innocence (In Support of the Death Penalty). Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab, 2004. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. Report of the Judicial Council Death Penalty Advisory Committee (n.d.): n. pag. Report of the Judicial Council Death Penalty Advisory Committee. Judicial Council, 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Nov. 2014. .
Abortion is unconstitutional under a reasonable reading of the US constitution

The founding fathers did not believe all people were created equal. They believed that all adult white men were created equal as it states MEN in the constitution. In case you didn't know more than 2/3 of the founding fathers owned slaves, ranging from black males forced into slavery to white women from the British colonies. Since this is not a debate about the founding father's beliefs I will stay off that topic and exclude your rebuttal on what the founding fathers "meant". I'm also taking it that you are against condoms and birth control? When you use a condom you are actually trapping half of a future child in a latex "glove". And eventually killing it. Birth control, prevents ovulation, or the producing of eggs. I'm wondering how much you know about the process of child bearing. Abortions are (mostly) done in the first trimester (before the 12th week of pregnancy). When the child is still, what some call a blob, and not much of a child. http://www.pregnancy.org...... This site provides a week by week analysis of the "baby" in the womb. As you can see the fetus does not resemble a human at all, until week seven. So, if an abortion is done, before this time, is it ok? I do find it interesting that you are against the idea of abortion even if a woman got raped. Tell me, say you're married. And your wife comes home one day, and tells you that she was raped. A few weeks later you find out she's pregnant, but not with your child. Are you going to sentence your wife to carry a "bastard" child for nine months. Every time the child "kicks" she remembers that moment when she was forced to have sex. Every time she has to go up in a size of clothing, she feels the emotions rush back to her. Your really going to sentence the woman you love to live nine months of hell, because she was forced to have sex,against her own will? Some of the physical effects of rape. http://www.healthyplace.com... Abortion is not the taking of a child, its not the taking of a life. Its the taking of what WOULD BECOME a life. What harm is there in preventing life? People do it everyday with condoms and birth control.
Abortion is unconstitutional under a reasonable reading of the US constitution

The title of this debate should have been rendered PERMITTING Abortion is unconstitutional under a reasonable reading of the US constitution, but I did not have time to change it. I hope Con and everyone else will forgive me this slip and that it will not preclude a successful and informative discussion on the topic. Con, the Declaration of Independence is more important than you realize. As you read you will see the reason for my conditions. Maybe I should have worded them differently or left some out, but I can't change that any more than my title now. The Declaration declares that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [1] Now, this obviously means that the Founders thought that when a "man" (or woman, as "man" was generally used in a legal sense to refer to members of both sexes) is "created," then at that point he possesses the right to life. Whether the Founders knew it or not, it is also obvious that both a fetus and an embryo possesses life from conception onward, and that if the Christian concept of "creation" were to be believed, that the "creation" must take place at conception. No one would argue that God creates an embryo as it comes out of the womb. It is also obvious the Founders believed that from the point at which God gave life, the possession of that life became an unalienable right. At the time, it is true, the Founders believed there was a "quickening" at some point during the pregnancy when the embryo became human, but when confronted with modern-day evidence as to the impossibility of any such "ensoulment" one can be sure they would abandon such a view. The Fourteenth Amendment states: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [2] Allowing unborn babies to be murdered just because they are not yet out of the womb is denying them equal protection of the law. This is prohibited under the constitution. Even aside from the Declaration, in 1859, before the passing of the 14th Amendment, the AMA and other medical organizations had submitted petitions against abortion, pointing to the discovery that life did not begin at "quickening" but rather at conception. It is reasonable to therefore interpret the Amendment as reflecting the legal and scientific consensus that the life of the unborn child should be protected. That the babies are not citizens is no issue. That they are persons is all that is needed, and that is plain enough. "Is birth control an abortion?" "Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." ---Planned Parenthood pamphlet August 1963
Abortion is unconstitutional under a reasonable reading of the US constitution

I accept the constitution and its contents to be valid and true. 1st- Your argument is invalid unless you can prove that the original authors intended anything other than that of which the constitution states. 2nd- You must also show where in the constitution it says abortion is illegal and should not be permitted. 3rd- "By accepting, you agree to accept as valid the Constitution, (including the) Bill of Rights (and other Amendments), and the Declaration of Independence" "They are to be interpreted as the original authors intended them to mean" These two quotes contradict each other. If the constitution and all of its contents are valid then they are exactly that. Valid. Its laws are not interpreted any differently then what they are written to be. 4th- the declaration of independence has almost nothing to do with the constitution or abortion laws, as it was written eleven years before the constitution was created. The D.O.I is the document that was sent to the king of England declaring the 13 colonies an independent nation. The constitution on the other hand was written many years later and is the basic outline of our country's federal government.
Scottish Independence

I strongly believe in Independence for Scotland within the EU. The Yes Campaign fought a great campaign for a better Scotland, but we were fooled by the lies of the Westmonster Establishment. Although after a referendum, the dream is NOT dead. Before the referendum SNP membership was ~20,000. Now, 3 months after, it's almost 100,000. Already Westmonster are backtracking on their promises clearly shown in 'The Vow' in which David Cameron MP, Nick Clegg MP, and Ed Miliband MP all signed. These 3 liars started backtracking at 06:08, 19th September 2014, the very minute the National result was declared. We now have the opportunity to 'Hold Westminster's feet to the fire', as Alex Salmond said. We DEMAND our powers are delivered.
No Religion in school should include certain theories.

For the judges, I will clarify a few points. My opponent is saying that if religion is not allowed in school, then the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Theory should also not be allowed. I will argue that this is not the case. My opponent's argument relies on the idea that Evolution/Big Bang Theory are religious viewpoints. However, this is baseless. The reason that religion should not be taught is because there is absolutely no evidence to support it (my opponent has the burden of proof here). However, evolution has a great deal of evidence in its favor [1] [2] [3], as does Big Bang Theory [4] [5]. Therefore, the comparison is not applicable. My opponent has made no other arguments for me to refute. I have met my burden of proof. Resolution affirmed. [1] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins [4] . http://www.talkorigins.org... [5] . http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
No Religion in school should include certain theories.

Let me start off by thanking my opponent for his or her time. Also, let me state this is my first debate so afterwards please leave in comments or send me a messgae how I did. Thank you. I believe that If Religion is not aloud in school this should include certain theories. A couple of these theories are but not limited to (due to me not being able to think of them mainly and this is my first debate.): Theory of Evolution. Big Bang Theory. My arguments for the following are as followed: Many believe that religion should not be aloud in school for instances taking out taking out "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance(1). Evolution is a scientists belief how how humans where created. Continuing The big bang theory is taught as one of the ways the earth was possibly created. Additionally, religion is a form also a way of thinking how the world was created but expands upon that idea. Therfore if No religion in school is in place this should include certain theorys. Resource (1) http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, necessary? Haha no. (Debate sponsored by King La Ding enterprises)

I'm Going to make this the easy mode round, for an understanding if I don't little con will forfeit the next rounds and probably kill themselves, so this is the easy mode round. Many losers and warmongers have long since stated that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945 was completely necessary, to the ends of subjugating Japan and winning and ending WW2. These same losers have claimed that with any other alternative, the U.S and other allied nations would have seen high numbers of casualties, making these solutions implausible. Now I say, that's not true at all, anyone with a working nervous system can comprehend this simple fact. And being King La Ding, I do feel somewhat sorry for little Con to be doing this revisionist history constantly. Now being an easy mode round, let me start to explain why little con is wrong in every way, and more importantly the dropping the atomic bomb and the whole concept of its necessity is a flawed foundation in itself. Proponents of warmongering often claim that the Japanese people would never have accepted surrender, and neither would the emperor at the time, Hirohito. However this flawed claim has many cracks in it to begin with, mostly being 100% incorrect. The reason Japan had not already surrendered, is because of the way U.S framed it, as an 'unconditional surrender' it is well known that the U.S had said they would only accept a Japanese surrender under the blanket of an unconditional surrender. Here is where the cracks show up, the Japanese people in this time period saw the emperor, as a sort of deity. Most people accept this is a clear truth, but what they fail to see is how ambiguous a term like unconditional surrender is. It's clear that the people of Japan would not willingly surrender under this, but rather fight to the death because the terms did not ensure that the Japanese throne would remain in place. Both Hirohito and the U.S knew that if there was no assurance that the Japanese throne would remain in place, that the Japanese people would not willingly surrender, but rather fight to the death. An assurance such as this would have been more than enough to get a Japanese surrender. Now why do I say this, because the Japanese had been thoroughly destructionized and left without allies long before the nuking. Sea blockades by Allied Nations had been preventing them from feeding their people and their army fully, Japan was already 'defeated.' Now, little con, let's see just how much you know.
According to the Bible (Old & New Testament) Jesus Christ is God

Greetings to you all! My name is persianimmortal and I will be representing the Con side of this debate. Just a little intro on who I am; I am a Baha'i (message me if you would like to know more about what it is) and The reason why I accepted this debate is because I am a student of Comparative Religions specializing in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Baha'i Religions. I have had these debates before and after 5 years of devoting myself to the above Scriptures, I will just say that His Holiness Jesus Christ is not who you claim Him to be. Please understand that I do not mean to offend any of your beliefs. My objective here is to simply some shed light on a perspective that you have probably not noticed. I am glad to take this debate and I look forward to a fruitful discussion ;) Just something to keep in mind, I believe that you, as the instigator of this debate, have the right to open the debate with your scripturally-reinforced arguments as to why you think the Old and New Testaments, collaboratively conclude the status of Jesus as God. God Bless.
According to the Bible (Old & New Testament) Jesus Christ is God

This debate is contending the issue of whether or not the Bible (the Old and New Testaments) contains evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is God. This is the second time I am holding this debate, but with an extra round, and I hope to use different points each time I partake in this debate. Please read the rules cafefully before asking to be considered for the debate, thank you! Also; I will consider any additional requests from challengers so long as they comply with the rules I have established here. Rules:(1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible as we are debating a theological issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the bible. The bible, as defined above, consists of the New and Old Testament. Evidence outside of the bible such as Watchtower publications, or commentaries, will not be accepted as valid evidence. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using.(2) This debate is not discussing other theological issues such as the doctrine of the trinity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union of Christ, etc. This debate also presupposes the authority of scripture, the exsistence of God, and the existence and humanity of Christ. The matter should be focused on the issue of Christ's divinity.(3) No semantics, personal attacks, or any other games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate.(4.1) There are four rounds.The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed.The second round will be where the first arguments will be presented.The third and four rounds are simply for more arguments, rebuttals, and conclusions.(4.2) In this debate rebuttals are not necessary. It is up to the individual to decide what would be more profitable for their debate. If the opponent wishes to move on, without rebuttals, and present more evidence than it is permitted.(5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com.Conclusion:I only ask that the person who ends up partaking in this challenge will take it seriously. I will open the debate to the person whom seems geniune in ther desire to debate appropriately to the rules as well as someone who will be a challenge on the matter. God bless.
THBT student should learn the third language.

Sorry about that gender mix up Con :S! "Well, you can't make sure either that all students can get the job that they really want to be. So, to learn the third language also can't make sure but, we can make sure that they will have more salaries for their job and also have more choices to choose the job that they want. " --> A third language is only necessary for a few jobs: Language teaching, interpretation,etc. It is more beneficial for students to learn IT than a third language. "Goal of learning isn't only going to the university. But learning is the thing to prove that you have a good efficiency in the real life. Every occupations should learn language because language is important for life! " --> 1) You have proven how language is important for life. I could learn Spanish, but not use it once in my life with ease. 2) How is third language more beneficial than doing military assault courses, IT, electrical wiring, etc. They all have more important application in real life than a third language. "And not all people in one country can speak the same languages! Even, we have a guide to take care but, what if we get lost from guide who will help us? We have to learn more languages to have more choices to understand those people and to communicate to them. " --> The majority of countries have 1 de facto language, maybe two. And en are you going to need another language to find a guide? "For our side, you can see here that I already prove all the points that why we want students to speak more than 3 languages. But, the con side always said that our side is bad without the reason why is pro side bad. Also he didn't prove why students should learn only 2 languages. " --> And I have debunked all those points. I proved your side wrong, and you have not addressed my arguments. and I never had to advocate students should 2 languages.
THBT student should learn the third language.

Thanks Sir, But sorry I'm a GIRL! ^-^ These are my argument : - Only 2 languages aren't enough! - The advantages from learning many language! - Learn more isn't a problem! Thanks for the con side for all those information. But, if you look exactly to the root of the point, you can see that those information all from the con side can't really prove his side to be better. How? Well, I am going to tell you now. First of all, I would like to tell u about how con side fell all proves of his side. Well, you can't make sure either that all students can get the job that they really want to be. So, to learn the third language also can't make sure but, we can make sure that they will have more salaries for their job and also have more choices to choose the job that they want. Goal of learning isn't only going to the university. But learning is the thing to prove that you have a good efficiency in the real life. Every occupations should learn language because language is important for life! And not all people in one country can speak the same languages! Even, we have a guide to take care but, what if we get lost from guide who will help us? We have to learn more languages to have more choices to understand those people and to communicate to them. For our side, you can see here that I already prove all the points that why we want students to speak more than 3 languages. But, the con side always said that our side is bad without the reason why is pro side bad. Also he didn't prove why students should learn only 2 languages. Therefore, my side proves better and this debate should fall for my side. Thank you.
THBT student should learn the third language.

"I dind't define that student "compulsory" learn. It means you can choose by yourself. " --> Right, but learning another language, let alone a third language is hard, and by your definition, a student is a teenager (I'll come back to why this point is null). As you states, as student is a teenager Yet: 1) Student who aren't in University (High school) are training for what they want to do in university, if there is languages involved, sure, but they shouldn't take on just for the sake of it, as it would impede their studies. 2) Students in university are getting degrees for a profession, and, again, they shouldn't take a language and impede their studies for the sake of it. "I really believe that student can gain more benefits from education! " --> Of course they can, but a language can severely impede the education if they don't need it. "Student shouldn't decrease their attempt because what they do is DIFFICULT! !" --> They should if they don't need the language. It's an unnecessary burden. "Many people know; when you go to travel in foreign country and you can speak that language you will get more experiences. If you don't know verious languages same as you lock the door and live with yourself! " --> Many countries with tourists accommodate them with tourist regions where the general populace speak the same language. "If parent don't guide them to do good ,They will do what they want and they don't care about social" --> Agreed, but how does this imply a language = A morally good person? "THEY CAN'T DECIDE WHAT TO DO BY THEMSELVES" --> 18 year olds are teenagers. They can't look after themselves? You do realise that if parents constantly nanny their children their children can't look after themselves? "Students are teenager" --> This is wrong. Twenty year olds go to university, and they're not teenagers. Many people resit exams or go to college when they're older.