BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheist or Agnostic in American public office

Is there any reason that an Atheist or agnostic ( here forward Atheist) would not be an equal or better elected official in public office. In my opinion the answer is obvious, no. Religion is widely exclaimed by all Americans running for public office and it is easy to assume in today's culture an open Atheist would stand no chance in the election against a religious counterpart. In a government model based on separation of church and state there is no real reason for this. One might be quick to say that the reason for the thirst for a religious candidate is morals. Yet any rational minded person would concede that an atheist would have no worse, if not most likely better personal morals. Furthermore someone not hindered by a sect or faith may be better suited to look at issues more rationally thus coming to better solutions for today's issues and problems. This is not to say that our atheist candidate would pose restrictions on religion at all. Of course we have freedom of religion and a right to practice any faith we see fit, but that doesn't mean a particular set of peoples beliefs should dictate this country as a whole. Issues such as gay marriage which has no argument against it aside from religious ones, would be settled quite easily. I wont drag this on as I would like to see the responses and move from there, but in conclusion I assert that an atheist candidate in American politics would be as equally fit if not better qualified than a religious one.
Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions

We are going to make two points. The first is to stipulate as factual Instigator's contention bad teachers are allowed to remain in the classroom rather than give an opportunity to more innovative and qualified teachers. The second is to state it's not the unions fault. The fault lies with the administration and with the school board. What Instigator suggests is the unions not do their job or at least one of their jobs which is to represent and protect the interests of their members. Ethical standards and legal requirements do not allow them to decline to represent 'bad' teachers. There is a way to get rid of bad teachers-- school boards can enact policies allowing for removing such teachers; and administrators can document cases against them. Unions can fight it as they should but if the school boards and administrators do their jobs the bad teachers will go-- and the good teachers who may be unfairly or mistakenly targeted. will be protected. It is the last point why unions should be allowed to protect bad teachers
Vegetarianism for ethical reasons

The reason why I listed those 5 fish is because those are the most consumed in the US by mass. The entirety of your argument is based on the standard practices and whether they are ethical. It would be the equivalent of saying that ALL energy is bad because of the use of fossil fuels. The consumption of animals (like energy) is not the issue here it is the means in which they are produced. You list factory farming as the crux of your argument and I am not disagreeing with your assertion that conditions can be less than ideal, however that does not address the morality of eating meat, but the production by large corporate entities. You also again bring up health but as I stated before, your premise is based on ethics to which health is different argument and your argument is based on correlation not causation. Other variables are not even considered in your statistics like lifestyle of typical vegans is usually more healthy than the standard population because they are making conscience choices about their life rather than the standard person. Yoga, Exercise, etc. These are not matters for a debate on morals or ethics but personal choices. I feel that based on your arguments you do not have an issue with the eating of meat but the process for the majority of meat takes to get to the table. Eating grass fed locally farmed livestock would alleviate your concerns in that regard. There are many options available that allow for the conscience consumer to make "ethically" based decisions when choosing the meat they would like to consume. Reduction in meat intake and supplementing with good organic produce I have no problem with but there is not just one option available to reduce the issues you talk about, it is not black and white. A more cognizant consumer would reduce impact, lead to healthier lifestyles and still allow for the consumption of delicious tasting meat. I would not argue that we, as a population, need to consume more veggies, less processed junk food, and probably eliminate dairy from our diets but that is nothing on the ethical nature of consuming animals but how we raise and slaughter them which can be done humanely, with them living stress free, open range lifestyles free of predators and disease eating all they can eat while they share their time here on earth. That in many ways can be a much better life than facing constant fear of death, starvation, illness etc. In the animal kingdom there are herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores and humans are omnivores as our physiology tells us (eye placement, teeth, articulated jaw). It doesn't mean that we eat meat all the time but it does show that we are evolved to consume some amount of meat so it should not even be considered as to whether or not it is ethical it is an evolutionary trait. You may choose based on opinion not to consume meat but you cannot state with fact that the mere act of consumption is grounds for unethical behavior no more than you can fault a lion for being a carnivore.
Vegetarianism for ethical reasons

What about fish. U wrote five types f fish, which are not at risk foe extinction. But cause of europeans' and americans' love to sushi tuna is under threat of extinction. Maria Juan-Jorda, from A Coruna University in Spain, said: "Populations have declined, on average, by 60 per cent over the past half century, but the decline in the total adult biomass is lower (52 per cent), driven by a few abundant populations.The steepest declines are exhibited by two distinct groups: the largest, longest lived, highest value temperate tunas and the smaller, short-lived mackerels, both with most of their populations being over-exploited. The remaining populations, mostly tropical tunas, have been fished down to approximately maximum sustainable yield levels, preventing further expansion of catches in these fisheries.' People need more ingredients for sushi, cause of that increased quote for fishing, which a main problem of extinction of tuna. Animals kill animals, but not so much as people. Because of people's love to meat, a lot of animals at risk for extinction. On today's factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy windowless sheds, wire cages, gestation crates and other confinement systems. These animals will never raise families, root in the soil, build nests or do anything that is natural and important to them According to the ADA, vegetarians are at lower risk for developing: -Heart disease -Colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers -Diabetes -Obesity -Hypertension (high blood pressure) But a vegetarian diet, like any healthy diet, must be well planned in order to help prevent and treat certain diseases. If u have a right diet, it will help to your health.
Vegetarianism for ethical reasons

First of all, it helps the environment. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in rivers, meat production related to deforestation. Many species of fish are facing extinction because of our desire to eat fish. The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farm inggenerates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions " by comparis on, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a com bi ned 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it's immoral to kill animals. Now people don't need to inflict pain to animals to survive. Farm animals are our evolutionary cousins and like us can feel pleasure and pain. Also many specialists argue that there are significant health benefits to be "veggie", because vegetarian diets contain high quantities of vitamins and minerals, and is low in fat. Furthermore, the possibility of heart diseases decreases because vegetable have no cholesterol.
Vegetarianism for ethical reasons

I would like to thank my opponent again for the opportunity to debate a topic that holds a lot of questions for our ever growing society. They made very sound points in regards to the methods by which we obtain our food and have shown that no matter which side you fall on this matter, we as a society need to consider our impact on the world around us. I have shown through our discourse that, while I believe some of the points that Pro has brought up, there are means to which we can lessen the impact through better techniques in farming. There are many options that allow for healthier consumption while allowing for better quality of life of the animals in which we consume. Standard practices whether it be livestock or agriculture both have negative consequences that need to be adjusted as we desire to feed more people. Whether it be pollution through manure of live animals or pesticides and herbicides in farming produce the stewardship aspect is one that I feel that all farmers have a great responsibility in protecting. Overfishing can be a problem and one that also can be addressed through conscious consumerism. Regulation, education and new techniques hold a great future on the horizon. Consuming meat cannot be equated to an ethical problem. It is not a matter of whether or not it is ethical or moral to avoid meat but one of personal preference and one I can respect. We, like our closest cousin the chimpanzee, live on a diet that is varied mixing a lot of fruits vegetables and some meat. I for one try to include as many vegetables in my meals and am conscientious of the meat I acquire. As someone who has been around the local farms I can tell you that when cared for properly the animals are treated better than we treat our homeless. Commercial production is often times done for the processed and frozen food industry and for large fast food chains. These are lesser quality and often times are the unhealthy choice when consuming food. This is also the case with the processed produce that is farmed as well. The best option for health and treatment is through eating as locally grown and farmed as possible. So in conclusion I will say when considering these factors and the options available the matter of Vegetarian vs Omnivore debate cannot be one of ethics but choice, and given the amount of choices available one cannot say that omnivores are unethical in that choice.
Death penalty

The idea that the death penalty is unjustified on lower crimes is not the topic of today's debate. The parameters set was the death penalty, which means that any strain of the death penalty can be defended. In this instance, murder/rape only is a reasonable standard to weigh the death penalty on. The claim made that someone was killed for being alone in a mall can be assumed to be either misinterpreted or false. Since my opponent does not mention a case, and since being alone in a mall is not a crime, that was obviously not the reason for the charge. My opponent also claims the death penalty increases the crime rate and cites the discovery channel. However, actual studies in the US, which due to their accuracy on US politics ought to be preferred, show that the death penalty is a DETERRENT for crime. (Ex:. http://abc7news.com...) This is extremely important as it shows that the death penalty is not a way to seek revenge by the state, as stated by my opponent, but rather way to save net lives. I addressed this point in my last speech, but my opponent did not address it which means that it is still relevant in today's round. My opponent looks at conversion as the only evidence to claim that crime is reduced in nations without the death penalty. Yet, they offer no conversion rates or evidence for this beyond their own words. Donald Calloway would not have received the death penalty anyways because his crime was drugs as a minor, not punishable by death. Unless my opponent means to imply that drug offenders are given the death penalty, which is false, his story is not relevant to the conversation. My opponent did not attack my arguments which means that they flow through the round, or in other words Round 1 and all that evidence has not been refuted.
Death penalty

There are many "crimes" for which death penalty is applied that are not really high. For example, a woman was killed with death penalty in the United States just because she was alone in a mall. Do you think that just because this is prohibided it is a crime? No, it just a violation of laws in the country that she can correct with some time in the jail. With the death penalty many "crimes" like this are beeing punished. A discovery channel investigation shows that countries that alredy abolish death penalty have less criminals, because they have not any scare feelings about it. But some people are afraid of the jail and take out the idea of beeing criminals. How is death penalty not going to be the easy way if you think that the way of having less criminals is take them out of the world? The best way to stop it is to make them change and say sorry and if you try that, even if you don't achieve it, that will not be the easy way. Death penalty is a revenge. Let's suppose that a person violates someone and the victim kills him. Yu will clearly say that it is revenge, but if the government do the same, you will say that not. Human rights are equal for EVERYONE, even if the government is superior, they have to respect human rights of everyone, can not decide what to do with the life of people and can't take revenge replacing another person just because they are superior. If death penalty really helps, why does the countries that alredy abolish it have less criminals? Take the example of Donald Calloway. He was a criminal since he was 15 years old. he scaped from the jail. In a moment when he transformed to catholic religion, he say sorry to God and cry for his criminal acts. He also became priest and tell everyone his story. What would happen if he was killed with death penalty. People, take this story as an example! Death penalty avoid many opportunities for people to change! Thank you opponent for accepting my debate. Vote for me if you wish! Thanks
Death penalty

Although some parts of the death penalty can be unsettling to people, the fact of the matter is the death penalty actually saves net lives. In order for a government to govern effectively, it needs to be Utilitarian in its approach. Therefore, from the government's stance, as long as at least two lives are saved by killing one person, the action is good in the eyes of the government. According to a study done y Emory University, 18 lives are saved with each execution, and 18 lives are lost for each sentence commuted. Even life in prison resulted in the same 18 homicides. Therefore, from a practical and governing standpoint, the death penalty is not only justified, but good. The system that you propose with the cameras and alerts is an extremely slippery slope. A real world parallel would be something like the PATRIOT act, or in other words, a surveillance state. This is one of the worst forms of governments, as rights are stripped to defend security and the government inevitably becomes a regime. The religious argument is irrelevant. There is no study that claims death penalty sentences reduce conversions, and in fact, because of Pascal's Wager, it would make more sense for death penalty sentences to convince people to convert. In fact, the argument you make throughout the rest of your case is refuted by the existence of a God, since Heaven is infinitely better than the Earth, and Hell is infinitely bad. This dichotomy is in fact made better, since Pascal's Wager would allow more people to go Heaven. As you claim, "Never good to take the easy way," the easy way is to in fact let them rot in a prison instead of facing divine judgement. In short, the government saves lives by killing people, the only plan you offer is an even worse government, and when religion becomes a part of the equation, killing people to force them to convert is the only way that God could have it. This is no different than God and Noah's Ark, and so the Death Penalty is good.
Death penalty

I am against death penalty. It is like going back to the past, because most of the countries alredy abolish it. Why? Because life is a basic right, not even the government can violate that right, it doesn't matter if the crime is very high. Death penalty avoid the opportunity for criminals to reflect. And if you say that criminals will not change, how do you know that? The government should try to search spirit and psicologist help. I am in favour that maybe people will go out of the jail, but this can change, policemen can construct an alert that sounds an announce then that someone is trying to scape and cameras should improve, so like this it would be impossible for someone to scape. For religious arguments, God gives people until the last moment of their lives to say sorry for their acts and ow are they going to say sorry if they are inmediately killed after they do the crime. Another argument, it is sure that countries that have not alredy abolished the death penalty are the ones in which more criminals are found, because criminals have not any scary feelings for the death penalty. If most of the countries abolish it, it is true that it don't really work. The idea is not to defend life rights by killing others! The government say thet the ones that kill are criminals, they are saying criminals to their own selves! Eye to eye and we become blind! Pay the misstakes in life is a good punishment,but killing is not a punishment, is making the other people to take away the heigh of beeing punished, because he/she is alredy died and will not pay nothing."Never good to take the easy way" and death penalty is the easy way, to kill criminals, so there will be less? Government should try to make criminals change. And last, criminals will not dissapear if they are killed, as I say before, it is scientificly checked that in the countries thatv the death penalty is abolished alredy, there are less criminals! Think about it, don't turn back, death penalty should be abolishe
The Church uses fear to gain believers and has no evidence of it's doctrines

well my opponent has forfeited the round. i cant see anything else i need to refute that wont just come to you as common sense. this person seemed very educated but must be a very lazy thinker or have severe mental weaknesses that most certainly arent perfections btw. but i guess you religious people will believe anything. my opponent could not prove his points. he couldnt explain how the little of information he gave us on the evidence of jesus he was talking about is conclusive which i know he cant because that was not conclusive clearly. funny how a guy argues that there is conclusive evidence for something gives so little information that his argument even if true isnt conclusive evidence. so its obvious that what he calls conclusive evidence is not conclusive so why should any of you take his word that there is evidence when no church offers any evidence at all even if there is evidence. if there is evidence i imagine they would use it and anyone who goes to church should agree with me when i say that the christian god or the men who made him up control us by fear. they thought of the worst thing they could think of which is being burned alive and said youd burn for eternity. i guess i have nothing to say other than does it not seem to any rational person that the punishment is infinitely more than we deserve as it never ends and we do not deserve eternal torment for causing two seconds give or take of pain or none at all nor do we deserve to be punished for doing wrong when we didnt know right from wrong because god didnt teach us. most wrong doing is due to ignorance of the knowledge of right and wrong and is gods fault if he exists. how can we be good when god didnt teach us how to be good and when we are clearly not smart enough to figure it out on our own.
The Church uses fear to gain believers and has no evidence of it's doctrines

well first off id like to ask that people not take points off for grammar and spelling. next i would like to point out that church does not mean catholic church as was his definition of church. its all churches. this guy cant even interpret the words im using literally so how can i expect him to interpret anything logically. also evidence is not proof of a claim its a logical or otherwise fact that supports a claim or makes it more probable. . funny though. you want to argue that the church has proof supporting its beliefs you be my guest but you will lose that fight every time. also he lies. there is no proof that there was a man named jesus at the time and place and even if there was he could have made the religion up and not have been the son of god. im not even going to debate if you cant do better than this. there were just a few historians that heard of jesus or said they did while the other 3000 historians in the mediterranean never heard of him. the bible also isnt profound enough to be from a god its clearly written by men with laws like women who are raped have to marry their attacker. or women should be put to death if they dont scream loud enough to be heard while they are being raped as accessories to their own defilement. you have no proof as you claim and your evidence definition was proof. lol the winners of wars write history and their morals change. heros of the past today would be terrorists and vice versa. soon we will lose almost all christian virtues as we should. and you will "need" a new god again making the same mistake your ancestors did a million times. its happened a thousand times (more). and thinking you know right from wrong when you dont is treacherous and most certainly isnt the work of a perfect god.
The Church uses fear to gain believers and has no evidence of it's doctrines

As the negative, I would like to contend that there is no evidence of the Church's beliefs and that the Church does not use fear to convert people. I will present my arguments in this way: Round 1- Overview of my position Round 2-Arguments and rebuttals Round 3- Any necessary rebuttals and a conclusion. Before I begin, I would like to wish my opponent the best of luck. First, my definitions. The Church is a reference to the Catholic Church as a whole, it's doctrines are it's beliefs and customs, and evidence is proof of a claim. If you do not agree, please state so. Now on to my first argument. The Church does have evidence of its doctrines. Many people argue that there was no human named Jesus, but it has been proven that there was. This is through Roman records and of course the Bible. The Bible can be thought of as 'made up stories,' but if the reader can see past the basics, the morals and the stories are quite in fact correct. Also it is in Roman records that the Man names Jesus who as buried was seen three days later. If that is not proof enough, I know not what proof is. Secondly, I shall contest the prospect of fear. My opponent has recently stated that the prospect of hell is but a trick to scare people in following the church. I say this is very much incorrect. A person has the ability to chose independent of such things. The prospect of Hell also may not be what it seems, but as a whole, it is not merely a scaring trick. That is an overview of my arguments and I shall explain these in further detail in the next round. Also for this debate, I would like to advise my opponent that even if we do not agree, we must respect each other. Good luck.