BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government should abolish death penalty

As I believe that government internationally should abolish capital punishment; I will accept this debate. India's economy is not something I am familiar with; therefore there's no economic argument that I can relatively debate with accuracy. However, I believe there are several other logical arguments for the abolishment of death penalty. 1. Prison life is worse than death To justify that prison is worse than death, my opponent will need to understand the goal of prison. Prison takes away all rights to members of society; and takes away the one thing that the death penalty can not. A will to live. The death penalty is an easy way out, a free of guilt option to many prisoners. Prison life gives prisoners the chance to feel the suffering and loss of something that the family or friends of the criminals victims feel. Whether it be robbery, murder, rape or any other serious crime; prison can be much more effective. Not to mention the abuse of many prisoners.
The government should abolish death penalty

I feel that if someone who has done a mass murder and taken into custody and let lose by given bail, I think it is not right to let lose a criminal. He might still commit some crime and still kill some more people. Why should we leave people who have committed serious crimes and let them out of jail by giving them bail? People say that in India it is easier to get bail than bhel poori(a chaat dish)at a restaurant. They say that if we kill the killer, we are no less than the killer. So the best thing to do is to get the criminals hanged to death instead of providing them with all the facilities in jail. The government should not abolish death penalty and must be strict and bring the criminals to justice by hanging them and not grant them bail at all. As I said ,the problem in India is that you get bail very easily. Anybody reading this shall try to answer for this argument but you can also you can support me with my debate.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

I accept. Now, Laissez-Faire Capitalism ought to be defined for our readers: "An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws." (1) I will argue that this system is profoundly beneficial to much, if not all, of the population, and is structurally and intellectually sound. Let this be an informative and civil debate, and may the best man win. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Racism today between both sides

Racism has always been an issue in society , but what the problems seem to be is no one is bothering to forgive each other. Instead we have both sides climbing on the bandwagon of "Minority oppression" and "you are to blame"....etc. This is strongly a topic that many minorities today (Black, Spanish, etc) stay on, as it is an issue that most strongly correlates to their own history, this eventually becomes something that younger generations cling on to and try to use to justify an action such as reprisal for past history. What the essence of what the very argument i am trying to pose is that, it is wrong to use the past as a shield to retribute future changes in a minorities status egs: Giving land that is has being owned by farmers or landowners for three of more generations to aboriginals etc. On the basis of the land being "supposedly a ritual, or native area for six hundred years prior to colonization etc." Summary: It is wrong to allow minorities to slur or use past to justify a modern agenda and try to oppress other races.
fair tax not revenue neutral

Again I close my argument that the fair tax laws aren,t fair and we need to change the way we do taxes.Taxes going across the board of 23% will not solve our problems.We need to restructucture our taxes or maybe do away with them and tax a different way.We are america and we need to work together to solve this problem together. Thanks to my opponet of not responding in last round,I appreciate to know that Pro is wrong in this debate.Thanks.
fair tax not revenue neutral

First of all you talk about a 23% tax across the board tax for everyone, I think this would not work.Bush has given tax cuts across the board and that does not work.Our problem is not in taxes as much as we are spending on the war. We need to take a diffrent approach on taxes, which means the rich is exempt from alot of taxes including incorporations which is not fair to the working man, because he has to pay taxes.We need everyone to pay their fair share of taxes. We need here in America a change on how we do taxes or get rid of taxes, and start over again.In this country the middle class is deminishing and the rich are getting more rich by not paying taxes.IT is just not fair here in America. The richer man needs to pay higher taxes and the poor man lesser tax so he can feed his family.Here in America we are a rich country and no one should be poor. watch for my round two people, I'm just getting started.
fair tax not revenue neutral

http://www.fairtax.org... the fair tax is good because it's progressive. it's alledgely good because it doesn't go above 23% for anyone, and again for most it's progressively better. it's good for the poorest because they won't pay anything after rebate, and those who do earn little will pay very little because of the rebate. it's good for potential businesses who won't have to pay taxes, and only have to worry about the increased costs of material. it's good because productivity alone isn't taxed. the problem is funding the tax. admittedly... there's much savings from compliance costs taht would go into the system given that 20 cents to the dollar under the old system is used only for compliance ... also, instead of allowing the rich to pay a capital gains tax and less than everyone else as a percentage, they'd theoretically have to pay more (warren buffet, the third richest man in the world, does not like that he pays only 17% through capital gains etc, yet his secretary who makes 60k pays like 25-30percent) the idea would be the rich have more and buy more stuff so they'd pay more. my problem is that is that surely, i contest, the rich do not spend enough now to pay for this new system at the same gov spending level, it's not revenue neutral so to speak using their lingo. the old system made them pay 15-30 percent fed tax. to get to those levels now, they'd have to spend almost all their money. if the increases from compliance costs and from noncapital gains were suficient, it's not really "fair" because the rich should pay more in tax. but, as it looks, it doesn't look even practially able to pay for the old system without taxing more.
TROLL DEBATE: I am the walrus

The dog is worried? Oh please, his eyes are filled with demon-white in both (PIXELATED BY DEMON MAGIC!) pictures. Boom. Instant confirmation. My opponent only confirms that Britain women live in Canada (as do walrus) because they live in the high-heel country yet wear Britain-flag shoes.Opponent WOULD know where to go because his british lady friends can easily direct him around Canada. As for 15 degrees being warm, 15 degrees is really, REALLY warm. Summer is about six degrees on average. If it's around 15 in WINTER IN CANADA...my god, that's SUPER WARM. Near burning level, perhaps.IN CONCLUSION, whatever my opponent may think, he is not a walrus. Walrus do not exist on DDO. Vote for me.
TROLL DEBATE: I am the walrus

1. "The dog protecting the kitten--it's crushing it with its weight, just fooling its ownerThe kiss--that's rape"WRONG. If you look a bit closer, the cats bodily position and facial expression are both not that of a rape victim. The dog's eyes are also not that of a rapist. They're worried.2. That's not why it's called British Colombia. They call it that because its shape is that of a woman's thigh and high heel-clad foot. British women LOVE high heels. Why else would they put their flag on them? "Why is his monocle not melting--because it's made of diamonds too"Impossible. How does diamond get yellow?And don't try a magic urine argument on me. The walrus would not need magic since it is surrounded by ice and plenty of water to drink.3. "Opponent contradicts himself. He clearly knows that he's stuck in North Canada, which means he knows where he is, which means he isn't lost."Actually, "lost" can be defined as "not knowing where you are or how to get to where you want to go : unable to find your way." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)I wouldn't be able to tell where I was going, so by definition I would indeed be lost, even though I knew I was in Canada.North canada being all warm-colored- because if youre there then that's how you have to focus on staying: warm. Besides, your own maps show them with keys numbering no hotter than 15 degrees. How can you call that warm?
TROLL DEBATE: I am the walrus

The dog protecting the kitten--it's crushing it with its weight, just fooling its ownerThe kiss--that's rape-Walruses aren't british? Then why are there so many? [source: http://www.racerocks.ca...]Why is his monocle not melting--because it's made of diamonds tooGetting lost--opponent contradicts himself. He clearly knows that he's stuck in North Canada, which means he knows where he is, which means he isn't lost. Also if you look at the picture below north canada is pretty darn hot; otherwise why would it be all colored orange, yellow, and red. There's also this picture that proves Canada is so darn hot even in winter it's like summer Source: http://www.ehatlas.ca...Therefore if most walrus live in North Canada (which he had already conceded), then he cannot possibly be a walrus because walrus don't like living in cold environments, are originated from Britain, and hate cats.Back to you.
TROLL DEBATE: I am the walrus

Dogs don't hate cats, therefore walruses don't hate catsThis dog is clearly protecting the kitten. It's embracing it like a baby. It is obviously trying to protect it. It must love cats, therefore walruses love cats.Look at this dog. He's kissing a a cat. 2. Walruses aren't british! The only famous British walrus was John Lennon!3a. "...that's not ice. It's so hot that crystal is the only thing that can't melt..."Wrong. That's totally ice in that photo. If it's so hot that only diamond won't melt, like you said, then why isn't his monocle melting?That background clearly contains either a midday North Canadian sky. I can tell because I would get lost attempting to navigate. North Canada's abundant snow and sunlight make it near impossible to navigate during the day, proving by your own logic that walruses live in cold environments.3b."...[crystal] is where [walruses] live--with the crystal ponies."Ponies aren't made of crystal! They are the embodiment of friendship! If they were made of crystal, they would embody stubbornness, which is a danger to what they embody: friendship.Walruses would get bored hanging out with crystal ponies because crystal is inanimate.
TROLL DEBATE: I am the walrus

Walrus don't live in cold environments Walrus also hate cats, so they have none, because they are related to DOGS, which is the archnemesis of cats. 2. Making debate about bacon and eggsWalrus don't exactly like bacon and eggs, the typical American breakfast is WAY below them. See? The Walrus agrees. And no, that's not ice. It's so hot that crystal is the only thing that can't melt, which is where they live--with the crystal ponies. Gaming debaters can't get the privilege to go and hang out with these awesome crystal ponies. Thus, my opponent is not a walrus.
TROLL DEBATE: I am the walrus

1. I live in a cold environmentIf I don't then why is my Xbox frozen? 1b. And why is my cat white? 2. I made a debate about bacon and eggs being delicious2a. I must have had just gotten done eating my breakfast.2b. The arguments I used were clearly pulled out of my butt instead of doing research. I didn't have the patience to do research. I just wanted to advertise bacon and eggs.
Prior to an abortion on a pregnant minor, a parent/guardians must be notified and give consent*.

You have done nothing to dispute it, but cast rocks at morality and rights of minors, but the stubborn facts remain. Minors are not capable of making decisions on their own and demand a parents guidance. Yes not all minors are alike, hence the ability to be emancipated. In the mythical world you would live in, a 5 yr old would be thrown into the streets to fend for him/herself, and a 10yr old can do as he pleases, and if he is harmed, so be it, there is no moral obligation of the parent to see no harm comes to their child, and to you the harm to a child is justice for the child actions. I renew the following: We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures. A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. They are not allowed to work at any regular job, nor are they allowed to drive until 16 in most states and some are moving that up to 17. They cannot enlist in the military or marry until they are 17, and then only with parental consent. They do not gain the ultimate right, that of voice in government, until they are 18. Additionally: Rights of a Minor to medical procedure "Courts have held, as a general proposition, that the consent of a minor to a medical or surgical treatment is ineffective and that the physician must secure the the consent of the minors parent someone standing in loco parantis, otherwise, he or she, will risk liability." - Legal aspects of Healthcare Administration - George D. Pozgar The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being. The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused. Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met. PS: the bible references were merely to show through out time, parents have always had the obligation to protect their children, even against their wishes. While the bible is not the best source of morality, I would agree, I was merely stating even back then, people wrote about the rights of a minor and the obligations of the parents. Do you prefer a Ancient Greek reference? 'Rightly reared by father and mother, children will grow up virtuous, as those who have treated them piously and righteously deserve that they should; but parents who observe not these precepts will be losers thereby.' Aristotle from Oikonomikos, c. 330 BCE
Prior to an abortion on a pregnant minor, a parent/guardians must be notified and give consent*.

" We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures." All of this is irrelevant as to what must (should) happen. The fact that the law currently enslaves minors is not a demonstration that it should. " A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. " And yet morally they do. The source of rights lies in the facts of reality and the pursuit of one's life. If the law contradicts this, the law loses, because law is subordinate to morality in any philosophical system, not the other way around. "Courts have held, as a general proposition, that the consent of a minor to a medical or surgical treatment is ineffective and that the physician must secure the the consent of the minors parent someone standing in loco parantis, otherwise, he or she, will risk liability." Again, law subordinate to morality, therefore this is not a valid point. " The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being." Law subordinate to morality, not the other way around. Law loses this contradiction. "The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused." I'd say the extreme pain of childbirth would qualify as "Abuse." :D "Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met." Legally, yes. Morally, no. It is immoral to enslave anyone. Lowering the number of years they have lived to below 18 does not magically change this. " As the old adage goes, a child only has the rights his/her parents choose to give him/her." No, the law will only enforce such rights in general. This does not alter what rights they actually HAVE, i.e. what SHOULD be done. It only alters what occurs. That which actually happens does not equal that which should happen. That which is legal does not equal that which is moral. As an example, I offer the histories of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Prior to an abortion on a pregnant minor, a parent/guardians must be notified and give consent*.

A little jumbled here, but I wanted to post it.. We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures. A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. They are not allowed to work at any regular job, nor are they allowed to drive until 16 in most states and some are moving that up to 17. They cannot enlist in the military or marry until they are 17, and then only with parental consent. They do not gain the ultimate right, that of voice in government, until they are 18. Additionally: Rights of a Minor to medical procedure "Courts have held, as a general proposition, that the consent of a minor to a medical or surgical treatment is ineffective and that the physician must secure the the consent of the minors parent someone standing in loco parantis, otherwise, he or she, will risk liability." - Legal aspects of Healthcare Administration - George D. Pozgar The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being. The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused. Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met. As the old adage goes, a child only has the rights his/her parents choose to give him/her.
Prior to an abortion on a pregnant minor, a parent/guardians must be notified and give consent*.

A human, i.e. a rational being, requires certain things for it's existence qua human. It must not be killed, it must not be prevented from taking action toward it's life, and it must not have the products that it's actions create from material in nature stolen from it. So long as this human respects these requirements in others, it is rational of you to respect the same (it is, in short, a "Right."). These rights exist for all humans, not merely those over 18. Forcing an innocent woman to carry a parasite in the body which she has constructed through years of eating and exercise deprives her of her property rights over that body. Neither a parent, nor a court, has any claim on any of this unless the "minor" in question has agreed to a contract to the effect that it does.
Prior to an abortion on a pregnant minor, a parent/guardians must be notified and give consent*.

Argument: Prior to performing an abortion on a minor, medial practitioners MUST give parental notification, and get parental consent, excluding the exceptions outlined below: *Exceptions: a) Where incest is claimed by the minor, at which time a court must be consulted and approve abortion w/o parental notification. b) a physician may perform an abortion without notification/consent in a medical emergency c) the minor under the age of 18 is an Emancipated Minor. d) after parental consent is withheld, the minor may go to a court of Jurisdiction and request to over-turn of the parental wishes. The minor will be afforded free legal counsel by the State (guardian ad-litem), and have an immediate hearing scheduled no sooner then waiting 2 court days, and no longer then 5 court days of filing. Parents will be notified by subpoena to appear. Definitions: Pregnant = Carrying developing offspring within the body Parental Consent = signed permission from a parent if you are under age 18*. Parental Notification = that you will have to tell a parent if you are under age 18*. Abortion = the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove an ectopic pregnancy or the products from a spontaneous miscarriage. Emancipated minor = any minor female who is or has been married or has by court order otherwise been freed from the care, custody, and control of her parents. Minor = any person under the age of 18 years. Parent = one parent of the pregnant girl if one is living or the guardian or conservator if the pregnant girl has one. Medical Emergency = an immediate threat to the life or health of the mother. Court of Jurisdiction = as defined by state court rules, but may include municipal, family, county or state courts.
Should illegal drugs become legal

As the debate is only one round i'll post mine and attack my opponents. Just before the debate, let me clarify the topic: The topic says that illegal rugs but not all drugs. Contention 1: Not all drugs are harmful http://www.oddee.com... This site tells you that there are at least 10 drugs are good for medical purposes and with these medical purposes, drugs are good. The site tells you the 10 drugs are are not harmful and in fact helps people. Gosh only 500 words. why?
Should illegal drugs become legal

My case is based on the Psychological and medical aspect. when taking drugs such as crack, pot, and acid the mind is affected in both of my topics, the mind is twisted permanently and illusions are common years after use. on the medical side, when using drugs your mind destroys itself and kills brain cells leading to drops in IQ, seizures, and possible organ damage. to use drugs damages mind and body there is no way they should be made legal
There are Only Two Genders

I agree that it would be pointless to have an infinite number of male or female categories and especially the thing that is going on now that people give them self whatever gender category they want, Not even related to biology doesn't make much sense to me. So what about only one extra category for people that don't have predominantly male or female characteristics, But an even or close to even distribution. You can either give them a different category or call them genderless, But to simply say they are male or female would be untrue or at lest inaccurate. Yes you can say this is very rare anyways, But still these people need a category. "if we defined things, Literally ANYTHING, Based on every possible outcome, Defect, And scenario, Then NOTHING would have a real definition whatsoever. " - I disagree, I think you should define things to every possible outcome. If something falls outside of that definition, You either change the definition or acknowledge that it's different. So if you want to keep the definition that gender is the state of being either male or female, Then admit that a very small portion of the population is genderless.