BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

What jobs are you referring to? In nations around the world where the industrial revolution hasn't caught on yet, there's no such thing as employment. There isn't even a concept of money. Survival comes first, and for many impoverished communities around the world this means day-after-day of futile hunting and gathering. Many have to walk tens of kilometers to get the water they need for the day. There's no "moving up" in this type of community. There's no life for them outside basic sustenance. Yes, you can help them for a year and by doing so give them room to reproduce and become even more unsustainable. They cannot feed 10,000 this year—what gives you the idea that they'll be able to feed the hundreds of newborn next year? I agree that property is a form of material aid. Unfortunately, property is a non-existing concept in many parts of the world. For example, some parts of Africa don't belong to anyone, and so it's no one's to give. Furthermore, water is a scarce resource in Africa and you won't likely find lake systems with a considerable fish population. It's simply not a location that's meant to be populated. The only way for these communities to avoid devastation is to re-stabilize towards a functional population number. If the food and water supplies can sustain 1,000 people then the population should be around that figure. To come in with foreign aid and give them more than they need is paving the way to disaster. Nature's a vicious and yet fair cycle. Death of newborns is not uncommon to them, and I believe that it is better to abstain from providing what they need rather than allowing them to grow beyond their own capabilities. Again you've presented a dichotomy. A) Let 10,000 people die, or B) help them with your clearly proven material aid tactics. But this isn't a fair representative dichotomy, and you certainly haven't shown that material aid will help them prosper. A more proper dichotomy would be A) allow a community to grow beyond its own sustainable capabilities and thus overburden them even further or B) allow the cycle of life to run its course. I will reiterate my argument below in hopes that you will do the same. I have done my best to avoid introducing new ideas into our discussion and I hope that you will kindly return the favor. P1. A population cannot grow beyond its capabilities of sustaining itself. P2. The providing of material aid allows a population to grow beyond its own means. P3. Once the material aid has run out, there will be more impoverished people than there were before the aid. C. Therefore, providing material aid to impoverished communities fosters an increase in poverty. It has been a pleasure to discuss this with you. I appreciate your kind manners and the considerably thought that you put into it. Thank you.
Providing Material Aid to Impoverished Communities/Nations/Individuals Promotes Poverty

I agree with your equation in the sense that if we help 10,000 people survive, in the future, more than 10,000 people will be in that population. However I disagree with your assumption that all those people will live in poverty. I would say thatsomeone who Is given food and does not have to worry about trying to get food everyday has a better chance at getting a job and therefore a better chance to not live in poverty. If someone is worrying about just getting food for the day, they are not going to go and try to find a job, they're going to look for food. Likewise, if someone doesn't have to worry about simply getting food they have more of an oppurtunity to get out of poverty. You said its a big "may" when I talked about maybe having means to help them in the future. Well yes it could be a big may, but is it worth it? The answer is clearly yes. You went on to say that "we may not have means to help a single one" well that wouldn't be true because we could atleast help 10,000 like we did for the last people. You said how could I provide a place to fish for someone. What if I own large property with a lake that has fish in it. Couldn't I give them the property? And isn't property a materialistic aid? Of course! You went on to say that sustaining a doomed community is cruel. I would agree. If there was a 100% chance the community is doomed. However, I do not believe that is the case based on my argument above that providing materialist needs could help someone get out of poverty. I apoligize for not explaining my "teaching" part better. I was simply saying that yes, you can teach someone to fish but you will need to provide materialistic aid such as a fishing pole. So we could either let these 10,000 people die in fear of not being able to help the next generation. Or we could help them which I have clearly shown that even threw just materialistic aid we could help people escape poverty.
The Death Penalty

You never said it was not a punishment but you did say that it's point was to keep the person from committing the crime again. I'm saying, again, that it's point is to punish. And the punishment is cruel. The mentally ill are to be evaluated during the process of the trials and appeals, before the final sentencing. Just because a person has to get evaluated doesn't mean that they themselves feel that they have a problem. It means someone else does. So maybe you didn't understand what I said. You started off saying that a person should seek help before it leads to them committing a crime. I replied that not everyone who is mentally ill DOES NOT KNOW that they have a problem, therefore they wouldn't be inclined to seek help. So no, it's not a fact that they (the criminal) know. As for Norway, I'm comparing the systems. The US has one CJS. If I'm critiquing a flaw in the system should I not compare it to another system? What other system should I compare it to? Again, my point is that there is a different way to handle the criminals we are speaking about. I happened to use Norway as an example because they have a different system that does not use the death penalty and that works in reducing the recidivism rate, and recidivism is a point that you brought up. Crime IS committed in the US either way, but whether the death penalty being in place helps in deterring or allowing crime was neither of our arguments. So you brought that to my attention to help you make what point? Criminal Justice Systems, no matter where they are, are all created for the same reason. The ACTUAL EXECUTION cost may be $86 but do you simply bring charges up on them sit them in a chair and give them a shot? No. You have to go through the whole process before you can even administer the injection. "The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences." (http://www.amnestyusa.org...). The death penalty is still more expensive than LWOP. For example, in California the death penalty costs 90,000 per inmate per year. As of 2011, the amount of inmates on death row are 670, that's $63.3 million a year. compared to $44,463. (http://www.forbes.com...) Your whole health care argument is a completely different topic. "Stick to the basic aspect".
The Death Penalty

The victims family have absolutely no say in the punishment of the crime. Are you aware of how trial works? Families have no say in punishment. No one is seeking revenge. I never said it was not a punishment. The mentally ill are to be evaluated at time of incarceration. They would know if they had a problem because when they go through the procedure of trial and such they would have someone evaluate the criminal and the reason they committed the crime because of their insanity. So yes, they would know. You still cannot compare Norway and the United States we are different places, different culture, different government, different system. You brought up the argument of crime in Norway so I wanted to bring to your attention that crime is still committed in the United States death penalty or not. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, however, places the number at $44,563 for LWOP per YEAR. The injection costs $86.06 per shot. I did not say it was irrelevant. But to hold someone in prison and to just give someone and injection that's a big difference. Plus our jails are already over crowded. We give prisoners free healthcare for committing a crime but we have people who are homeless who have o healthcare because they can't afford it. Is THAT justice?
The Death Penalty

The victims (families) are seeking revenge. Revenge is defined as "1: to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree, 2: to inflict injury in return for " http://www.merriam-webster.com.... The death penalty inflicts physical injury in return for the crime they've committed. Sounds like revenge to me. The death penalty is " n. the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... , "noun 1. the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime." It's a PUNISHMENT, it's purpose is to punish them for the crime they've committed. But the punishment is cruel. If a person is mentally ill they don't always KNOW that they have a problem. I don't know about you but I wouldn't seek help for a problem I didn't think I had. To go back to your original claim, you're saying it prevents the person from committing the crime again, I'm saying there's another way to do that. Keep them in prison, and while they're in there try to help them. Side note: You're now saying they're beyond help, but if you scroll up you'll see that you said it's "a quick and almost painless death, rather torturing themselves in a prison for the rest of their life". As I previously stated if a person is torturing THEMSELVES it's a sign of remorse. If a person is remorseful they can be helped. And to focus on America, why does it matter to you if there's still crime in states that don't use the death penalty? You said your point was not that it could keep crime from happening, but that it would keep THAT person from committing the crime again. My point is that there is another way to keep them from doing the same thing. As far as my Norway example, just because they may have a different culture, doesn't mean we can't adapt to their system if their system proves to work. It's relevant to my claim because they are doing something OTHER than killing people. Again, my point is that there is ANOTHER way to deal with them. When talking about the COST of the death penalty, you have to talk about the process in it's ENTIRETY just as you are comparing it to financing someone in jail for life in it's ENTIRETY. A person has no choice in whether they want representation in that situation because of it's severity. By the way I wasn't talking about the cost of lawyers alone, I was talking about trials and appeals and EVERYTHING that goes along with it. You can't just look at the price of the injection without talking about everything that comes with it. So if that's irrelevant, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up.
The Death Penalty

I'm going to keep the argument basic - Who is seeking revenge? The death penalty is not about revenge about about prevention of the same individual committing the same crime. For those who are mentally or have been through something tramatic - there is help! You should seek help before it leads you to commit a crime. Those who are guilty by reason of mental disease or defect are not put in death row. They are institutionalized. We cannot stop crime from happening. It is simply impossible. I will reiterate my original claim; death penalty prevents the same person committing crime again. They are beyond help because they have already shown they have no remorse to others or do not care about the criminal justce system entirely. They show this by committing crimes they should know are immoral, like rape and murder/ genocide. There is no comparison to Norway and the United States. It is irrelevant because we are two completely different cultures. Focus on America, there is still crim in non- death penatly states. Why? Stick to the basic aspect - it costs $86.06 per lethal injection. I don't believe the costs of trial lawyers are relevant to our discussion because that is personal discretion if you want a lawyer or not, rather than costs to the government.
The Death Penalty

Let me correct myself. It's not revenge by the government it's revenge through the government. I agree some people who commit these crimes have no morals, but some of them also have been through something traumatic or may have a mental condition. Killing them still isn't the answer. If installing the death penalty will ensure that these crimes aren't committed, and by the same offender, then why does the recidivism rate remain high? The death penalty is permitted in the US. Why are people still committing crimes they could possibly get the death penalty for, and then committing those crimes again? If we focused more on rehabilitation maybe less heinous crimes would be committed. These two articles talk about Norway's Criminal Justice System: http://thinkprogress.org... and http://www.theatlantic.com... . They have abolished the death penalty and their country is doing just as fine, if not, better than US when it comes to crime. Death is death, whether its quick and painless or not doesn't matter in my opinion. I get what you're saying. It's better to die in a way that's less brutal. But the process is not almost painless. Lethal Injection (primary method) , electrocution, and the gas chamber all seem just as painful as stabbing or shooting. ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ). Also, if a person is torturing themselves that's their own doing. I am not wishing that upon them nor am I doing the torturing. Usually a person feeling remorse about the crime is a step in the right direction. It means they can be helped. That's more morally correct than taking it upon ourselves to lethally inject and kill them. I was led to believe that the death penalty actually costs more (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...), with most of the costs stemming from the trial level and appeals.
The Death Penalty

I do not see the death penalty as revenge by the government. If it is certain people will get the death penalty for a certain crime, I believe it will be less likely for people to commit the crime in the first place. People who commit crimes such as rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury already show they have no moral instincts because they would not commit these crimes otherwise. If we were to install the death penalty this ensures this crimes will not be repeated by the same offender. The death penalty should be used in extreme cases. Take for example John Wayne Gacy. A serial killer and rapist of who convicted of 33 deaths of teenage boys and young men, but only charged with 12 of them in Illinois and given the death penalty. People like him do not deserve to be given a second chance in life. Though this is only one instance there are many, many other serial killers and rapist and terrorist who do not deserve a second chance at life. Here are other examples of notorious serial killers who deserve the death penalty: http://www.forensiccolleges.net... People who received the death penalty go through a quick and almost painless death, rather torturing themselves in a prison for the rest of their life. That seems more morally correct to me. Also, the death penalty actually costs less than compared to someone who receives life without parole, about $1.2 million - $3.6 million more for life without parole.
The Death Penalty

The death penalty gives people the wrong idea of what justice is. It shows people that it's okay to seek revenge as long as it's through the government, and then disguises that revenge by calling it justice. It's hypocritical to attempt to deter crime, by committing a crime. That's what capitol punishment is; murder. Not only is capitol punishment morally wrong, you"re giving the criminal an easy way out. Instead, let them live with what they have done. If they realize their wrong doings, show remorse, and seek and receive the proper help, they have a chance of becoming a better person. Then there would be less chance for recidivism. A big reason why recidivism rates are so high is because prisons no longer spend a lot of time or money on rehabilitation and education. If they received the proper help maybe they wouldn't be repeat offenders. Also, if people stopped committing crimes in general, maybe the prisons would be less crowded. Why choose to make space by killing some and leaving others who will also come back? That's just temporarily fixing that problem. The death penalty is only applied in certain cases. A lot of criminals are in jail for murder, only a few get the death penalty. It still hasn't helped in terms of deterrence because people still commit the crime.
The Death Penalty

I think the death penalty should remain in use. Many criminals when released from prison will be likely to commit a crime again. If you are convicted for murder, rape, genocide, treason, or a pedophile you should get the death penalty. You have already shown that you are not a law abiding citizen and there should be no reason to give you another chance to live again and possibly commit the same act. People who commit crimes such as rape or murder are usually not one time offenders. Also, just because some people believe that the death penalty is morally wrong does not mean everyone believes it is wrong. Why put someone away from life when there is a possibility of parole or someone can escape? Putting someone away from life makes our jails more crowded. With the right changes to the way the death penalty works, it can be helpful and useful to keep people who are sick and cannot be helped off of the streets.
Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy.

My opponent only brought two arguments to this debate which did not actually support his resolution. He stated that security cameras are not an invasion of privacy because: "Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. " These two contentions were not upheld with any empirical evidence so can already be discarded. However even if my opponent had backed up these contentions with evidence, they would not have helped his case. He did not show that even if security cameras helped to "stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals" this would not prove that they are any less of an invasion of privacy.
Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy.

"If you put everybody under 18 in the US in a prison cell filled with security cameras and guards, that would be worse than a simple security camera. So that's irrelevant. What I'm talking about is a little camera in the corner of a store that keeps people from stealing stuff, or the camera in a airport that keeps terrorists from blowing planes to space dust. " Obviously my idea is ridiculous and would never happen but I used it to point out that while something may prevent crimes or help to catch criminals, that does not make it any less of an invasion of privacy. You have not backed up your claim that security cameras are not an invasion of privacy. You spent the last round merely responding to my prison scenario which you were not meant to take seriously. I assume this can only mean that you have conceded your two arguments.
Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy.

Good luck! ============================================== "Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. " ============================================== The resolution clearly states that "Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. ". You are pro which means that you must show why security cameras are not invasions of privacy. All you have written is that they can stop crimes and identify criminals. This does not show why they are not an invasion of privacy. I could say that keeping every person under 18 in the U. S. in prison cell filled with security cameras and guarded by security personel woud stop murders by people inder 18 but that hardly proves that it would not be an invasion of privacy and a violation of rigts. I await my opponent's response.
Parental license should take effect

Let me summarize my arguments. First, the problem of parental abuse - to shield against which the step of parental license has been instigated - is much like other socioeconomic problems viz. cigarette addiction, alcohol addiction, homelessness etc. The law can only manage these problems from reaching fatal proportions but is not sufficient to solve them. The consequences of introducing a law will result in introduction of ethical and moral routes to solve other problems. Of course, the law can be observed vigilantly and punishment can be imposed upon perpetrators but it is not the right way to solve the problem, per se. Second, the structure of parental license will essentially involve education at its heart. It will be about knowing right from wrong as far as upbringing of a child is concerned. In societies with collective behavior, high standards of morale rules and is considered higher than law. A strong ethical education system - in turn - is cornerstone of such a behavior. So, education is the solution and not a certificate to prove that parent are ready to care for child. Third, the most important form of child abuse is neglect.[1] Neglect arises from the fact that parents are not able to make two ends meet. Parental license will be seen as another federal overhead by the parents who, either cannot afford it or cannot understand it. It will involve educating lot of parents about the parental license which is an unnecessary complication. Thus, parental license is not a wise step in the direction of solving child abuse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Parental license should take effect

I am not proposing that parents give birth to more children. I also agree to what data points out in this aspect. In developing parts of the world the birth rate is higher. But an important distinction to understand is that parenting is activity that is "almost" natural in advanced primates like humans. For survival, continuing once race is crucial and that is why the act of parenting assumes importance. Parental License, as I understand your explanation, is about educating parents to take care of their child. But then that is education! That is what our educational institutions like schools, colleges, society are doing. That is the way it should be. Every living thing, with the exception of filial cannibals, take care of their off spring and it is one of the fundamental necessity of life. It is unreasonable to argue that child abuse laws must be fought with Parental License. The most predominant child abuse is neglect and that arises from problems like poverty, illiteracy. Parental License cannot be taken up by an illiterate, poor parents. Parental License will be an unnecessary and invalid step when poverty and illiteracy are treated properly. Let us understand what law does to this act. When there is a law implemented for anything there is a provision for amendments, additions and removals. Parental License soon might start to extend beyond its implementation. I can't guarantee that it will be extrapolated but nobody can guarantee that it won't. So it won't be outlandish to assume that this law can be tricked into dealing with prostitution, child-trafficking and other myriad problems. The world can work as per law or as per morale. They have their own advantages. Converting every moral responsibility into law will only complicate the situation and lead to unforeseen problems.