BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be abolished in the U.S.

"Imagine if your daughter was raped alive then killed. Would you rather let the criminal spend time in jail, knowing that he is still alive, or have him brought to justice?" Look I'm not against a life sentence for this guy, but imagine this. This scenario happened, they thought they had the right guy, the gave him the death penalty, and they executed him. But 6 months later, they find out, it wasn't him, it was some one else. Then, is it really justice? It is FAR from as black and white as you are implicating. This has happened hundreds of times, does that just not count? By the example you state, it is still, to my awareness at least, an isolated instance. As stated before, the death penalty does not deter crime, all the evidence shows that. If you have hundreds of exampled of some one in the U.S committing a homicide again after parole when the death penalty could have stopped it then you have a case, but otherwise, this is the risk cops take, and a couple isolated instances isn't enough at this point to justify the killings of hundreds of innocent people through the death penalty. If there are dozens of examples you should be citing a study, or statistic, I did that, so you should to or else the word dozens means nothing. Also if the death penalty was abolished, hundreds of innocent people would have not been killed through it. "The death penalty does on fact take a person's life, but it also save others from horrific crimes brought upon them." Wow, with the evidence I did bring up, do you not see the catch 22 here. "Also, the death penalty sends a message to all the criminals roaming the United States of America. The death penalty sends them fear. If a person knew that if he committed a certain crime, he would then have the potential to be sentenced the death penalty, chances are they would not commit that act. If the death penalty is legalize throughout the United States, order would be brought in place; saving more lives than killing." Are you serious, I literally gave you evidence that shows what you say here is blatantly incorrect, you can't just ignore the evidence and just make things up. "Yes, taking a life is horrible, but the death penalty assures innocent people to be safe from harm." Again, total catch 22. This just ignores the evidence I brought up. In conclusion a couple isolated circumstances doesn't justify the killings of hundreds of people innocent of crimes.
The death penalty should be abolished in the U.S.

Imagine if your daughter was raped and then killed. Would you rather let the criminal spend time in jail, knowing that he is still alive, or have him brought to justice? In November, 2008, Dominc Cinelli was charged with life sentence after shooting a security guard during an armed robbery to feed his heroin addiction. Only spending 2 years in jail, In 2010, Cinelli was granted parole after stating that he "is a changed man." Only days later, did Cinelli fatally shoot 60 year old, Officer Maguire while robbing a Kohl's Department Store. Cinelli did infact lose his life, during the shooting. If this man was given the death penalty, Officer Maguire wouldn't have been brutally murdered. There are dozens of cases in which murderers are granted parole, only to be found committing a similar homicide crime. If these men and women were brought to justice, many innocent people would still be alive today. The death penalty does in fact take a person's life, but it also save others from horrific crimes brought upon them. Also, the death penalty sends a message to all the criminals roaming the United States of America. The death penalty sends them fear. If a person knew that if he committed a certain crime, he would then have the potential to be sentenced the death penalty, chances are they would not commit that act. If the death penalty is legalize throughout the United States, order would be brought in place; saving more lives than killing. Yes, taking a life is horrible, but the death penalty assures innocent people to be safe from harm.
This debate should not be extended

This argument is just useless. We are arguing why we shouldn't be arguing it, and there will have no ending effect at the end because the conversational that was possible to end or continue on was continued on to decide if we should continue it on. At the time we've been arguing, we could have learned some Spanish, read a small book, played some video games, done something that provides more entertainment then this crazy discussion. You say you have time, and that is true, but you could use it better. I will even rap to prove my point. Yo you think you all smart Trying to win this conversation But I'm rapping as fluent as Mozart After this you gonna have to depart Outta this Country Yo head held low Realize yet, I am the pro? If ya don't, I got proof to show Although, I could just rap like "Oh oh oh" Cause I am the King Gimme back the crown You just a lil clown My little Jester An Infester of the bester Bettah start to flee, I got the whole town after thee! Pwned
This debate should not be extended

"You could be donating your clothes and money to African kids right now." I absolutely am not. I am not taking any offense to your comment, but I would not have issued this challenge if I had not had the time for it because I am too smart to do that. If you do not believe me, just send me a message presenting a binomial and requesting that I solve it and reply to you with the answer. Also, I do not see how donating my clothes and money would leave me without enough time for this debate or how you can prove that I am donating anything.
This debate should not be extended

This debate will be simple. Simply send me a message presenting an arguable topic and asking me if I am against it, THEN accept my challenge if I reply saying "yes." The debate will be about whether or not the topic should be debated. VOTERS: please remember that in voting on THIS part of the debate, you are voting on whether or not the debate should be extended. Please note that if you accept my challenge, you are agreeing to a possible two-part debate, and if I win, are agreeing to debate with me about the actual topic. The second part of the debate will be about the topic itself. NOTE: while this challenge is for humorous purposes, I still actually want to debate with someone on the topic. Round one- acceptance only Rounds 2 and 3- debaters pick topics and support them.
Who where true Aryan race.

Thanks to the colleague Boxingisbadhmmokay for accepting the challenge. Your historical prelude to the topic is plausible but when you end with the statement " I would argue their is no true Aryan race ". It leaves me no reason for even having to debate since that is exactly the premise of my argument. My intentions were to provide a condensed historical glossary of 1. 2000 BCE and 2. 9th Century ; Aryan race Etymology. Thanks again Boxingisbadhmmokay for helping me convince over 20 millions of individuals who swear by God that there is such thing as an Aryan Race. When we both know is just a myth. I guess for rounds 3 and 4 we might just as well give the weather forecast in our respective locations along with Traffic conditions. What do you think?
Who where true Aryan race.

The term Aryan has generally been used to describe the Proto-Indo-Iranian language root arya which was the ethnonym the Indo-Iranians adopted to describe Aryans. Its origin an ethnic self-designation, In Classical Sanskrit meaning "honourable, Respectable, Noble. The Old Persian cognate ariya is the ancestor of the modern name of Iran and ethnonym for the Iranian people. In the 18th century, The most ancient known Indo-European languages were those of the ancient Indo-Iranians. The word Aryan was therefore adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian peoples, But also to native Indo-European speakers as a whole, Including the Romans, Greeks, And the Germans. It was soon recognised that Balts, Celts, And Slavs also belonged to the same group. I would argue their is no true Aryan race.
Who where true Aryan race.

Aryan is probably one of the most misused and abused words ever to come out of the field of linguistics. What the term Aryan actually means and what it has come to mean are two vastly different things. Unfortunately, Errors by some scholars in the 19th and early 20th centuries brought about its association with racism, Anti-Semitism, And hate. . . Let me take you on a Voyage in time off human history. So we may learn the true origins of the Aryan Race. Along the journey we will learn how this fairy tale lead millions of Northern European Peasant inbreeds to believe they were a Superior Race. Here is the Rounds breakdown. 1. Acceptance of challenge. 2. Round Ancient History of its origin ( 2000 BCE *** Before Common Era ) 3. Round Historical misconception ( 19th to 20th Century ) 4. Closing arguments. If my challenger doesn't default by the time we reach this round. I will leave behind beyond the shadow of all doubt a clear understanding of this spurious belief. . . . Win Loose or Draw. Lets Talk. If your going to default. You're better off just taking a back seat and learn while true scholars duel it out.
The Genesis Flood was a local, not a global flood

As a reminder, the terms of the debate only state we will assume that Genesis is accurate, not that we would assume the entire Bible is accurate. My opponent referenced scripture outside of Genesis and assumed them to be accurate. When pro gave examples of God asking people to do unnecessary things to support that Noah would have to build an arc despite the fact he could move outside the flood zone if the flood was local, none of his examples occurred in Genesis thus are not to be assumed to be accurate. So my argument that it doesn"t make sense to build a giant arc and put 2 or 7 of each animal on it if the flood was only local still holds. My opponent stated he agreed that Noah"s family was the only one that survived the flood. This [1] shows that humans migrated outside of Africa way before when it is believed the great flood occurred. Thus a local flood would not have been enough to kill of the human population. So the assumption that Noah"s family was the only one that lived implies a global flood since a local flood could not kill humans both in and out of Africa. My opponent claims that an 11,000 year old tree would have had to live through the flood according to any timeline proposed by creationists. I will provide a counterexample with a creationist who believes the great flood occurred about 12,500 years ago. "This was unacceptable to the majority of the Anunnaki high council and it was decided to wipe out the human population through a flood that was predictable when Nibiru, the tenth in our solar system and the Anunnaki home planet, came through the inner solar system again (around 12,500 years ago) on one of its periodic 3600 year returns."[2] (Bolded added by me) He was referring to the Sumerian flood story, but Genesis flood story and the Sumerian flood story are extremely similar [3] to the point that Genesis must have been taken from the Sumerian flood story and they are both referring to the same great flood. So an 11,000 year old tree does not discredit the Genesis flood being global since it has been predicted that the great flood happened before then. Varves can be better explained with liquefaction which is consistent with a global flood. Evidence for this include flattened fossilized fish that are found in varves. For fossilization to occur, the animal must be buried rapidly, which contradicts the idea that varves are formed very slowly over time. Flattened fossilized fish found in varves support the idea that they had been compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens. That is just one of the many evidences for liquefaction explaining varves. [4] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.world-mysteries.com... (Sumerian Culture and the Anunaki) [3] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... [4] http://www.creationscience.com...
The Genesis Flood was a local, not a global flood

My first argument as for why the flood of Genesis was global is that it makes more sense given the context of Genesis. If the flood was local, then it wouldn"t make sense that Noah would have to build an arc to save 2 or 7 of each animal to repopulate after the flood. Animals from surrounding areas would be able to do that. Also if God still wanted to save Noah and his family and some local animals, it would have been easier for God to just send them outside the flood zone instead of building a giant arc. But if you assume the flood was global, the story makes a lot more sense. Noah needed to save the animals to repopulate the Earth since all the rest of them would die in the flood. Also he couldn"t just go somewhere away from the flood since it was global, thus the arc was necessary. Thus the more logical interpretation of Genesis was that the flood was global. The next thing I would like to mention is that Genesis is not the only ancient text that mentions a great flood. "The flood myth motif is widespread among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, the Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative, and in the lore of the K'iche'and Maya peoples in Mesoamerica, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa tribe of Native Americans in North America, the Muisca people, and Ca"ari Confederation, in South America."[1] If the flood was local then why do so many different cultures around the world all know about the great flood? A local flood would not be significant enough for different cultures all over the world to know about. It makes more sense if the flood was global because you would expect most cultures around the world to know about the flood. There is also physical evidence of a global flood. There are several trees that have been fossilized upright that go through multiple geological layers. These are known as polystrate fossils. It is normally believed that geological layers form slowly over millions of years, too slowly to burry an upright tree before it rots away. A great flood that deposited large amounts of sediment in a short amount of time would explain how these trees got buried quickly enough to get fossilized. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.icr.org...
Third Wave Feminism is unnecessary

I'd like to start by summarizing what I and many other feminists find to be the purposes of the waves: So, First wave feminism was about basic civil rights. Second wave feminism was generally focused on complete equal rights. Third wave feminism is about equal treatment of both sexes. It is undeniably true that men and women have equal rights. I will admit that much. However, It would be a complete and utter lie to say that men and women are treated equally, And equality of treatment is what third wave feminism is all about. I would like to add that equality of treatment means equality of opportunity, Not equality of outcome. A brief look at statistics (which I can procure if you wish) shows that men and women are far from equal. Men are more likely to commit suicide. Women are more likely to be murdered. Men are more likely to become homeless. Women are less likely to become politicians. Third wave feminism seeks to close these gaps, And that is why it is necessary. Women are abused, Segregated and oppressed in many third world countries. Female genital mutilation is legal in most of these countries. Women are stuck in arranged marriages, Little more than payment. Third wave feminism seeks to end that, And that is why it is necessary. Note: A lot of people have their view of feminism tainted by hardcore Social Justice Warriors, That many love to portray as the archetypal feminist. The latter is an immature practice as old as the feminist movement itself, The former are not feminists. They believe in the superiority of women, Which goes against 'men and women should be equal', The core belief of feminism.
If there was a zombie apocalypse we would never make it.

You may be right about what could happen, but will it even go that far? First, of all, allow me to define a zombie. Zombies are reanimated corpses hungry for human flesh. Since they're corpses, they will decompose. In humid heat, corpses decompose faster. And in the winter, they will freeze up. After death, there is rigor mortis, which is caused by chemical changes in the muscles, and as a result, the limbs of the corpses will stiffen. There are other factors that hinder a zombie's chance of survival. What has helped humans to be on the top of the food web? Their intelligence, their ability to use tools to protect themselves, their ability to use tools to hunt, and their wit. Take away all those, and factor in how slow zombies are, then you have a sitting duck for predators. Also, factor in the reactions to the zombies, before a hypothetical apocalypse. After the zombies attack, the police will probably be called in to help. The police will most likely kill the zombies. If someone is bitten by them, then the cycle will continue. It usually takes a while for symptoms to show up in diseases, too.
If there was a zombie apocalypse we would never make it.

Being in a zombie apocalypse would be not as fun as some people may think. People are dumb if you haven't realized by watching the walking dead. for some strange reason they all decide to kill each other instead of the walkers. And if your going by WWZ then nobody is surviving (those zombies move at top speed) unless you have aids but in that case your dead sooner or later. So all in all the world would be screwed.
If there was a zombie apocalypse we would never make it.

Well I understand what your saying humans are intelligent but there not smart. What do I mean by that? Think about all the people in this day and age who wait for there opportunities to do something wrong how much more do you think they would do when there is no authority. And you can say the police will do something but if you were a police officer would you be at the station or would you be at home with your family trying to defend yourself. What ever police officers did stay wouldn't be a match for the bad people and the zombies. By the way if you've ever seen the movie World War Z you'd know that there is a possibility to have fast zombies who are also smart enough to know not to infect people who are already sick.
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors

I take the position that "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors. By embarrassing, I mean that they are embarrassing to the the author and his presumed approach, given that Darwkins takes a rational stance against religious dogma and falsehoods. That being said, I'm not arguing from a Christian standpoint. I'm actually an atheist who is dissatisfied with Dawkins and many other atheist celebrities.1- Due to the nature of the debate, the burden of proof is on me to show the logical errors. Con's role is to disprove them effectively through logical arguments and reasonable apologetic. 2- First round is only for acceptance....Best wishes to whoever accepts the challenge.
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors

Thanks, Pro!Well, this is going to be a short and sweet debate. I have consented, please vote for Pro."I don't say this often, but I think my opponent has a better future in debating than I do, and I urge him to continue debating." I'm not known for my modesty; thank you! On the full errors, while it would be a strengthening move for atheists to refine arguments, I implore Pro to only use arguments that are meant to be arguments. For example, I would not include Douglas Gasking's argument as fallacious, because even though it is, it is not meant to be an argument - merely a parody. Other than that, thanks to my opponent, the voters and the audience; I will see you all around! Please vote for Pro.Kindest regards,J
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors

If I was voting, I would have awarded him the conduct point. I don't say this often, but I think my opponent has a better future in debating than I do, and I urge him to continue debating. Our conflict was simply that my opponent understood "logical errors in Dawkins' book" to mean logical errors commited by Dawkin's original arguments in his book. Truth be said, little in this book is Dawkins' creation. I only think the levels of atheism and a few other parts were orginally created by him. Yet as I argued, commiting the same logical error someone else commited by using it in your book to support your position still makes your book logically fallicious and containing a logical error. I think I'm going to write a full list of what I think are logical errors in Dawkins' book. By this, I don't mean to throw mud on Dawkins or anger his fanbase. My hope is to strengthen logicallity within the atheist community. I also suggest watching the debates and reading the few books of a young, atheist philosopher that I find inspiring, Dr. Arif Ahmed.
Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors

Thanks to Pro; allow me to respond.Well, it seems that my hopes have remained as what they are...hopes. "My opponent commits here a special pleading fallacy in his defense of Dawkins, given that he gives the following irrelevant characteristic: The argument is not originally Dawkin's, which means that Dawkins didn't commit a logical error when he used it to defend his atheistic position." It would seem that, despite my initial hopes, my opponent wishes to include arguments proposed by other people that are para-phrased by Dawkins. As such, I will respect that decision; I consent. Please vote for Pro. "I'm not trying to change this into a semantic debate at all. But instead, I'm showing how my opponent has took a fallacious route to defend Dawkins." It would only be considered fallacious if it was against the rules. Now I interpreted "has" to mean: An original proposal that is proposed by Dawkins. I'll admit this was my error in assuming as much. Nevertheless, because of my misguided interpretation, I (rather inevitably) walked into a hole I cannot climb out of. "It is somewhat ironic for my opponent to tackle special pleading fallacies in the previous round, while making many of them in the process." Indeed!My opponent does point out that my argument could hold merit if God is natural. But, since God is defined as supernatural, the once would be fallacious special pleading fallacy is considered irrelevant, because "what is applicable on the natural world is not necessarily applicable on the metaphysical realm." This covers what would be logical fallacies, too."It is important to explain why I find the above logical errors embarrassing. As I said in my opening statement, I find them embarrassing to the author himself because of the logical/rational approach that he presumes."This is not part of the debate, clearly, but I think Dawkins took a natural stance on things becausea) we have no evidence for the supernaturalb) explaining natural things by supernatural terms gets us literally nowhere. And:c) one doesn't need to understand unicorns and "unicornology" [as an example] to dismiss them as folklore that's caught on. In any case, while Dawkins is not a logician, I think his presumptions are admirable. But anyway... :D "While I adore my opponent's enthusiasm in this debate and his attempts to refute me, or so I think, I'd rather he played by the rules instead of attempts to change what the debate topic means."Thanking you for the compliment. However, allow me to stress to my opponent that I did not intend to change the rules; I merely interpreted them. I fear this debate has been a waste of everyone's time.Well, I will sign off then! But before I do:I apologise to everyone for wasting people's time in this debate; my misinterpretation has served to everyone's time being wasted. Nonetheless, I thank my opponent for an enlightening (if slightly disappointing and bitter) debate! Another thanks to the audience and the voters. I stress to the voters:I have consented this debate to Pro. Please vote for Pro.Thanks everyone, I'll see you around.Kind regards,J