BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

My opponent states the "justice is better served". Of course it is a good feeling to see the person receive the death penalty if they have killed a loved one. But there is a chance that the system can very much be flawed. Unless the person on trial has said they have committed the crime, or there is cold hard proof, one can never be sure whether or not the person is truly guilty. These are the three cases in which show the flaws in the criminal justice system: 1)Arizona: Ray Krone, released in 2002 * Spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973. DNA testing proved his innocence. 2)Illinois: Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, pardoned in 2003 * Sent to death row on the basis of "confessions" extracted through the use of torture by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and other Area 2 police officers in Chicago. They were pardoned by outgoing Governor George Ryan, who also commuted the remaining 167 death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment. 3)North Carolina: Jonathon Hoffman, exonerated in 2007 * Convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry store owner. During Hoffman's first trial, the state's key witness, Johnell Porter, made undisclosed deals with the prosecutors for testifying against his cousin. Porter has since recanted his testimony, stating that he lied in order to get back at his cousin for stealing money from him. (http://www.amnestyusa.org...) Life in prison is a worse punishment and more effective . For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence? It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Yes, we want to make sure there is accountability for crime and an effective deterrent in place; however, the death penalty has a message of "You killed one of us, so we'll kill you". The state is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death? Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do--extend his sentence? Sure, they can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might try to bring him in or curb his crime spree?
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

There are many reasons as to why the death penalty should be banned as a form of punishment. 1)Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court and court facilities all require an investment by the taxpayers. 2)It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. Whether it's a firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, or hanging, it's barbaric to allow state-sanctioned murder before a crowd of people. 3)The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". Many would interpret the death penalty as violating this restriction. 4)The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. The U.S. court system goes to enormous lengths before allowing a death sentence to be carried out. All the appeals, motions, hearings, briefs, etc. monopolize much of the time of judges, attorneys, and other court employees as well as use up courtrooms and facilities. This is time and space that could be used for other unresolved matters. The court system is tremendously backed up. This would help move things along. 5)We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. The "eye for an eye" mentality will never solve anything. The idea of revenge leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned. The legacy of racial apartheid, racial bias, and ethnic discrimination is unavoidably evident in the administration of capital punishment in America. Death sentences are imposed in a criminal justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent. This is an immoral condition that makes rejecting the death penalty on moral grounds not only defensible but necessary for those who refuse to accept unequal or unjust administration of punishment. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members.
Galaxies are Actual

Non-sense platitudes often remark upon sequential ignorance within the morality domain, thus proving their initial failure. For, to be ignorant, is to deny that which could (must) be acknowledged; and all must be acknowledged. Which, in three dimensional existence, advocates itself with the use of biologically borne senses. If subjectivity continues subjectively for an indeterminate time, objectiveness crosses the real-time threshold beyond mental emulation. So it seems, so it is.
Galaxies are Actual

Preposterous proponent plays parallel to particular relativistic partitions by presupposing percentage possibility prior to physically perceiving a phenomenon. Even if emulation effects effectively emulate effective emulations, emulations enter existential existence with extrapolation of effective emulations effectively emulating emulations. Now needs no nonsensical nuance. No now is a now now. I interject an intersecting idea into included idioms interdependent upon initial intention by instigating an interpolation of investigated ideas increased by ideal inquiries. [1] Source: [1]: http://hubblesite.org...
Galaxies are Actual

you can be as certain that galaxies are real, as you can what your neighbor is doing right now, unless you don't have to imagine it perhaps you are on a show you don't know, with thousands of hidden cameras filming, and everyone you know tells you, what you experience is not a lie, and agree with at least 50 percent of what you say, and they are just paid actors, the only person in the world telling you the truth is me, the sun is not the sun, its just a big hot light in the sky placed there to make you think you are not on a show you don't know unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true?
Not believing in god is not a sin

Again I extend my arguments. My opponent states he gets his information from a different way but does not list how. He has failed to challenge my argument. He even states that other who post comments do not believe not believing in god is a sin. However that doesn't change the known fact that it is sin. In my argument I've listed a basic FACT according to Christian theology of what exactly sin is. (Give it a Google search anyone can see it to be true) My opponent provides no example as to why this is not true. Simply not believing it's not a sin does not in any way change the theology of a belief. To also answer my opponents question as seen in the bible "the wages of sin are death" (Romans 6:23) this is yet again another easily to find statement concluding that if you do sin you will surely be punished in whatever way the christian god wills. (Again according to Christian theology. I strongly encourage my opponent to do a simple search on Christian theology basics, look up the nicene creed, and closely study exactly what sin is. All other points are extended by my previous argument.
Not believing in god is not a sin

From what I see, where I grab information from, that's where I got all my information to write what I wrote "Not believing in god is not a sin" because it's actually not. Why would not believing in god is a sin ? what would happen to you? if someone can answer this question to me the right way with the proper manner maybe just maybe I'll change my thinking. According debate.org, there's other agrue about is "is not believing in a god a sin or not?' I read other people comments and they say its not, others say it is. People that actually study the bible and the goespel they would actually know the truth. Before saying something very childish maybe you guys really need check the books and read it and write back to me.
Not believing in god is not a sin

I will counter my opponents' argument not believing in God is not a sin. I will do so by providing fundamental theological evidence that you cannot worship other gods and not sin against the Christian god. I also will be attacking his definition of sin. I would also like to define and clarify a critical flaw in the debate before we begin. My opponent by what it appears has taken the pro of the argument. As represented in his initial argument this is contrary to his official standpoint on the website however. For this debate I will ask viewers and voters to keep in mind that my opponent is indeed pro argument and not con as it appears while I however will be the con aggressor when in fact my label says pro. Definition of terms. 1. God- A transcendent, Immanent, omnipotent, immutable, omniscient being and creator of the world according to the Christian viewpoint. 2. Sin- 1. A violation of Gods' will or anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God. (2. A willful act that goes against Gods, will. To begin my argument I chose to define those two terms. One being God so we can see his attributes that may take place later in the debate. The other term I chose to define is sin in Abrahamic context. The argument that not believing in god is not a sin is an evident theological fallacy. Looking at the supposed words of God we can learn that one of the greatest sins is to turn unto "man made or false gods." This is represented by the very first rule God tells us in his commandments he gave unto Moses "I am the lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other god before me." Here this obviously contrary to what my opponent argues. If the definition of sin is, what separates a relationship between God and is what goes against Gods' will, then there is no possibility that worshiping another god is not sin. Further elaborating, we see two problems. One being if I worship the god Thor and the god of the Christians I willingly go against gods command and thus according to the definition of sin not be sinning. Also if I being a person worship willfully Thor and not the Christian god I am placing Thor over precedence over God and thus hindering the relationship between me and the Christian god. according to our definition once again this is sin. Therefore I claim I have won the argument based on I have disproven theologically my opponents argument. I have also eliminated through a basic fundamental law in Christianity it is not possible for my opponent to be correct.
Not believing in god is not a sin

Not believing in god is not sin, because god loves who we are, he doesn't care what belief you are along you try to notice he's there. According to the bible, the Christian god promotes free amongst humans, this is why he doesn't prove his existences. However, not believing in god is not a sin. For example, those different culture out there if there not Christian does that mean it's a sin and god goanna punish them ? No god does not punish people, he know how to show love and care about them. According to the bible, those we believe in god and have good hearted of god and anyone, will be given heaven, not just those people who believe in god. So doesn't matter if you believe in him along as you are kind, do the right thing and be honest with what you do, what you think you would still be going to heaven. Believing in god is not a sin at all. People can believe what they want, do what the want, think what they want. Along, they have good hearted of people then they'll be making god happy and be going to heaven .
WODC R1: This House believes that provision of Internet services should be a public utility..

As requested, I'll start with my opening arguments. Making any private service into a public utility (or common carrier) would require a dramatic leap in taxes, given that doing so is the equivalent to nationalizing an industry. The cost of internet services offered by ISP's would then become a burden of the government. As a result, making a private service a public utility would require that the service is to some degree a major necessity. Otherwise, in order for a new public utility to sustain itself, then a few conditions would be required. 1. The enterprise providing a utility should be a monopoly For example, prior to telephone lines becoming public utilities in the US, the company AT&T was the dominant provider, their monopoly in the late 80"s-early 90"s was dissolved shortly before telephone lines became common carriers. 2. The service must be some form of necessity. A second reason that telephone lines became common carriers was the necessity provided with possessing a telephone. At the time, phones were the dominant medium for communication over long distances. As a result, it became necessary for the average person to have some form of access to a telephone. The problem with having the Internet has a public utility is that the Internet does not fit the first criteria and barely fits into the second. If the enterprise is not dominated by a monopoly, then any scale of nationalization would hurt profits as it would heavily deter potential competition therefore hurt potential growth. The internet is too large a potential industry for the government to make a public utility. Doing so would result in the deterrence of many potential ISP"s, hence slowing economic growth. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.heritage.org...
WODC R1: This House believes that provision of Internet services should be a public utility..

Now onto definitions. Internet services: Services that allow a person to go on the internet. Public utility: a business that furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large (. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) Debate layout: R1 Acceptance R2 Opening Arguments R3) Rebuttals R4) Closing Arguments, no new arguments are allowed Rules 1. No trolling 2. No forfeiting 3. The BoP shall be shared, pro must prove that the provision of Internet services should be a public utility while con must prove they should not be.
Resolved: A unicorn has one horn.

Con brings up an interesting point in "Accepting the truth value of propositions which concern nonexistent subjects leads to irrational conclusions." In that something must be based in reality in order to have words and meaning for it. "because language is a tool for communication and is not simply malleable at will, we cannot propose the truth value of a resolution concerning a nonexistent subject." If words are only to express what is real, then how do we express our thoughts? Since it is real and true that we can have thoughts outside of the realm of reality, how would one convey those thoughts to another individual? How would one express ideas that they believed to be true but had yet to prove? namely science? If we limit ourselves to only having words that express what we currently know to be reality, then we prevent the growth of knowledges. Since an individual may be able to test for future knowledge, without words to go with it, the communication of those tests to other scientists will stop almost every endeavor. But it still remains true that unicorns do exist, in the form of books, thoughts, movies, and various other means. The purpose of words is communication, as my opponent pointed out. the definition for communication is... 1 : an act or instance of transmitting 2 a : information communicated b : a verbal or written message 3 a : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior ; also : exchange of information b : personal rapport 4 plural a : a system (as of telephones) for communicating b : a system of routes for moving troops, supplies, and vehicles c : personnel engaged in communicating 5 plural but sing or plural in constr a : a technique for expressing ideas effectively (as in speech) b : the technology of the transmission of information (as by print or telecommunication) [1] A unicorn does not have one horn because real unicorn truly have one horn. They have one horn because humans, as a means to make communication more efficient, have defined it that way and have accepted that as it's definition. It is much faster to say that then "a mystical horse with one horn." After all, the definition of a word is only what people cn agree it to mean. And that is the truth aspect of it, that we agree that is what it means, not that the actual word is true. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: A unicorn has one horn.

I will go ahead and try this out, because it sounds like a lot of fun (though I expect that I'll probably run out of things to say after round 3). I'll challenge this based on the etymology of the word "unicorn." From its Latin roots "uni" (meaning "one") and "cornus" (meaning "horn") suggests that anything with one horn is by definition a unicorn, not strictly the mythical creature. [1] [1] http://www.etymonline.com...
Resolved: A unicorn has one horn.

I'm going to allow the first space to be for introductions. This topic has, of course, nothing to do with unicorns. Rather it is essentially the question of can there be truth value to a proposition about something which does not exist? This is similar to "The toothfairy has 2 wings" or "Santa Clause ought eat fewer cookies" etc. In any case, please keep this agument relevant as it has the potential to be extremely educational. And if you do something stupid like quote a fictional source... I swear to god I will kritik you so many different ways your brain will be sore. haha. :) ENJOY!
Resolved: A unicorn has one horn.

I am faced with a conundrum. On one hand I need to post my arguments and can't let them fall behind and risk being incomplete. On the other hand, I don't want to give myself an advantage over my opponent because of the missed posts. So I'll take this time to restate my arguments so far. non-real things, such as unicorns and the tooth fairy (though I still think the evidence for TF is rather great, as seeing there is a movie about the TF, and hollywood wouldn't lie, would it?) can have truth in them. This is because the truth is not in the actual thing in question, but because there is truth in the definition of the word. We, as a society, have come to agree that "unicorn" means a "one-horned horse" for the sake of communication ease. Just as we in society have agreed to the definition of the word "rock" to mean "that hard thing that hurts when you are hit in the head with it." "Rock" doesn't have any true meaning, only what we in society assign to it.
Intentional breeding of pit bulls should be illegal in the USA.

Pro retaliates against Con's argument by using the example of a chihuahua and a dachshund, two very small sized dogs compared to the ferocious pit-bull. How can you even compare the three as the pit-bull was made to be a ferocious, strong, and independent dog compared to the small chihuahua and the long-bodied dachshund that, as Pro stated, has only killed two people compared to the bigger sized dogs such as the pit-bull, German Shepard, and rottweiler. The three types of dogs have nothing in common except for the fact that all three of them are dogs as the pit-bull is a whole lot stronger and fiercer compared to the chihuahua and the dachshund. The international breeding of pit-bulls is perfectly fine as there is not commonly an instance in which a member of the pit-bull family will "randomly" attack someone unless provoked. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry for keeping this round short as the round argument was not the longest in the world which allowed me to set up the conclusion fairly quickly. VOTE CON!!!