BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Apparently, my opponent has chose to ignore all arguments and preceded to provide a couple of examples.Basically, he concedes (almost) everything.And as of now, I'm pretty sure that I should get the 'sources' point.However, I shall now go and examine each of those issues.But first off, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court is not made up of 'strangers', but rather we all know them. (PRO, from what I can tell, seems to be confused)Example 1:"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".Death is probably one of the biggest issues in life that we must all get over. Knowing that my child's murderer is still getting to live life, while my child - who never get to say goodbye to anyone - is dead.And prison isn't as bad as you are explaining it to the voters. You must consider the fact that most of the Death Row inmates are murderers, who have committed heinous crimes. On what basis would you think that they would be the inmates that are 'tortured'. If anything, they will become the torturers. I doubt that they would experience that much suffering - perhaps they might even receive respect.And finally, my argument is that you cannot predict the future. Future officials or judges can offer clemency, parole, or find some reason for a new trial [1] - it has already happened. People who were supposed to stay in jail for life end up getting out - and once again becoming a hazard to society.Furthermore, putting dangerous murderers increases the risks of death of other inmates, who may have committed petty crimes.Example 2:Well first of all, my loyalty lies overwhelming with society and the good of mankind. If my child does become a dangerous criminal, then I'll probably will not object much against the death penalty. Why?1) Atheist? Death would mean a state where nothing is possible. At that time, nothing matters - I wouldn't care. No one would care.2) Theist? There is an afterlife. Perhaps we'll meet again.And secondly, those on the death row do not get executed immediately. The average wait on the death row is around 20 years [2]. This is more than enough time for my child to say goodbye, unlike the people who he murdered, who more than likely never got to say goodbye to anyone.Example 3:See my contention on the accuracy of the death penalty. I'd like to point out that I provided empirical data and studies that show that the death penalty is very accurate. And when you consider the small amount of people who were executed innocent and the number of people saved for each execution (Up to 74 people). It is obvious which is more moral. 74 lives compared to one life?Sources:[1] David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives"[2]http://www.usatoday.com...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Although you present a very well-thought-out argument, during my reply, try to place yourself in the position of a few other key people. 1- Imagine you are the mother/father (depending on your gender) of a murdered child. The guy who ended your child's life is sitting right in front of you at the Supreme Court- watching his trial. The jury has to decide whether to give him life in jail with no parole or the death penalty ending everything. Although the death penalty may sound very tempting. How great would it feel to know that he is sitting in jail suffering for what he did to your child? Then you have to take in account the suffering he would encounter in jail with other convicts possibly torturing him and fighting him. I know Con presented the argument of "you cannot confirm that the inmate will stay in jail for life" but if he/she was given life in jail with no parole, how would he/she possibly get out of jail? 2- Now imagine you are the mother/father of the suspect who murdered somebody. The guy who you helped to create/gave birth to is sitting right in front of you at the Supreme Court at his/her trial because he ended someone's life. The jury has to decide whether to give him/her life in jail with no parole or the death penalty ending everything. You're sitting there awaiting the verdict from the jury whether it's the death penalty or life in prison. How would you feel knowing that twelve random people decided that your child is going to die? Just imagine having to see them ONE LAST TIME, rather than seeing them behind a glass window for the rest of their lives. I couldn't imagine having to sit there calmly as I hear these twelve random people tell my child that he/she is going to be executed. I can't lie- I would not be okay with the fact that my child killed somebody but it would be even worse to have to deal with them being executed. 3- Lastly imagine yourself as an innocent wrongly accused citizen who sits on the witness bench at your "trial" at Supreme Court because you LOOK LIKE the person who killed someone. As you sit there, a lawyer and a couple opposing witnesses argue against you. While they argue, a court room full of people sit there and judge you, while a judge looks at you like your mentally challenged and twelve people decide your fate. Your innocent life is basically hanging in the hands of your lawyer and those twelve strangers. If your lawyer does not present a well-thought argument to help save you- oops you're dead. Imagine being given a shot to end your life, or being put in an electric-shock-chair. You're sitting there terrified as the real convict roams the streets freely. Unfair right? Yes you present the argument about DNA and things of that nature but without DNA presented, pretty much nothing is 100 percent now is it? Just for a moment step away from "research" and "statistics" and look at the situation logically and realistically. I felt there was no need for any "research" or "cited sources" for my argument this round because I believe it supports itself. I await your reply.
is tony montanna better than al capone

Finally, after two long years on DDO, I can say that I've won 100 consecutive debates (on one account). Some people said it was impossible; others said it was a pointless, fruitless effort. They're probably right, but at least for the moment, I have the last laugh. For the last time ever, I will say this: "I extend my arguments. Vote CON." Goodbye DDO. Hello, legendary status.
Transubstantiation

Here is my argument (Con may refute in round one): The eucharist of the body and blood of Jesus are SYMBOLIZED in the bread and wine. They are not transubstantiated in them. The Roman Catholic doctrine is in error on this point, as are the Lutherans, and the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition is correct. As proof: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) The word "remembrance" in Koine Greek is anamnesis, which means: "a remembering, recollection." (Strong's Concordance G364). This clearly means that the eucharist meal is done as a ritual whose aim is to bring to remembrance the sacrifice of Christ. Nothing beyond this is implied. The bread and wine are purely there as a vivid aid to recollection, and for no other reason. The Con must show how the Greek text (the entire NT) can be interpreted as to indicate any such doctrine as transubstantiation. If variations exist in different Greek manuscripts, you can cite them and give your basis for their superiority or inferiority in accuracy. Also, this is not a debate on Sola Scriptura. The debate assumes that the New Testament text in Greek is enough to establish or disestablish this doctrine, irregardless of the opinions of any Church or the consensus of Church Fathers. If you cannot prove it from the Biblical text, do not enter the debate.
Transubstantiation

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"" and then, we have 666, ironically the sign of the antichrist.... John 6:66 "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." i leave us with the followers walking away, to symbolize con and others walking away from this debate.
Transubstantiation

As to the issue of speaking of the bread as his "sarx", its not relevant if it in is the context of "anamnesis" (remembrance) which implies bringing to mind something not present. I explained the issues with "trogon". It is synonymous with the Hebrew word "akal" and Greek "esthiu". Both can and are used figuratively. (which supports the idea of anamnesis over transubstantiation) I asked for clearer evidence in regard to the rest. The Pro's last response didn't address most of the things I brought up --- or, if it did, I have not had enough coffee to properly perceive it and, for that, I apologize in advance. Anyway, thanks, Pro, for the debate.
Transubstantiation

more that i left out last time Turning to the text, we read, "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me"" (Luke 22:19). The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul"s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as "This is my body." The verb estin is the equivalent of the English "is" and can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb "is" usually is taken literally. The Greek word for "body" in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for "eats" (trogon) translates as "gnawing" or "chewing."
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

I think I have made it clear what my position is and why it is so. I would like to leave you with one final thought: What would the world be like now had the United States not bombed Japan? Would tens of millions of Americans (likely including my grandfather) have died to tackle an evil regime? Had we made a compromise peace, as my opponent has suggested, would Japan still be run by militaristic warlords today? Would the Russians have gained a greater foothold in Asia? Would we have won the Cold War? I think the world would have been a much darker place had those bombs not been dropped. The deaths of those people in those cities are unmistakeably horrific, but Roosevelt and Truman made the right decision in order to safeguard America and the world from future Japanese aggression.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

My entire argument is not based on revenge. It's about not being complacent. It's about standing up for your people. And when you go to war, your nation is involved. The world is not just a bunch of people. Look at a map and you'll see we have nations. The actions that a nation makes affect other nations. And while it may have been highly unfortunate and immensely regrettable that the Japanese civilians had to die to achieve this lasting peace, remember that it is also regrettable that those same Japanese were complacent when Pearl Harbor was being bombed and U.S. soldiers were being paraded to their deaths during the Bataan Death March. In terms of your allegation that Japan would have surrendered on its' own, that is not the case. They were preparing their people for a fight to the death. The military staff was split on whether or not to ask for compromise or to fight it out to the death. And it seems that the radical war hawks were very powerful, there was even a coup attempt as Hirohito was announcing the Japanese surrender (which also makes it clear that the Emperor had the final say on any matters of surrender). Those who wanted compromise with the Emperor, as you say, acting in a figurehead capacity, were actually demanding that "prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler" not be infringed upon. So you're wrong there. In addition, and this is most important, they also demanded that no war crimes trials be held. That means that the military junta stays in control. The point of the preceding paragraph is to prove that the Japanese were not willing to compromise until we laid it out for them: Surrender and get rid of the old order that caused this war, or we will annhilate you. I think that's better than allowing the Japanese military junta to remain in power, causing a possible arms race between the Japanese and the United States. Another huge point is that had we not demonstrated to the Soviets that we had nuclear weapons, they would probably have invaded Western Europe. Not a good thing. We needed to intimidate them. And we needed to get rid of Japan as an adversary in the Pacific. We needed to pacify them, because if we hadn't the Soviets would have gotten a huge edge over us in East Asia. I don't think you can argue that that would have been good. In short: Peace without utter defeat of the Japanese would have led to further conflicts in the Pacific. Just look at what happened when in World War I, Germany was not utterly defeated...they tried rolling the dice again!
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

Your entire argument is founded on revenge. "The point of delivering vengeance to those killed at Pearl Harbor was not to fight the Japanese to their shore and then say "Hey, alright, let's make peace."" Do you really believe that we needed to kill a million people then accept peace? Did those people need to die? Revenge for a military attack is justified? What was the mistake of the Japanese to deserve this treatment? Is a failure to submit the declaration of war in time a true reason for deserving this attack on civilians? Pearl harbor was a military attack and no civilians were targeted. The U.S. specifically targeted the civilians. Are you arguing for the murder of civilians as a revenge for a surprise military attack? Let's look at what you said "The entire miltary-political structure that had led the Japanese into a war of aggressive conquest had to be brought down. The Emperor had to be reduced to a figurehead (which is NOT what the Japanese were willing to compromise for)." That is an interesting argument. Firstly I must say the Emperor was pressured by the military and political leaders of the country to have an aggressive stance. How could he remain in place if he really believed in total aggression. What you said about Japanese compromise is completely false. The Japanese foreign minister wired to his ambassador the message "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace." Which was intercepted by the allies. Why would Truman argue that the use of the Atomic bombs were necessary by saying a million soldiers would die if that was not his only reason? Wouldn't he argue about the necessity of utterly destroying Japan. Was the purpose not to bring a quick end to the war? A true and utter defeat of Japan would have involved an invasion. Could you please explain how the remain of the emperor in his political position was not an acceptable sacrifice for the sake of hundreds of thousands of lives? (Being clear that he did not have much true power however the Japanese people viewed him) The Japanese were already being strangled and even the U.S. War Dept. Agrees. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey had this to say.... "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." This should prove that actions were unnecessary for surrender but please elaborate how unconditional surrender was worth the cost of a million civilian lives.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

Yes. If you are attacked as a nation and you do not respond in kind, you will be viewed as complacent. Any self-respecting nation has to respond brutally to any attack. In terms of creating hatred towards the United States, if what you said was true, then the Japanese would still be seething with contempt for the United States today, decades after the war. Sure looks like that didn't happen. Also, I don't understand how total war was a bad thing. The point of delivering vengeance to those killed at Pearl Harbor was not to fight the Japanese to their shore and then say "Hey, alright, let's make peace." They had to surrender. The entire miltary-political structure that had led the Japanese into a war of aggressive conquest had to be brought down. The Emperor had to be reduced to a figurehead (which is NOT what the Japanese were willing to compromise for). That means unconditional surrender. And that was not going to happen if the U.S. just fought Japan to it's shores and sat there, waiting.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

"we needed to bring Japan to it's knees for what it did at Pearl Harbor and throughout East Asia in the 30's and 40's". Do not forget that Japan was already on its knees ready to defend itself and our decision was whether to take off the head. We chose to kill. "You have to dissuade further attacks." through fear? By bombing thousands? there is a risk of really ticking off and even angering them more. If they emperor was really hell bent on fighting to the end it would have motivated others who rather not fight but after seeing the American destruction would be more motivated to kill 20 americans not 10. It was a risk which was lucky for us. Also other nations may detest us for the action. Japan and its leaders were ready to negotiate or compromise, the U.S. was not. This resulted in unnecessary total war because of the U.S. refusal to negotiate based on your idea that they needed to annihilate the opposition. Had they negotiated they would have found that all the Japanese wished to negotiate for was for the Emperor to remain in place (not in power but in place). He ended up remaining in place for a long time after the war. Japan was ready to surrender but the childish policy of total destruction by this country basing its decisions on fear resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

The US bombing of Japan was necessary and in fact saved lives. It was not like the German bombing of London by any stretch of the imagination. It was unfortunate, cruel, and a terrible thing, but it was justified by all means. And here's why: We were at war. And we needed to bring Japan to it's knees for what it did at Pearl Harbor and throughout East Asia in the 30's and 40's. When you are attacked, you can't sit on your hands. You have to respond in kind, a hundredfold. You have to respond in a manner that will prevent you and your people from ever being attacked again. You have to dissuade further attacks. Otherwise you are directly complicit because you showed the world that your nation does not have the courage to stand up when it is knocked down. Thus, we needed to bring Japan to it's knees. And the best way to do that was through Strategic Bombing and use of the Atomic Bomb. The Japanese were still a powerful war machine, and it is estimated that Operation Downfall (the planned invasion of Japan) would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Japanese children were given manuals on how to kill American soldiers with school supplies. The Japanese were told to each kill 10 Americans before going down. These were a people that were ready to fight to the death. And thus, landing in Japan would have been bloody, costly, and terrible, more so than the strategic bombings.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified

President Roosevelt described the early German bombings "inhuman barbarism that has profoundly shocked the conscious of humanity." Clearly it had not shocked nearly enough because as the tide of the war changed the United States of America (U.S.) completely changed there stance on strategic bombing. In fact the German and Japanese bombings were minor compared to the U.S. bombings. The U.S. bombing of Japan was an unnecessary and cruel act. It is clear that there was no concern for civilian losses. Other then the atomic bombs the U.S. primarily used fire-bombing a method which took advantage of the highly flammable Japanese wood and paper houses. They used the fire bombing to create large uncontrollable fields of fire which would kill thousands. In the end approximately a million Japanese civilians were killed by the bombing.
Genetics Influences Whether Someone is Religious Or Not

I humbly accept your challenge, LuckyLemon.But let me be clear – I am not defending the proposition that genetics has a bigger impact on someone’s religiosity than his or her environment does. I’m defending the much simpler proposition that genetics influences how religious a person is, or can be.By the way, you say “[genetics] can only go so far until . . . your own individual choices will push you to make the religious and non-religious decision,” implying the people have control over their religiosity. So I guess I’ve found another claim worth defending – that people do not have free will – but I’ll do my best during this particular debate to focus on how genetics influences religiosity.Good luck, old timer!!!
Muhammad Is Not The Last Prophet Of Islam

Case: * “Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets” (33:40) [1] - This is a verse from the Qur’an, the revelation from which Islam originates. Thus, according to the Qur’an, Muhammad (pbuh) is unequivocally the Last Prophet, & there is absolutely no ambiguity about this. Rebuttals: ". .. thus We have made for every prophet an enemy. .. " From the 'Sahih International' Evidently Allah did not restrict prophecy to Muhammad. - Since Pro failed to mention the reference to the text, it’s verse (6:112) [2]. - Pro states that Allah did not restrict prophecy to only Muhammad (pbuh), meaning there are other prophets. Well, the resolution is about wether Muhammad (pbuh) is the Last Prophet of Islam, not wether Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet of Islam. In fact, the formulation of the resolution: “Muhammad Is Not The Last Prophet Of Islam” assumes that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet of Islam. It’s like saying “Obama is not the latest president of the US”, implying that Obama is indeed a president of the US. Conclusion: - Finally, it has been established beyond doubt that Muhammad (pbuh), according to the Qur’an, thus according to Islam, is the Last of Prophet of Islam. Meanwhile, Pro failed to argue for the resolution, thereby failing his BOP. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] . http://quran.com... [2] . http://quran.com...
Muhammad Is Not The Last Prophet Of Islam

Rebuttals: The argument that Allah cannot or will not appoint another Messenger is presumptuous. - This is clearly not an argument from Pro, it’s a mere bare assertion, which also happens to be false. The Qur’an is the word of Allah, thus when Allah says: “[Muhammad is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets”, it means that Allah decided & ordained that Muhammad (pbuh) shall, indeed, be appointed the last of the prophets!