BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Decreasing Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails

P1- Just because a number of prisoners have committed more crimes after getting released out of prison, does not mean all prisoners will. There are some who take advantage of the numerous state, federal and local assistance programs to help them reintegrate into their communities. These programs help them earn an honest way of living instead of assuming that all prisoners are the same and keeping them locked away. P2- There are inmates in prisons who are serving time for violent offenses however, there are some who aren't. Some are there for minor drug charges and other non violent offenses. Those individuals should not be taking up space in prison when the space is needed for those serving longer sentences. For this very reason, they should make an effort to release those inmates and monitor their activities very closely to make sure they are on the right path. That's what parole officers are for. It will keep those troubled individuals under strict surveillance and make room in prisons. P3- Crowding in prisons can cause more tension between inmates than necessary due to the simple fact that they just don't have enough space. In a place where safety is most important, I think it is necessary to keep friction between inmates to a minimum. C- Therefore, overcrowding in prisons should be decreased.
Decreasing Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails

P1- According to unodc.org though the multi billion dollars that are put in to housing for prisoners, that's how it should stay because many of these prisoners end up relapsing into their old lives off the fact that that is all they know. P2- Many of these prisoners end up becoming even better prisoners because of the environment around them. it's said that 60% of prisoners will end up going back so why not protect our society. People are put behind bars for Haines crimes and should protect the people who do good. C- Decreasing overcrowding in prisons and jails would not be the way to go
Decreasing Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails

P1- According to the Epoch Times, prisons in places like Nebraska are at 155% of capacity. In California, courts have been ordered to drastically decrease their inmate population. This is because the housing of prisoners have created multibillion dollar expenses. Large sums of money as such should be used to contribute to other reforms that will better our society such as education and health care. http://www.theepochtimes.com... P2- Prison overcrowding may cause prison guards not to work as effectively as they would had there been less prisoners. Prison guards are required to perform searches on inmates and their cells. If the guards have a limited time to search thousands of inmates and thousands of cells, they tend to not be a thorough. Inmates still wind up smuggling contraband which will eventually cause a danger to both guards and other inmates. http://policeandjailprocedures.com... C- Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails should be decreased.
Decreasing Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails

P1: As said before I don't believe that prisoners should have early releases to decrease the overcrowding in prisoners. Prisoners should do the sentence that they are indicted with. In addition to say overcrowding endangers the lives of inmates is an understatement. Just because prisons are a little more emptier doesn't mean it will lead to safer jails. At the end of the day this is an establishment to keep people behind and these folks behind have their own system and society they live by that even numbers couldn't change. P2: Well if your speaking of decreasing prisoners then utilize more space. As you previously said their not the same so why put all these inmates for different offenses in the same arena. Those who have done more violent, destructive crimes should have harsher sentencing and this doesn't just mean time but what they do in activity. While packing them in prisons may not help them, lets look at the bigger picture and if you look at crime around the country it has spiraled all the way down besides places such as Chicago. P3: This country has been in debt for years however you can't necessarily blame this on prisons being overcrowded. While this may be one factor, we easily forget that not too long ago our country was involved in a ten year war which brought much grief and debt upon us. In addition we went through a recession where many lost their jobs. Decreasing our jails will not turn around the huge debt we have nor give jobs back to those who most likely lost it because of the recession. C- Don't decrease overcrowding within prisons.
Decreasing Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails

P1- As I previously stated, just because some will choose the wrong path after getting released from prison, doesn't mean all prisoners will. Eventually, the government will have to make a decision whether to overcrowd the prisons will people who have petty offenses and endanger the lives of thousands of inmates, or, give these individuals a chance to change their lives. Not all prisoners get released from prison and get sent right back which is why those with non-violent offenses should be given a chance to be released and make space for prisoners with more violent offenses who need to be detained. P2- You say "treat all prisoners equal" but "for those with more serious offenses, put them in maximum confinement." That's contradicting. You cannot treat all prisoners the same because truth is, they aren't the same. While in prison, inmates are monitored to see if they're behavior has improved and if they are making an effort to better themselves. I'm not suggesting that we should just start releasing inmates randomly because that it dangerous. I'm suggesting that for those inmates who have a non-violent criminal history, we should give them a chance. Keeping them in prison where they are being physically and mentally abused by those with more serious offenses, for longer time than expected is no way to teach an individual a lesson. Most of them need serious professional help. Packing them inside a prison is not the way to help them. P3- This country is in debt and has been in debt for a very long time. Hiring more correction officers will only contribute to that debt. Many other beneficial programs will go without because a large sum of money is going toward prisons and prison guards. Teachers are losing their jobs and being taken away from schools, nurses are being cut from hospitals and people who are responsible for helping us commute everyday (MTA Workers) are also losing their jobs. All because we need more money for prisons? That's unfair and outrageous. Not only are prisoners being punished, but law-abiding citizens are being punished as well because we are now forced to go without what's necessary. Hiring more guards is not the answer because it requires a lot more money than this country has. Instead of hiring more, we should release those who are most deserving. C- Overcrowding in Prisons should be decreased.
Decreasing Overcrowding in Prisons and Jails

P1: Event though some prisoners may take advantage of federal, state assistant to help them reintegrate into communities, others will use this as a means to commit more otracities and destroy the community. As said before prisons usually turn felons into better criminals and sometimes it is just hard to break out a lifestyle that is too well known. P2: While their are criminals who face minor drug charges and nonviolent offenses everybody should be seen as equal behind bars . For those who committed more serious offenses should be put in maximum confinement and in this way you could spread the face. P3: Crowding may cause tension however with more Correction officer and security their should be ways to suppress violence within prison
Democracy is the best ruling system

Democracy has so long been being stated the best ruling system. I have no problem confessing that. But in the context of today's instable era, democracy has started to leak many flaws. Its case can be compared to a building, having many stories and also, many flaws. Democracy is quite entirely irrelevant in this century. Democracy leads us to something which we should not be led to. The debate here is to state whether democracy is the best system or not. My opponent will go in favour of democracy while I will go against the topic. So, I would like to have the pleasure to invite each and everybody to this open debate, no specific regulations. I hope one interested friend will accept my challenge to do this with me. *#Disclaimer, I am not telling the military powers to force a cue and take us the power, I mean I am not in favour of dictatorship.
Democracy is the best ruling system

REPLY SPEECH(oi ppl who don't like World Schools, this has been a World Schools debate, and WS require reply speeches written in the following format)What has side opposition told you? Quite simply, they have affirmed the baseline of side proposition-they proposed a constitutional monarchy as a model for a better government than a "democracy": in the defense of this, they have stated in a constitutional monarchy is incompatible with democracy, as the head of state is often elected. When side opposition raised the example of the United Kingdom being a "model" of his yardstick, side proposition quickly proved him to be wrong, by stating that the UK was much more democratic than his presentations of "democratic state" i.e. Pakistan and Sri Lanka.What has side proposition told you? Put simply, that democratic states (a) results in a positive correlation with justice (which the side-opposition strawman'ed to being inclusive of petty criminal acts, which we have shown to be true in the case of Belarus etc.), that democratic states protect rights (b) more so than illiberal regimes. To this, the opposition keeps going to the examples of Pakistan and Sri Lanka. However, when side proposition cited a study that noted a correlation and causation, side opposition continues to refer to these examples. Lastly, side proposition has told you that (c) a democratic government is more justified than any illiberal regimes created by reason or irrationalist thoughts. To this, the opposition has simply said: "look at the UK, much aristocracy, much freedoms!" In this, side opposition has been proven wrong again.Ultimately, the debate (apart from the fact that side opp. almost directly C&P'ed from his source 12) comes down to which arguments stand in favor of the resolution: the proposition has given three solid cases, which still stand in the face of the attempts at refuting it, that still stands and is empirically valid. To this, side opposition has given you 14 cases, all of which have been shown to (a) not be empirically true, or (b) actually affirms the baseline. The resolution is affirmed!
The Creation "Days" Were Not 24 Hours Long

I will be arguing that the Christian Creation story as noted in Genesis was not made up of 24 hour days but longer periods of indeterminate time. Whoever accepts this debate will be assuming that:a) God existsb) God created the Universec) This Creation story comes from GenesisFirst Round Acceptance Con will be arguing that the days mentioned in Genesis were the standard 24 hour day-night cycle days.
The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed

Rebuttals: "$10,000 every month [2]. The US actually makes a great deal of money from this industry, and the government knows that the industry needs to stay strong, as it contributes a great deal to the economy. Disclosing a cure for cancer, even a preventative treatment, will definitely downsize the cancer treatment sector of the medical industry, therefore leading to losses of jobs and profit. Its basic economics, when the demand for services in this area goes down, the amount of individuals working in that sector decreases with it. " Now, this does not in anyway prove that there is likely a chance that the cure for cancer is being suppressed, seeing as this argument only states that it would make sense to supress the cure for cancer, but there is no connection to how it would be likely for it to be suppressed. "Giving something to drain resources and keep the lower classes busy. He proposed that the upper governing class is more than willing to give up some of their comforts in order to preserve the fine line in lifestyle between the classes. " And what about the rest who disagree with them? Somewhere on the U. S, somebody will come up with methods to try to cure cancer and the government will want to test it to get closer to making the cure, hence my source for my case. "The treatment was rejected because the frequency was not high or strong enough to actually destroy cancer cells. However it prompts one to beg the question, why was this avenue not explored further? " Because the Rife Machine has killed some individuals before, hence thus source. . http://www.quackwatch.org... Continuing research on it might have killed even more people. "I know it is inevitable that my opponent will argue that the government works, and only works, in service of the people. However the past has proven that they do not always hold the lives of all citizens dear. " And if they don't always, then there is that chance, like I said, that other parts of the government would disagree. "alcohol during the prohibition. Since the 18th amendment which banned alcohol did not ban consumption, the US government actually added deadly chemicals, including kerosene, chloroform, and acetone among well-known industrial versions of alcohol, to make them more difficult to consume. This led to the deaths of 400 people in New York City in the year 1926," This only applies to the government from almost a century ago, which might have thought differently than the government that exists today, and in this case, how does a decision made in 1926 influence a decision considered now on any sort of way? "Researchers actually tested the effects of things like hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, torture, and LSD on US and Canadian citizens, without their consent [3]. It is clear now that the government is willing to put the lives of its own citizens in danger, if it is done to preserve and further their ideal version of society and the way things should run. " This was a very separate situation, and though this proves that it would be possible for the cure for cancer to be suppressed, it doesn't show that it's likely.
The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed

I'll use this round for rebuttals. My opponent only provided one contention, and I will refute that here. RC1: Scientific Research What my opponent basically says in this round is that since we have examples of scientists looking for and applying some forms of treatment is enough to prove that there is no chance of any treatment being suppressed. However this is false. First off, as I stated in my "social structure" contention, the upper classes have reason to ensure that no "breakthrough cure" comes out to the public. I bring up my looking into George Orwell's proposed theory, that the upper class class is willing to give up some luxuries [in this case more efficient treatments] to keep the fine line of standard of living between them and the lower classes. I recall the resolution, which states "the Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed." This doesn't mean that if there is a current form of treatment nothing is being suppressed. It does mean that if someone is suppressing any form of treatment that is better than what we have now, then the resolution is affirmed. This is why my opponent's arguments are not relevant to the resolution.First off, my opponent states their example of the 15 year old boy. This is only one example, which does not really prove anything on the broad scale of things. Secondly my opponent makes the case that since there are studies being done, it proves that the cure is still being tested and explored. I direct everyone back to my first argument about the industry. These studies are financed and employ people only because the cure for cancer is [supposed] still out there to be found. If a cure, or any effective preventative treatment was found, then the entire industry, which creates jobs and revenue, would be downsized. Simply because there are studies being done doesn't remove the reasonable doubt of an effective cure already having been found, but suppressed. There is also the option of these studies being done to mislead the public. There isn't much to refute. To conclude, I'll restate why my opponent's case does nothing at all to remove any likelihood of a cure being suppressed. I have explained why the studies being done could very much be fake, or tunnelled in a narrow scope of view to prevent any effective cure from being found. I have given reasons for this that tie back to my main contention [revenue, jobs]. That was my opponent's entire case, which I have refuted. The resolution is affirmed.
The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed

Applying my opponent's debate format into these rounds, I am to argue on this round and hold off on rebuttals until the next round. Case:There is in fact scientific evidence that doctors are still looking for a cure for cancer, and in some cases, have succeeded in experiments that attempt to cure the cancer. The 1st example is a case where a 15 year old when to the hospital because he had leukemia. His immune system was modified so that white blood cells could track down cancerous cells and fight them off. And I know that this argument begs the question: "But is it successful? " According to this source, yes, the treatment was successful. There are 4 pages in this source, and the 1st page says that the patient "had no remaining signs of leukemia just 9 days after treatment began. " This means that for him, this was indeed a cure for his leukemia, a type of cancer. There are more studies within the source to prove that the cure is still being tested and explored. On page 2, there is a statement that reads "Since 2009, researchers at Sloan Kettering, University of Pennsylvania, and the National Cancer Institute have tried this treatment on about 100 people with ALL. More than 70 have gone into complete remission. Dozens of institutes around the world are still testing forms of this new treatment. " This means that: -This cure is successful for 70% people-Instituitions are still testing for this type of treatmentThis evidence proves that the cure for cancer is not likely being suppressed, as the success of the new treatment and the desire for associations to research this potential cure even further shows that it is likely to continue being investigated. . http://www.webmd.com...
The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed

This challenge is issued to BlazingRodent, if somehow someone else accepts, it will be counted as an immediate loss for them. The resolution is "The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed." I will be arguing for the Pro side. Debate FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: ArgumentsR3: Rebuttals concerning R2 arguments R4: Defence of R2 arguments from R3 rebuttals
PC (Windows) computers are better overall compared to Apple/Mac (OSX) computers

This debate is that PC computers operate better then Apple/Mac computers. Please Note I am not saying Apple/Mac computers suck I am simple debating they are not as VERSATILE as a PC. I personally don't mind Apple computers. Windows machines are used by more than 70% of all computer users around the world. In this debate we need to address the key ideas of -Operation -Security -Functionality -Web Browsing -Cost -Compatibility -Media I will leave it for the con to begin the argument.
Trump's Recent Ban on Refugees from Seven Countries is an Attack on Muslims

This will be a short debate discussing Trump's new executive order regarding an immigration ban. The main focus will be on whether it is or isn't an attack on Muslim refugees. Pro will support the belief that this executive order was an attack on Muslims, while Con will argue that it is not. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Competition leads to death of relationships

In my humble opinion, competition is really healthy for today's generation. Healthy competition inspires everyone to do their best " not just good enough. When people compete they will become more inquisitive, research independently, and learn to work with others. They will strive to do more than is required. These abilities prepare us for future situations of all kinds. Whether it"s applying to college, seeking a promotion, or finding a cure for cancer, the ability to be competitive will give them an important edge. If the sole aim for competition is motivation, and the competition only friendly, then there no chance for it to affect any relationships.
Gay rights is not an equality matter

All arguments and replies I write are not intended to be factual in some areas, I am merely giving you my opinion on why I think you're wrong. Gay rights is an equality matter. You should be able to be with and marry whoever you want to. First, let's look at the definition of "rights". 1; that which is morally correct, just, or honourable. 2; a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something. Depriving someone of being with or marrying who they want is not morally correct or just. Therefore going against the definiton of rights. This isn't changing what "rights" means. This is providing people with the rights that they deserve. Rights that are morally correct and just. Gay rights don't encourage people to turn gay. They encourage gays to be proud of accepting of their sexuality. Taking this into consideration, it's not hard to understand that the possibility of the birth rate decreasing further is very slim, as your sexual preference doesn't change according to what the law says (not including gays who are not "out"). There is talk of homosexuality becoming "mainstream" or "trendy". Personally, I don't think this is true. I think that people are becoming more aware of their sexuality and are more willing to openly express and explore it, which I think is a good thing. Also, I think that sex being "just for creation of life" is your personal opinion. I assume that you believe in the story of Creation, and I accept that; Personally, I don't wholeheartedly believe in it, and so I have not included any Religious (specifically Christian) ideas in my argument.
Gay rights is not an equality matter

Look gay rights is not an equality matter we ALL don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender so why bother to change the law? People like you who support gay rights are fighting to change rights not give rights. Gay rights should not be allowed to happen either because birth rate in the U.S is low with about 40% of the births being single women . If gay rights was to happen nationally then the birth rate would drastically decrease and then gay rights to become a mainstream culture the kids that are born will split up and become gay to the point of extremely low birth rates that "sex labs" would become the substitute ruining sex as it was supposed to be just for creation of life. -Thx for participating I don't hate gays I just dislike what they believe in as they do to me.
This House Believes that the media should be censored when reporting matters of national security

Definitions: - "This House": The United States - "Censored": The article(s) removed from the paper The Bill of Rights gives us the Freedom of Press, even when reporting on matters of National Security. If we allow the media to be censored, it will turn into a slippery slope. What else will the government censor? Edwin Debs, a communist during the early-1900s was arrested for expressing his communist views. This was a grave misconduct of the law. Even though the public was exposed to radical communist views and could fall victim to propaganda, the government had no right to arrest Debs.