BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1- Tax payers are the ones whose money actually fund the correction system. People should care about this because the amount of money that the government spend on incarceration is beginning to surpass the amount of money spent on education. The government is not doing its job by overcrowding the prisons, since overcrowding the prisons does not punish anyone, but the corrections system. Overcrowding can limit the opportunities for effective programming that can reduce the recidivism rate. Your first premises commits the strawman fallacy. You did not fully address the issue. The government would only allow these people back into society, unless they know that it is safe to do so. The programs that the government implement helps inmates to effectively renter into society. However, overcrowding hinders the effectiveness of these programs. http://harvardmagazine.com... P2- Hiring more prisons staff to combat the rising number of prisoners also placed a financial burden on the government. They will have to train and pay more prison staffs. The prison staffs might be well trained, but the rising number of incarceration rate might be challenge their ability to do their jobs since their is a lot of fights breaking out due to overcrowding. Moreover, this will also place another financial burden on the government because they will have to update their safety system. Additionally, the last part of my second premises was ignored. You did not address the issue that the correction system is a "melting pot." A large percentage of the inmates are incarcerated for non-violent crimes such as drug possession. Therefore, overcrowding can cause less violent inmates to become more violent. http://felonvoting.procon.org... P3- Increasing the amount of parole and probation officers will contribute to the effectiveness of combating the overcrowding in prisons and jails. Inmates will be with their families, and the consistent physical support from their families will cause them to successfully renter into society. Moreover, hiring officers will help more people to be employed. Thus, they will be funding programs that will benefit both inmates and families. C- Therefore, the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1- Who cares if the government is spending money on keeping criminals isolated from mainstream society? The government is doing it's job by protecting it's citizens. If the nation adopts a policy to decrease overcrowding, this will allow criminals to be released and will impact communities in a negative way. What about the justice for the families and the victims in cases. Adopting a nationwide policy will cause affect this sense of justice and allow criminals to return to their lives. https://www.ncjrs.gov... P2- Prison staffs are highly trained to handle situations in the prisons. This includes protecting themselves and other inmates. It's up to the correctional officers to maintain order and prevent inmates from harming each other or the staff. In addition, correctional officers are fully aware of their responsibilities and risks within the prisons. (http://work.chron.com...). Also, thanks to advancements in technology, correctional officers are able to keep eyes on all corners of the prisons they're in. P3- If the government adopts a nationwide policy to decrease prison populations, they would have to be increase the amount of parole and probation officers hired to handle all these released criminals. As a result, the government would have to increase it's funding to hire workers which would negate the purpose of decreasing the prison population to save money. C-The government should not adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1- Adopting a nationwide policy to decrease the overcrowding prisons and jails lowers the financial demands that is placed on the government to maintain these correctional facilities. Currently, the government spends $28,284 to keep "one person" in prison for a full year. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009), noted that the total number of inmates in 2008 was 2,424,279. Therefore, one can say that it cost the government approximately $70.7 Billion Annually on incarceration in the U.S. http://www.solitudecanyon.com...- P2- Overcrowding prisons affects the security and safety of both inmates and prison staffs. An increasing prison population negatively affects inmates' conduct. Some inmates might be incarcerated for minor crimes and might be influenced by the more violent inmates. Moreover, the staffs might be outnumber by inmates or the inmate population, and this can contribute to a high level of violence within the prison cells. http://www.gao.gov... C- Therefore, the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States.
gay marriage

I apoligies for not repying last round. This is my first debate so I'm still not sure how 'rounds' work. Any way... I compaired your argument against gay marriage to past arguments, to show how they are similar and equal in rediculusness. I didn't bother looking at the sites you offered up as proof because half of them are .com. I did, however, look at your comments. You compaired homosexuals to pedifiles. People can not marry children because marrige should be between two consinting adults. Pedifiles wouldn't want to marry a child because children will grow up. Furthermore, any laws against pedifiels are not there because pedifiles are 'sexual deviants.' They are there to pretect children. Who is being protected with samesex marrige laws. You also said that homosexuals would have been eliminated if they were born that way, wrong. Have you ever heard of a resesive trait. That meens one can cary a trait and not show sighns of it via a herosexual can have a homosexual child. DUH
gay marriage

In conclusion I will say that my opponent gave no data/research only opinion. Also I want it to be clear that my feelings about homosexuality notwithstanding, I wish them no ill will and do not want them to be afforded any more or less rights than any other person. That being said I feel that they already have all of the same rights as everyone else. They can marry just like everyone else, they simply cant all deviant sexual behavior(which I have demonstrated quite effectively it is) marriage.
gay marriage

I agree, lets put what I said into true perspective though shall we? You compared homosexuality being a mental illness to black people only being 3/5 of a person. This is quite clearly a ridiculous comparison for several reasons but most notably the fact that for the first time in history the clinical debate on whether or not to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was left up to popular vote and was not supported by research, in fact quite the contrary. The research that had been done up until its removal; all suggested that it was indeed a psycho-social disorder. http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com... http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://socialcosmos.library.uu.nl...
gay marriage

I don't know if I'm even doing this correctly, however, I saw this site today on accident and read your comment, "Homosexuality is a mental illness as it was considered to be until 1973." It amused me so much that I had to make an account just to tell you how ignorant and juvenile it is. Don't get me wrong, the rest of your debate is flawed as well but this comment outshines the rest. Let's put what you said in perspective, shall we. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Black people were considered 3/5 of a person who couldn't own anything. Women were considered less than men. Autism was considered an untreatable mental retardation. It was thought that women determined the sex of a child.... that was disproved by science btw. The list goes on and do you know why? Because things change and life goes on. If you believe so much in the ideas of the past why don't you drink some monkey brain phosphorus to get smarter so you can better push your point.
Rap Battle

Con says I would be in stitches - yet I am still standing His stupid a5s lines are gonna need reprimanding Compares himself to Fetty maybe cause he is blind If he thinks he is ahead when he is so far behind He's like a mile in back of me matter of factually Actually I've attacked him like MLK on the balcony He wants me to kiss his feet - he got a foot fetish I eat him for breakfast and rip him apart like he's lettuce That's the only reason my mouth is going near him He put his OWN foot in his mouth and now he's bleeding Con talked about spaghetti like he is fuck1ng Eminem His chances of winning this battle are less than Slim That's Slim Shady if you didn't get the double meaning Con is beneath me and I am high as the ceiling Now this battle is over cuz he has to forfeit the last round This clown would have missed again anyway and I would have to rebound
Rap Battle

Alright, b*tches Everybody knows if you f*ck with me you leave in stitches You done fucked with me, a**hole Maybe instead of rapping like a retard you shoulda smoked a bowl You think you can rap better than Fetty In reality you could barely beat mom's spaghetti I am the best rapper to ever grace this website If you disagree you are higher than a f*ckin kite You are just a washed up has been Your raps are barely worthy of even a trash bin You were born because your mother's birth control failed Yes, sir, I am the rapper that the gods hailed You can bow down and kiss my feet You can worship me as one of the elite It is the least you can do Because you inconvenienced my life by having me rap with you
Rap Battle

OK here we go............. You got back in the saddle only to get KNOCKED OFF You're sucking so much d1ck you're about to get LOCK JAW I murder opponents when I battle like I'm Jack the Ripper About to make you cry like you caught your d1ck in a zipper You just sound like a silly hoe mentioning Chicago Too bad I'm classic at this though like I'm Doctor Zhivago Your sh1t is testy - gonna need more than that to impress me Ran your mouth now I'm gonna lock you down like Lionel Messi Oh you got a pound a pot now whatcha gonna do with it? Same thing you gonna do in this battle - probably LOSE IT You ain't selling grams like a business man No chance when your d1ck's the only thing in your hand You're not capable of posting something decent If bad rapping was a crime you'd be sent to the precent So do us all a favor and just forfeit your next round Cuz I'M running this sh1t like it's my playground
Rap Battle

You wanna challenge me to a rap battle? I can't wait to get back into the saddle I grew up in the mean streets of Chicago You couldn't walk 10 yards without seeing a hoe One day I got shot while being shot All over a pound of pot To make ends meet I sold cocaine I got more than enough dough cause I can make it rain I never did sell that sh*t by the gram That's too small for me to be honest fam I never was one to stay low key So I got busted when I gave my homey sh*tor free I admit that rhymes ain't the best But they are good enough to pass the f*ckin test Your turn, homey Let's see what you got, man, show me
The U.S. should make Abortion Illegal

I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of time arguing a case if I can expect my opponent to forfeit. However I will submit a few arguments so as to present a case and sources of my own. The U.S. should not make abortion illegal because... 1. Individuals have the right to bodily autonomy. This means we should be able to make decisions about our own bodies, especially if they affect our health risks. Pregnancy can be complicated and jeopardize a woman's health. Abortion should be a legal choice for her. 2. Other people do not have the moral or legal authority to govern our bodies, even if someone else's life is on the line. For example if someone needs me to donate organs, blood or plasma, I cannot be legally forced to use my body to save their life -- even if it's my fault they need help (for example if my drunk driving caused a car accident, and their lives are now in danger because of my choices). Women have the right to determine how their bodies are used. 3. Criminalization will not stop abortions. So-called "back alley" abortions will still occur that put women at risk. "An attempt to restrict the abortions would rise not only the percentage of illegal and unsafe abortions, but also the expenses of the procedure [1]. 4. Criminalizing abortion is also an added expense to tax payers which is an unfair burden on society [2]. 5. Legal abortions are generally safe and provide women with reproductive choices. 6. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Statistics suggest that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Women should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy from such an invasive and traumatic violation. 7. Fetuses are often terminated before sentience, so they are not very conscious beings. We legally kill living things that are more cognizant, such as pigs that are as sentient as toddlers. Therefore simply being alive (or even being conscious) does not determine the "right to life" in society. Fetuses arguably do not have the right to life, specifically as it pertains to mandating the use of the mother's body to survive. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://thinkprogress.org... [3] http://amplifyyourvoice.org...
is real one god only thinking of everyone through times of past, current and future

practically test what i am saying now. you only tell me if a human sins and doesnt check why he sinned or he sinned because of genie who made his sin time by keeping genies inside human to sin at his given time and if human doesnt thinks he sinned because of genies who was kept inside him to sin like knowing original truth. Then why god doesnt knows truth ? God knows truth only when any humans thinks or anybody else thinks and proves they are not wrong and they have not sinned. Otherwise god doesnt listens to anyone and he completely acts on thinking of humans or anyone who tells from there mind. Whether be it fake truth or original truth. So did you practically tested if humans thinks that he has not sinned and proofs through his thinking what is truth then gods automatically accepts the truth but who is god that accepts the truth ? those who listens thinking of humans ? who believes thinking to be true because god would know original truth that human sinned because of genie who made his time to sin so why would god listens only when any humans or anyone proving truth through thinking. I am original god forever.
is real one god only thinking of everyone through times of past, current and future

I want to know if one real god is only known by thinking of everyone, if this is true through all the times which is in same time past, current and future then if sinner or accused doesnt thinks what is truth and why he is accused then he is declared as sinner and god who is in thinking of everyone punishes through there mind which they learn in nature. So one real god is only known by thinking of everyone and if nobody thinks then one real god doesnt exist, if you think i am true then confirm or debate if you think one god is real who knows everything truth like who is real sinner and who is accused and justice without knowing thinking of anyone to know someone accused or not. Lets debate.
EMINEM is the best damn rapper alive....

Rebuttal My opponent states: "...before EMINEM , rap was personal, lyrics came from the heart and rarely talked about how much money you made , or how many WOMEN you HAD SEX WITH..." It sounds like he's saying that it all started after Eminem came onto the scene. The Pro also says that Eminem uses language that can be ..."harsh and violent for some ears...." I would rather listen to music that doesn't sound like a gutter mouth convention. Music doesn't need harsh language in order to be great! Take the music of Del the Funky Homosapien for example. Del's music, as I said before, uses little vulgarity. All his work is real and scientific. It has a educational sense to it. The Pro also states multiple times that Eminem isn't about the money. How can this be so when he is popular only by becoming the first mainstream white rapper? According to my opponent, "Eminem's popularity brought his group project, D12, to mainstream recognition." If Eminem were in it for the hip hop and not the money why would he let 6 albums go platinum? Eminem is a huge symbol in rap today and he is making a ton of money. Believe it or not, he is in it for the money. Now, Del, on the other hand, gave out his albums for FREE. That shows true passion for hip hop music. During the end of my opponent's argument in R3, he says that Eminem is the king at ending careers by having "beefs." For all those who do not know what a "beef" is: Beef: A hip hop feud, also known as a beef or a rivalry, is a controversy in which two or more rappers create a rivalry that is manifested by each slandering and confronting the other in a number of ways. [1]http://www.youtube.com... Beefs are NOT good things. Beefs in the hip hop industry cause many problems and tension between rappers. People DIE from beefs. Take Biggie Smalls, Tupac, and Bugz (Member of D12) for example. They all died from having beefs. If Eminem is the king of beefs, then he is causing problems for the hip hop industry. In conclusion, I restate my thoughts on why Del the Funky Homosapien is a better rapper than Eminem. 1.) Del isn't mainstream. He gave his albums away for free and at fixed rates! Money isn't a concern of his. He is in it for the music and for the fun! 2.) Del's lyrics are cleaner and more unique than Eminem's. His songs don't include "beefs" or any meaning of slander against anyone. His raps are all his work and he enjoys what he does. 3.) Del's music is all in all a better sounding form of music. His rhymes flow and his voice doesn't sound so angry and harsh. Overall his music is great to listen to! Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... I hope my opponent had as much fun as I did! I thank him for this debate! Please vote fairly and accordingly! Thank you!
EMINEM is the best damn rapper alive....

.. ) I'm going to keep this short and sweet . .. hip hop , whether we want to accept is or not , is DYING RAPIDLY. I'm pretty sure that we can barely think of any of any people who we can honestly say are keeping the decaying carcass that is hip hop alive. EMINEM is who I think is the only one left , lil wayne constantly raps about WOMEN, MONEY AND WEED. JAY-Z has lost his touch , and no one gives a CRAP about WIZ. And I won't get into this other MESS I hear every day of the week . .. . before EMINEM , rap was personal, lyrics came from the heart and rarely talked about how much money you made , or how many WOMEN you HAD SEX WITH . .. people say EMINEM is the closest thing to 2pac on this planet (ooh how true that is! !! ) EMINEM's words may be harsh and violent for some ears . .. but they ARE REAL ! !! look at hip hop now . .. corny dances repetitive lyrics made up stories made up characters and people who only do it for money! !
Gun Control (Copy #2)

Owning firearms is a right. The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do. Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal. "Assault weapons" should not be banned, or any other firearm. The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty. Lastly, a moral argument: government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies. (This is my first debate on this website, please excuse any formatting errors, etc.)
Gun Control (Copy #2)

I am unwilling to debate further, due to my now conflicted opinions on gun control. I found lots of conflicting information while working on my argument in Round 2, and now I can't honestly debate for the Pro side. To my opponent I apologize for cutting this debate short, however I don't feel like bs'ing my way through the next two rounds. So I surrender. If you want to have a concession debate on a topic I'm more firm on, we can do that.
Abortion Is Good For Society

I rest my case. I do not believe I need to make any more arguments. Instead, I will conclude with why the vote should go for Con. 1. My opponent did not actually make an argument. Pro made many bold claims in Round 1 but did not provide any evidence to support those claims whatsoever. Pro gave no evidence or reason for why a fetus only becomes alive after it's born. Pro gave no evidence for why a fetus is not human. Pro gave no evidence that a fetus cannot feel anything. Pro's definition of human life is logically incomplete. My opponent fell far short of meeting their burden to prove their position. 2. Pro has a very inaccurate understanding of fetal development. They continue to refer to an "egg" when actually the organism is called a zygote after conception. A zygote is completely different than an egg (23 chromosomes different, to be exact). I never said an egg is not life. I said an egg is not HUMAN life. But this debate is about everything that happens AFTER conception, so continuing to talk about unfertilized eggs is irrelevant. I most certainly did not concede the debate by discussing this - it's not even related to what we're talking about. 3. My opponent should NOT lose points for offending anyone. I was not offended by anything Pro said. Pro SHOULD lose points for using repeated ad hominem. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and its use renders most of my opponent's arguments invalid. In the end, Pro made no real argument and gave no evidence for their position. I ask the vote go for Con. (Personal note to Shrek_sDrecKid - in your next debate, people will take your ideas more seriously if you use logic and evidence rather than finger pointing and personal attacks.... just a suggestion)