BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

I still don't think the Pro really understands what rehabilitation is, even though I defined it at the beginning. Criminal rehabilitation is attempting to giving a criminal an education and skills needed to succeed in the world, not just drug rehab. On the Pro's arguments, everything here is based on his hypothetical situation, not on real evidence, so it doesn't really matter in this debate. His statistic of 90% success is nice, but also unsupported. If you can find a reliable source for this I am willing to accept it, but until then it is invalid. The Pro still does not deny any of my claims about deterrence, incentive to commit crime, justice, or public opinion, so I win this debate.
Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

Let's start on the Pro's arguments. First, he says "Most people believe that criminals can't be helped but that's not true." He concedes that public opinion is against criminals, but provides no evidence that rehab works. Second, he asks if drug addicts can't be helped. While I do agree that drug addicts can be helped, that is not the point of this debate. This debate is about criminals in general, not only drug addicts. Third, my opponent comes up with a hypothetical situation where a kid is "turned into a "gang banger" or drug dealers" but provides no proof or reason why this is true. Fourth, the Pro compares prison without rehabilitation to getting a bad grade on a test and not being able to change it, but that is the way life works. If you do something bad (not studying/stealing) you get the consequence (a bad grade/prison time). Finally, the Pro says that criminals aren't accepted into society with or without rehabilitation, but my point with that argument was to show that rehabilitation has no benefits, not to prove prison as good. The Pro does not contend my argument about deterrence, so it can be assumed that he agrees with it. The same can be said about my incentive to commit crime and justice arguments. Because the Pro has no substantial arguments and my arguments go unopposed, I should win this debate.
Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

Most people believe that criminals can't be helped but that's not true think about drug addicts do you believe they can't be helped. What I mean by peaty crimes is like a lest say for sac of argument that a kid was forced to sell drugs and the legal system was messed up (another debate) he was convicted without rehab he would be turned into a "gang banger" or drug dealers now hes a terrible criminal and it started by being force to sell drugs. Back to rehabilitation to not let people have another shot is like if you got a bad grade on a test and you couldn't correct it. Also even without rehabilitation criminals aren't accepted into society why not let them get help.
Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

Thank you for accepting. The first problem with rehabilitation is its lack of deterrence. In a traditional prison system that focuses on punishment, criminals are deterred from committing crimes because they fear the punishment. Rehabilitation would significantly decrease the deterrent effect of prisons because it sends the message that they are going easy on crime. In a report for the National Center for Policy Analysis, Morgan Reynolds writes "On average, about 15 crimes are eliminated for each additional prisoner locked up."1 If prisons start going easier on crime, the crimes that were stopped by deterrence will be committed. In addition to this, increasing the length of prison sentences will decrease the amount of crime by 25%.2 Since lengthening prison sentences goes against rehabilitation, rehabilitating criminals would deny us this benefit. Another problem with rehabilitation in prisons is that it actually encourages criminals to commit crime. In general, criminals come from poor communities without a real chance for much more. Rehabilitation offers them a chance to get an education and make something of their life, with the only price being a crime. For those that are already considering committing a crime, this is just icing on the cake. This also ties into my next point, which is justice. Justice is lost in a rehabilitative prison system. Traditionally, justice is getting what one deserves, but rehabilitation does not do this. As I have said before, when a criminal commits a crime, rehabilitation would reward him with an education, whereas a conventional prison system would punish him for his crime. Justice is supposed to express society's disapproval of a criminal's action, not acceptance. There is also justice for the victim that must be looked at. When a crime is committed, the victim is hurt and requires justice to help make up for it. Helping the criminal does not give the victim justice and is not good for society. The final problem with rehabilitation is the public opinion. According to Peter Stanford, the public opinion is that criminals are bad and will always be bad.3 This means that even after rehabilitation, the ex-criminals will not necessarily be welcomed back into society. Stanford goes on to say that when they tried to rehabilitate criminals, the public wanted nothing to do with them. If criminals cannot reenter society, then all of the rehabilitative work will have gone to waste. There is also evidence that public opinion does not support rehabilitation in general, not just criminals. Over 75% of people already think that courts are already too easy on criminals.1 If they already think that criminals are getting off easy, how much worse will it be if criminals are rehabilitated? If rehabilitation would be so heavily disliked, there is really no reason to use it. In conclusion, prisons should not rehabilitate criminals because rehabilitation would increase the crime rate, deny justice, and go against public opinion. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.proutglobe.org... punishment-debate/ 3. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...
Greatest Movie Speeches

Sean Penn plays Willie Stark, a hick running for governor. Stark was supposed to be a candidate to split the "hick" vote in order to allow another candidate to win the election. But Stark revolts from his original sponsors and runs for governor to win. As he says he is trying to "nail up these parasites. " "Now listen to me, you hicks. Yeah, you're hicks too, and they fooled you a thousand times like they fooled me. But this time, I'm going to fool somebody. I'm going to stay in this race. I'm on my own and I'm out for blood. "
Greatest Movie Speeches

Tyler Durden in Fight Club discussing modern society. Tyler Durden attacks consumerism and the role males have in modern society. This is why Americans were setting up these underground fight clubs in the late 90s. "Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy **** we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives." http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Movie Speeches

Gordon Gekko's speech from Wall Street is still infamous till this day. The morals of the speech still ring true today. Management in many corporations are unaccountable to the stockholder as Gekko points out. "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A" http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Movie Speeches

Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!This was aragon addressing his soldiers at the black gates in the light of the battle with Sargon. It was one of the most epic fantasy speechers ever given. I remember seeing in theatres and gettign chills in my bones. It was deilviered perfectly and is one speech that rings in the movie realm as the best ever.
Greatest Movie Speeches

I will start off with one of my personal favorites from Glengarry Ross. Alec Baldwin's character Blake is sent from "Downtown" in order to motivate the salesmen to work harder. Baldwin mercilessly abuses the sales men with this piece of angry rhetoric. Here is a sample from the video: "You got leads, Mitch and Murray paid good money. Get their names to sell them. You can't close the leads your given, you can't close ****, you are ****, hit the bricks pal and beat it because your are going out! " . http://www.youtube.com...
Right-to-Work Law

Union corruption has caused the employee to exploit. Careerists and opportunists rose to the top, exploiting the workers" instinct for solidarity to promote their own bureaucratic interests as labor merchants of the capitalist class of labor exploiters. In strike after strike, the unions have sacrificed and bartered away the workers" interests in exchange for such things as the "union shop" and the dues "checkoff" that practically make the capitalist employer a union official and dues collector. And they seal these deals with labor contracts that tie workers" hands and that capitalists often break. Source: http://www.slp.org... With Union corruption and most Union workers feel wronged lead by their union boss combine with the today"s culture of USA will lead to selfishly. Corruption leads to selfishly. Do not you want to abolish selfishly or is that little silly as well? Source: http://www-psych.stanford.edu...
Right-to-Work Law

How does this become new and urgent problem? Convincing members to continue paying for their services instead of taking them for free, what services were these unions providing in 2012? The points of the Labor Union when they were created in American in mid-19th century were to 1) achieve higher wages 2) working conditions and 3) protect the integrity of its trade. Achieve Higher Wage Since 1955 until now (2012), Union wages and salaries have gone down each year by 1% to 2%. Source:http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu... Working Conditions Working conditions have improved dramatically since the book called The Jungle written by Upton Sinclair was published in 1906. Anytime an employer puts the employee in working conditions that are terrible and unsafe. The media will jump over that company and reference to The Jungle. Protecting the integrity of its trade Chicago teacher are the highest pay teachers in the country however; they have ruin the integrity of the trade. Black students have fallen farther behind than ever. The goal of teaching is to educate every student no matter of racist or gender. The unions have ruined the integrity of teaching in Chicago by paying high salaries yet did injustice to the Black students in return. Source: http://www.reuters.com... These services the unions were providing where actually throbbing the employee by the own definition of what unions were build on. Every action will have consequence and new and urgent problem will appear. For instance, the short term affect will be a lot of unemployed union bosses due to not having a job for lose revenue from union dues. The long term affect will be lower unemployed rates in the state of Michigan such as in hard hit cities like Detroit.
Right-to-Work Law

The United States of America is more divide than it has been since the civil war. A few issues that American is divided on are gay marriages to gun to control to how big the government should be. One issue that has been getting a lot of media notice is Michigan Right to Work Law. I am FOR Michigan to pass the Right-to-Work Law in the upcoming vote in Lansing. The biggest problem with USA economy is that American is dramatically underemployed or unemployed at all. If Michigan passes the Right-to-Work Law, it will bring down the national average of unemployed. The proof is in the pudding. Twenty-four states plus the territory of Guam has Right to Work Law and have a lower unemployed rate then the twenty-six states that do not have Right to Work Law.
Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

Something went wrong with my font last round. Oh well. I'd like to point out that seeing as Con has decided to forfeit, my rebuttal remains unanswered and his studies remain unsourced, depriving me of my ability to respond to them. I'll make a common-sense summary of my position here: marriage is an inherently flexible institution that evolves and adapts itself to the needs and customs of the society, and genderless marriage is simply its latest incarnation, in response to the decreased economic value of having offspring. The idea of procreational marriage being the only legitimate type of marriage because of the "special value" it has of being a precedent for the survival of the species makes no sense in this context. It's like saying every child needs to learn how to smelt copper, because metallurgy is essential to civilization. As of now, I don't believe that I have anything to refute for the moment, unless Con (hopefully) reemerges to carry on the debate.Ciao.
Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

Resolution: Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States. I accept. I thank my opponent for initiating such a relevant and pertinent topic; with this conflict often being skewed toward the left it is nice to have an open discussion about our own opposing viewpoints. I have defined an argumentation resolution in order guide the process of debate. If my opponent has a quarrel with this resolution, it can be tweaked. Same-Sex Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

I've finally decided to open this issue up. As a former proponent of traditional marriage, I send out invitation to any and all of my ex-allies to come and settle this once and for all. Should anyone have any comments, concerns or questions regarding my position or this debate, they should be placed in the comments.Rules:(1) First round is for acceptance or, if Con wishes, an argument.(2) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(3) No trolling or lawyering.(4) The final round will be for concluding remarks and will have a 4000 character limit.Burden of Proof: The BOP is shared. Pro must show that there are no compelling reasons for marriages between two persons of the same biological sex not to be legally recognized, and Con must show that there are.Thanks to whomever accepts this debate. I look forward to a good thrashing session (or learning experience, but they're largely the same thing on here)!
Bill Russell is the most overrated "great" in Basketball

I named the Ben Wallaces and DeAndre Jordan type players because those are the guys who most similar to Bill Russell's game. If anything, the fact that they struggled to become all-stars shows how someone with that play style would do in today's game. They are all great rebounders and defenders with very limited offensive games in which they rely on their athleticism. That's Bill Russell's game and back when the league was averaging nearly 119 points and 70+ rebounds, a stat line of 19 points and 24 rebounds would not sound as great had he played today. Also, the stats were heavily inflated. His best season statistically was 1965, when he averaged 15.0 points and 24. Mathematically, that statline translated to 2015 would turn into 13.5 points a game, 15.8 rebounds a game. Factor in the fact that the Centers are stronger and more athletic, there are less shots going up, and more rules keeping him out of the lane, that line would most likely looking more like 10 points a game and 13-15 rebounds. Those are basically the same numbers as what DeAndre Jordan was putting up last season as he put up 11.5 points and 15 rebounds. He is very great passing skills, but that's really all that seperates him from the other centers that I have listed. And his free throw percentage was also pretty bad as it was at a career 56%. He won so many rings because he had a team like no body else in the league had. It's the equivelent of one team today with the talent of the Miami Heat and having 9 other teams having the talent of the Sacremento Kings. 11 rings is not something he would accomplish in any other era, especially because of the tea, that he had. He is a great only because of the time he played, but as a player, he wasn't very different from most defensive/athletic centers.(Anthony Davis is not a Center) http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Bill Russell is the most overrated "great" in Basketball

When you mention the modern day NBA, you mentioned big men such as Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan, Ben Wallace, and Andre Drummond. I can grant you the evolution of the game and as a result the players are in much better condition and they are stronger and more leaner. However some of these men, especially Wallace and Drummond, struggle (or struggled in Wallace's case) to be NBA All-Stars, never mind being considered the most dominating players in the game today. Even a case could be made that Dwight Howard might not be the best center in the game today, that title should go to Anthony Davis of New Orleans. When you compare their numbers head to head Russell is the strongest of the four. In per game averages Russell is 2nd in PPG, and 1st in APG and Total Rebounds Per Game. Also on that list, Russell has the 2nd highest career free throw percentage, a mark most highly criticize about the modern bigs of the NBA. Russell's Eleven Rings also out last the three of them combined, Ben Wallace is the only member of that group with a Championship. Russell is purely one of the best to play the game from an iconic standpoint and the numbers make him great. http://www.basketball-reference.com...= http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Bill Russell is the most overrated "great" in Basketball

When determining how good a players is, rings are a poor argument. And like I said, rebounding was inflated. Teams in the 60's were averaging 70 rebounds a game (average is closer to 50 today). There were so many poor possessions, it was a faster paced game so there were so many shots which made rebounding so much easier. Not to mention that the people he were getting rebounds over weren't as big, strong, and athletic as guys like Dwight Howard, Deandre Jordan, Ben Wallace, and Andre Drummond. The number wouldn't be as high if he played in a later era because there is absolutely no way that he would be able to averaged 20-25 rebounds for multiple seasons. His offensive game was pretty weak as he, as a center averaged about 45%, a percentage that would be beyond medicre today for someone who doesn't shoot jumpshots. If you inserted him into todays game, he would be similar on the offensive end to DeAndre Jordan and mostly score on putbacks and lobs. He was a very good playmaker, rebounder but defense is the only aspect of his game that I would label as "great". http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Bill Russell is the most overrated "great" in Basketball

First before we look at Russell's 11 rings, as many as Kobe and Jordan combined, Bill Russell's career numbers are worthy of an all-time great. Currently Russell is 2nd all-time in rebounds with 21,620 trailing only his rival Wilt Chamberlain, who has slightly 2,300 more than Russell. Russell I would assume would be in the Top 5 all-time in blocks, however, blocks were not first recorded until 1973-74 , five years after Russell retired. Also I mentioned the eleven rings, a career achievement that will never be matched in any professional sport. I find it incredible that he would not be considered an all-time great, not just in basketball, but all Four American Professional Sports. http://espn.go.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Bill Russell is the most overrated "great" in Basketball

During the time that Bill Russell played, rebounding and scoring stats were heavily inflated versus how they are right now. This guy consistently shot under 45% as a center, dipping under 40% at some points. Great defender, good rebounder, (His best rebounding season equates to about 16.2 boards a game today) bad offensive game. Throw him in today's game and this guy looks like he'd be DeAndre Jordan but better at rebounding and defense.
Television Causes More Good than Harm

According to the resolution, Pro must argue that television causes more good than harm. I have outlined a few categories below. 1. Communication: Weather reports, national tragedy, or sports news, television is an efficient and effective communicator. Because it’s able to carry information almost immediately, its consumers can benefit from this immediacy, which might be particularly important during a sudden inclement weather event. 2. Moral Conscience: The most effective way to confront the first world with tragedy is to transmit it directly to their screens through documentaries and news specials on television. These programs can inspire people to take up a worthy cause or give money to a charity, but even if it doesn’t, it can instill a general awareness to people about certain issues like poverty or environmental degradation " and at the very least inspire them to vote. Television is also an excellent way to grease the wheels of our civil justice system. Many people who have had their lives and health damaged through the irresponsible decisions of corporations do not even know they could be entitled to compensation until they see lawyers explaining concepts like Mesothelioma or medical malpractice on television. 3. Social Progress: Just like a television can inspire someone’s interest in a cause, it can be used as a tool to create empathy for a particular group of people by simply showing that that group isn’t "immoral" or "sinful." I think the case and point would be shows like Glee and Modern Family, which depict healthy, fully functioning gay adults. http://www.lifesitenews.com...... 4. Political Accountability: While 24/7 news organizations have much dramatized our political process to its detriment, we tend to ignore the fact that these organizations have also undertaken an enormous effort to make citizens interested and updated on regular activities in our government. As a result, scandals break faster and harder, and while people can go overboard sometimes, abuses of power incite more outrage and invite larger political repercussions. 5. Justice: Whether television helps catch criminals or find missing children by posting their pictures, this will not be a benefit easily replaced by another medium or technology in the near future. Consider recently, the parents of the abducted Roma girl will be reunited with their child because they first saw pictures of the little girl on television. http://www.theguardian.com......