BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty

"...murder is the unlawful killing of a person. If they law sentences someone to death, it wouldn't be unlawful murder, but a lawful execution." As truthful as this is how is it fair we are holding our government to different laws? Why is it fair to spread the message "You cannot kill unless you are an "important" person" important meaning you are on the government or a heightened place in authority as such? The government officials are only going to be trialled toward the death penalty if the killing was not in the name of "justice". "...The concept of justice is based on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the concepts of moral correctness based on law, equity, ethics, rationality, religion, and fairness...." http://en.wikipedia.org... How is bringing one's demise morally fair or ethical? How is it promoting equality if the government are allowed to kill? "...Christianity has been the cause of many terrible stuff happening, such as the Salem Witch Trials and The Spanish Inquisition, just to name a few..." In this statement has is the key word. Times have changed. We are human, religious or not. We make mistakes, we correct ourselves, we move on aspiring and striving for better. The death penalty is not bringing us anything but more hate and anger. "If we adopted this maxim, where would it end? "You kill my son; I kill yours." "You rape my daughter; I rape yours." "You mutilate my body; I mutilate yours." And we would pursue this course, despite the lack of any reason to believe it will protect us even if it is clear that occasionally the victim of our official barbarism will be innocent." States Cuomo [ http://www.nydailynews.com... ]
The Death Penalty

RebuttalCon's Opening Statement1.) Con claims that when the government executes someone, they become murderers. This is not true. In almost any definition you check, murder is the unlawful killing of a person. If they law sentences someone to death, it wouldn't be unlawful murder, but a lawful execution.2.) We do hold government officials to the same standards. If a government official commits murder, ideally they are subject to the same punishment that a normal person gets if they commit murder.3.) In the child example, although I didn't fully understand it, I will give my rebuttal. The murderer of the child's sibling would be subject to the death penalty, as stated in my argument from the previous round, "If one deprives someone of their human rights, than they forfeit their human rights".4.) Yes, accidental executions are a tragedy. That is why we must reform the death penalty, not get rid of it entirely. An example would be Christianity. In the past, Christianity has been the cause of many terrible stuff happening, such as the Salem Witch Trials and The Spanish Inquisition, just to name a few. But, instead of getting rid of Christianity all together, after much reformation, we were able to make it an acceptable (though with some quirks) ideology.Rebuttal to Con's Rebuttal1.) First of all, if we are executing somebody, there is no need for a "humane" way to kill them. For when they killed someone else (which is inhumane), they forfeited their rights to a humane death. But, a humane way to kill someone would be to cause no pain.2.) It is fair to kill someone who murdered another person.3.) A very easy way to kill someone would be a simple bullet to the head. There would be almost no pain, and it would take an instant. (http://kotaku.com...)4.) Murderers should not even have a lifetime in prison. Why should the government pay for the livelihood of a person who has committed murder? Why should tax dollars go towards keeping that person incarcerated? Instead, the best solution (do to reasons in the previous round) would be to execute them.
The Death Penalty

If burning and beheading is inhumane way to kill why are we stating some ways are not? Dead is dead, it does not matter how the victim is killed they are still brought to an end. There is no humane way to kill. If this suspected murderer killed their victim with lethal drugs would that be passed off as humane? Of course not yet, if it is the government who do so should all laws of humanity be thrown out the window? How is this thought of as fair? "The 2006 execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, by a so-called 'humane' lethal injection, took 34 minutes and required two doses. Other methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and beheading. The nature of these deaths only continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence and does not alleviate the pain already suffered by the victims" family." Argues Amnesty.org [ http://www.amnesty.org.au... ] "The death penalty is degrading. It turns states into prescription drug abusers, killing prisoners with drugs like sodium thiopental that manufacturers are on record as stating should only be used to healing purposes." Is another argument made on another page of amnesty.org [http://blog.amnestyusa.org... ] I do not believe that these criminals should walk free around us but they should, however, still keep their lives. I"m proposing that a worthy punishment is a lifetime sentence and, possibly, community service.
The Death Penalty

"Death Penalty- "The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. "" Murder is counted as a capital crime therefore the death penalty must be put into place. The death penalty does not lower the number of murders but raise them. The person sentencing the murderer to death is therefore, to an extent, a murderer, that person arranging the death is now, also, a murderer and the person who has been given the job is now a murderer. Why, then, must they not perish also? You may fight that they are doing their job but so are hitmen and assassins, yet, the death penalty would certainly count for them. "The death penalty is murder by the government. As a nation, we have prided ourselves in our government, its justice and truth. However, can we continue to call our government fair if we do not hold it to the same rules we do its people? Murder by a citizen will have consequences, yet a government-approved "murder is not only acceptable, but enforceable. What message do we send the American people, and other countries, for that matter, if we continue to be a "nation that kills its citizens, a nation that enforces the most barbaric form of punishment? "" [as stated by teen ink . http://www.teenink.com...... paragraph 5] If we are raising children to this law what is to stop them believing that one turn deserves another? If a child was being unruly and violent on the playground what is to stop that child that violence beyond self-defence is alright? Children are more intelligent then they are often given credit for but they are swayed easily also and morals you learn as a child often stay with you throughout life. If a supposed child who grew up thinking this is a valid moral had the death of a sibling through murder is it not possible they would, thinking it's moral, murder a family member of the murderer or the murderer themselves? We then have another murderer, and 2 more murders [the victim of this new murderer and the murderer of this murderer], that could have been avoided. Last of all the death penalty is irreversible. If the accused murderer is wrongly accused we have lost an innocent life. An example is Cameron Todd Willingham from Texas. He was executed in 2004 before it was discovered he was innocent. As the death penalty is final, there is not time to prove the accused innocent after the judge's decision. " District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan "argued against the death penalty: "In brief, the Court found that the best available evidence indicates that, on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence "often does not emerge until long after their convictions. It is therefore fully foreseeable that in enforcing the death penalty a meaningful number of innocent people will be executed who otherwise would eventually be able to prove their innocence. "" [ . http://www.teenink.com... ]
The Death Penalty

Question: The Death Penalty Should not be Abolished. Rules:1. ) Con agrees to support the notion that the Death Penalty Should be Abolished. 2. ) The BOP is shared3. ) Con agrees to forfeit the last round4. ) FormatRound 1Pro- RulesCon- Opening StatementRound 2Pro- Opening StatementCon- RebuttalsRound 3Pro- RebuttalsCon- RebuttalsRound 4Pro- RebuttalsCon- Closing StatementRound 5Pro- Closing StatementCon- Waives Round5. ) DefinitionsDeath Penalty- "The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. ". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Abolished- "Formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution). ". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...6.)
parental ambition causes increase in pressure on children

Though parental pressure is a part of the problem, it is in no way the cause. There are a lot of things in this equation, increased homework being another, and hormones. But I would argue there is one factor that is the main problem and the cause of many of the others: Society's pressure. There was a time where school was a privilege, or just not a big deal. School was secondary in life, but not now. High school dropouts are seen as a problem for a reason even though for most of history no one cared. People aren't hiring people without education now, school is seen as the only path in life instead of helpful. This turns school from a safe place to experiment with life and learn, to a place if you fail you will end up in the lowest position is society. This attitude makes failing in school at all seem hopeless, which causes parents to act that way along with almost everyone else. It doesn't help that people constantly tell students that it just gets harder. That gets rid of hope, they are thrown to the sharks and if they survive they will live in the snake pit.
Drinking Age.

"When someone turns 18 they gain a multitude of rights and responsibilities. You are allowed to serve and die for your country; however, you cannot enjoy a beer with friends."Why should drinking be one of those rights?"While it is true, there are a lot of accidents associated with teenage drinking. An 18 year old drinking age would allow a safer drinking environment, for teens who will most likely drink anyway. There would be no need to hide the fact that a teenager has been drinking, and there will be no shame in seeking help when under the influence of alcohol. This would cut down on drunk driving in teens."The same could be said for a 16 year old drinking age.
Drinking Age.

The drinking age should be 18 for multiple reasons. When someone turns 18 they gain a multitude of rights and responsibilities. You are allowed to serve and die for your country; however, you cannot enjoy a beer with friends. While it is true, there are a lot of accidents associated with teenage drinking. An 18 year old drinking age would allow a safer drinking environment, for teens who will most likely drink anyway. There would be no need to hide the fact that a teenager has been drinking, and there will be no shame in seeking help when under the influence of alcohol. This would cut down on drunk driving in teens.
Drinking Age.

The comparisons used where X and Y are variables does not apply because anything can be replaced in terms of X. The difference between alcohol and pot is that alcohol is legal in all states where pot is not. This argument does not apply to drugs in any sense because they are illegal. Therefore the extra criteria is that alcohol is already legal. If pot were currently legal than the age would be 18 because 18 year olds are recognized adults and it would be consistent, but this is not the case so it does not pertain. My earlier quote that "alcohol is illegal regardless" was applied to when you stated that "Some might say that you don't have the right to do something that might put other in risk" (round 2). 21 year olds assume that responsibility and once again at 18 you are allowed many rights including the right to own a gun which is a possible. You stated that you were "pointing out that if existing legality constrained [my] debate [I] couldn't argue about anythings since it is currently illegal to drink at 18." Existing Legality can be used because we are not arguing if alcohol should be legal, but instead who it should be legal to. The inconsistency lies in attaining responsibility. 21 is an arbitrary number in that it is a random number if you were to argue that you should be recognized as an adult at 21 than the drinking age would be 21. It is inconsistent to say that you are an adult at 18 yet not old enough to be able to drink. Do you think it is consistent to say that 18 year olds are adult enough to have the responsibility of serving in the army and owning a gun but are not adult enough to drink alcohol? Show me why it would be consistent.
Drinking Age.

"No, I understand that 16 year olds can understand proper moderation. The key difference between 16 and 18 year olds which is being missed is that an 18 year in the eyes of the law are considered legal adults who can make their own informed and responsible decisions." You have used two principles so far, from your statement here I infer that you believe that when both of these are true about X, X should be legal at age Y. 1. People at age Y can understand the risks involved with X. 2, People are held legally responsible for their actions at age Y. This is true of X = pot, Y = 18. Do you wish to add another criteria to exclude pot? What is your justification for these principles? "Secondly, The quote "alcohol is legal regardless" is taken out of context. It is understood that it is not legal for 18 year olds or this argument would have no purpose." You were trying to use that fact to ignore the analogy to illegal drugs. i.e. your stated principles would apply to illegal drugs but you just want to confine the question to alcohol. I was pointing out that if existing legality constrained your debate you couldn't argue about anything since it is currently illegal to drink at 18. Therefore you are talking about what the law should be not what it is, which means you can't use existing law to justify your exclusions (or anything for that matter). "As a reminder this argument is saying that if there is a drinking age it should be 18. The main reason for this is consistency. 18 year olds are given other rights and responsibilities as an adult, and as an adult they should be allowed to drink." Just because they are given other rights and responsibilities at a certain age does not logically imply that they should be given more. You are going to have to be more specific. Which responsibilities correlate to which rights, show me that it is inconsistent.
Drinking Age.

No, I understand that 16 year olds can understand proper moderation. The key difference between 16 and 18 year olds which is being missed is that an 18 year in the eyes of the law are considered legal adults who can make their own informed and responsible decisions. A 16 year old however is still under the protection of their parents in that the parents take responsibility for their kids actions. An 18 year old no longer has a legal guardian because he is entrusted to know his or her consequences. Secondly, The quote "alcohol is legal regardless" is taken out of context. It is understood that it is not legal for 18 year olds or this argument would have no purpose. That quote is showing how alcohol unlike drugs is legal regardless as to whether or not it should be. As a reminder this argument is saying that if there is a drinking age it should be 18. The main reason for this is consistency. 18 year olds are given other rights and responsibilities as an adult, and as an adult they should be allowed to drink.
Drinking Age.

There's no misunderstanding I've been drinking alcohol since I was 15 and I've never gotten drunk. The law isn't there for people like me. "18 year olds are capable of understanding this moderation and can use alcohol for enjoyable but not necessarily destructive purposes." Ceded, but do you also admit that 16 year olds are also capable of understanding moderation is important? "Alcohol is legal regardless." Not for 18 year olds... "I am saying that someone who is 18 should be able to enjoy this just as much as someone who is 21." Why should they? You've said they are responsible for their acts, but that is true whether they drink alcohol or smoke weed. You've said they can understand moderation is important but so can people a good deal younger than they are. If those are the only two principles you are using then 16 year olds should be able to take drink if they can answer a moderation questionnaire or something and 18 year olds should be able to take whatever drug they want. Do you agree with that? "Secondly, 18 year olds are expected to understand and accept the consequences they will face as adults and alcohol should be no different. A 16 year old is not expected to take on the responsibilities of an adult as compared to an 18 year old." In other words the 'understands moderation' is not enough by itself to justify legality. Presumably it must be combined with the other criteria then?
Drinking Age.

Firstly, I think there is a misunderstanding of alcohol. While it is true alcohol can alter someone's mind, it like all things must be had in moderation. The emphasis of my argument is not that alcohol is a good or bad thing, but that 18 year olds are capable of understanding this moderation and can use alcohol for enjoyable but not necessarily destructive purposes. The argument previously put forward that "Some might say that you don"t have the right to do something that might put others in risk even if it"s only indirectly." while true is not pertaining to the argument I am trying to discuss. Alcohol is legal regardless. I am saying that someone who is 18 should be able to enjoy this just as much as someone who is 21. Secondly, 18 year olds are expected to understand and accept the consequences they will face as adults and alcohol should be no different. A 16 year old is not expected to take on the responsibilities of an adult as compared to an 18 year old.
Drinking Age.

Ok, so it sounds like if someone is 'responsible for their actions' then they can take risks like possibly impair their judgment. But that's not absolute, obviously taking illegal drugs is a risk of impairing judgment yet people are not permitted to do this despite being fully responsible for their actions. Theoretically you could include alcohol as a mind altering drug, the only reason it's not banned is because of tradition and the resistance to prohibition. Alcohol in context of current law should then be seen as an exception, something that is specially allowed. It is already subject to far less restrictions than other drugs. Why should this principle of responsibility = right to risk impaired judgment be further applied to alcohol consumption? What is the justification for this principle? Some might say that you don’t have the right to do something that might put others in risk even if it’s only indirectly. "Most 16 year olds are in their sophomore or junior year of high school and may not have learned to appreciate the full consequences of alcohol." 18 year olds may not have learned appreciate the full consequences of alcohol. [hec there are some 50 year olds who haven't]
Drinking Age.

18 year old people are considered legal adults. They are considered responsible for their actions. 18 year olds can be put to death for something they have done because they are accountable for their action. There is no reason that an 18 year old cannot be given the responsibility of being able to enjoy alcohol. This does not apply for sixteen year olds, for one they are not considered adults in almost all aspects except driving. As a sixteen year old you may not have learned all the responsibilities of driving. Most 16 year olds are in their sophomore or junior year of high school and may not have learned to appreciate the full consequences of alcohol.
Watchmaker argument is a bad argument for the existence of God

Omar2345’s version of the watchmaker argument is a strawmanYou acknowledge that my version of the argument is “a much fairer watchmaker analogy” and then go on to present your own, Weaker, Version. You need to engage with the argument in its strongest form, Particularly if it’s the one your opponent has presented, Otherwise your response is nothing but a strawman. Moreover, Your version isn’t even a fair representation of the Paley/Wikipedia quote you opened your second round with. Complexity is not directly referred to anywhere in that block of text, In fact it starts by asking where a stone came from (which would be an odd example to use if William Paley was trying to find an example of complexity in nature! ) Therefore, All you’ve done is shown that a weak version, Touted by some creationists and atheists unaware of its original form/context, Is bad. It isn’t a false analogyAs I already explained in my opening round, The analogy of a clockwork universe wasn’t one Paley came up with – he was simply incorporating the generally accepted metaphor used by the top scientists of his day. The argument would be that because things such as the motion of the planets follow precise, Predictable, Equations (rather than a God constantly nudging them into place) then the universe runs like clockwork. An argument isn’t fallacious simply by virtue of being an analogy; whilst inductive arguments have their limitations, I don’t think we can dismiss all such arguments (otherwise we’d spend our lives thinking any unknown must be a special case or an exception to the rule! )Nor does your ‘who designed the designer’ argument work – it would be like saying that a watch doesn’t have a designer on the grounds that is raises the question “who made the watchmaker”. As God is transcended, God exists outside of time and therefore does not require a beginning/cause. It isn’t a false causeAre you saying that all inductive arguments are bad? Firstly, The yourlogicalfallacyis link provide is related to finding correlations in sets of data (which is completely irrelevant to what you then go on and say! ) Secondly, Most inductive argument follows the form ‘we know x is true in all the cases we can perceive/observe, Therefore let’s assume it is true in similar situations we can’t observe/perceive’. I don’t see why the watchmaker argument is worse than any other form of inductive reasoning. It isn’t self-refutingAs explained above, Any argument raises further questions and therefore this can’t be the criterion for a bad argument! To summariseOmar 2345’s strawman version of the watchmaker arguiment might be bad, However that doesn’t mean all presentations of it are. Moreover, The argument’s weaknesses (e. G being an inductive argument) might stop it from being a great argument however this doesn’t automatically make it a bad one or allow us to completely dismiss it.