BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment

so first I'm going to clear a few things up in this round first my opponent thinks that I am claiming that the sanctity of life and natural law are the same things but there not. my value is sanctity of life this is what I believe should be the most valued ideal. my criterion is natural law that doesn't mean its what should be valued but instead it is how we obtain my value. if we act out of respect for the natural law then the sanctity of life will be achieved. next he talk about my quote about the cop this was a response to his value or "angle" as he called it he stated "if justice requires punishment of wrongdoers then any punishment can be seen to be a valid part of a just society, however severe or apparently 'wrong' it appears at a first glance." I'm going to extend and clarify my point on this. I'm not saying that were going to go around killing people back talking cops. its saying that just people may have punishments put on them that aren't proportional which goes against natural law and the social contract next he talks about how I am twisting this debate to where the con has no chance of winning but this is also not true. I am presenting philosophical ideal from great philosophers both pre and post modernist. this is supposed to be a philosophy debate. it is impossible for my opponent to win this debate if he doesn't present any ideals to clash with mine. next he talks about how my definition of a just society is abusive but he failed to offer a counter definition so we have to look to it. now I'm going to build my case 1. if we chose to use the death penalty on people. (I will use murders for this example) then we have committed the same crime as the criminal and the entire society is just as unjust of the murder. so it is impossible for a just society to use the death penalty. 2. the death penalty doesn't fall under the social contract. many philosophers have made there version of a social contract. philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and niche all agree that if someone does something that the society deems morally unacceptable that they be subject to punishment, but they all agree that the sovereign doesn't have the right to kill individuals. 3. sanctity of life is a categorical imperative- Kant (maybe the most renounced philosopher) devised a system of what he called categorical imperative. these are what is considered the most moral acts. he suggest that we apply natural law to decide if something is a categorical imperative. since the right to life is apart of natural law we have a duty to preserve it if possible.
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment

My opponent is trying to twist this debate to be absolutely indisputable altogether.In round one he defined a just society as one in which the decisions made have to be morally right. He then declared the what the morality should be based on is the sanctity of life or, as he calls it, 'natural law'.Then I said that if someone were to break this value and kill someone, they are clearly no longer part of a just society for their decision was not morally right and therefore should be treated as an intruder into the just society as opposed to a member of it.Somehow, my opponent interprets this as me stating that "the sovereign could go around killing anybody for the smallest crimes. People could be executed for something as minimal as mouthing off to a cop." This is blatantly false and a very meagre attempt at a straw man fallacy.He then somehow concludes that "Just because someone commits an immoral act doesn't mean that they are no longer a part of the just society" Well, if he were to define a just society as one in which all decision are morally right then clearly this would be a blatant contradiction in definitions if he then defined one who had made a morally incorrect decision as a member of a just society.Then he concludes stating that "they are subject to punishment as outlined by the social contract and in regards to natural law" I would like to point out that he is trying to make this debate irrefutable and this is very poor conduct for an instigator to do as if natural law must be followed even if one poses a major threat to it then that would make it 100% impossible to be con here. This is a very blatant attempt at trying to hijack the debate to make it a dead end for con.
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment

First my opponents value is completely illogical. Based of his value the sovereign could go around killing anybody for the smallest crimes. People could be executed for something as minimal as mouthing off to a cop. Also if you could expand on your value in your next speech because I think your valuing retributive justice and if you are the ideals of retributive just specifically say that the punishment has to be proportional So basically for this speech just cross apply my argument that it makes u no better then the criminal. Once we kill him are we not guilty of a crime our self's? Does it now make it morally permissible for someone to kill us? Also as I stated in my first speech the actions of the criminal have already been committed there's nothing we can do to change that, the only thin we can do now is decide what is the most moral thing for us to do as a society. Now to refute my opponents case. Just because someone commits an immoral act doesn't mean that they are no longer a part of the just society it just means they are subject to punishment as outlined by the social contract and in regards to natural law
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment

I shall be coming from the angle that if justice requires punishment of wrongdoers then any punishment can be seen to be a valid part of a just society, however severe or apparently 'wrong' it appears at a first glance.For this debate, pro defines a just society as one that makes morally right decisions.The value on which to base the morality of the decisions the society makes would be the sanctity of life.The criterion for the debate was that the natural laws inherently granted to all human beings should be held as valuable in a just society.So then, I must ask you, in a society that upholds sanctity of life as its core moral then in what way could one see a murderer as deserving of the right to live anymore? Have they not inherently displayed themselves as no longer a member of this just society if they have broken the core tenet of their entire value system? Is it not therefore right to eliminate this individual before many lives might potentially be taken? Do not be so naive as to assume that a murderer will only kill one person before they die, especially not if they learn that all they have to do is sit tight a few years in a prison cell and get out free to kill again.What would truly display that sanctity of life is the most imperishable moral of this society would be the explain that any who wish to break this moral value will be considered invaders to their way of life, no longer members of the society, thus no longer valid for the granted rights of the humans of that society, and instead as an intruder into their land which must be eliminated by any means necessary so as to avoid further lives being lost, lives of those who are clearly entitled to their right to life as you say.
One-Word debate

There will be restrictions on the type of word you can use though. Rules1. The word must be appropriate and must not contain any extra meaning. 2. If the word has multiple meanings, then all of the meanings must be appropriate. 3. The characters of the word must be over 4. 4. The word must also be a word that the person already knows and not a word that he will learn later on.5. Any Word that defies one of the rules shall be considered as a forfeited round. This is to prevent any unnecessary arguing over the opponents word. 6. If the word meets the rules then there may not any negative comments toward whatsoever.7. The limit of characters shall be 15 to prevent overly large words that either me or my opponent may use.8. To provide voters with their own chance to cast votes of their own opinions, no comments may be posted in the comments section that may influence the voters decision in any way. This debate has two rounds because we will each post our one word in the second round.
Royalpaladin should be made into jerky (full resolution inside debate)

Note, this isn't supposed to be offensive to anyone. It's just a joke. Full Resolution: The member known as Royalpaladin should be killed and made into jerky for debate.org members to eat. No semantics. First round is just for acceptance. No redefining anything or taking another position. You are Con for the original resolution. The only thing you may say in the first round is "I accept." Anything else will be a forfeit.
DIE HARD RON PAUL FANS ARE ANNOYING AS F*CK!!! (There I said it!!!)

My opponent seems to think I am preaching. This is false. I am spreading the facts. Also, I did rebut his arguments. I showed how blind he is. Literally blind. As for these pictures, these are clearly biased. Anyone that has been in contact with the OBAMAVIRUS should be treated with a dose of the light.
DIE HARD RON PAUL FANS ARE ANNOYING AS F*CK!!! (There I said it!!!)

I would like to respond to the Con's rebuttals, but he hasnt given any rebuttals..... He has come to preach about Ron Paul (as predicted) and has dropped all arguments. Seriously I cant respond, he hasnt given any rebuttals. But I will post some funny pictures to see if the con responds in a civilized or ron-paul-fan-girl-ish manner
DIE HARD RON PAUL FANS ARE ANNOYING AS F*CK!!! (There I said it!!!)

These comments sound exactly like the type that would come from someone who is blinded to the truth. To say that Ron Paul fans are crazy and annoying shows that people in Any Merica, Especially A Merica,(B Merica accepts the light) need to open their eyes. This brings me up to my next point: The Human Eye. When you look at the eye, you see greater complexity than even the computer you are typing on. The eye captures images, and i believe that something can go wrong with the process. This is my detailed analysis of the eye with and without said problem:http://www.flickr.com... As you can see, the mutated eye has a distinct difference: OBAMA. Obama, during his term as president, has made a secret plot to inject the "OBAMAVIRUS" into the teeth when people go to the dentist. The virus travels to the eye, where it lies dormant until the next campaign. When the timing is right, the obamavirus takes control of the images the eye sends to the brain. It seeks out the candidate that is most likely to win, and sends bad images such as: HE IS NOT A LEADER CAPABLE OF LEADING US OUT OF THE PENGUIN AGE AND INTO THE CAMEL AGE. This obviously means that the people who support Ron Paul haven't gone to the dentist, and therefore can have Our Lord And Savior Ron Paul revealed to them. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com... Obviously, this man understands how AMERICA needs RON PAUL. Did you know that Ron Paul can spell Lunar Op? This CLEARLY means that Ron Paul comes from the moon, and is bringing the ideas that Moon Societies have come up with for millennia. "On any site it can be shown that most Ron Paul fans are crazy because on any article about Ron Paul, including those that do NOT mention Ron Paul, you will always find irrational people posting in support of Ron Paul, never anybody normal or level headed. This then shows that most Ron Paul fans are indeed psychotic and annoying as f*ck"An important flaw of the Obamavirus is that if you get caught off-guard too many times by Ron Paul, the mind overthrows the virus. This means that the people who you call "Psychotic" are really trying to help you.YOU ARE SICK. GET HELP NOW. RON PAUL WILL CURE YOU. GIVE INTO HIS SALVATION.rfgfgdsfdgfretnghtrgsfvbnmkutyyrgtfershjkiujyhtgrfeds
DIE HARD RON PAUL FANS ARE ANNOYING AS F*CK!!! (There I said it!!!)

We live in a world where there is a new breed of humans coming out into the light. They are annoying, indifferent, refuse to accept facts, think everyone else is a retard or an idiot, and have a remarkable talent of believing in the absurd. They are die hard Ron Paul supporters, and yes, they annoy the f*ck out of everyone. There are some people who think Ron Paul has some good ideas, or is a unique candidate, but those arent the people im talking about. Im talking about people who think that Ron Paul is Jesus himself, the ones who think that everything he says is true and would add it to the Bible if they could. They are the ones who have done more damage to Ron Paul's credibility................. than Ron Paul. So what is this debate about?Im looking for someone who is willing to debate that Die-Hard Ron Paul fans are perfectly normal people and that everybody else in the world is just acting irrational and are blind to whatever the f*ck Ron Paul fans say that is happening....Parameters1) Whoever accepts this debate must start round 1 by saying "I Support Ron Paul but believe he will never be President"2) Annoying is defined as bothersome, irritating, bothersome, rude, etc. No semantics over the definition. Let the debate begin.....
The Supreme Court's 2010 decision Citizens United should be repealed.

As stated earlier, Super PACs are formed for the purpose of promoting special interest, party affiliation, or for a specific candidate. Recalling that though they cannot contribute directly to a candidate they have no cap on contributions or spending. Many of these Super Pacs are formed by members of congress or ex members; and run by former campaigned organizers. At present 70% of all money collected and spent by Super Pacs are funded by conservative groups. Much of the funds are "dark money", untraceable due to minimum recording standards. In the case of state elections contributors can cross state lines. Under the current situation, it"s easier to hide the source of incoming money, especially from foreign sources, which has been illegal since 1966. Many reported contributions cannot be traced back to their source due to donors masking themselves behind indescript corporate entities. In the last election, $1 million dollars was donated to a Super Pact for Mitt Romney. These dollars came from an Asian, Indian majority holder of a Canadian Insurance Investment firm. Campaigned finance law is vague when it comes to subsidies of foreign governments verses individuals. Further still, are the sketchy sources and lax regulation of US Corporations owned by foreign entities. Chinese money was a root of a scandal during the Clinton campaign even before the Citizens United ruling. In the race for money lines get blurred. Recall Romney"s comments recorded during a fund raising speech regarding 47% of A American"s don"t pay taxes, and his remarks at an Iowa State Fair that "corporations are people, my friend;" insinuating that individuals don"t matter is telling and appears to be a trend with several candidates. Campaign financing through Super Pacs has exponentially escalated since Citizens United. Here is the big rub; there are no laws against candidates promoting fund raising efforts for a particular Super Pac. It"s a give me the money scenario. Both parties and candidates are guilty in cajoling billionaire or corporate donors toward their agendas which creates a quid pro quos situation when it comes to favorable consideration on a wide variety of legislation and policy. As individual citizens, we do not have the financial means to off-set this type of monetary influence. For those who have an understanding of economics, or those who were adults from the 80"s to now, will understand that this country is turning into an oligarchy during the lifespan of a single individual; the Citizens United ruling has hastened that process.
The Supreme Court's 2010 decision Citizens United should be repealed.

Before the ruling various corporations, special interest, trade unions and non-profits could contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs) as a collective voice to promote their agendas. PACs have been around for some time. There are some single donor limits to PACs, as well as limits on spending directly to a political party, individual politician or to other PACs. In addition, there are rules disclosing donors. However, there are no limits how their money is spent outside these restrictions. What this enables PACs to do is to run independent political campaigns without direct financial affiliation. After the Citizens United ruling, Super PACs, which have exponentially grown in number, cannot make any contributions to parties or individual campaigns, nor as with PACs, do not have limits on independent political spending. Differing from PACs, they are devoid of limits on donations made by any group or individual. They too have donor reporting regulations but, loop holes allow late in the election cycle contributions to be disclosed after an election is over. Herein lies the problem, unlimited donations. In the last elections cycle Super PACs have out spent more than all PACs collectively. Billionaires, large corporations and financial interests are not only are filling the coffers but, also creating Super PACs. Most of this money has been used to buy negative advertising. Just think of the preponderance of information disseminated to the public against the lesser funds of regular PACs. This provides too much one sided information without competing or contradictory viewpoints. This has undue sway toward the public and affects individual political decision making; as well as negates the influence of regular Americans who make small donations to support their preferred candidates.
The Supreme Court's 2010 decision Citizens United should be repealed.

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United should be repealed. In brief Summary: The Supreme Court decided that the voice of corporations constitutes a collective of voices and as such, should have the same rights as an individual under the First Amendment. Restricting the use of money in order to speak is violation of free speech. Though this seems sensible on face value, it has ramifications on how money influences the government and how the dissemination of information is brought to the public. With PACs and super PACs, funded by corporations and wealthy interests; enormous amounts of resources are available to spread their message; pro or con on those running for office, or opinions regarding legislation. But, in turn, those individuals or groups not possessing such resources do not have the ability to do the same. The weight of information is not balanced, especially with respects to the political process in how citizens make decisions.
Population is a Concern

"May I point out you already conceeded and even said "congratulations on the free win" in the comments?"Not a concession, just speculation. "You state that the population will start declining while the population rises to 10 billion by the year 2100. Both arguments cross eachother out."I did not state anything myself other than what the studies from my sources concluded. The studies showed that after reaching 10 billion the earths population would stabilize and begin to decrease because of human trends in more developed countries. The more a country develops the less people reproduce. "Furthermore, you state the laws of the universe, which has nothing to do with this debate."The laws of the universe do have to do with this debate. The population is part of the universe, you and I are part of the universe, and even your tricky resolution is a part of the universe. So the universe certainly has to do with this debate. "You also said that the Earth would become uninhabitable, which is because of population. Another concession."When I spoke about the earth becoming uninhabitable I did not say because of population. Let me clarify. You know that big hot thing in the sky? The sun? Well interestingly enough that big hot ball of gas is getting hotter as time goes on. It is estimated that in about 1 billions years the heat from the sun will make it impossible to inhabit the earth as surface temperatures would rise killing plant life and therefore any surviving species. The population of earth is irrelevant because one day the earth will be gone. For humans though survival may be possible through the infinite universe. Before closing this off I'd like to point out how unfortunately subjective the resolution "population is a concern" is. People like Pro being born into the population concerns me. Whoa look at that I got a free win with out putting in any real work because some sad sucker accidentally accepted my debate before looking at it closer. Well I gave it my all and I hope that you see that just based on the studies I have provided and points on limited existence that population is not a concern. Thank you. World historical TFR (1950–2015)UN, medium variant, 2010 rev.[2] Years TFR 1950–1955 4.95 1955–1960 4.89 1960–1965 4.91 1965–1970 4.85 1970–1975 4.45 1975–1980 3.84 1980–1985 3.59 1985–1990 3.39 1990–1995 3.04 1995–2000 2.79 2000–2005 2.62 2005–2010 2.52 2010–2015 2.36 This graph shows that reproduction is not only slowing down but coming close to the point where it wont be a growing population. (1.9) [1]source: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Population is a Concern

You stated why we shouldn't be concerned, not why we aren't concerned. May I point out you already conceeded and even said "congratulations on the free win" in the comments?You state that the population will start declining while the population rises to 10 billion by the year 2100. Both arguments cross eachother out.Furthermore, you state the laws of the universe, which has nothing to do with this debate.You also said that the Earth would become uninhabitable, which is because of population. Another concession.You state that the universe is infinite so population is not a problem. In the first round I said "population on EARTH."I have proved my resolution that the population is a concern to the smallest extent. You stated that I would win if I prove that one person is concerned about the population. And I did, thus the resolution is met. Merry Christmas once again!
Population is a Concern

I did make main arguments. They fundamentally prove that population is not a concern. In fact nothing is really a concern. Something can be concerning but it inevitably is not a concern because we are all limited in existence. I think the only thing that would be a concern is if something as infinite as the universe were going to end. But alas we are talking about population. Something entirely subjective to an individuals own thoughts about it and because an individual who may be concerned is limited in existence and will one day be gone, there is no real concern. Pro claims that people in the future will be concerned but fails to recognize that in the next billion years the earth will become more and more uninhabitable until humans can no longer survive and die. Thus eliminating the concern. Or humans survive by traveling through space and find multiple new environments to inhabit and in that case population will not be a concern because with that population can expand to the ends of the universe. (there is no end). The population growth of the planet is actually slowing down overall and the UN expects the population to settle at around 8 - 10 billion in the year 2100. [1] Many experts are even saying that population will steadily decline before DECLINING. [2] [1] http://rhein.blogactiv.eu... [2] http://newsfeed.time.com...