BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

I appreciate my opponent's clarity, and that he took the time to define the terms he used. Jonathon defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being to another" - I feel that premeditated should be a keyword as well; preï¿½medï¿½iï¿½tate: to meditate, consider, or plan beforehand: to premeditate a murder. I mentioned in my previous argument that killings can happen for different reasons and is certainly immoral. But, in some cases people who commit a murder do so in self-defense, from emotional trauma caused by that person, or mental, physical, emotional, or even sexual abuse. Those people deserve something less severe than capital punishment and some need to get themselves help instead of being punished. Jonathon mentions in Contention 1 "One may argue that execution is wrong but how righteous is the killing of an innocent human being?" - that is one of the points I am trying to make. As mentioned, our justice system is far from perfect. Sometimes it is biased, corrupted, lawyers use trickery on the jury, the jury is not always trustworthy with choosing one's fate, innocent people are wrongfully accused for crimes they did not commit, some spend decades in jail until the truth finally comes out, and unfortunately, some die from execution before and if it does. Also in this paragraph, it is mentioned that the only "clear" solution is capital punishment, however, jail time for whatever is deserved of that crime seems like a fine solution, too. In Contention 2, he mentions that the death penalty is proportional because it is taking the life away from someone who took another's life away. But again I say, does killing someone for killing really teach a lesson? What if we were to rape a rapist for raping or kidnap a kidnapper? Killing someone for murder does not bring back the person(s) murdered. Also, lethal injection is not the primary punishment for all states that permit the death penalty; some still allow electrocution, lethal gas, or the firing squad, which all inflict much more pain than putting someone to sleep. Adding on, the suffering of a lifetime in jail is just as bad if not worse than capital punishment. In all seriousness, it is like when you were a kid, your parent told you to "go to your room and think about what you've done" but for several years, if not a lifetime. I realize that some criminals show no remorse for their crimes, but a large portion keep that guilt with them for the rest of their lives and constantly think about the harm they have done; guilt can truly eat a person alive, and even push someone towards killing his or herself or having suicidal thoughts. Plus, though they have a bed and 3 square meals, they have completely lost their freedom, families, jobs, and chances of improving their lives. On top of that, they are surrounded by criminals and possibly in fear of their own lives everyday. Furthermore, jail time is a better punishment than the death penalty and non-hypocritical as well.
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

Given the amount of space, I will present my case first and then present my rebuttals in the next round. Resolved: Capital Punishment should be illegal. In today's society there are many horrendous crimes committed by murderers, in my opinion, Capital Punishment is justifiable. It is for these reasons and those that follow that I am compelled to negate today's resolution. For clarification, I offer these definitions: Murder-The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being to another Capital Punishment-Punishment by death for a crime Contention 1: Murder is unnacceptable. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing from one human being to another. In today's society our laws condone good behavior and good character. Actions that violate the laws are usually bad. As mentioned earlier, murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, this is obviously not okay. So how do we go about handling something like this? Well, according to philosopher John Locke, "Once a man has initiated force against an innocent person, he has in effect declared that he does not live by the principle of individual rights. He does not wish to live among men as a rational being, but as a predator, to the detriment and destruction of all those around. Rights stem from man's nature as a rational being, and a man living irrationally has no rights." the only clear solution is capital punishment, especially since an inhumane crime has been committed. One may argue that execution is wrong but how righteous is the killing of an innocent human being? Contention 2: Capital Punishment is proportional for the most part, if it is not, it is usually in the murderer's favor. The death penalty is completely proportionate, when there is a murder, there is a victim who was killed before it was their time die, the same is done to the murderer. The murderer is given better treatment than the victim, they are placed in captivity for approximately 5-10 years, (which is clearly more than enough time to investigate a case to see if someone is guilty or not.) where they are fed 3 square meals a day (which is a lot more food than the homeless citizens of the U.S. have access to.) and when it is their time to be executed they are able to choose what they would like as their last meal. Did their victim have that option? No. There are horrendous murders committed that include stabbing, shooting, torturing, etc. and what is the consequence? A lethal injection that puts the inmate into a deep sleep before they are killed. Did the victim have the option to be put to sleep? No. They had to feel EVERYTHING. I would have more sympathy for the innocent people that are wrongly convicted if Capital Punishment were more brutal but it is not. People are put to sleep. Therefore I believe that Capital Punishment should remain legal.
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

First off, I would like to say that I am aware that 34 out of the 50 states allow the death penalty and this is appalls me. However, I did notice that my opponent lives in one of the states that allows it, Texas, and I am from New Jersey which does not. So, I recognize that possibly being a reason for our opposing views, but am still respectful of my opponent's views as well. I have noticed in my 18 years of life, that the justice system in our country is far from perfect. But, it is ridiculous how guilty people can walk free at times and the innocent can be executed when they are wrongly accused of a crime. Recently, a 17 year old boy named Trayvon Martin apparently looked "suspicious" and was murdered - even when young Trayvon was begging for his life. All the poor boy had on him was skittles, an iced tea, the clothes on his back, and a cell phone! The man who murdered him, named George Zimmermann, was part of the neighborhood watch in Florida, an area where the death penalty is allowed, and this man walks free for murder. Where is the justice in that? What about Troy Davis? He was executed by lethal injection in Georgia for a crime he "apparently" committed over 20 years ago, which was the shooting of an off-duty Savannah officer named Mark MacPhail. From the moment he was accused to the last minutes of his life, he still swore his innocence and was not even carrying a gun that night. Plus, there was the Casey Anthony trial, also in Florida. All of the signs pointed to her killing her baby, Caylee, but she walks away free, too. To this day, I still feel that cases like these are determined by bribery, tricks played by the lawyer, or by even racism, and Casey Anthony is an attractive, young, Caucasian female. These events are not the first times things like this has occurred in the U. S. It happens way too often, which is why we should not execute any criminals. After all our country has done to fix and improve "the system", these outrageous events should not still be occurring. Since, the legal system often has flaws, who is anyone to truly say whom deserves capital punishment and whom does not? More importantly, what exactly the justice of killing a killer? He or she should rot in jail for their crime if they commit such a murder. Plus, there are some people who kill out of crime of passion, not being able to take someone's physical/mental/emotional abuse anymore, to protect themselves, or because they have psychological problems and could not control themselves. Not saying that this makes what they have done alright at all, however, they deserve less of a punishment or possibly hospitalization and treatment for mental illness. Some are even executed for other things not even as severe as murder, which isn't even fair. So, what is it that makes capital punishment alright?
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

I am looking for someone to give a reasonable explanation(s) and arguments on why he or she feels that the death penalty should remain legalized in certain areas of the United States. Therefore, I will be arguing on why I do not agree with the death penalty. For this 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is only my second debate and compared to my last argument, I know this is going to be even more controversial, so, I'm not quite sure what to expect. First off, let me introduce myself. My name is Destinee Bayona and I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and majoring in Psychology. As a requirement for my Philosophy class I am taking, and for 15% of my overall grade, I must complete 3 debates throughout the semester, with this being my second so far. Each debate must be a maximum of 3,000 characters, for 5 rounds, and must be completed by April 1st. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own thoughts. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :)
Should beef banned in India

I accept. For Clarity's sake, I am an ex-Hindu, I am therefore am familiar personally with most customs and traditions of Hinduism. No Beef should not be banned in India. While yes the cow holds a deep religious sentiment among many people in India, it is completely unjustifiable to ban beef altogether. It is a gross negligence to the freedoms of all Indians because India is a secular state. Therefore, we shouldn't let the belief of the majority, subjugate the will of the entirety. With regards to your "Scientific Data", "'5 times more greenhouses gasses and 6 times more reactive nitrogen'". 5 and 6 times more what? Secondly, can you definitely link beef alone to any of those health problems.
Should beef banned in India

Yes Beef should be banned in India. As due to moral obligation and sentiments related to it of Hindus.Cow is considered as "Gau matta" or Cow as a mother, nobody wants to kill their mother in any circumstances. How it is possible to cut the mother of around 1028 Million just due to the taste of tongue. Spiritually we are bounded with certain rules,regulation and sentiments. We should follow them and try to maintain a healthy religious sentiment among different sect. Scientifically according to research cow meat produces around 5 times more green houses gases and 6 times more reactive nitrogen which is harmful as it will increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.After effects of eating a beef are cardiovascular disease,Types-2 diabetes and many other.So it is your choice how you take it to prevent the caw slaughter.
Is xbox better than PS4

If you mean by CPU, GPU. Xbox One X only beat Ps4 by 0. 2 GHz. Xbox does have I find it really difficult if you find a noticeable different since the fps I don't think would even by an extreme frames per second. From the second source it is not about how much GHz you have it is about how you use it. The Xbox One X 60 fps is less stable compared to the PS4 and both being outclassed by the PC. Which means if you care more about performance you should buy the PS4 pro. From the third video Xbox One X hits 44 fps whereas the lowest the PS4 Pro goes it 45fps. Performance is fairly close between the two but Xbox One X does have more quality in the games. Performance matters more then quality because having images load faster is more important then how good everything looks. 4k is good but the resolution is still in its infancy due it only being out for 2 years which does not mean performances for consoles can't keep up with the demand of 4k. Why do you think both PS4 and Xbox One X can only do 30fps? It is because the hardware cannot produce a stable 60fps. PlayStation Plus is equivalent to the the gold membership. The difference I see is that PlayStation Plus have the better and more exclusives to pick from. Xbox does even not have exclusives since you can play there games on a Windows computer. PS4 games that are not free through the PS plus system have to be paid for. Xbox games that are not free through the Xbox gold membership have to paid for. That above was not an argument why Xbox is better then PlayStation. Sources:Xbox One X vs. PS4 Pro | Which Console Is More Powerful? | Digital. . . What is the practical, Visible difference between a 2. 0GHz processor and a 2. 9GHz processor in a Macbook Pro? It is a quora discussion. Call of Duty Black Ops 4 Blackout PS4 Pro and Xbox One X Frame Rate Test
marijuana legalized

Con has failed to address nearly all of my arguments. I extend 2 to 4.I shall first defend argument one. "Drug cartels, i understand, cause a black market because of marijuana. Even if Marijuana were leagalized, drug cartels would still continue with selling other illegal drugs. Are you suggesting that we make all illegal drugs legal?" Con falsely states that it is the cartels themselves creating the black-market. This is untrue. Even without cartels, considering there is sufficient demand, black markets would be formed by individuals. With regards to question whether we make drugs legal, the answer is that this argument does support making all drugs legal (I do as well!), but it is not relevent to the debate. Con fails to address the rest of my arguments concerning crime.Con defends his assertion that the high is too powerful. He does this without sources to back it up and inspite of the evidence provided. He also asserts that "It is the objective of the government to ensure the safety of an individual and the people around that individual."This is evidently false if one looks at the amount of legal unhealthy foods and non-mandated exercise. My opponent proposes the following scenario;" Imagine if someone that were high were driving home. That person could become easily distracted and not only put themselves in danger, but other people that are nearby or on the road."Though I have already countered this argument (seemingly ignored by con), I shall reiterate it. If I were to hollow out a water-melon and place it upon my head whilst driving, due to my lack of vision I would find exceedingly difficult to drive safely. Even accounting for the possibility that I might strike a few gingers or justin Bieber fans down in my blinded state, the consequences would likely be disastrous.Now my opponent suggests that because one can blind oneself with a watermelon used as a helmet, creating a dangerous situation when in a vehicle, that we should ban the possesion and use of watermelons everywhere. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this is ridiculous, and rather we ought to just ban the wearing of watermelons on ones head whilst driving a vehicle.Similarly, becuase one can drive under influence of drugs, does not mean that drugs in general should be illegal.I hope that con provides better arguments in the next round.
marijuana legalized

My opponent has made a good point and that i should have specified which country I was referring to. My opponent brings up the "economy" aspect of this drug being banned in the US. Marijuana has been known to make people do things that they would not be doing if they werent under the influence. Some of my friends smoke weed and I have seen the effects of it. The thought process of someone that is under the influence is unbelieveably diffrent from that of someone that is drunk. "Con's arguments. 1. The high is too powerful for most people to control. This is an assertion without warrent. As I have already demonstrated [argument 4] the harm to one's self is minimal. However, even granting that the harm was severe, so what? Does that mean governments should interfere with civil liberties? Why should a government prevent one from harming one's self if it does not harm others?" It is the objective of the government to ensure the safety of an individual and the people around that individual. Imagine if someone that were high were driving home. That person could become easily distracted and not only put themselves in danger, but other people that are nearby or on the road. Drug cartels, i understand, cause a black market because of marijuana. Even if Marijuana were leagalized, drug cartels would still continue with selling other illegal drugs. Are you suggesting that we make all illegal drugs legal? I am pleased with my oppenents arguements.
bible is not clear: faith = justification + works... OR faith + works = justification

i tried to make the debate clearer than previous debates. the bible is not clear one way or the other: faith = justification + works... OR if it's faith + works = justification. to be sure, works are required in both scenarios, they just play a different role. again, the bible isn't clear what role that is. to lay the best examples of the ambiguity, we have two apparently conflicting versions of the story of abraham and his justification. james 2 20You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? 21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"e and he was called God"s friend. 24You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. then we have romans 4 on the other hand 'What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about"but not before God. 3What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."a 4Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 'We have been saying that Abraham"s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. you can find more quotes to argue both ways. these are just great examples using the same story and seemingly different outcomes. it's not contradictory, though, just a matter of how you reconcile everything. to be sure, the only place where 'faith alone' is used in the bible is when James says we are not justified by faith alone. but it's too much to take everything from just that one quote. taking everying together, it's ambiguous which formula is correct.
bible is not clear: faith = justification + works... OR faith + works = justification

Alright first off, don't say I have typos when you can't capitalize one word or use any sort of punctuation correctly. Trying to fight that you are superior to me in that area shows you know nothing about this debate. I only say peers because you use the silly word choice of justification. You aren't understanding the allegorical presence in this scripture. Once you're ready to understand that justification is not part of it please come debate. Also don't say you always thought works without faith isn't a thing. You said in the original question is it works plus faith or works plus justification. You are just belittling me from the start and automatically assume anything I say is silly. Not a man of works... And please, stop referring to me as con...
bible is not clear: faith = justification + works... OR faith + works = justification

con says there is no justification, yet the very verses i cite say otherwise. con says works don't exist without faith, but i've never said otherwise. con has typos and the 'do you mean within the self' etc part so i dont know what he's saying. again con is talking about that we shouldn't seek justification from peers, but no one has said anything about getting jusitified from peers etc, and it doesn't have anything to do with this debate.
bible is not clear: faith = justification + works... OR faith + works = justification

I don't think you understand, there is no "justification". Also, works don't "exist" without faith. The scripture is "faith without works is dead" meaning faith is nothing unless you are willing to act, prove, and grow your faith. When you say justifications do you mean within the self or from God because justification from is ungodly... We shouldn't seek to feel justified by peers and others because that leads to other sins. We need to establish our own relationship with God and not allow others to influence that...
bible is not clear: faith = justification + works... OR faith + works = justification

con simply ignores bible content. this is a debate about bible content, so it is necessary that he delve into it, which he hasnt. the bible indeed talks about faith and works being required for justification, as cited earlier, it is just unclear how justifrication is achieved. con merely argues we shouldnt feel compelled to do anything for it... and in a way the best faith and action is done naturally and without motive. but we aren't questioning or speculating about motives... just wether or not the faith or works cause justification. a person can be without motive and have faith and works and justificaTION, or they can be motivated that way. either way, justitifaction comes for a reason, and motive isn't one of them. also con talks about the need to do right for society's sake, when no one has mentioned anything about it. it's just a tangent that has no meaning.
bible is not clear: faith = justification + works... OR faith + works = justification

Justification is not the sum nor addend of faith and works. Faith and works are two separate entities, that when tied together, can help anyone achieve eternal salvation. We cant just be faithful and expect that be enough for us. We need to prove our faith, hence the works. Nothing is done for justification. Doing things for justification completely disregards your faith because we should not feel the need to be in the ok by society, rather that what we are doing is establishing a personal relationship with god. There is no area here for justification. Your argument is invalid.
The Fool: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

The Fool:It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; which is not a God.Principle of Charity-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.So I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument(1) for the existence of an actual monotheistic God. For people who are really intrested in proving the existence of God. GO away! BobooVote Fool!