BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anyone that commits a crime should be executed, regardless of age and race.

Argument:Contention One: Too extremeWhile there are valid situations that arise for which execution of criminals is an acceptable tactic, the resolution is so extreme that I must oppose it. Violating the following laws is a crime, and therefore according to my opponent ought to be punishable by death:'Any person... who engages in shooting, hunting, gaming, card playing or racing on that day [Sunday], shall be fined not less than $10.00' [1]If you play a game of cards on Sunday, you're obviously a blight upon society. Sentenced to death.'No person shall sell, exchange, offer to sell or exchange, display, or possess living baby chicks, ducklings, or other fowl or rabbits which have been dyed or colored; nor dye or color any baby chicks, ducklings, or other fowl or rabbits;' [2]What are you doing with a dyed baby chick? Death sentence.'It shall be unlawful for any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a farm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely.' [3]Tethered a pregnant pig? You ought to be put to death!Conclusion:I'm only bring one contention up for now, but that should be enough. It's ridiculous to give anyone the death sentence for any crime, no matter how minor, especially with stupid laws knocking about.Sources:1. http://law.justia.com...2. http://www.lrc.ky.gov...;3. http://www.leg.state.fl.us...;
Anyone that commits a crime should be executed, regardless of age and race.

Plain and simple, whoever accepts this debate shall explain why criminals shouldn't be punished more severely, and executed at sight. Criminals these day are reckless, cowards, and violent. They show no remorse or regret, they can kill, rape, steal, and do whatever they want to. They go to jail, of course. but it's not enough, when they get out, they will do the same thing. My point here is, if you commit a crime, you're not worthy to live. This society lives paying taxes, working hard, and for what? to some random thug show up and ruin their day? or even their life? if you do something bad, you should be punished severely, criminals need to know that if you screw up, you're dead. If this possibility existed, thugs, robbers, anyone who do something bad knows that THEY'RE DEAD. striking fear into possible criminals is a way to prevent them from doing their hideous things. peace would be stabilized into the population, and innocent kids could walk freely in the road without the fear that someone could end their happiness anytime. Whoever accepts this, good luck, and good debate!
LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant

I will accept your challenge and prove that Kobe Bryant is better than LeBron. 1. Versatility- LeBron is undoubtedly stronger than Kobe, given the fact that he has a 40-50 lb advantage in muscle size. However, Kobe had to use his actual athleticism, speed, and skill to score. If Kobe wasn't effective from one spot on the floor, he'll damage the team from anywhere else. LeBron may have the edge in rebounding, but once again, size matters. Kobe's efficiency has often be called into question, but Kobe is easily much better at adapting to tougher conditions, such as late-game situations. Kobe leads the NBA history in most game-winners, (36) while LeBron faced controversy for shying away in such moments. Overall, Kobe was known for being dangerous from EVERYWHERE on the floor, and while LeBron's shooting may be improving (especially in the playoffs), Kobe still trumps LeBron in the scoring category.
Console gaming is better than PC gaming.

I just like Consoles way better. Cheaper. Way more convenient. Better controls. Higher quality AAA Exclusives. It's all there for a cheap price. Consoles also have a better and more friendly UI than say Steam or onlive. It's also way more social. The PS4's "share" feature and XBL almost effortless partying system shows that. And we don't have to keep up with Drivers,DRM and outdated hardware. I don't care if my game look like a potato I want to have a effortless experience
Cupcakes are better than cookies

This is going to be fun. Go cookies! I think cookies are better than cupcakes because they have so many different varieties. There is chocolate chip, raisin, m&m, oatmeal, sugar, and many more. They are easier to handle. You can have a cookie on the go, no problem, but a cupcake can be a mess in the car. You can eat a cookie minutes after it is out of the oven, but you have to wait for a cupcake to cool, then put icing on it before it can be eaten. You can even make a cookie healthy, depending on what is put in it. They are all around better, tastier treats. Good luck!
Marijuana is bad.

Now, if something is harmful for you, I hardly see how that is favourable, or 'good', my opponent is simply trying to use wordplay to win this debate. As I can list several more things that Marijuana negatively impact, I will do so now. 1) The use of Marijuana distorts your perception, reduces coordination, and causes relaxation of the muscles, which would highly impair driving ability, a higher risk of a car accident is in no way, good. 2) It impairs ones ability to learn, and to form new memories, which is in no way good. 3)It destroys tumour-suppressant genes, which help fight cancer. 4)It contains carcinogens, which CAUSE cancer. 5) Users may become lazy, unmotivated, or "burnouts" Not only has my opponent not provided any evidence to his HIV claim, but my opponent also seems to misunderstand what HIV is, and what Marijuana does. HIV is short for "Human immunodeficiency virus", meaning their immune system isn't functioning properly. Now, studies have shown that Marijuana is actually an "immunosuppressant"; Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker's body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a. k. a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. How harming your immune system while having HIV/AIDs would be beneficial is beyond me. As for the Alzheimers theory, the study my opponent linked is nearly four years old, while newer research shows no benefits from smoking Marijuana in relation to Alzheimers. Furthermore, it has infact been proven to be the OPPOSITE, instead actually causing harm instead of health! Unless my opponent can refute the claims of it having no good effect on the lungs, brain, heart, etcetera, then I shall assume he concedes to my points that it is 'bad' by his very narrow definition. I eagerly wait for my opponents response, and I urge a vote on the Pro side of this argument, thank you. . http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... . http://www.nida.nih.gov... . http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk... . http://faculty.washington.edu... . http://www.uc.edu...
Marijuana is bad.

Since I started the debate and get to set the parameters, I'd still like to use the original definition of bad: Bad - not good in any manner or degree. The object of this debate is for you to prove that Marijuana is not good in any manner or degree. Since you have failed to release any information on how Marijuana is not good in any manner or degree, I'll let you have the next round to do so. However, I will say that Marijuana is good on several accounts: 1) Studies in HIV patients have yielded that those who smoked pot had a greater increase in lymphocytes, the cells which combat disease. <---This is good, yes? 2) Scientists have found that the active ingredient in marijuana can prevent the progression of Alzheimer's disease. <---Good without a doubt. . There are MANY more things that make Marijuana good; however, I would like to see you disprove these before I post any more reasons. **. http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com... **. http://chickenmafia.com...
Marijuana is bad.

Now, if I may change usage of the word "bad" as there are several definitions and I do not want this debate to be won through simple wordplay. Bad; Having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible Causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful Disobedient, naughty, or misbehaving Not in keeping with standard or conduct Since I have the burden of proof I will start with a few small contentions. Contention 1) Smoking Marijuana is detrimental to the users health. Marijuana is harmful when smoked, you are inhaling a foreign substance that contains tar and irritates the lungs, not to mention the effects on the brain, and other health issues stemming from Marijuana use. Some health risk to the lungs include: 1) Coughing and phlegm problems, shortness of breath, and frequent wheezing, 2)Burning and stinging of the mouth and throat 3)Promotion of cancer in the respiratory tract 4)Chronic bronchitis 5)Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease In fact, some of the short term effects can even cause death! When you smoke Marijuana the users risk of heart attack quadruples within the first hour of smoking, so why risk death just to get "high"? There are many more negative effects, risk, and reasons as to how Marijuana is bad, though I'll save them for the next round. . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.medic8.com... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Marijuana is bad.

I hope for a good, clean debate - My opponent is extremely 'Con' when it comes to anything involving marijuana. He does not agree that marijuana is useful in any manner, so I took it upon myself to post a debate topic outlining the most generic statement that would successfully describe his views on the 'drug'. I will start by outlining a few definitions: Bad - not good in any manner or degree. Good - satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Satisfactory - giving or affording satisfaction. Satisfaction - the act of satisfying; fulfillment; gratification; Since my opponent will be debating the Pro side, I will let him start the debate. **Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Feminism

Con stated that that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is unreliable because it is biased. Con's reasoning for this was that the dictionary was made in "liberal" Massachusetts. Con has provided no evidence to support that it is made in Massachusetts, or how the location of the dictionary company proves that it is unreliable. Until Con proves this connection, my definition of Feminism still stands.Yet I will make it even more difficult for Con. Here are many more authoritative definitions of Feminism:Oxford Dictionary - "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes" [3]Cambridge Dictionary - "The belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men" [4]Macmillan Dictionary - "The belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men" [5]Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - "The belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men" [6]Collins English Dictionary - "A doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women" [7]Dictionary.com - "The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men" [8]For Con to prove that the definition of Feminism is not about equality, Con must prove that each and every one of the dictionaries above is an unreliable source. If Con cannot, then this debate must concede that Feminism is about equality between men and women by definition.I suggest an alternative viewpoint:A) Feminism is about the equality between men and women, as defined in all the sources above.B) Anyone seeking to gain more than equality is not practicing Feminism (as per the definition)C) There are people who falsely use the Feminism banner to attempt to gain more than equalityD) Those who falsely use the Feminism banner should be condemnedE) True Feminism (gender equality) is an ideal and should be supportedAs I mentioned in Round 2, I support equality between men and women. Therefore, I am for Feminism.Con has stated that Con is an "equalist" and is "for the rights of men AND women". Therefore, like me, Con is for Feminism as defined in the dictionaries.3. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...4. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...5. http://www.macmillandictionary.com...6. http://www.ldoceonline.com...7. http://www.collinsdictionary.com...8. http://www.dictionary.com...
Feminism

First off, I did some searching, and the Marriam-Webster dictionary is made in liberal Massachusetts. They clearly bended the definition to serve their needs. I don't agree with that definition. You see, if a said a was a "masculinist", people would say that I'm male supremacist, but if I called myself a feminist, I would be called a "champion of rights". So, since "masculinism" is male supremacy, then feminism is female supremacy. I consider myself an "equalist". Feminism today is so twisted and hypocritical today, that it is best to abandon it. I am for the rights of men AND women, not JUST women, and not ONLY men.
Feminism

Okay, I have no issues going first.P1: Feminism is defined as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities". [1]P2: I am for men and women having equal rights and opportunities. [2]C: I am for Feminism.I have one question for Con: Do you believe men and women should have equal rights and opportunities?1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.debate.org... (Comment #4)
Feminism

Con has argued dictionaries do not authoritatively define words, but has given no proof of this. Con's presented only one argument in this entire debate "Since 'masculinism' is male supremacy, then feminism is female supremacy. " without giving any evidence to back the claim that words with similar roots cannot have different meanings. Furthermore, Con didn't provide any source of definition for Masculinism, so Con's argument is not sound. ---I have offered six authoritative sources stating that Feminism is the movement for equality between men and women. I am for equality between men and women. I am for Feminism. According to Con, Con is an "equalist" and is "for the rights of men AND women". Therefore, Con is also for Feminism. The statement of debate is "Feminism". I have proven I am Pro. I have proven Con is not Con.
school should be shorter

The school day is primarily seven hours long. Most of us have a wide range of after-school activities. Some participate in clubs while other have jobs or are on sports teams. Some participate in more than one after-school activity. By the time we are finished with the school day and their activities, there isn"t much time for them to complete homework assignments and study for exams. Instead, we result to quickly completing our homework and we do not receive any educational value from it. Also, we may not have time to study at all, which would result in failing grades. Long school hours put much pressure on students. We may tend to slack off which could be harmful for their education in the long run. In classes now, the lesson usually doesn"t start until about ten minutes into the period, once the students have settled into their places. This is also because students feel that if they are late to class, the time would go by faster. If about ten minutes were cut from each class, the time would add up. The students would most likely go to their classes on time, because the class would overall be shorter and able for them to handle. A shorter day would leave more time for us to enjoy their lives and not have to rush through activities or assignments. We would be able to do everything at a slower and calmer pace rather than rushing. By cutting time out of the school day, the students" education level would not be hurt. The students would be able to retain the same information whether it was taught within an hour or half an hour. Many people could say that since work hours are long, that school hours should be long as well. This view is not necessarily true. We starts out in school and then work our way up to a steady job as we get older. Therefore, at one point everyone will be working long hours. Students should not have to work as long as some adults do. Also, some jobs do not require work to be done after work hours. We the students, on the other hand, have to continue working by completing their homework assignments.
school should be shorter

I can see what you mean when you say that students have limited "power" in school. But this would not fix that problem very well. If school time was cut, the amount of days in which school takes place would have to be raised to avoid lowering the standard of education. Many students would be irritated by the fact that their summer days have essentially been cut in half by school, and them and their parents would be unable to go on vacations or similar activities during that time. And regarding your student "power" issue, wouldn't the best way to resolve this issue while also saving vacation time be training teachers to teach classes in more interactive and interesting ways, so that the students do not simple have to "forced to sit in a chair for a certain amount of time and to quietly complete assignments. This will improve student interest in schools, vastly increasing their knowledge of whatever subject they are being taught, raising their grades and making them more successful in life. This increase in interest will also cause an increased work ethic regarding related topics, and allowing them to be able to complete at home assignments at a much quicker rate, allowing for more recreational and extra curricular activities after school. This solution would solve all problems that shortening school days would solve, and more.
school should be shorter

Students have a limited amount of power in school, which is one of the main reasons for cutting classes. Students feel as though schools try to contain them and that they are not able to be themselves. They are forced to sit in a chair for a certain amount of time and to quietly complete assignments. The thought of this recurring activity results in students caring less about school, which eventually makes their grades decrease. By shortening the school days, students wouldn"t be as distressed about going to school and their grades would be higher. Fewer school hours per day would permit students to have enough time to study, complete school assignments, participate in after-school activities and be able to get to bed by a decent hour.
school should be shorter

"Shortening of the school day is a topic that has been discussed recently within legislative bodies, due at least in part to growing financial concerns." Could you please go into what financial concerns would merit the shortening of the school day? "However, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with shortening the school day that should be considered before sweeping action is taken to alter the traditional school day. The financial savings for the district and more time for productive activities after school are two major advantages." What could possibly be more productive for the student then learning how the world works and how to compete in the job market? I feel as though a good education system is worth any tax dollars that the American people have to pay. "However, those advantages might be offset by a reduction in instructional time and the possibility of attending school more days of the year." Are you proposing to lower the amount of time students spend in class, but raise the amount of days they spend in school to counterbalance this? This seems rather unnecessary, please elaborate on why this would be better.
school should be shorter

Shortening of the school day is a topic that has been discussed recently within legislative bodies, due at least in part to growing financial concerns. However, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with shortening the school day that should be considered before sweeping action is taken to alter the traditional school day. The financial savings for the district and more time for productive activities after school are two major advantages. However, those advantages might be offset by a reduction in instructional time and the possibility of attending school more days of the year.
school should be shorter

Education is one of the most essential services that the government provides. It prepares the next generation to be more intellectually adept then the previous one, and is the gateway to employment, livelihood and knowledge. Considering the fact that the USA scores lower then many other modernized nations on math and science tests, we know that we are already not educating the students in regards to those subjects. So logically speaking, the solution to this problem would be to give the students more education in these topics to make the USA a more intelligent and educated place, so that we can compete with other nations. The fact that the USA is already behind would be made worse by lowering the amount of time that students spend in school, learning facts that they will need for the rest of their lives. Although I am sure that many students would want shorter school days, I am sure that in the future they will thank the state for allowing them to get a proper education by not stealing away their precious education time. It is essential for the USA and the rest of the world to continue to educate their children to the highest standards possible, to prepare the next generation to uncover new knowledge about the world that they live in. This is simply impossible to do while taking from the time that teachers have to educate the students. P.S: I mean no offense when I say this, but it seems too me that in your second round discussion, you seem to be arguing for the idea that changing the time students are in school would be difficult, not that shortening the time students are in school is a good idea, please explain to me what your point is if possible. Thanks in advance, and good luck Pro.
should deadbeat parents be punished by law.

Many parents do not have the financial resources to provide the child with everything it needs and wants. We have a social quality of life that we've defined as a minimum, even though it is possible to survive below it. Sometimes, parents hit hard times and fall below this minimum, and their children go with them. Is it right to fine them money or put them in jail because of it? How will that solve the issue? If a parent does not have the money to meet the needs of the child, how does slapping a fine on the parent improve that? It doesn't, it only makes it harder for both the parent and the child. If a parent is working two jobs at minimum wage and still having a hard time making ends meet for the child, how does putting that parent in jail (and thus, take away the family income) help that child to a better life? It doesn't. If we punish people who are struggling, it only sets them back, and makes their struggle harder, which inturn, leads to more punishment, and more struggle.
should deadbeat parents be punished by law.

it is the parents responsibility to care for the child. by not paying for/caring for there child they are stating there lack of love to the child, the emotional damage is massive. Plus they are responsible for the care of the child, and by not providing that care they are violating that requirement thus i, and many others, think they should be fined at the least to jail time at the max. I respect others views, even if i do not agree, so please respond soon. Also i apologize for missing the last round. i was in the hospital.
should deadbeat parents be punished by law.

Definition of deadbeat - "One who does not pay one's debts. A lazy person; a loafer." [1] Since this is applying to parents, I will adjust the definition to, "A parent who does not pay one's debts. A lazy parent." I await to see my opponent's argument that a parent not staying up to date on the loans or is just plain lazy should be prosecuted for child cruelty. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...