BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bring back the death penalty for murderers in England.

Murderers are regarded as inhuman, due to high crimes. They kill humans for a reason, often out of the seven deadly sins. After detectives and the police reveal their crimes, they are sentenced for punishment. Punishment can include many years of imprisonment or death. I believe they shouldn't be killed for their crimes. If England were to kill the murderers out of justice, England would be guilty of being murderers, because are they not taking a human's life?
Bring back the death penalty for murderers in England.

My opening argument is simple: Murderers do not care about the human rights of their victims, so should not have any rights themselves. Article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights is "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (http://www.un.org...) The murderer denied their victim that, so why should they get it themselves? If the murderer won't respect other people's human rights they should forfeit their own human rights as well.
It's not the guns, it's the people

My opponent's argument rests on two claims. The first is that the number of guns doesn't change the number of deaths. He has provided no proof of this, nor has he addressed the figures I provided that prove that throughout the developed western world, the countries with more guns have more deaths. It's self-evident. His second argument is that if they didn't have guns, people would find some other way to kill each other - he suggests knives as the most likely candidate. Consider this: 9/4/2014 Murrysville, PA. Knife attack. 22 injured, 0 fatalities. 9/4/2013 Cypress, TX. Knife attack. 14 injured, 0 fatalities. 12/14/2012 Newtown, CT. Firearm attack. 26 fatalities, 0 survivors. This proves that it IS the guns that makes the difference. It is extremely difficult to remove deranged or simply evil people from society (before it is too late), but we can limit the weapons available for their use.
It's not the guns, it's the people

Yes, the murder rate may have gone down 25 percent in Chicago, but do you blame the guns or the people? You do make a good point about guns meant to kill people and that most are not accidents. It all comes down to knowing if the person is in the right mindset and willing to use the gun as self defense and being respectful of the weapon. I have many friends that have guns and treat their firearms with care and respect. Do yoGun control is a lazy step towards a "perfect world" where no one is killed in vain, but we have to realize there are evil people in the world. Criminals don't abide by law and therefore will not abide by gun bans. Say you take away all fire arms known to Man(which is impossible), we will just find something else to kill each other with. Then we will all have knives. I would agree with gun control if it would actually work in the future, but i honestly can't see that happening any time soon. Before we instill gun control, we should have a mental check on society.
It's not the guns, it's the people

Your "50 people in a room" scenario left out one configuration - the best possible one: 50 people in a room; no guns. No one dies. Concerning Chicago: This is a huge topic and cannot possibly be addressed in a couple of dozen words. However, immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, there was a 25% drop in gun murders. After the Supreme Court overturned Chicago's ban in 2010, the numbers again rose significantly. Additionally, most of the guns that come into Chicago are from out of state or from parts of Illinois where gun control laws are not so strict[1]. All this points to is the need for a national, regulated gun control policy. Very few murders are committed with motor vehicles. In contrast, very few deaths by gunshot are accidental. Cars serve vital social and economic functions. The most common purpose of a gun is to kill or threaten to kill something or someone. [1] http://theweek.com...
It's not the guns, it's the people

The amount of guns does not affect the death toll of anything. Yes there may be more deaths, but its not due to the guns being there, its the fact that the person using that gun may be mentally unstable. And guns arn't the only thing that can easily kill people. I mean, how many fatal car accidents have happened in the last year or so? A lot, obviously. But we don't see anything banning automobiles due to their potential hazard. Plus, you completely passed over the fact that Chicago has the highest murder rate even with it having strict gun ban laws. Believe me, it only takes one moment where your in a bad situation and someone with a concealed firearm as a self defense weapon helps you, and then you will realize there are bad people in this world, and sometimes a bat or a knife just isn't enough.
It's not the guns, it's the people

Thanks to Pro for the invitation to debate this topic with him, and I wish him an enjoyable debate. If one wanted to be technical, one could say that neither guns nor people kill people - it's the bullets that kill. But let's not get bogged down in semantics - people with guns kill people - far more effectively than people with knives, baseball bats, cars, glasses or footballs. In fact, almost 70% of all murders in the US are committed with firearms, with all other weapons together making up the remaining 30%. [1] If we compare countries with similar demographics, the US has 3 times as many gun deaths per head of population as Canada, 10 times Australia, and 40 times the UK. Unsurprisingly, these numbers fairly closely parallel the number of guns owned per person. [2] More guns = more deaths. References: [1] http://www.infoplease.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com...
It's not the guns, it's the people

Simply put: guns don't kill people. People kill people. You put 50 people in a room with 1 gun. They don't die. You put 50 people in a room with 1 murderer and a gun, people die. You put 50 people in a room with a murderer with a gun and someone else with a concealed carry. Murderer is shot, no one is injured except the assailant. The amount of guns says nothing about the crime rate. Chicago has the most restrictive gun bans and it has the highest crime rate. I hope you know someone can be killed by a baseball bat, a car, a knife, glass, and even football. You gonna ban all those things as well?
Should gun control go into effect

Have you ever heard a saying don't bring a gun to a knife fight, while it is true that you could learn to shoot arrows or use a knife what good would that be. Archery takes really good skill and guns can be really used by any kind of person. Whether they are good or not; also hand to hand combat will take years to be even good enough to stop a man with a gun. Now I know their are people with this kind of ability but look how long that took them to master the skills that they know. Besides there are allot of people who are too old are not fit enough to be able to challenge their body. Also a burglary system does not necessarily stop them from coming in and hurting someone it just allows a less time for them to attack, or still some objects from you. And finally with your statement about " you could go to a local shooting range and increase your aiming skills." That is an expensive request yes if it was to come in affect you would say that since you do not need as much bullets as you use to have it will increase the money you will have; this is true but you do not always have to use your bullets right away and you do not have to be good like some people are just naturally not. If you have the same amount of bullets you have now you have an increase to hit your target, for what if they illegally get more bullets in order to hit you without being as accurate.
Should gun control go into effect

But the smaller magazines I disagree, the size and amount of bullets able to be held in the magazine was the right size for the protection that you need.While I am unsure as to the exact number of bullets you will be able to have in a magazine after these laws, the "right size" may differ from person to person. Also, if you feel as if there is not enough bullets, then you could go to a local shooting range and increase your aiming skills. Many gun ranges allow you to rent a wide variety of guns on site for use in their range.I would also like to state that guns are not your only way of protecting yourself, which is one of the problems that you are arguing about. There are many different ways that you can do this. For example, training in hand to and combat, knife and blade training, archery, investing in an anti-burglary system in your home, etc. Guns don't need to be your only asset.I will go to say that I do not know much about hunting, but like in my previous paragraph, I am using common sense to see that there are other ways to hunt rather than just guns. The first thing that comes to mind is archery, traps, throwing knives, etc. You could use a mizture of these options in addition to guns, if it is just hunting that is the problem.
Should gun control go into effect

While your point of view makes since and I respect most of what you are saying I have to disagree with the guidelines you are trying to say. First I agree with the your point about "do you really want to make it easier for people to get guns?' that is not the idea that I was trying to say. But the smaller magazines I disagree, the size and amount of bullets able to be held in the magazine was the right size for the protection that you need. They are not for widespread attacks but maximum protection. And that is not what they are just talking about with the gun controls; it also has to do with how much guns you can purchase and bullets. It's not only for protection but hunting as well and many other uses. As for the factual evidence you just need to look at the reports and what has happened before when governments and kings tried to change ruling to fit the need of the people but what was really itself. It's not really factual evidence when you deal what is going to happen; you have to rely on the past and use your initiative for the future. Suppose a cup was falling from a table now you can stand their and hope for the best or you can put a stop to it; There is a fifty-fifty chance that it will not break but what would you prefer. The final point to my argument is this you let people take a step and the take a mile, maybe they will not ask for more laws maybe they will but it was signed in the Declaration for citizens to be able to protect are selves and by the gun control it will soon be more difficult for people to get guns. You see it by the way senators are talking and the way the government is acting. And yes I was trying to guilt people not only to stop these laws but think deeply about what may happen in the next ten our even thirty years from now.
Should gun control go into effect

I believe that gun control should go in effect. "Weapons do not kill people and anyone who tells you different is a fool who believes criminals will no longer illegally get the weapons that they now use."While this may be true, do you really want to make it easier for people to get guns? "And soon when good people realize this they to will find some means of getting protection for their family." The gun laws are not going to mean that people will be unable to obtain guns. It will just be regulated. The magazine size will be smaller. Unless you are planning on a widespread attack, do yu really need huge mag sizes?"All awhile the government will say that they will protect us when the understand that we will have to depend on them more and that is when the real problems come into effect; they will take other rights that we so long depended on and thought as the American outline."There's not much fact behind this assumption, it looks more like an opinion. I would need some factual evidence as to why this would happen. "The Deceleration will be obliterated and Marshall Law will come into play."Again, I would need some factual evidence as to why this would come into play. "My final statement would be if you agreed with this law how would your children act scared of not being able to protect themselves from this world."I wasnt too sure on what you meant by this, but it looks like you are trying to use guilt by making people believe that adults and children would no longer be able to protect themselves. As I stated before, the laws for gun control will not make it so that you cannot obtain a gun, it will just provide things like background checks and smaller mag sizes. This may not stop criminals from getting guns, it would just make it that much harder for them to.
Should gun control go into effect

If we were to pass a law that takes away the rights for American citizens to own and purchase guns then the world will be in serious conflict. Weapons do not kill people and anyone who tells you different is a fool who believes criminals will no longer illegally get the weapons that they now use. To say that they will abide by the law that will take place you do not know the men and women in this period of time. And soon when good people realize this they to will find some means of getting protection for their family. All awhile the government will say that they will protect us when the understand that we will have to depend on them more and that is when the real problems come into effect; they will take other rights that we so long depended on and thought as the American outline. The Deceleration will be obliterated and Marshall Law will come into play. My final statement would be if you agreed with this law how would your children act scared of not being able to protect themselves from this world.
War

In this round, We will be answering the suggested question "Do I want it? " I would answer with Yes! As I mentioned in my previous arguments, I want war as a tool of control, It feeds the hunger to power and greed for more. For thousands of years war been, And still, A way to maintain control in this world, A lot of examples we are seeing, ISIS and the middle east, Back in the 1939 and the Nazis, Gengis Khan, Stalin. . . All of them maintained control using the war card, Another example I would mention is the Algerian Revolution (1954-1962) vs the French Occupation of Algeria (1830-1962) for more than 120 years France controlled the North cost of Africa generally, The Algerian rebellions, Of all orientations, Tried to have more freedom/absolute independence, But nothing was given but promises! Until they planned and started the Revolution in 1-11-1954, So as a result they got full independence from the French Occupation, So 8 years of war achieved what 124 years of diplomacy couldn't achieve! As a conclusion, Wanting war isn't something bad or evil, And it is a necessary act for prosper and rebuilding humanity over ages, Probably humanity would never see so many civilizations without the drums of war through time! And as a finale "Peace wouldn't exist if it wasn't war".
War

yeah what have you said is to mach logic but let's take look from another side. War has Disadvantages more than benefits 1- you are going to take something is not yours even if you will devlop it 2-every country has it own Geographic boundaries no one have to pass it only in case two countries want to become one without bad plans after witch means they haven't to invade poor places 3-war will spread racism more than it is nowaday 3- only bosses will get booties from it
War

War is probably the most exciting "event" in the entire history, Almost no nation took control of a certain region for a certain while without making war, FOR CERTAIN REASONS: 1-To maintain the geological control against a group of people ho would take it from you 2- to expand that geological control to another wider area, Because after a while the one you have won't be enough as your people will grow 3- To discover new sources of income, Making taxes for the invaded countries/places to keep them safe under your control 4- Even if you were the invaded one, You make war to take back what you have lost. My example in this round will be the Islamic opening, Although they were more merciful but they were wars anyways, In no time they maintained control from borders of China to Andalusia ( Spain ). As conclusion, Basically war isn't as bad as the public shows it, It has many benefits and for the second example, USA now, It has control of most of the world, It had a control in the middle east since the invasion of Irak. . .
Anonymity on the Internet

1. Impedes on our rights, the government has no reason to regulate us further. 2. See Number 4 of the rebuttal. Rebuttal: 1. Do you not realize you are anonymous? The only thing on your profile is your first name. I hope you do not plan to kidnap me. 2. There is no such thing as true internet anonymity. The police can trace basically anything you do back to you. Therefore, "stealing" (fraud might be a better term) over the internet isn't a major enough issue for the government to start regulating more of our rights. 3. You cannot kidnap via the internet. I don't think this magical portal works that way. This is more of the impact of your next point. 4. Enacting the resolution to stop the search for children is a double edged sword. While it would reveal the stalker's identity, it gives up the children's right to remain anonymous. This means that children would actually be easier to find. 5. "Going against the government" is not illegal. It is protected under constitutional amendment one (freedom to assemble, right to free speech, and to petition the government) and amendment two (allowing the people to maintain a militia).
human have the ability to feel agape;(pure love) for another non bloodline related human.

I'm going to comment briefly on what is said in round 2 and I'm going to develop some points and finish my argument , thus my debate. First of all you said that I'm wrong that humans are less programmed then animals because our motives are actually the same and that we are slaves to our instincts which is something wrong because humans have a pure and high ability to cross and high above their instincts, while animals are always expected because they can not pass their instincts so ounce you study their instincts you can know them and expect them very commonly,thus comparison between animals and humans in this domain is false. Second thing I want to mention briefly is that dogs and I mean all dogs are programmed to defend their owner and die for him not because they are moral but because their instincts force them to do so. So their instincts force them to do such moral action and that doesn't mean they are moral since animals have no sense of morality as stated in the research paper earlier. Third point you said the steps you would do if you faced a near-death experience and I must say two things here. 1-you can't give your own experience as evidence to a theory that requires objectivity. 2-I don't think a person have tried an sacrifice due to agape and lived to face another one so he can use his previously experience in the scene because it is mainly a one thing experience such as death. In addition I must say that if you think you know what are you going to do then your wrong since no body knows how can he act under high pressure. My fourth point is in the sentence that you stated " agape is a Chosen feeling for something you feel has greater value" which hold a contradiction because you must know that we don't choose what to feel and you should be sure that a person doesn't choose for himself what to feel so it is not a matter of choice ,and never will be. Now for my closing statement I should say that feeling or the ability to sacrifice one's self for another due to love is as I think of it, is an action based on how this person is raised and what kind of knowledge did this person had in his early life in this field so that he can tell people why he believe that it is the right thing to do , because it must be something that passed in the life of this person that made him choose such a choice or such a belief, or make him feel like doing it.
human have the ability to feel agape;(pure love) for another non bloodline related human.

I must agree that humans are much more self aware than lesser animals, But disagree with your statement about human's being less programmed than animals. The Prefrontal cortex(part of the brain that allows conscious thought) in humans is far more developed allowing us to consider and plan our actions far more than any other animal, But this ability does not change the fact that the motives are very similar in so much that we are still slaves to our instincts. Hunger is a need to sustain life, and many humans have sacrificed themselves in the pursuit of food which is very much the pursuit of life, hardly a petty reason in my mind. Statement B would depend on your definition of morality. In my experience with dogs if you take care of them they will go out of their way to attempt to protect you. This in my mind is a effort to repay a act of kindness which is a moral action. Actually I can very accurately predict my actions in any give "near death experience" as long as the context available. First I'm going to realize my life is in danger. Next would to make a plan be based on my previously gained knowledge related to the situation. Finally it would be time to act, Using the closest comparable experience I have to what ever the situation is I will attempt to prevent my death, or injury. This has been the course of my own though in my own near death experience's which is hardly random as the key element remains preserving my life and possessions. "if circumstances or education or culture made a person value love more then it should be valued" while psychologically romantic love should come second to oneself, Agape is not simple romantic love as I have stated already it is not a romantic obsession. In order to feel agape you are required to have a healthy value of your own life, agape is a Chosen feeling for something you feel has greater value, in these scenario that "something" is a fellow human. In psychologically terms agape would be both unhealthy for the fact that it threatens your self preservation ability, And healthy for the fact that it shows value of other life rather than a selfish nature. It comes down to one question "what value does a single life have" death will claim that life sooner or later, But if that life belonged to a human, and that human felt agape for a doctor who had knowledge that could be used for the benefit of mankind. Then is it unhealthy for the first human to be willing to give their life to save the doctor's potentially saving many of the human race? I cant say if this feeling is healthy or unhealthy but what is being debated is if this form of dedication is possible between one human and a single other human.