BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty

Our Bill of Rights does protect us against acts that are cruel and unusual forms of punishment, but what is cruel and unusual about death? 'They' say that there are two things in life you can count on; death and taxes. Death is not something that is cruel or unusual. Everyone dies, and most are afraid of that. By having that threat in front of them, criminals may not be so quick to act on their impulses. The death penalty would grant us, as a country, the ability to move forward in the world. By nationally legalizing this, we could potentially have the lowest crime rate in the world. I find it funny that you mention it is more expensive to kill someone, then keep them in jail for life. What is more important to you? Saving 'big brother' some cash, or bringing justice to criminals, their victims, and the families of victims? The families are the true victims of crimes. They are left to pick up the pieces and restart their lives once again due to the thoughtless actions of one individual. Should we not bring justice to them? Should we not give them the chance to stand proud, and feel safe knowing that this individual can not hurt them or anyone ever again?
The Death Penalty

Although you argue that the death penalty would be a good way to "scare" criminals from committing such crimes, there is no evidence this is the case. After all, criminals commit the crime knowing there's the possibility of jail or even being arrested, and even though the death penalty is a more serious consequence, it is not one that would solve criminal acts. First of all, it violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. It also costs more to give the death penalty to someone, then to keep them in prison for life. Plus, sentencing a criminal to time in jail is more punishable then a quick killing. Once they are dead, they don't feel anything. Prison can be torture, and torture is good punishment for crimes.
The Death Penalty

The United States has been in a constant state of turmoil for the past several decades. Crime has evolved and from that there have spawned even more types of criminals. It is easier now, than it has ever been for criminals to commit and get away with crimes, and its time that they are 'scared straight' so to speak. Right now there is not enough of a threat to seriously stop criminals from continuing with their illegal actions. America has become too lax in their disciplinary ways and the criminals do not suffer, the upstanding citizens do. We are the ones who are left to deal with these thieves and murderers who sometimes get out of jail in as little as a couple months. We need to collectively, as a nation, crack down on law and give Americans something to be afraid of. The government and its laws, if not abused, are our friends. When we start abusing them and going against them, we have to be punished. By instituting the death penalty on a national scale we can successfully pull together out country and gain control once again.
Religion (Christ)

The idea of religion has guided humans throughout history, but is it real? My position on this matter is against the idea of religion since I read the Bible and it did not seem right. I then switched to atheist views and believe that the human instinct and curiousity has lead alll early peoples to need to know why things work. So they invented stories to explain these events. (Ex. Zeus creates lightning.) These myths helped all of the earliest people feel satisfied and safe and some even promised that if they are good then they can live luxuriously on clouds and become angels and fly everywhere. Almost every groups of people made their own religion and there are believed to be roughly 4,200 religions. This definately helped satisfy people and make them feel safe. But as our technologies become more advanced and we become samrter, we dont need myths and magic what to do, we can accept reality and what actually is instead of lies. But still the majority of people believe in these myths even though the plain facts are simple. I will mainly be questioning the christian branch of religion and would like to debate this topic with an intelligent person who supports religion.
Religion (Christ)

Thanks Con.I won't be presenting any new arguments/rebuttals here as my opponent would not get a fair chance to respond.ConclusionAt the beginning of this debate, I presented two arguments in favor of God. My opponent has failed to knock down either of these arguments. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that there are at least 2 sound arguments in favor of theism.On the other side, my opponent has not brought forward a single structured argument against God. He has instead made unwarranted assertions, such as "God is impossible". As such, we can reasonably conclude that there are not any comparably good arguments in favor of atheism.It seems to me that given the shared burden of proof in this debate, along with the sound theistic arguments and the lack of sound atheistic arguments, we can conclude that Christian theism is at least as likely to be true as atheism is. I'd like to thank my opponent for his participation in this debate. I hope that he will continue to research these ideas with an open mind and will find the truth in looking to answer these difficult questions.
should school be two hours long

Thanks for proposing this argument! As I am myself a student, I know that many students wish that school should be shorter and as you proposed should be two hours long. But there are way too many reasons for why the school days shouldn't be shortened, as I will explain in the following.... 1. First off, students that only go to school for two hours can miss out on academic learning. Students that don't receive a full education can fall behind in class. This will have even greater affects in the future, when they try to go get a job; they will find they don't have the full requirements to meet the standards of jobs nowadays. 2. Secondly, the hours of school ranging form 7 to 8 in the US is perfect for our curriculum, actually in some cases these 7 to 8 hours is not enough. For example, schools in Japan have longer school days than in the US, and they are outperforming schools all across the world. 3. Thirdly, school is the time to ask questions to your teacher and learn what you don't know. If you are stuck doing homework at home then you might have no idea on how to complete your homework, thus hindering the students's education. 4. Finally, and most importantly, shorter school hours will lead to the teacher trying to fit what you now learn in 7 to 8 hours into just two hours. This will either lead to more school days, thus shortening summer break and/or more homework everyday. In conclusion, I think that overall throughout your life having regular school hours will benefit you in the long run. Also, if you have shorter days, then you have to cram a full day's worth of learning into 2 hours. This could lead to unemployment in the future. So if you just work hard for those 7 to 8 hours each day then you will be way better prepared for the future. To sum up, regular school hours are perfect for now, shortening them could have devastating affects on the students of today. Note: If you would like any more facts, as I had too many to fit onto one argument, just ask. Thanks!
White Southerners are a nation.

Alright, let's try this again. I am looking for a serious person to debate this topic with. I will argue that white southerners are a nation. The word "nation" for this debate will be used in it's both historical and Biblical definition: "A large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". Nation can also refer to "a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...... The second definition includes the word "race", which white is one. White southerners, or southrons, have a common language: English, a common culture: Southern culture, a common ethnicity: White (or, if you want to get specific, people from Western Europe), so therefore a common decent, and a common history, such as the civil war. So White, European, English-speaking Southerners, are a nation. The League of The South, a Southern Nationalist organization, has information further explaining what the southern nation is. I invite my opponent, or anyone, to check it out. I am aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, considers this a hate group. All I ask is that you at least give it a chance before labelling it a hate group. Furthermore, I am not coming from any position of bigotry or hatred towards any group of people, I am simply stating the fact that white southerners are a nation.
High schools have a tardy policy of 3 tardies to equal a detention

I would do a full rebuttal, but limitation. R1, Pro talks about trains, but trains don't go to schools. And I agree that kids don't have bathroom time. So it's reasonable to be late because of this. But 3 bathrooms = 1 detention? Ridiculous! How about we don't have detention, and instead lose points towards their report card.
High schools have a tardy policy of 3 tardies to equal a detention

kids don't get to school on time and some have a very reasonable and when being tardy to class I believe it is because we need more time on the passing period. For example: students need to go to the bathroom but teachers say to go on your own time and yet students don't have enough time to do that because the passing period is too short so it's not the actual student's fault at times for being late to their own class
High schools have a tardy policy of 3 tardies to equal a detention

Tardy means to not me at class. To miss 3 classes for detention? Outrageous! Instead, I say we can miss classes all we want, but we lose points toward our grade. Sound simple enough? Good. Pro forfeited his 2nd round, possibly due to the time contstraint of only 12 hours after I make an argument. Next round is rebuttals.
High schools have a tardy policy of 3 tardies to equal a detention

I'll be glad to argue against Pro's notion that "High Schools should have 3 tardies = 1 detention".But first, we need to define a few things.Tardy: When you don't get to class on time.Detention: When you're forced to sit at the principle's office for a long time (from 1 hour to an entire school day).I hope Tardy_Policies is still online and willing! 12 hours of debating time isn't that much!Argument:The character limit is harsh too. I'll just say this: tardy does not say "not getting to school".
High schools have a tardy policy of 3 tardies to equal a detention

I think tardy policies should be changed to three tardies to equal one detention because I think some of the students have a hard time getting to school and usually it is not really the student's fault. In some cases the students have to depend on their parents or on trains which would at times either break down or the parent would just not take the student at all. I strongly believe that we should give students a chance if they arrive late and detentions have mostly been about tardies only. < 3
Gay Marriage

*Note that even if I had made no argument, I would still be winning the debate, for my opponent has made no statements nor arguments that prove the affirmative to be correct. There is therefore nothing to negate. Nevertheless, we are on my opponent's court, so I will play by his rules. While I may bring in a few extra arguments later, I will start with a few simple ones that may just do the trick. ========================================================================== Contention 1- The Federal Government of the United States of America does not have the authority to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states. ========================================================================== My opponent asserts that same-sex marriage should be legalized in ALL 50 states. The only entity that would have power to create such a massive legalization would be the federal government. However, even it does not hold this power as per the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, there is no authority that could effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country, because that right is reserved for the states, or the people. ======================================================= Contention 2- Same-sex marriage does not exist, and can therefore not be legalized. ======================================================= Marriage –noun 1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. In every dictionary that I have cared to look in thus far, the first entry ALWAYS states that marriage occurs between a man and a women. Same-sex marriage therefore is an oxymoron. Perhaps legal unions could be legalized. Perhaps a legal relationship could be established. (Assuming the government had the power to do so, which it doesn't) However, something that does not exist cannot be legalized. I will now allow my opponent to fulfill his original duty. As of now, the resolution has been effectively negated. http://www.usconstitution.net... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Homeopathy is a valid form of medicine

In this debate I and my opponent will debate the claim that homeopathy is a valid form of medicine. I would like that all non-trivial claims are backed up either by empirical evidence or logical reasoning. Stick to standard English grammar and spelling, but don't call anyone out on their spelling, as it would slow down the debate. Also, try to write responses like you might design a skirt: long enough to cover all the details, but short enough to keep you excited. 1st round: Definitions 2nd round: Opening statements 3rd - 5th rounds: Rebuttal Some definitions: Homeopathy: a form of "alternative medicine" whose proponents claim that diluting a substance increases its potency Alternative medicine: any medicine that has not been approved by the medical community A valid form of medicine: a medicine that is able to outperform a placebo in a double-blinded, peer-reviewed scientific study. Cheers, SarcasticMethod
Prostitution should be legalized

You are extremely wishy-washy, along with stating much of the obvious. Allow me to proceed to my rebuttal. "prostitution happens openly in a majority of relationships." Yeah, in your dreams. Why would any prostitute want to start a relationship with anyone while they have sex, with so many different people? Prostitutes hate their job[1], so how would the be able to get into a romantic mood? Also, when you say on how people are raping less due to prostitution, I strongly disagree. If you look at your own source, we have the highest rape (and I think homicide) rate among the other countries listed. Heck, most rapers don't even do it for the sex most of the time, but rather for the dominance over others[2]. And finally, who would want to waste their gosh-darn time to get medication for HIV/AIDS in the first place? That's what you get when you're a prostitute. You say that prostitution isn't something that the world must want(or something along those lines), and yet you debate on how prostitution should be passed through the government. I also want you to know that if we could free the African-Americans form slavery in America, then we could do the same for prostitutes, even though you are accurate on how prostitution has been around since the early thousands. I am done. Thank you. Sources: [1]:http://freethoughtblogs.com... [2]:http://www.examiner.com...
Prostitution should be legalized

'Do me. Just do me. Please. Give me fifty dollars to do me right up the butt. I'll be a better lover than your wife. Just do me!" How would you respond to this statement. Would you do her for fifty dollars? Is sex worth fifty dollars? Well, I'm just saying, I don't know how you will be when you have a daughter (or a son for that matter). Would you like your children to end up stripping at a bar? Do you want your children to post porn videos? Do you thing it's alright? Yes, they might make all the money in the world, and I guess they get something that all human beings pleasure: sex. However, would you like to see others grow up to be the next Bill Gates, or do you only see people in the darkness, where prostitution lies? Enough of the sympathy, let's get to it. Why should prostitution be legal? Sex is an intimate act between two people that love each other. Of course, every guy is going to have sex on a first date at one point, but just stripping for people and porn really doesn't make much sense. Not only is it illogical to make prostitution legal, it can really whack people's brains up. Of course, this isn't a great population, but people can really get addicted to porn, and research says that this addiction is more severe than smoking, drinking, and all of that craziness. It can cause marriages to fall apart. You could even get addicted to prostitution, and then you're gonna have to say "good bye" to your chance at relationships until excessive therapy is applied. Think about it. If it's illegal to kill, then how illegal is it to ruin yourself? The government wants you to be safe and sound. They don't want you ending up in the prostitution industry. Would you want to be a stripper? Would you want to be taking shots every single gosh-darn day? Yeah. You probably don't want to, because your penis will look like crap, and then the rest of your life will look like crap. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much.
Prostitution should be legalized

For the purpose of this debate the definitions in the resolution will be accepted as follows.Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Legalized - make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Rounds will follow this structureMERound 1 : RulesRound 2 : Opening arguments and contentions Round 3 : Rebuttals, rebuilding points, and closing statementsAdversary Round 1 : Opening arguments and contentions Round 2: Rebuttals, rebuilding points, and closing statementsRound 3 : Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon by my adversary will result in a full 7 point drop due to him/her having an extra round(2) 10k character limit(3) No sources may be posted that would extend that debaters arguments. (ie posting a link would extend your argument past 10k words)(4) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct with multiple FFs possibly leading to a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges.
Might Guy Vs. Sanji

Hello and thank you for accepting! ok to start off my arguement on why i believe that might guy is the stronger fighter, lets look at basic abilities/skillsets. Might Guy: 1.Extreme taijutsu ability. Guys hand to hand combat skills are very possibly the best in the entire Naruto series. He also uses his feet AND hands whiles sanji only uses his feet. 2: The 8 inner gates: Guy can open these gates inhancing his speed and power massivly. Against Kisame guy opened the sixth gate and was able to create fire from just his punches. Guys speed far outcalsses sanji's which will be a huge factor. 3. Morning tiger..... we know
Might Guy Vs. Sanji

This has kind of devolved into a mini-debate over who's better pacifista's or tailed beasts. It's good to know I'm debating someone who's passionate about Naruto, but dude seriously chill out. I mean you really don't have to go look for the neet website of falsehoods (who has the spare time to post random stats of manga/anime character's battle stats) on battlestats to prove that the tailed beasts are superior to the Pacifista's for several reasons. First Narutoverse would lose in a straight up fight against One Piece that much is a given (sorry but its the truth). Second Narutoverse maintains a balance of power against the world of One Piece with its genjutsu users like Itachi, and Kakashi, who using Kamui can easily beat anyone who doesn't have Haki. This is because Narutoverse trades off power and speed for highly effective genjutsus instead.The CP9 are skilled assasins who don't waste energy for flashy moves like the pinball gaara shown by Lee. Instead they use Soru and Shigun to move in close undetected and deliver an instant kill and vanish without a trace. Why do you think CP9 has a notorious reputation in the underworld of One Piece? Because they are that good at what they do, and its assassinating people. Also because they were so good at assassinations, they became pompous and were eventually beaten by the Strawhats who possessed more tenacity than CP9. Just like how Akatsuki members kept losing to the Shinobi of the hidden leaf village. So in the end Sanji is still faster than Guy.Kisame's power is comparable to Jabra which is impressive as the CP9 are actually to a varying degree comparable to Akatsuki with the exception of the Genjutsu specialists and high ranking ones like Tobi/Madara/Obito, Itachi, Pain, and Konan. Sasori is equal to Blueno, Hidan and Kakuzu are comparable to Kaku, Deidara is comparable to Kumadori and Zetsu to Fukurou. So Guy can one hit KO an enemy who's on par with Jabra, nice but I still think he can do better.Listen GiantSpoonMan, Thanks for stating the obvious 3 rounds later after I said something similar 2 rounds ago about Diable Jambe and flaming punches. (slow on the uptake I take it?)Guy loses in terms of speed and attack (attack is due to range) against Sanji, but He definitely does have better defense compared to Sanji. After all bearing the heavy burden of the gates is by no means an easy feat so Guy has better defense. Now you say that its the speed blitz that finishes a battle right? Well in the Manga there are plenty of times where Sanji uses his superhuman kicks to deliver massive amounts of damage in a speed blitz. Seems like someone forgot Sanji's Extra Asshi, Boire Frire Spectrum to name a few, and for a comic finish how about the combo leading up to Parage shot, a speed blitz attack that'll alter Guy's face into something better.You seem to have conceded on the Haki so I will take it as a concession.
September PF topic, A/V Style!

Yeah I'm not gonna have enough time to legitimately make an audio response with only 11 minutes left. moot point with following laws, okay. Now, onto the "enlistment check. " Basically, my opponent believes that the people will not enlist if they don't like the war, and will if they do. My opponent cites WWII as a war where lots of people enlisted into the Armed services. If this enlistment check existed, then 93% of the US Forces in WWII wouldn't have been drafted, so yeah, his whole first contention is wrong. My opponent cites mass incompetence as something wrong with the draft, but these minor bugs are just that, and have always existed in the system, so once again, it doesn't matter. -crosses out second contention. - Brings up enlistment check, which I previous proved as false, so he's wrong about that AVF is democratic. My opponent on Iraq/ Afghanistan is wrong because he dropped my point about the soliders being on their second and third tours, which lowers their effectiveness. My opponent also dropped my point regarding the need for the US to effectively respond to future threats and not be bullied around by countries like Iran and Russia.
September PF topic, A/V Style!

http://www.youtube.com... I'd like to thank LR4N6 if he chooses to accept, I'd like to point out that he has not prepared for PF, but I find his debate-skill most useful in practice. Do not judge him harshly, as his speeches will be rather quickly thought up. Hey there, I hope that we can do an A/V debate following to a certain extent the rules/customs of Public Forum debate. 1st round is for opening (4 mins), 2nd is for rebuttals (3 mins) , 3rd is for Final Summary (1 min). I'm hoping we can both keep to the time limits in our speeches. I'd also like to ask that we both avoid spreading to the best of our abilities, as in PF such speed reading practices are strongly frowned upon.