BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mass destruction is need for mass innovation.

Actually I disagree we do need to destroy anything and I'll explain why. lets say only the only have of the suburbs of an area are destroyed and the other half isn't. The half that is destroyed is completely upgrade with everything new and up to date on all standards. These new upgrades won't be compatible with the old stuff. Look at it electrically and with pipes in plumbing. I don;t know if you know this but you have to get pipes upgraded so that are compatible. But if one half of something is completely upgraded then the other half has to be as well for compatibility.
Death penalty in U.S.A

Thank you for answering my Debate here is what I think about some of you"re arguments. You write about how much the prisoners cost our government/society. What I hear you say is, that a person should be judged on how much he will cost the government/society? It sounded like that in my ears. In my opinion I think that people should be treated in a fair and judgmental way, no matter what the person has done of crime. I think that we as a country should do anything to help this "person" to get back on track. Another thing I would like to debate with you about death penalty is "Judicial Murder". It has been seen that the government has killed innocent people because of the "death penalty" law, which I find very worrying. I found a case where a father was executed for killing his three young children by arson. Later the "Innocent Project" got the case investigated and filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas. They reviewed all the case documents and found out that it was just an innocent fire that caused the death of the three children (The Cameron Todd Willingham case). I would like to hear you"re thoughts about this. Personally I think prison is much worse than execution. Death penalty is an easy way to escape from the crime you has committed and that"s why I prefer prison. In my opinion I would rather have the person rotten up in prison instead of let him take, in my opinion the "the easy escape" I am looking forward to hear you"re thought on this.
Death penalty in U.S.A

One of the most important concepts of human nature is doing what's best for mankind. When a person kills several innocent people, even while disregarding this person's mental stability, they detrimented society. One might argue that putting them in prison for a very long time will keep them away, but there are several problems with this. One would be the expenses of keeping someone in prison for life. This ranges from around $14,000 to $60,000, per person, per year. It may be true that an inmate on death row costs upwards from $90,000, due to extra guards and a private cell, but this person will not be in prison for life, so the total expenses for both prisoners will be quite ranged, after the inmate on death row is put down, for lack of a better term. Another problem is the possibility of an inmate escaping. Should this murderer be let loose, he or she can easily take many innocent lives once again. As previously stated, this detriments civilization and humanity as a whole. Finally, I look to the many faults in our judicial system. Should a murderer be put on trial with a corrupt, uneducated, or uncaring judge and jury, he or she will get away with this crime and may commit another one like it. As an example, I turn to the murder of Eric Garner, and the fact that the officer that killed him was never convicted of murder, despite the fact that Garner said "I can't breathe" eleven times at the time of the homicide. I am not implying this officer should have been giving the death penalty, I am merely saying this case is an example of the judicial system having unjustified bias. As a side note, your Bible quote is irrelevant. Our founding fathers believed in the separation of Church and State and was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion", as exemplified greatly in article eleven of the Treaty of Tripoli. I would like to keep this debate professional and political, thinking of what's best for the United States, and leave all personal thoughts aside. What you call a "mistake" is not something that can be forgiven. Premeditated murder, except for select cases, should be punished by death. Also, one cannot assume a prisoner will sit in his cell and "think about what they have done wrong." Every human mind is different, and the mind of a murderer is likely to not be regretful. Thank you. Here are my sources. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
Death penalty in U.S.A

USA is the only western country in the world who has death penalty. 38 states in USA have death penalty. You cannot get a death penalty for every crime you make. The only crime where you can get a death penalty is if you commit a premeditated murder. I think that death penalty should be illegal in all the states in America, one of the reasons is, I think it is moral wrong, to kill another human no mater what the person has done. The 10 commandments say that, ""You shall not murder"" I know that a person who get the death penalty have committed a murder but when the government kills a person with death penalty is that not a murder or what? I do not think it should be legal even though if you are the government. I think that it is human to make a mistake and a lot of the persons who get the death penalty have not committed more then one murder, so why shall they be killed for the crime they have committed, maybe when they have been drunk or something like that, I do not say that a person who has committed a crime do not have to be punished. I think that if you have committed a premeditated murder then you shall be sent to prison for lifetime instead of being killed (life time shall not be for the rest of your life only for a long time) and then they can sit in a prison and think about what they have done wrong. What do you think? I would like to hear your version of the death penalty:
Politics is bad and not healthy for the country

You just repeated your first argument. Google definition of Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Politics is neither bad or good, however it is a necessary medium for governance. Politics is system by which, in this aspect, a country determines markers of it's society e.g. laws, economy, standards of life. Saying politics is responsible for the aliments of the people is comparable to saying Mcdonald's is responsible for fat people. Bad people ruin things; politics can be that medium for bad people. Bad politicians aka bad people are the plague of most societies. The only way to stop bad politicians is with good politicians aka good people.
Politics is bad and not healthy for the country

politics... what do we even mean by it? The word "politics' even indicates death, corruption,overpower and greed. So many countries have reached a position where they "surviving " to live because of the criminal and selfish nature of politics.E.g Africa is one of the biggest continent in the world. It has so many natural resources like cocoa but it it the poorest country in the world. This is ironic. It is because of politics and the corrupted politicians Africa has turned out to be like this. Politics is like a booby trap, a trap that pulls you and never lets you go. It crushes, stamps and tortures you. I am srilankan my country has been having war for the past 30 years and within these 30 years there have been so many changes in my country. By changes I mean bad and devastating changes. This war took life of many innocent people. People who did no wrong or no harm to any one. So many women were raped in the most disgusting and horrible manner. Women and children were kept naked in concentration camps and beaten to death. Even children of very small agees were raped. Why did all this happen? Who should we blame? Definitely politics and the politicians who control it. So is it wrong to say that optics is bad and not good for the country? No . Thank you. Thevanthi. Thevanesan
Politics is bad and not healthy for the country

Google definition of Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. Politics is neither bad or good, however it is a necessary medium for governance. Politics is system by which, in this aspect, a country determines markers of it's society e.g. laws, economy, standards of life. Saying politics is responsible for the aliments of the people is comparable to saying Mcdonald's is responsible for fat people. Bad people ruin things; politics can be that medium for bad people. Bad politicians aka bad people are the plague of most societies. The only way to stop bad politicians is with good politicians aka good people.
Politics is bad and not healthy for the country

politics... what do we even mean by it? The word "politics' even indicates death, corruption,overpower and greed. So many countries have reached a position where they "surviving " to live because of the criminal and selfish nature of politics.E.g Africa is one of the biggest continent in the world. It has so many natural resources like cocoa but it it the poorest country in the world. This is ironic. It is because of politics and the corrupted politicians Africa has turned out to be like this. Politics is like a booby trap, a trap that pulls you and never lets you go. It crushes, stamps and tortures you. I am srilankan my country has been having war for the past 30 years and within these 30 years there have been so many changes in my country. By changes I mean bad and devastating changes. This war took life of many innocent people. People who did no wrong or no harm to any one. So many women were raped in the most disgusting and horrible manner. Women and children were kept naked in concentration camps and beaten to death. Even children of very small agees were raped. Why did all this happen? Who should we blame? Definitely politics and the politicians who control it. So is it wrong to say that optics is bad and not good for the country. No . Thank you. Thevanthi. Thevanesan
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

con says most guns are already illegal. i dont know if this is true or not, but my point was that most currently legal guns should be banned and confiscated. con compares guns to eating bacon. which is riduculous. bacon is good if eaten in moderation, is eaten voluntarily and is not designed to kill. murders are not voluntary and guns are designed to kill. con says the wiki source shows no correlation between guns and homicdies. the problem is the source, wikipedia, and the small sample taken. a larger sample and bigger source as i cited, is superior to the wiki info. con mentions the second amendment. we'd have to get rid of it, or go back to an understanding that it only protects state militias.
Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

Although Pro is not right about my usage of the word Metaphysical, I am choosing to abandon that line of argumentation as its full impact will not be able to be realized in such a short text space. However, I would like to point out that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof in showing that the Penal Substitution Atonement that he is objecting to is actually the way the Bible presents the function of the death of Christ on the Cross. Jesus himself said he came to "Set the Captives Free." Later on, Paul tells us that we were once slaves to sin and death. One of the leading theories on the Atonement is called "Christus Victor" and essentially argues that the world is a battlefield. In this battlefield we are caught in the crossfire of sorts, and our souls are forfeit. The death of Christ on the Cross was the decisive victory blow of God over the forces of the devil, and secures victory for all who align themselves with Christ. The reason that this competing view is pertinent to our debate, is that if this is indeed how the atonement functions... your argument does not hold water. No one would object to a general in a battle sacrificing himself to secure victory. Nor would anyone object to a general sacrificing one of the soldiers under his command to secure victory. That is the ugly nature of war. To summarize, Pro is arguing that Christ dying as our Penal Substitution is objectionable. However, the Resolution is only that Christ dying on the Cross is objectionable. If he died as a means of securing victory, rather than as a penal substitution... Pro's argument is invalid.
Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

I as the Pro in this debate will be raising objections to the belief that "Jesus died" for our sins. My opponent as the Con will defend against my objections. VERY IMPORTANT !!!!!!! ---- > This is a debate based on arguments and reason, thus it is expected that you take time to understand the objection raised, and to show where its reasoning is faulty. No bible thumping or preaching thanks, if you can't argue with reason, based upon the merit of the arguments given, then step aside and let some one who will. Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins" I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........ 1) Everyone is a sinner 2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness 3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners Objection 1) The debt and payment of sin.......... A common analogy used is that of debt, where some one is in debt, and some one else pays for that debt. In the analogy debt = sin , Jesus = the payer of that debt, God = the one who is owed the debt. Now, I have no objection say for instance to some one else paying some ones parking fine, I do not consider this a breach of justice. So at this point Con could say well there you go, you don't object in principle to some one else paying debt so you don't have an objection here. Well not so fast, the objection is raised because there is a HUGE difference between some one paying some one else parking fine, and some one paying for some one else's rape or murder. Consider this example, some one is guilty of murder or rape or genocide etc, some one else steps in and offers to bear the punishment instead of the guilty, although a noble act, it would not matter, to allow the guilty to go free, while punishing the innocent, would be morally wrong, and no justice system that we regard as civilized would do it. With this in mind, lets be clear, the claim that Jesus died for our sins, is not Jesus paying our parking fines, but rather our sins that are so great, that it requires God to send people to hell for eternity because of them. In summary we would reject a justice system that let some one go unpunished and declared innocent who is guilty of rape, torture, murder, genocide etc, by punishing a volunteered innocent in the place of the guilty, thus we should reject the Jesus died for our sins claim on these unjust grounds. I do have more objections, but I would rather see Cons reply to this objection first, after all we have 5 rounds. I look forward to Cons response.
Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

Here is what I will concede to you, and if the voters feel it meets your requirements. .. they can feel free to vote as they choose. I will concede that you raise reasonable QUESTIONS that we must ask of the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory. You make reasonable analogical comparisons to our penal system, and I applaud you for thinking through the issues. I do want to apologize to the readers, I took this debate and did not realize how much of my time my new courses and travel was going to take. I was not able to prepare for this debate as much as it deserves, and for that I'm sorry. However, I do want Pro (and the readers) to consider the following: Would you object to this type of Penal system if YOU were the rapist? If you were the one who was being pardoned and freed of guilt, would you question the means? My answer (and your answer if you are honest) is no. That is the question at hand, we must not look at OTHERS and ask if it is fair for THEM to be pardoned, we must look at ourselves and ask if it is objectionable that WE are pardoned. I acknowledge that Pro cannot respond, so I encourage him to respond in comments and would like the readers to take his response into consideration.
Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

I think it is quite clear that Con wants to win on a technical point, and not the core issues at had. If you care more about winning this debate on a technical point rather than all the issues referred to in the first round, you do that. Con says "In terms of arguing about the historicity of the New Testament, or anything like that. Your resolution does not state "The concept of Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." It states that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." If you did not want to argue about the historic event, then you need to learn to craft your resolutions more carefully, or more clearly define them in your opening round." I have no idea why Con would accept this debate when I had said this in the first round.... "Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins" I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........ 1) Everyone is a sinner 2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness 3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners" You know exactly what I was arguing against, you can't appeal to ignorance. I am not going to ask for an apology, but I think you should apologize to the people who read this debate, looking too see objections and a defense on this whole Jesus died for our sins, and so forth. I am not impressed, maybe next time I will get some one who will defend it. Tell you what Con, you want to win so bad, just admit that I squashed your pathetic defense of penal atonement, and I will concede you as the winner of this debate. You had 5 rounds to defend penal atonement, you didn't do it, so don't bother now cause I can't respond, just admit I nailed your defense of it , and if you do, I declare you the winner of this debate. As such IF Con admits I refuted their penal theory defense, I declare Con the winner, and thus IF con does this urge voters to vote Con, infact If Con admits that I refuted their penal atonement defense, I urge voters to vote bomb for him. There is your precious win, take it punk, I mean you do want to win right ? It means so much to you, you are willing to resort to word play on the resolution ? so go on, just admit I refuted your defense of penal atonement, and I concede defeat and you the winner of this debate. If Con does not concede that I refuted their defense of penal atonement then I don't concede defeat, then I refer voters to round 1 and 2, where this was actually debated to decided who won. So whats it gonna be Con ?
Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

Pro is welcome to object to penal atonement, however that is not what the resolution says. The resolution says "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable" Pro needs to show why Jesus dying for our sins is objectionable. He attempted to do so by arguing against the death of Jesus in penal substitution. The reason you need to prove that penal substitution is the function of Christ's death is because otherwise the whole premise of your argument becomes an unsupported contention. If we want to simply debate on unsupported contentions, then I can simply come in and say "Not it isn't" and we have a stalemate. In terms of arguing about the historicity of the New Testament, or anything like that. Your resolution does not state "The concept of Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." It states that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." If you did not want to argue about the historic event, then you need to learn to craft your resolutions more carefully, or more clearly define them in your opening round. To conclude, you have the burden of proof to not only show that Penal Substitution is the theory that matches the historical event pointed to in your Resolution. If you are somehow able to do this without appealing to the most significant historical document regarding the event (The Bible) then you are welcome to. However, your resolution does not indicate that we are simply arguing about Penal Substitution theory, nor did you define that clearly in your opening resolution. I will summarize my argument in simple numerical order, to make it extremely clear. 1) Pro is arguing that the death of Jesus functions as a Penal Substitution 2) Pro has not proven that the death of Jesus functions as a Penal Substitution 3) It is possible that the death of Jesus functions in the Cristus Victor model, or as a Propitiation 4) Christus Victor or Propitiation do not function in the "Unjust" way that Pro is arguing, and would in fact be considered just. Ergo) Pro has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that: Jesus dying for our sins is objectionable and therefore has failed to prove the resolution.
Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

First of all, act like an adult, or don't participate in these debates. Phrases like "What the hell?" are not appropriate, and have no place. Second, you characterize my use of the word Metaphysics incorrectly. You state that it is simply me using a word to allow for contradiction, which is untrue. 8000 Characters is not a lot of space. I am a graduate student that regularly writes 25-30 page papers on these kinds of topics, to summarize it in 40,000 characters would be doing injustice to a complex topic, so I am refraining from doing so. Your argument that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable" is based entirely on you refuting substitutionary atonement. Your argument is that "we would reject a justice system that let some one go unpunished and declared innocent who is guilty of rape by punishing a volunteered innocent in the place of the guilty, thus we should reject the Jesus died for our sins claim on these unjust grounds." You have not proven that "the Jesus died for our sins claim" is even what is claimed in the atonement. Since that claim is simply asserted, it is an unsupported proposition... which is a problem for Pro, who has the burden of proof. Which you have not fulfilled. For example, if Christus Victor is accurate, then Jesus did not die in our place for our sins. He died to secure the decisive victory that rescued the hostages of Sin and Death. Did you present reasons why Jesus dying for our sins is objectionable? Perhaps, IF an innocent is dying in the place of the guilty... which is what your argument hinges on. However, you have not proven that this is the function of Christ's death on the cross. You cannot prove your conclusion without also proving your propositions. Was Con able to show these objections ere false and or unwarranted? Yes, Con showed that a system where the guilty are pardoned by the executive officer of the jurisdiction is not rejected out of hand, which is the second part of your argument. Does this support your claim that Jesus for our sins is objectionable? No it does not... you have not proved that Christ's death functions the way you are describing it... if it does not function the way you are describing it your argument does not hold water. A side note: "My arguments were never based on whether the bible presents a substitution atonement, I present my own objections INDEPENDENTLY of what the bible does or does not say." So... are you traveling in time to witness the events? How do you have knowledge of said events? What is your source of evidence that Jesus ever died for our sins? You cannot base an argument merely on your own ideas... especially an argument about a historic event... without referencing historic documents.