BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Punitive Justice is Never Justified

lets analyze the reasons my opponent gave against punitive justice system. 1. Crime is almost invariably in the lower socioeconomic classes. This is to say that there is a predisposition for a poor person to do crime. Since there is a predisposition, I don't think the person should be punished. ans. but crime can also be seen in upper socioeconomic classes ( rupert murdoch,enron,princess diana murder etc.). now here i want to mention that quantity of crime does not matter. only existance of crime matters.it is clear crime existed irrespective of classes. class does not matter. 2. If society wants to change the behavior of the criminal, i.e. deterrence, then punishment is the worst way to go about that. Punishment is the least effective method of behavioral change (1) and usually just leads to law evasion rather than a decrease in social deviance (2). ans. why do you think so? 3. If society does not want to change the behavior of the criminal, and instead just wants to get revenge on him/her, then I am opposed because of the barbarity of that situation, especially considering my first point. ans. yes, i agree, its very barbaric. 4. Often times, I hear the argument that punishment serves as a deterrent for future criminals. This argument just does not hold water. If a person is going to commit a crime, they will necessarily fall into one of the following subcategories: a. He/she has considered the punishments and decides to do it anyway. b. He/she has been paid enough to take that risk. c. He/she is acting in the heat of passion wherein they don't have the capacity to think of the consequences. d. He/she is mentally incompetent to understand the consequences. ans. i don't know wheather you know or not,in india, for reason (c) and (d),there is no crime if the heat of passion and incapacity of understanding the consequences are not voluntery i.e. due to some other reason. but if reason (a) and (b) are not prevented, then don't you think that crime will increase in society? 5. Many Western European nations have a much less punitive system of incarceration. Norway is an ideal example. Norway has annoyed a lot of people who are big on punishing criminals for it's humane prisons, however Norway boasts a recidivism rate 40% lower than the United States (3). It should be noted that I am using that statistic for correlation and not causation. ans. perhaps humane prison is the reason of norway bomb blast. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Punitive Justice is Never Justified

This will be my second debate on debate.org. I have not yet finished my first. I choose this topic because it is one of the only political ideals for which I have a passion. Punitive justice is never justified for a number of reasons: 1. Crime is almost invariably in the lower socioeconomic classes. This is to say that there is a predisposition for a poor person to do crime. Since there is a predisposition, I don't think the person should be punished. 2. If society wants to change the behavior of the criminal, i.e. deterrence, then punishment is the worst way to go about that. Punishment is the least effective method of behavioral change (1) and usually just leads to law evasion rather than a decrease in social deviance (2). 3. If society does not want to change the behavior of the criminal, and instead just wants to get revenge on him/her, then I am opposed because of the barbarity of that situation, especially considering my first point. 4. Often times, I hear the argument that punishment serves as a deterrent for future criminals. This argument just does not hold water. If a person is going to commit a crime, they will necessarily fall into one of the following subcategories: a. He/she has considered the punishments and decides to do it anyway. b. He/she has been paid enough to take that risk. c. He/she is acting in the heat of passion wherein they don't have the capacity to think of the consequences. d. He/she is mentally incompetent to understand the consequences. 5. Many Western European nations have a much less punitive system of incarceration. Norway is an ideal example. Norway has annoyed a lot of people who are big on punishing criminals for it's humane prisons, however Norway boasts a recidivism rate 40% lower than the United States (3). It should be noted that I am using that statistic for correlation and not causation. It is for these reasons that I think punishment is not a good option for crime. (1)http://www.psychologytoday.com... ... and while I don't have a checkable source, having studied psychology, I know that negative reinforcement is the most effective, if you're interested. (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.time.com...
there is other life out in space

I can see where you are coming from, but for all we know the aliens could be like us and have not gotten far enough. If you think about it the universe is infinite, which means that there are an infinite amount of galaxies with an infinite amount of stars. Most of them with there own planets, so out of an infinite amount of planets how can we possibly say that there is not at least one other planet with life. We may not have proof that aliens exist, but at the same time we don't have proof that they don't exist. According to nasa.gov "If the count of planets in our solar system is not unusual, then there are more planets in the universe than the sum of all sounds and words ever uttered by every human who has ever lived. To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the cosmos with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us." Like I said before the universe is infinite, which means that there are an infinite amount of galaxies with an infinite amount of stars. Most of them with there own planets, so out of an infinite amount of planets how can we possibly say that there is not at least one other planet with life.
there is other life out in space

I believe that there is life out in space. whoever wants to debate con can. 1st and 2nd round state your side 3rd round rebuttal. The way I see it is we haven't even gotten all the way through our galaxy so how can we say with absolute certainty that there isn't life out there. Now going to some religious proof, Jesus Christ the proclamation to the world says that God created worlds. Key word worlds!
Beginners november tournament: On balance, anarcho-capitalism is better than anarcho-communism

Physiological:Con’s methodology for analyzing the likely GDP of the USA under communism is completely arbitrary. Furthermore, the reason the GDP/capita of the USA is so high in the first place is because of its more capitalist system. While no system is perfectly capitalistic or communistic, we can approach either end of the spectrum to see a general trend. A Forbes magazine article noted that the US GDP/capita in the 1950’s is higher than Russia’s near today (1). Con’s source for the cost of living links to an error page, so he does not even have any evidence for his conclusion that has seemingly been reached by voodoo economics. Con has not demonstrated at all that communism is effective, economically speaking. This also renders his point about inequality moot, as capitalism is far more effective at generating productive and more advanced societies than communism. As many personal qualms as I have with Margaret Thatcher, she explains this quite eloquently by noting that capitalism might have a bigger gap, but the people as a whole are much better off (2).First of all, Con’s numbers are based on the world as a whole, which compares apples to oranges. I wasn’t aware that every nation was capitalistic. Yes, many African nations are poor, but they are also divided by numerous civil wars, and certainly not all capitalistic; they can’t be compared to the United States or to Europe. As well, it ignores the fact that African nations are growing; the rate of growth can’t be expected to be matched in communism, as I have shown. (3).Safety:This makes no sense. If working is voluntary, but goods are shared, people will not work. As Con’s statistics about people starving in capitalist societies are not accurate, there’s no difference at best in levels of violence. All of Con’s evidence for violence in capitalism is just as possible in communism; evidently, he has never heard of the Russian Mafia.Egalitarianism:This has absolutely no relevance. It doesn’t matter if people are all equal if they’re all equal in starvation. Saying that the majority of people follow religions that are supposed to value it (but often don’t enact it) is a complete bandwagon fallacy. As that was Con’s only support, that framework falls completely apart. Capitalism allows all people to rise together, even if unequally; communism sees them all suffer together.Sources:1. http://www.forbes.com...;2. ;3. http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org...;
Beginners november tournament: On balance, anarcho-capitalism is better than anarcho-communism

This debate is part of round 2 of the november beginners tournament.In history there have been multiple conflicts between capitalism and communism. This debate is about which of the two extremes is favorable. I as con am going to argue in favor of anarcho-communism.The burden of proof in this debate is shared. The participants have 72 hours to write their posts and the character limit is 8.000.Terms:On balance: With all things consideredAnarcho-capitalism: Term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses. Politics and taxes would not exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, nor would services like public education, police protection and law enforcement that are normally provided by government agencies. Instead, the private sector would provide all necessary services. For example, people would contract with protection agencies, perhaps in a manner similar to how they contract with insurance agencies, to protect their life, liberty and property. Victimless crimes, such as drug use, and crimes against the state, such as treason, would not exist under anarcho-capitalism. Assistance to the needy would be provided through voluntary charity instead of compulsory income redistribution (welfare). (1)Anarcho-communism: A theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". (2)Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling6. Both debaters accept the definitions of the defined terms7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 8. Violation of any of these rules means the conduct point should be given to the opponent Structure: Round 1: acceptance (no arguments) Round 2: arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: rebuttals for the arguments in round 2 Round 4: defenses for the rebuttals in round 3 (absolutely no new arguments) Sources: 1) http://www.investopedia.com...2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
No Theme Rap Battle!!

It's the final final round,and you've got nothin',when I read your "poem" I just frowned--it made absolute no sense, you were just bluffin',Nemo and poor puppies don't save your swearin' skin.I understand you're tryin' to make people like you, but there's no way you'd win,for your ambiguous rebuttals have gone "Kah-Boo"!But this is the final round,and I don't want to be the mean one, so I'll stay inbounds.Thank you very much for this fun rap battle,I've had so much fun in this rattle-tattle.If you wanna improve, here's a suggestion to you: try a different perspective, or angle-of-view!
No Theme Rap Battle!!

Got no time to endureFearing and moreDebating Revolution withOnly a coupStuck back in timeLife's all a rhymeRhythmicAlgebraicArithmeticAll these things got nothing to doWith the subject at hand and so I see tooBroken with a leg only a handSlapped by Causality"Aight" Such a fallacyApparently that's soWell whatever guess I knowBack to seaThere go the submarinesOneTwoThreeBack on the brink of destructionMy own CrucifixionMy eyes open wide at the sound of your rap Possibly to childish so people can't attackSaw Nemo when I was a kidHe ended dead in a bag. He looked so sadIt made me furious,EnragedLocked in this cageNo EscapeNot Even when deadIt's so sad to see the poor puppyWhen a mouse is nearand even then fear takes a hold grabs everything it canPeople don't want to know some stupidSemanticsThey want the truthabout the things that happened To them to youTo me to sheTo Every****ing bodyThey want to know why How and whoNot some stuff about silly little cartoonsSo I'm here to see that too,Heres from me to you.
No Theme Rap Battle!!

Congradulations, you repl'd without explicitly insultin' me,You even created a real nice mysterythat's cool, strange and like a horror story,but what people really love are people like Dory,humorous and silly, Laughing and sweet as a lily,helpful, but havin' flaws such as bein' forgetful and very very carefulat the same time. Because I was so meticulous,I spotted some spelling errorslike "aight", that's just ridiculous, and for grammar nazis--a terror. You sweared, you did, and you lose conduct,but I can't spot anything else, you lucky duck.That wasn't an insult, that's just a lame "rhyme muck."
No Theme Rap Battle!!

First on siteyou seem ready to fight aight, lyrics don't let me down tonight.You state you're ready this timeI'll prove you wrong in your state of mindI got no time to waste on this battleso let me just baffle Knight be the daywhen I take my hat off to saygood job sir you win this roundIn any wayI'll be your equal,Your Sequel;Prequel.Far be the day when I step outside to sayI love the world in each and every wayIt's unfair and biased when I playI kill to winLove to sinPreaching then Dead people outsideBut you play and hide You don't dare go inYou're to scared you'll meet your endI'll fly higher then you ever couldCause I don't give a ****Even If I couldI wouldn't give oneNot a single one to seeThe little bit of sanity that's still inside me.I'm here to see you outIn debate, in rapI'm here to overtake, Nothing's in my way. Even If I had my Sanity I'd throw it awayThe Russian Prime-timeMalaysia 3.7.0 timesSearching for nothing they knowThey hope to see something come upThey want itThey need it too Looking for answers they never knewSo here's to the people back at homeCrying aloneStay strongDon't rely on these idiots whoLie each and every dayTry to make you cry and sayThere's no meaning to live No meaning to die"Why Oh God why? Do you make me cry?" Then Flash to a black roomRope hanging from the roofCircle around and body blueNote lying on the floor. Flash to white then to redClearly obvious, you're fairly dead
Animal Testing

Apologies to my opponent for calling her a him, I was unaware and wrongfully assumed she was male. My opponent has wholly misunderstood my argument. Where it might normally be irrelevant that people eat animals for food, I was establishing this as a parallel case. It is for the same reasons that we should continue consuming animals that we should continue testing products on animals. We do both of these things because animals generally have no use to us besides the use we choose to use them for. An animal is useless to us unless we can get products from it (fur, milk, etc), get meat from it, or use it in any other way to help us. Included in this last option is the usefulness of a pet (gives the owner happiness), the usefulness of seeing eye dogs, police dogs, hunting dogs, etc, or the usefulness of an animal we use for product testing. My opponent directly asked "How is this a good thing? Hurting poor and harmless animals just to test products?" My opponent already answered that question himself: "...to test products?". It is good because testing products is useful to society, much more than the lives of a very small number of animals who otherwise would not be helping our society. My opponent also has come up with a supposedly better answer for the products that need testing: we should develop ways to test products without the possible rare harm to an animal. While it could be said that this would be preferable, we do not currently have such a method. Therefore, until such a method is created, we should continue testing on animals, as it is the best option we currently have. My opponent is hoping you will vote for him based on your own feelings, based on your own empathy he has appealed to. However, he has failed to show why it is wrong for us to test products on animals. Do not vote based on your own feelings; rather, vote based on which side made the more solid case. Thank you for reading. That is all.
Animal Testing

First off, I would like to point out I'm a female. Secondly, what does animal TESTING have anything to do with eating meat? I do agree that this is a part of the food chain, but do you have to also kill animals for useless things such as trying out a cosmetics line? Of course, there will be animals killed. It's a part of life. I do not object to that. What I AM trying to say here, however, is that we are not testing for the bare minimum and there are possible alternatives that could be created. "Animal testing is a good thing. " How is this a good thing? Hurting poor and harmless animals just to test products? "First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see. " I have another possibility also. I do agree that testing on humans would be a bad idea. Why don't we create scientifical ways to test products? If science and technology can create these amazing computers we are on, surely we can create alternatives to testing products. "Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead" Not if we create alternatives. Also, about your statement about the food chain. We are discussing animal testing. Not the food chain and being a vegetarian. That is off topic and a whole other debate. Same goes for your comments on bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single celled; they are not able to respond to surroundings as intelligently as animals that have more cells, and a NUCLEUS. Also, the bacteria are harming us. These poor animals are NOT harming us. Just to comment on your statement. I do not see one clear or visible statement you made about why animal testing is good and should be allowed.
Animal Testing

Animal testing is a good thing. While it is not the only possibility, the alternatives are worse. I therefore advocate the continuation of animal testing. First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see. First, we could test products not on animals, but on humans. Second, we could not test products at all. Both of these lead to the same dreadful end: those same misfortunes that are sometimes brought upon animals would be brought upon humans instead. This is by no means more fair than the alternative, and by most viewpoints, it is a far worse crime (humans are generally considered to have more worth than animals). Now, let me expand upon my argument. We are a people in the habit of harming other beings in order to help ourselves. Unfortunately, it is something that simply must be done: the human race, as well as most other species, rely on harming other life to prosper. A predator kills its prey - are you against the food chain? People, too, kill animals for food - are you advocating vegetarianism? People also take advantage of animals to make other products, including some food and fabric - are you advocating the discontinuation of this practice? People kill bacteria that are living inside them - are you advocating the disuse of medicine? Construction ends the lives of trees - are you advocating that it too is wrong? Animal testing should be done, as should all the things above. Why? Because they are helpful practices for us to use. In none of the examples above did the victim 'ask' for it, but sometimes you get something you didn't ask for. My opponent is correct when he says that animals have no voice, and we must speak for them. However, that voice is clearly and justifiably saying that we should continue testing on animals. Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead. What next, should we become cannibals to satisfy our need for meat? We, just as every other type of animal out there does, place some of our own burdens onto other beings. A cow gets hungry? He eats some grass. A lion gets hungry? He eats a cow. A beaver wants to make a dam? He destroys some trees. A man needs a jacket and a meal? He kills a cow. A man needs to test a new product or do research? When he can, he places this burden on another lifeform. It is a matter of self interest, and I see no justifiable reason to betray it. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Homeless people are a nuisance? Yay or Nay.

depends on how hard they work to earn money or if they have the government give them everything I think the people should do something like give to charity for example in utah the PEOPLE built shelters and small homes for homeless people while the government did nothing I am all for charity and giving people food and money though I preffer giving people food because I don't know if they will use the money on drugs or something.
hamburgers are better then hotdogs

I say that hamburgers are better then hot dogs because of the hot dogs are precooked and then put into a package, The next reason hamburgers are better the hot dogs is because of the fact that most of the time there is more meat on it. Oh and the finale round is for more info and that is were you site your sources. As i continue, there is more of a chance to get ill from hot dogs then it is to get ill from hamburgers.