BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape should be legalized

My opponent has said that "The raped women will be ashamed and fearful of sexual intercourse with men in the future. This will add to the pleasure of the next men, who rape them! Which overall is a good thing." I would like to ask you all. How is being forced into sex, which may cause death to the victim be a good thing?? And I thought that my opponent said that men will respect women more when he stated that men will respect the women and children left behind? I would like to go over the points I have made of why the vote should respectfully be for the con side. 1. Rape causes harm either physically or mentally. 2. This may lead to death. 3. This will make the victim degrade themselves which may lead to death again. Etc. As I may state again, rape is an unmoral thing to do. I urge the vote for the con side. Thank you.
Rape should be legalized

My opponent has stated that people will protect the virtue of women and children left behind, yet will have murderers out in the world and people who will use everything to their advantage and wont care what happens to other people. They will only care for themselves. Humanity is just like that. This is why we have a government so that we have law and order. Can we think of the rights we have as people? When one has raped someone, that person has violated the victims rights. 1. The victim has been abused. 2. They have sexually exposed. 3. They have been humiliated and so on. As I stated in my previous argument that the victim may have mental harm fall upon them mentally or physically, this sometimes leads to suicide and self devalue etc. Rape is just an unmoral, bad thing to do.
Rape should be legalized

As my Opponent has said in his argument, that legalizing rape will help regain soldiers strength and make them "tougher". I don't think for this to be true. The definition of rape is to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence. According to Merriam Webster. When they are off at war the soldiers will be worried that their wives or children will be raped. And which leads to the Question of is that morally right? when being raped especially in children there is a mental damage that is going on too, they have been forced to give up their dignity and honor and in some rapists they have been known to harm their victims in the action of raping. This is in which harms the victim mentally and physically. then in some cases if the victim is small for example a small child then the rapist might kill the child. which brings upon my impact. would you risk lives of women men and children just for the pleasure of someone?
Rape should be legalized

If we agree that: legal rape = more rape Then we will soon a male population, with a wider, legally sanctioned, and practical range of experience with sexual sadism. This will most like increase their interest in sadism and dominance overall leading to a increased interest in joining the army and going abroad to fight wars. Due to the confidence boost and the sadism training learned by raping at home, they will most like be tougher and better soldiers, winning more wars, adding to the economy and power of the United States.
Gun Control

I understand that it is near impossible to completely prevent criminals. I agree with you that most criminals do not really care about breaking the law. That is what makes them criminals. If they are not able to purchase guns one way, they will find another way to do so. But putting a ban on guns is not just for the criminals. It is mostly for the non criminals. It is for the everyday average individual. It is for the thousands of people who lost their lives to unintentional shootings over the past 10 years. It is for the 21175 people who committed gun suicides in 2013. It is for the 100+ children who were killed due to accidental shootings in 2013. Children who weren't even given a chance to live a full, happy life. Almost all of these cases occurred due to gun that can be found in a typical household. It is for the 20 children and 6 teachers who were mercilessly killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT in 2012. 156 ammunition rounds were used in this incident, and they were all legally bought and obtained from the suspects home. A ban on guns will not stop all gun violence from taking place. There are still criminals out there that will do everything in their power to purchase and use guns. But ending gun violence isn't the purpose of gun control . The purpose of gun control is to limit the amount of unintentional loss of innocent lives. Taking guns completely out of households and banning its sales is the best way to accomplish that goal. http://abcnews.go.com... http://everytown.org... http://www.slate.com... http://www.cdc.gov...
Gun Control

You talk about the need for people to have weapons in order to protect themselves from any immediate danger from someone else. If that is so then there is no need for police or other law enforcement. If anyone is allowed to carry weapons and take matters into their own hands if any potential dangers present itself, that would make law enforcement officers basically useless. There would be absolutely no use for the millions of people who were put in place to serve and protect. We just need to let the policemen do their jobs and leave the protecting to the people who were put in place to handle those things. These individuals go through tons of specialized training and exercises just to prepare them to handle these dangers. My dad is a policeman so I am very familiar with the training he did and still does now. So if you use the 2nd amendment to justify individuals protecting themselves from other people, then you might as well tell the millions of police officers in the U.S. to find another job because there would essentially be no need for them. Just imagine the effect that would have on the economy and the society as a whole. It would be devastating. You also made a comparison between child deaths by guns and window coverings. As I read your example I believe you forgot to consider one thing; these are both preventable deaths. But they do have differences. The child deaths due to window shades are just an unfortunate event but the odds of a child dying while playing with or around them is pretty slim to none. If a child gets there hands on a gun however, all it takes is one squeeze on the right spot and a child's life could be over. One study shows that from 12/15/12 to 5/7/13 there were 71 gun related child deaths and 40 of those were accidental. Now because both cases are highly preventable deaths, changes have to be made to limit or, even better, eliminate them. There there are many measures that can be taken the limit window covering deaths, whether its design or manufacturing improvements. But the only way to prevent unintentional child deaths by guns is to take the guns out of the household completely. http://www.skepticalraptor.com...
Gun Control

The main problem with your response is that guns actually are safe, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THEM. Should we punish all gun owners for parents not securing their firearms? Let"s look at another common way children die: window coverings. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (a more reputable source than Slate.com who does not reference their sources for statistics) states that approximately 349 children died between 1981 and 1995 due to strangulation from window covers/blinds. These children were left in a safe place by their parents/guardians, such as a crib or bedroom, and died anyways. While those two things seem unrelated, when applied to gun control, should we outlaw window coverings just because they killed almost 350 children over a period of 14 years? That"s more children killed by blinds than guns. I agree that there are ways for criminals to purchase guns illegally. However, extensive background checks are required for people who purchase guns LEGALLY. Have you ever purchased a firearm? I have. You stand in the store for approximately 30-45 minutes while the licensed firearms dealer runs your background to see if you are a felon. In some states, it"s even more complicated than that wait time! The only combat to criminals purchasing firearms is to patrol heavily and crack down on previously known illegal distributors of firearms. Gun shows, which aren"t even addressed in your rebuttal, are the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms. I disagree with their existence and although they are huge revenue producers, they should require background checks. Gun control laws are an issue because it violates the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that possessing firearms is not just the right to form a militia. It"s the right to keep guns in your home, the right to carry a firearm in places that allow, and it"s the right to protect yourself from anyone who tries to hurt you. Gun control is an issue because it DOESN"T WORK. Taking away the rights of law-abiding Americans is wrong and in a country that was founded on freedom, it seems to me that everyone would want to protect that freedom as much as they can. Gun control laws don"t hurt criminals. They hurt the people following the law. "The Number of Children Who Strangle in Window Cords Has Been Under-reported According to a New Study in JAMA." U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 3 June 1997. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
Gun Control

I completely understand your argument but I have to disagree with it. One of the main reasons why is simply, guns are not safe. This is especially true when it comes to our youth. When guns are easily obtainable, the more likely they are to fall in the hands of children. There are too many accidents where children are injured by guns. The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered by guns in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations. One statistic showed that every day, eight kids are fatally shot or wounded by guns in the U.S. This will only be prevented if there were no guns allowed in households. Another case for gun control is the fact that it is just way to easy for criminals to legally buy guns and and turn around and use them to commit crimes. Strict and extensive background checks and required waiting periods would significantly help this problem. http://nlcatp.org... http://www.slate.com...
I Spy!

I want to try an I Spy game. The topic will be either a place/city/historical monument. First round will be for acceptance. Second round will be the I Spy riddle, third round I will reveal the answer. I am new at this, so I am not sure how it will turn out but anyone interested, feel free to accept! I get 7 points if Con doesn't know the answer. Con gets 7 points if they answer correctly. Note: I am creating these myself so it might be easy while others might be difficult. This is just a test round!! example: I spy a portrait of great leaders towering like giants These people with trust and unmeasurable reliance You will not find another one alike, here or another planet For they might have a shortage in granite! Answer: I Spy Mount Rushmore
On Campus Concealed Carry

For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.
Ben Should Become a Vegetarian

1. Focusing on only the CO2 aspect and ignoring the land/water resource aspects is misrepresenting my position. Even still, the supposed gaps in the UN report are about CO2 usage, which is completely addressed in the study you so casually toss aside because you already "don't consume much red meat" (an admission which would perhaps imply that making a move toward complete vegetarianism would be simpler for you than you would have the audience believe). You say "there will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques ... than to change our meat eating habits". And yet, you have yourself to partially blame for that, as you are part of the market demand for meat. "U.S. vegetarian food sales have doubled since 1998, reaching $1.6 billion in 2003. The vegetarian and vegan population is expected to continue its increase steadily". As people drop away from meat consumption, the market adjusts accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org... Allowing that not all animals have the same environmental impact, they all still necessarily have a greater environmental impact than eating plants only. Even "smarter farming" can't change the food chain, which shows that plants take energy directly from the sun, and animals (unless we've yet to discover some photosynthesizing cows) don't.http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, I thought this looked cool: http://ftp.jrc.es... 2. I'm sweetening the deal by pointing out that a vegetarian diet won't stand in the way of your personal health goals, and may possibly even provide added benefits. Obviously this isn't something I can predict with 100% certainty, because the only way to be sure of how your particular body will respond to a diet is to try it out for real. But your body is also not entirely alien from other human bodies, so there is validity to pointing out that if you want to feel healthier, a vegetarian diet can be positive step toward that goal. 3a. I was more pointing out that the "practical strain" was more on that you tend to forget that I eat differently than you do. Not to insult you and say you always forget or that you don't care about me, but you do have a self-centered approach toward food acquisition source selection. 3b. Actually, as the CO2 study pointed out, "In general, much of this research has concluded that food, home energy, and transportation together form a large share of most consumers' personal impacts. Of these three, food represents a unique opportunity for consumers to lower their personal impacts due to its high impact, high degree of personal choice, and a lack of long-term 'lock-in' effects which limit consumers' day-to-day choices." Thus it makes more sense, from a moral strain perspective, to adjust personal eating habits before abandoning such changes in favor of activism. Also incorporating activism in the form of education and strategic voting would be the "above and beyond". http://pubs.acs.org... 3c. Think about it: we could eat vegetarian spaghetti from the same dish, nibbling on one strand of pasta as it brings our noses closer together in a marinara-flavored kiss. http://houston.culturemap.com...
Ben Should Become a Vegetarian

1. I don't consume much red meat to begin with and that is creating the largest issue on your first graph. You still consume dairy products and that creates a much larger issue (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) than how much chicken I eat (which would be more than my consumption of red meat by far). You link to an article about the UN conducting a study on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, yet that is dated. The UN admitted to important flaws in the report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and concludes instead: "efforts should be focused on "smarter farming, not less farming". There will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques and invent new geo-engineering technologies than to change our meat eating habits and so as a culture pursuing the former rather than the latter is a better use of time and effort. 2. That study is commenting on the question of whether vegetarian diets are feasible and noting those health benefits. That doesn't invalidate every other kind of diet. 3A. This is just as much an argument for you to become an omnivore again, as it is for me to convert to your diet. Our culture simply has more meat options and the practical strain argument would seem to lean in my favor. 3B. There is reduced moral strain when we recognize the realistic limits of what we can do. We are not in a particularly potent position of pushing forward for new geo-engineering technologies or farming techniques that will have the most impact on issues like climate change and resource management. We can promote education as local activists instead and when politicians are running on the right issues we can vote them in as well as collectively pressure for those policies. 3C. This is your most tempting proposal, but I'm afraid there are still plenty of ways to make our friends suffer under the tyranny of our joint cuteness. ;)
Ben Should Become a Vegetarian

1. The other options I speak of are technological breakthroughs in resource management across the board. Too few people are going to change their eating habits in time, the issue will necessarily blow up on us as it has to in order to enact real change, and the concept here I'm pointing out is a form of "strategic failing." The cultural conversation might more easily shift from "eat differently" to "how should we expect our legislatures to invest". 2. A "non-meat majority" on the food pyramid doesn't make the minority go away any more than this would justify making laws that help only white people because another ethnicity is in the minority. 3a. Simply alternating between veggie and meat friendly places would be a good compromise since as I pointed out the strain is symmetrical. I'm not aware of all the other veggie centric options when going out to eat. I do sympathize with the plight of having limited options on many menus. 3b. I'm not necessarily talking about me, but it would be easier to be more pro-active on the political front than change my desires for meat consumption. Those who are able, driven, and willing should definitely pursue this particular issue in the realm of political change. Important decisions on how to spend our tax dollars to make the world a better place need to be made. There are many big political issues (perhaps too many) that require this kind of attention and those who have the capacity to specialize in each one need to make certain kinds of change amicable to the average person who may share the same values to whatever degree, but can't reasonably be expected to always do something about it. 3c. ...
Resolved: The Death Penalty is Just

Although seemingly cut short by my opponent's forfeiture, I am inclined to give a summary of the arguments put forth in this debate. My Arguments1) The death penalty is based on revenge, as defined as "the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. " The death penalty is justified by proponents as existing to bring justice to murderers or perpetrators of horrific, heinous crimes. On the contrary, since the death penalty is based on the killing of the killers, we can safely conclude that the death penalty is based on revenge, is therefore immoral, and unjust.2) It costs substantially more to institute capital punishment and the procedures leading up to the execution than to keep a criminal for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Taxpayers end up paying much more for capital punishment to be continued, and therefore, it is unjust to taxpayers to pay more money for an unjust. immoral procedure. My Opponent's Main ArgumentsAlthough my opponent was seemingly unwilling to respond to my arguments, I believe I received at least some argumentation which I can respond to:1) It is ethical and fair to take someone's life if they have taken someone else's. Response: No, it is not ethical in any way. As I have already established, this is a form of revenge, an immoral practice and one that should not be supported. Killing someone in retribution is unjust, as my arguments have already proposed. ----------------------2) Because it is the judicial system which institutes capital punishment, and not the victims' families, the death penalty cannot be based on revenge. Response: Whoever institutes capital punishment does not change the nature of it. The purpose of the death penalty remains the same: the killing of the criminal for closure and retribution of the victim's killing. As I have reiterated several times throughout this debate, this practice is unjust, immoral and disgusting, and it severely limits the prestige of our government. ----------------------ConclusionIt is resolved that the death penalty is unjust, both to the criminal and the taxpayer, as shown through my arguments.
Resolved: The Death Penalty is Just

This period is purely rebuttal. I will be analyzing specific quotations from my opponent's arguments, and refuting them.Rebuttal1) "Yes Revenge isnt exactly a good moral, Revenge is bad at times, but it isnt the families who decide whether the people die or not it is the government's decision so it couldn't be used in the defense of revenge as the jury have nothing to be revenged."I don't think saying that it is an outside party's decision makes it a just practice. The party which decides whether or not a criminal will be charged with the death penalty takes both sides into account and weighs the options, however, this does not change the fact that the death penalty is based on the concept of avengement of one's suffering and pain through killing, a perfect example of revenge.My argument still stands, and is not refuted. 2) "And if one person takes another's life isnt it fair that the murder dies himself? That is only what is right and has nothing to do with revenge."So if someone takes someone's eye out, it is completely right to take their eye out? No, of course not; that is just one more eye taken out. More pain, more suffering, more loss. That is clearly not ethically acceptable, as I have proven with my above argument. Simply put, the death penalty is immoral, and therefore unjust.My argument still stands unrefuted.3) "Secondly It does cost more to feed, cloth and give water to prisoners instead of simply just shooting them in the head"I have already presented evidence that it costs more to maintain a capital trial, keep the inmate on death row, and then kill the inmate than have a life sentence instituted. That is fact, and is unrefutable.Also, your logic is a bit flawed- prisoners on death row and awaiting institution of the death penalty are still given (and rightfully so) food, water and clothing, just like a prisoner serving a life sentence. You are inferring that this is not the case with prisoners to be put to death.Thirdly, are you advocating shooting them in the head as an acceptable and just procedure to carry out capital punishment? I would like to hear from you in the coming rounds.----------------Thank you all for your participation and interest. I await my opponent's response.