BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty

im ending this on a high note. If someone killed someone I know, I'd rather the murderer be dead too. A life for a life. End of. We don't need or want people like that existing on this planet. And I'm talking about convicted with DNA proof, etc. otherwise someone can be falsely accused. For some crimes, when someone murders loads of people, definitely yes. Because they're going to be behind bars for the rest of their lives, for what, all those people? Why should they live and other suffer? It's not fair. I don't think you should be told when your death penalty is coming, it should just happen randomly - because imagine the psychological damage it would do to them if they found out only 5 minutes before - good, they should suffer mentally before and panic. It's only bad because the victims want to see their attacker suffer behind bars. However sometimes the attacker is too mentally strong and isn't affected by being behind bars, therefore prison is pointless to them because they're not learning from their experience; they're not learning their lesson.
The Death Penalty

RebuttalsI must say that I agree with you on one certain aspect. You write that "[l]ife is our most precious possession." I concur. However, the fact that an individual killed another is not a legitimate reason to end his own life. As you believe and as I believe, taking a life is wrong. However, two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is intolerable, but ending the life of the killer is just as wrong. This is injustice. You say that "[w]e have to enforce the Death Penalty" because "life is the most precious thing one can receive." Granted, life is the most precious force in existence. However, there are other methods to stopping crime. We must pass gun control of some type and we will need to pass immigration reform so that we can ensure drug cartels do not massacre innocent people. We have an obligation to our ideals. Just because a life was taken, another life must not be taken as well. Life must be preserved at all costs. We shouldn't kill anyone for any reason. Even the most evil men in our history (Hitler, bin Laden, etc.) should have gotten a hearing and life in prison. The death penalty, whether you accept it or not, is immoral.
The Death Penalty

RebuttalsMy opponent has not made strong enough arguments to support his claim. However, I will gladly refute what he has actually written. My opponent writes that if he were somebody who killed another person and received life in prison, he would be upset. He says that would not want to have to live his life behind bars and that he would rather die. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I must accept my opponent's personal view. However, he fails to realize that the death penalty serves injustice rather than justice. Justice is served through acts that are justified. Justice is served through a moral punishment, not a death sentence. Life in prison is a direct service to justice. The death penalty is a direct violation of our unalienable rights. Until he can refute all of the points you have made, I am afraid his points are invalid.
The Death Penalty

I do, however, want to warn him of something before we begin debating. One specific rule I have implemented states that "[p]roper spelling and grammar will be used. " My opponent has already broken a crucial rule. I will give my opponent an opportunity to better himself. I will, however, continue doing what I do best: debating. Main ArgumentI will put aside political affiliation and focus on the facts. Before I begin, however, I would like to state my philosophy: It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly "kill and be killed. " Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice. I am a firm believer in the principle of democracy. Deathpenaltyinfo. org states:Support for the death penalty has fallen sharply by 23 percentage points since 1996, reaching its lowest level in almost two decades, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. The 2013 poll also found a 10 point drop in just the last 2 years in respondents who say they "strongly favor" the death penalty, from 28% to 18%. The percentage of Americans who say they oppose the death penalty has risen to 37%. In 2011, Pew asked respondents about the reasons behind their views on the death penalty, finding that the top two reasons for opposition to capital punishment were the imperfect nature of the justice system and a belief that the death penalty is immoral. The drop in public support coincides with an overall decline in use of the death penalty during the same time period, with both death sentences and executions falling dramatically since the 1990s. Six states have repealed the death penalty in the last six years, and three governors have recently imposed moratoriums on executions. Don't you believe in democracy? Don't you believe in the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The death penalty is a direct violation of the rights acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence. If you are at all human, you will understand that all of us have basic rights. If you at all empathize with your fellow members of humankind, you will acknowledge the fact that the death penalty does not serve true justice; it serves injustice. Often, innocent people who have never committed a wrong are put to death because of a mistrial. Can you let this pass? I say no. And even when the person has committed murder or another hideous crime, the death penalty is out of the question. Life in prison is the suitable punishment. I have a challenge for you: refute my points. MLA Citation "National Polls and Studies. "DPIC. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...;.
The Death Penalty

In this debate, I will argue against the death penalty and I would like to debate an individual that disagrees with my view. I would like to keep politics out of this debate and I would prefer this to be a philosphical debate. This debate will follow a specific structure and will have certain rules implemented. The debate structure is the following:Round One: Acceptance onlyRound Two: Main arguments only Round Three: Rebuttals and supporting argumentsRound Four: Rebuttals onlyRound Five: ConclusionThe specific rules of this debate are:1. Sources, if any, must be cited using the MLA format.2. There will be no forfeitting.3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.4. There will be good conduct. I look forward to this debate.
Google is better than Bing

you`re right that bing doesn`t have more services like google has. But there services are really not worthwhile. For instance lets consider Google Docs. GOOGLE DOCS ISN`T READY FOR GAMBLE , MAKES YOU LESS PRODUCTIVE. Jake Zborowski, Microsoft"s senior product manager for Office, actually published two anti-Docs blog posts today: one homes in on document fidelity, and the other, which includes a number of user testimonials, argues that Google Docs isn"t quite ready for primetime. There is, of course, also a video that accompanies the post, which reminds folks that they could lose their promotion if they decide to switch to Docs: http://www.youtube.com... Zborowski also argues that Google Docs is missing too many features, though in this case, a number of Microsoft customers make the argument for him. Here is an example: "As we continue to improve Office, we look for changes big and small that help people do more with less effort. Some improvements are small, like the new paste options we introduced in Office 2010. Other features reduce the amount of time it takes to accomplish a task like Flash Fill and Quick Analysis in Excel. The breadth of capabilities Office can lead to significant gains in what people can accomplish. With Google Docs, on the other hand, people have to find ways to overcome feature gaps by working harder, spending their time finding workarounds, or potentially using third-party tools to overcome the gaps." "When we switched from Google Apps to Office 365, we freed our people to work together in synergy, and it has produced good results in every area of our business." " Andy Springer, Director, Rookie Recruits To back all of this up, Microsoft also launched whymicrosoft.com, which includes more testimonials, screenshots and other resources for those who haven"t been scared straight yet and are still considering the switch to Google Docs. And here is the video that goes with that post: http://www.youtube.com... Another thing is bing maps are anytime better than google maps. Not having street-like view on its maps doesn`t put Bing totally on downside. It does have street-side. bing maps , watch birdeye and possibility to post your picture in 3d grace to phosynth bing maps is best than google maps , it's clear than google maps Morever route that google maps show take longer time to travel through commercial areas.
Google is better than Bing

Well you see,when it comes to Web services that go beyond simple search, it's hard to bet against Google. Although Microsoft has Bing Maps, which is arguably better than Google Maps, Google adds in several more services, like Google Docs, Blogsearch and News, that easily best Bing's Web services. And until Bing comes up with a StreetView-like service, it will have a hard time attracting those who want to use Google Maps to find out what a particular location looks like. High-quality Web services mean quite a bit in the search space. Microsoft must remember that.
Google is better than Bing

Bing isn't being properly judged. Nearly every individual who prefers Google to Bing is a biased party. This is because those who hate Bing often use Google and never use Bing. Google "fan-boys" don't really know what Bing has to offer, and in many cases, have either never, or very rarely, ever used The Bing Engine, and thus, are ineligible to compare the two. I"m sure there"s a psychological term for it; there"s a cognitive "firewall" and almost "irrational" belief that appears to protect Google against competitors" claims. The competition really isn"t "just a click away." Microsoft continues to run online its Pepsi-Challenge style ads "Bing It On," in which a majority of users prefer Bing in a "blind comparison test" with Google. Despite the commercials and despite Microsoft reporting that after extensive testing users preferred Bing 2:1, people generally express skepticism Below is one of the many "Bing It On" videos/commercials run by Microsoft http://www.youtube.com...
Google is better than Bing

Google has a vastly larger following, Bing is tiny in comparison. People tend to prefer Google, so I would say Google is better than Bing. Google is much better than Bing. There is a reason why "Google that" is a common phrase. I have experience with both and Google is much more user friendly. Google also has much more services associated with their site and company such as Gmail, mapping apps, and is associated with Youtube.
Eating meat

So your argument is that eating meat is morally permissible because A. no species will go extinct and B. once an organism has reproduced, it's life has no value. While in an evolutionary sense this is true, as breeding means ensuring the survival of the species, in a moral sense this is a horrifying way of thinking. Think of it this way. In the movie "Logan's Run", all people are executed at the age of thirty. The species survives, and there are no old people using up food and space and healthcare resources. Does this sound like an ideal world? I think we can agree that we would not want to be executed after we have had kids. So, the argument that "It is right to eat meat because their species will survive" does not hold up. A species is actually a pretty abstract concept. A species does not have rights, or thoughts or feelings. It is just a collection of animals that are biologically similar enough to reproduce. In summary, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it will not cause extinction is a weak one, and the argument that a being that has reproduced can be killed simply because it has fulfilled it's "duty" of reproducing is mortifying. I once again challenge you to demonstrate why killing animals for food is permissible.
Eating meat

Your argument is, I believe, that eating meat is morally acceptable because you enjoy it. This is the most popular argument for eating meat, but I believe it is a flawed one. There are many things that some people, maybe even most people enjoy doing, that are morally wrong. Someone would not be justified in killing their neighbour because they enjoy killing people. Nor would someone be justified in eating a human infant because he thinks they taste good. Therefore, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it tastes good is a bad argument. Meat is an excellent source of protein, as well as essential fats and other nutrients. However, eating meat is not the only way to acquire these nutrients. Therefore we have to morally justify that it is right to eat meat BEFORE we begin to talk about it's nutritional value. I ask you to prove that killing animals for food is morally justifiable. Cheers!
Circumcision on Infants

Definition(s): AE: Adverse Event; meaning an event that prevents healthy developement or growth. Source(s): http://www.webmd.com... http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com... In the United States, parents have the right to make decisions for their children until they are of the age of 18. This debate is not whether or not parents should have this right. This right is given because children are unable to make wise decisions for their own good. They are not allowed to consume drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. They cannot drive until they are 15 1/2 (in many states) and they cannot consent to sexual intercourse until the age of 16 (again, in some states). Circumcision has been proved to have many medical benefits: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks..." (Web MD). These benefits include: "A decreased risk of urinary tract infections, a reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men, protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners, prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin), and prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location)" (Web MD). Since it is obvious that circumcision is a wise medical choice, the question remains of why can't young boys make the decision for themselves. Again, children are not, legally, granted many choices in regard to their physical body and the medical aspects of their lives. A young boy is not more capable to make a wise decision than a baby is. Just like they cannot drink, smoke, or have sex, they cannot choose to be circumcised without parental consent. Finally, circumsicion at an older age increases risks greatly. According to a study done at JAMA Pediatrics, male circumsicion becomes "10-fold to 20-fold [more dangerous] when performed after infancy" (JAMA Network). While the chances "of AEs overall, especially if the procedure was performed during the first year of life..." (JAMA Network). Thank you for your time.
Classical Music (Pro) vs. [Insert Genre of Music Here]

I like nearly all different types of music, old or new, simple or complicated, etc. etc. That being said, classical music (specifically referring to Western art music), in my opinion, is the greatest of them all. I respect all music and look forward to debating this with anyone who disagrees.No bashing the other genre for the sake of bashing. There has to be a legitimate reason for giving criticism to the opposing genre, e.g., "This is better/worse in this respect because..."Also, have fun with this debate! There's no right answer (except mine (just kidding :D)), and the con can choose whatever music genre (s)he chooses.Important definitions:Classical music: Western art music that has distinctive principles, such as specific staff notation, and is frequently but not always more complicated and with more exactness than other genres of music in Western culture.Western culture: A broad term used to describe culture with roots in Europe, which also applies to countries with major European influence, such as the Americas and Australasia.The first round will only be for the con's acceptance, and for the con to state which genre (s)he thinks is the greatest of them all.
The united States should mandate a four day work week

I don't have much of a clash with my opponent's argument; however, we could go further than a four-day work week. The only people who would lose something would be the very small percentage of elites and some small businesses in the short-term. We doubtlessly would need to balance consumption because as our free-time increases, consumption would likely rise, making products more expensive. The benefit is that we would have less stress and more free-time to pursuit our interests. Work dominates the American life. When someone asks what you do, you say your job title. 22% of our lives are spent working, not including school (http://www.articlesbase.com...). Almost half is spent sleeping, so that does not leave much time for anything else. For the majority's interests, we need fewer working hours. As technology improves, this can become a reality. It may have some short-term problems, maybe even some long-term ones, but that's what economics is about: choosing options and taking risks.
The united States should mandate a four day work week

Contention One: stress related illness. When dealing with stress, one basic problem involved is the health issue. America is a stress filled nation and in many times, these stresses are related to their occupation. This is a problem that the United States government has deliberately ignored for many years simply because they do no t know the solution or they have worked on it indirectly. We must find that the only way to solve this problem is by mandating a four day workweek. By doing this the United States Government is giving its citizens the ability to rest without thinking of their occupation. Sources: Numerous surveys and studies confirm that occupational pressures and fears are far and away the leading source of stress for American adults and that these have steadily increased over the past few decades.( http://www.stress.org...) Contention two: Economic stability We have analyzed the basic fundamental effects of this topic however; we have yet to talk about the more economical and political effects. One of the Economic effects of the resolution to mandate a four day workweek is that the citizens are able to save energy thus increasing the economic output of their business. With this being said, we must see that they are able to keep up with their bills, Taxes and loans. "After 12 months, Utah's experiment has been deemed so successful that a new acronym could catch on: TGIT (thank God it's Thursday). The state found that its compressed workweek resulted in a 13% reduction in energy use and estimated that employees saved as much as $6 million in gasoline costs. " Read more: http://www.time.com...
We shouldn't keep pets.

Although pets may carry some potential risks , the benefits greatly outwheigh those , refer to round 1.Futher Pro's argument with regards to animal cruelty is absolutely irrlevant. This is a red herring fallacy. The resolution before us clearly states. WE. Refering to Humans.We shouldn't keep pets. Further the happiness of human beings is superior and more valuable than an animal's. Vote con.My arguments stand
We shouldn't keep pets.

To start off, you state many health benefits to keeping pets. These can easily be refuted by the fact that pets can carry many diseases, such as roundworm, bird flu, and sore mouth, to name a few. You can find a full list below. Also, many of your arguments raise the benefits for humans, but is it really just as beneficial for the pet? Estimates at the number of stray cats alone range up to 70 million meaning that, despite the apparent benefits, many pet owners are still not satisfied with their animal and feel the need to abandon them. On top of this, approximately 7.6 million companion animals enter animal shelters in the U.S. per year, and more than half remain there until death. Surely, the small benefits to human health for having a pet are vastly outweighed by the cruelty caused by the breeding and distribution of animals for pets. To conclude my counter argument, I believe that since we, humans, bred these animals to be our workers, or companions, then we should be able to take full responsibility for their wellbeing and care. Clearly, however, as the statistics show; we are not capable of fulfilling this responsibility and should attempt to limit the keeping of animals as pets. Disease list: http://www.cdc.gov... Other Sources https://www.aspca.org... http://center4research.org...
We shouldn't keep pets.

We should keep pets. There are a number a good reaons for keeping pets such as.1.Having a pet at home will reduce the chances of kids developing allergies later in life. The study was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The study showed the results in the blood of newborn babies and compared it to samples from the same participants a year later.2.Cats and dogs can be great for people suffering from high blood pressure and stress.A study showed that pet owners would do better in stressful situations than people who never adopted a pet, according to Blair Justice, Ph.D., from University of Texas School of Public Health. The benefits can be seen in people with stressful careers and even in those that are coping with different types of illnesses. 3.A study published by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and conducted by psychologists at St. Louis University and Miami University found that having pets provided their humans with a great deal of psychological benefits. They found that pet owners had great emotional returns, and pets can also help get over feelings of exclusion. The study also found that dog owners are healthier because they have to frequently take theirdogs for walks. 4.The American Heart Association published the results of a study in their journal Circulation. This study showed that pet owners usually have lower cholesterol and blood pressure levels. They also have lower chances of being obese, all of which contribute to lowering the risk of heart disease. The authors do point out, however, that the amazingness of what cats and dogs can do for their humans is partly because pet owners themselves tend to be more active. 5.So we already know that having a pet may lower your risk of developing heart disease, but studies from the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that having a pet can help your heart health in general.It will lower your triglyceride levels, cholesterol and blood pressure, and all these elements combine to reduce your future risk of heart attacks. Some studies even show that having a pet will help you recover from a heart attack more quickly.The combonation of the above surely saves lives and a monumental amount of cash thus , being superior to the alternative, no pets, we should surely keep pets.
We shouldn't keep pets.

I believe that we, as a species, should not keep pets when we can't even keep our own population alive and healthy. In the year of 2014, U.S.A. citizens spent a total of $58.04 billion on pets. Thats enough money to feed 20152700 people for a year based on a $240 grocery cost per month. Surely, this huge spending on pets would be better put to use looking after our own species, and only then can we begin putting resources towards pets. Sources: http://www.americanpetproducts.org... http://www.cnpp.usda.gov...