BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Paul Broun does not belong on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Administrative skills are more important. Someone can be way more knowledgeable in science but lack the leadership skills to get support for bills which can advance acience and technology in the US. It's safe to say people were more ignorant about science in the 18th century and before; but that didn't stop them from being able administrators. Just because someone makes poor choices or holds false beliefs about acertain aspect of the world hardly means he/she is incapable as an administrator. Neither would it make any sense to assume an eminent scientist would be in a position to rally legislators to pass bills tha will favour science education in the country. Your view forces one to think in a tiny box wherein belief in evolution is necessary to adjudicate matters on science and technology well. Never mind that politics deals with a wide range of issues and (just as crucial) a coherent dealing with each as they relate to others. It is very possible to effect good policies regardless of a belief (or not) in evolution. That's how evolution gained traction in the first place.
Paul Broun does not belong on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee

I have some personal issues to take care of so I cannot dedicate much time to this site for the time being. I was on here for a few days and learned that I was not prepared for debate on important subjects. Debating is much different than I thought it would be. The outcome of this debate is not important to me anymore. I believe somebody like Paul Broun does not belong on that Committee because if his mind is not capable of realizing that our planet is more than a few thousand years old, his mind is not capable of making science based decisions that will affect this country and the rest of the world. I do not have the time to dedicate right now to make my argument sound valid, so I am basically conceding in every single debate in my list.
should capitol punishment be legal

On to the debate: Capital punishment, or the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime, has been a part of society for thousands of years, including the entire existence of the United States. Since ancient times, it has been a proven way to deter crime by severity. In the days of Rome, those killed on crosses or stakes were displayed at city entrances. While this is brutal, it resulted in a much more orderly society than otherwise existed at the time. In a much more refined and advanced way, capital punishment still keeps peace. The logic behind this is apparent: if a person is considering murder in any degree, and they consider the death penalty as a risk, they are less likely to go through with their action. There are several strong point that enforce the idea of capital punishment, as follows. 1. The punishment fits the crime. Justice is only justice if punishment is at least somewhat equal to the crime committed. If a person chooses to murder another in cold blood, it is only just that he is in turn killed. Whether or not this is morally permissible is up to the household to decide, but it is, by definition, just. If a nation's legal system wishes to uphold justice, it must uphold capital punishment. 2. Certain cases of error are bound to happen. Whether it is capital punishment, jail time, or anything else, wrongful conviction is bound to happen sometimes. No system is perfect, we as a society can only try to limit the amount of error in a system. This being said, we should not alter the forms of punishment we use for the very small chance of error. This being said, the "what if" argument that many use against capital punishment is weak. "What if" a person is wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for 30 years? Maybe they aren't dead, but the same principle applies. We must not alter our system for a margin of error. 3. Wrongful convictions happen far less often than implied. Media, politicians, and people like my opponent would have us believe that every other case of capital punishment is a wrongful conviction. This, unfortunately is far from the truth. In fact, only about 4% MAY have been innocent [1]. This statistic is no worse than any other statistic regarding capital punishment. Our justice system is thorough, and rarely does a solid case of wrongful death come up. 4. People who take lives have forfeited their rights. When a person makes the decision to kill, they are willfully giving up their own right to life over to the government. Plain and simple, murderers made a choice to die. This is not the fault of the government, and especially not of capital punishment. Conclusion: Capital punishment must be included in a just society. By definition, it is the just response to a murderers actions, is fairly precise, and is fitting for crimes committed. Unless con can prove beyond any doubt that capital punishment is unjust, ineffective, or morally wrong, capital punishment stands. Sources: [1] . http://www.newsweek.com...
Schools should start no earlier than 8:00 AM

My opponent has made a very interesting argument, and it seems rather hard to argue as con. However, I will do my best to do so. In the performing academically area, my opponent is absolutely correct. Starting later does make for a better learning experience. However, the cost of starting school later is higher than you would think. In the way society is, we do not want to spend more money. I do believe education ought to come before the state and federal budget stuff, but this would still have a large impact on the cost. Many parents take their children to school on their way to work when it starts early in the morning, requiring less buses to be used. Starting school later would make the school bus demand go up, costing the schools an amount they cannot afford. (http://educationnext.org...) School districts sometimes use the same buses for their elementary, middle and high school, which is actually a part of the reason why all those grade levels start at different times. If you were to start school later for high school students at say 8AM, then you would push the elementary school students to 9AM, and middle school students up to 10 AM, making for a longer, and later school day. You could start all schools at the same time, but the cost would go up, which would be the only way to fulfill the starting later goal. How does a later school day effect students and teachers? It shortens their days with their families. If a student starts school later, that doesn't mean a parent starts work later. And then, if it is true what you said that students on average go to bed no earlier than 11PM, then they would have a short time with family. They sleep, parents leave at their normal times (which, by the way, some parents say good bye to their kids, waking them up before their full sleep is in. And we all know how hard it is too fall back to sleep after being woken up in the morning), student goes to school, comes home later because if you start later you end later, the student then spends (the average student) probably 2-3 hours studying/doing homework. (http://www.theatlantic.com...) So now figure it's about 8pm, hopefully the child has eaten with their family, and then the student has 2-3 hours to spend with their family. Spending time with family also impacts a student's education. Does it have more or less of an impact than sleep? Well that varies from student to student. In a study that contradicts my opponent's in a way, students performed better in their morning classes than their afternoon classes (http://dailyfreepress.com...). While students who in afternoon classes get more sleep, their GPA was lower than those of the people in morning classes. Although, I will be honest, the same source says students experience the exact opposite as well. I look forward to your rebuttals.
Schools should start no earlier than 8:00 AM

I would like to start by pointing out that sleep is essential for young adults. They often are not able to fall asleep early enough to both meet the recommended amount of sleep and wake up in time to attend school if it starts prior to 8:00 AM. "Biological sleep patterns shift toward later times for both sleeping and waking during adolescence -- meaning it is natural to not be able to fall asleep before 11:00 pm. Teens need about 9 1/4 hours of sleep each night to function best (for some, 8 1/2 hours is enough). Most teens do not get enough sleep — one study found that only 15% reported sleeping 8 1/2 hours on school nights. " . http://sleepfoundation.org...If you look at these numbers, and you consider the fact that it is natural, and therefore common, not to be able to fall asleep prior to 11:00PM, and then calculate what time they would need to wake up at in order to receive an average nine hours of sleep, they could not wake up until 7:30AM, which leaves them a bare minimum amount of time to actually prepare for school in the morning. To schedule school even earlier than this in the morning, would be to ask adolescents to choose school over their well being. A school's job is to educate students, and in order to do this, they must ensure that they are allowing students to have healthy conditions, so that they can maximize their learning and potential. Lack of sleep has been proven to lead t severe brain damage in mice, which has suggested the idea that it may also d so in humans. If schools force teens to go to school at an hour which causes sleep deprivation, thy could also be damaging the brain cells of these students, and causing irreversible damage. "In mice, prolonged lack of sleep led to 25% of certain brain cells dying, according to a study in The Journal of Neuroscience. If the same is true in humans, it may be futile to try to catch up on missed sleep, say US scientists. ". http://www.bbc.com...So, by forcing students to go to school before eight o'clock, they are harming them physically, and hurting their chances of learning by causing brain damage, which also hurts their chances of using whatever they do manage to learn later in life by making it more difficult to be successful. If making the start time of school earlier than 8:00 causes sleep deprivation in students, then what benefits can possibly out weigh this? After all, this sleep deprivation causes short term issues, by making it difficult to function and learn in school, and long term damages, by killing brain cells. This compromises the very purpose of school: to provide a place where children have the ability to be educated and prepared for success later in life.
Athletes Get Paid Too Much

I think athletes get paid too much for what they do. Yes, they work hard and deserve a descent salary but the amount they get per game is way too much. They get paid whether they win or lose, play alot or not. They are doing what they love and what they're good at, yet teachers and lawyers do the same thing and they aren't paid nearly as much. Athletes entertain us and get millions for it while teachers pave the way for our future and they get so much less.
Athletes Get Paid Too Much

you say they get paid too much but according to what? according to capitalism they get paid the right amount. and since you have not mentioned anything about capitalism i am forced to asl why are e having this debate? that is what capitalism is. supply and demand. there is a much smaller supply of athletes then lawyers. they both have large demand so they both get paid a lot. there are just fewer athletes. if you have a problem with capitalism then we can debate about that.
Athletes Get Paid Too Much

We are having this debate because athletes get paid too much for what they do. I never said that they shouldn't get paid a descent amount, I said they were paid too much. Lawyers are highly skilled and are in high demand but why don't they make a million dollars when they win a case? And yet, you can make millions by getting a touchdown or hitting a homerun. I think that athletes deserve to get a significant income but the income that they do recieve is astronomical and in my opinion, way too much.
Athletes Get Paid Too Much

If athletes get paid exactly what they should, why do some demand more? They are playing a professional sport, not finding a cure for cancer. They do what they love, get millions and still demand more. I understand the whole supply and demand bit, and yeah, very few people can perform at that skill level but at the same time they don't do much for society other than entertain. I think that those who benefit society should be the ones who have the bigger checks. Teachers are in high supply but it is almost impossible to find a descent teaching job now a days. I honestly don't think that teachers get enough for what they do.
Athletes Get Paid Too Much

Athletes, like everyone else, get paid by what te free market decide. Athletes are in small demand. There are only so many who can play at such a level. People are willing to pay to watch athletes play so with high demand and low supply it is easy to see why they get paid so much money. Athletes get paid exactly what they need to. The reason teachers don't make as muc money is because they are in high demand. It is relatively easy to become a teacher. All you need is a bachelors degree. High demand plus high supply equal not so high salaries. Athletes and teachers get paid just the amount they need to get paid. If teachers and athletes salaries went contrary to the market then that would be a problem.
Acid attacker should be given death penalty.

1) Death Penalty Doesnt solve issues. The death penalty does not deter crime, I have provided evidence that has gone unrefuted. my opponent has unbacked observations that do not provide a BOP. He simply makes the claim of deterence, however as i stated before "few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder." thus there is no deterence. 2) Felony Murder Doctorine This point haws gone unrefuted 3)BOP My opponent has failed to meet the BOP required to win the debate, they have provided no evidence, no facts, and no support. All of his arguements are observations, that when compared to the stats I have provided dont stand. 4)Life in prison without parol is a better solution My opponent doesnt actualy address this point, instead they make a baseless claim. they argue that paying for a prison is expencive however we already have prisons, so if we are cutting costs like my opponent wants then we would be killing all prisoners, and even those who are sentenced to die wait on death row for what can be years, and because they are in solitary they must be tended to personaly. Thus we can only see a ballot in negation of the resolution.
Acid attacker should be given death penalty.

Who said that death penalty do not reduce the crime It makes people think twice. Lets just say, for example, that a little boy gets murdered. The criminal gets away for about 7 years. The police find him and give him the death penalty and it kills him. If the death penalty stops, there will be non stop murder. See, if the death penalty is given to acid attackers then there would be less acid attacks in the city. And if u say that they should be kept in prison then it costs more to keep prisoners in prison. It is expensive to keep the hopeless people imprisoned and we not only provide the food and water, we also have to hire wardens and officers in advance, which also is connected to the usage of government taxes. Furthermore, citizens are afraid of ex prisoners that came out from prisons because they could do unexpected things. Citizens will live with anxiety. The death penalty would decreases the acid attack crimes. If the the criminal has a risk of death, they will think twice about what they are doing. Also if they go to prison they will be out within 30 years, which means they could repeat it again.
Acid attacker should be given death penalty.

1) Death Penalty Doesnt solve issues. The death penalty does not deter crime, thus executing induviduals does not solve for acid attacks infact it may increase the ammount that occur, [http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu...] "few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder. Also, some research suggests that the death penalty increases the number of homicides through a "brutalization" effect." thus killing those who are attacking others with acid would only increase the number of overall attacks. The ACLU States [https://www.aclu.org...]"The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime. They ranked increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy with more jobs higher than the death penalty as the best ways to reduce violence. The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates." again re-enforcing the fact that the death penalty doesnt solve for the crimes commited. 2) Felony Murder Doctorine Its illogical to assume that all attackers aim to kill and not injur, thus the united states government wouldnt even be able to impose the death penalty. the federal government due to the 8th ammendment holds the power to limit the states in these situations. 3)BOP I would like to remind my judges that PRO holds the BOP and thus must prove all ACID ATTACKERS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY, if they dont give ample reason why and logicly back thier stance than they lose this debate. 4)Life in prison without parol is a better solution Life in prison without parol is cheaper, and since most acid attacks occur outside the US and in developing countries it would allow them to develop and pay less to imprison the attackers rather than killing them, the ACLU states "A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs – including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs – are mostly borne by the taxpayer. The extra costs of separate death row housing and additional security in court and elsewhere also add to the cost. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison." [https://www.aclu.org...] Thus we can only see a ballot in negation of the resolution.
Marijuana should stay illegal.

While it is true that marijuana is toxic and unhealthy, it should not be up to the government to restrict it. Historically speaking, restricting drug use has always ended up making the problem, much much worse. It gave power to the drug cartels. People died for no reason. It caused non-violent drug offenders to get 10-year sentences, which is absolutely ridiculous considering that they weren't hurting anyone but themselves. They should get HELP, not PRISON. Prison made these people into unproductive members of society, doing nothing but sit all day while our tax dollars went to pay for them. It ruined their lives. Instead of HELPING them, shaping them into more functioning people, we only made the problem worse. Not only that, but the DEA is just flat out inneffective when it comes to stopping drug traffic. They have 1% efficiency rate, which is not helping anyone in the slightest. Here's a great video by Kurzgesagt " In a Nutshell describing the exact problem with the war on drugs. To top it all of, their is a much more common, more harmful drug that is completely legal to buy. That would be alchol, which is considered socially acceptable almost everywere. http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.cnn.com...
Marijuana should stay illegal.

I believe that marijuana should stay illegal. The reason that I believe in keeping the drug illegal is that it is such a health hazard. If we let weed become legal then we will have many people that have major health problems. Some side effects of this dangerous drug are: SHORT-TERM EFFECTS Sensory distortion Panic Anxiety Poor coordination of movement Lowered reaction time After an initial "up," the user feels sleepy or depressed Increased heartbeat (and risk of heart attack) LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA Reduced resistance to common illnesses (colds, bronchitis, etc.) Suppression of the immune system Growth disorders Increase of abnormally structured cells in the body Reduction of male sex hormones Rapid destruction of lung fibers and lesions (injuries) to the brain could be permanent Reduced sexual capacity Study difficulties: reduced ability to learn and retain information Apathy, drowsiness, lack of motivation Personality and mood changes Inability to understand things clearly (source: http://www.drugfreeworld.org...) Also, cannabis can lower your intelligence quotient. "A study showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing cannabis use disorder lost an average of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities did not fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults." (source: https://www.drugabuse.gov...) As I hope this has proved to you, the legalization of cannabis would not be a good thing for this world.
Roads kill is better than art

With roadkill, first you need to find a stupid animal. That can be a hard task depending on where you live.Art can be made out of anything, whereas roadkill can only be made out of animals, so it's easier to find the things you need or can have to do art.About time, it will be worth it but with modern art, not only does it not take very long to make but you can have fun doing it. It can be made just by flicking paint at a wall. http://www.youtube.com...Also, art can be made anywhere, not just on the road, unlike roadkill.Not being able to eat as much of art is good because it means that it will be preserved for other people to see and enjoy.Thank you.
Roads kill is better than art

Roadkill is very easy to make. Just run over the animal then you've got roadkill. Whereas art, you spend years making one painting. Also using the dailymail isn't the best source for facts. Drinking paint can kill you while eating roadkill wouldn't. Drinking 3 gallons of blood wouldn't kill you but drinking the same amount of paint would easily kill a human. Not very much people dispose of roadkill for a while as you can see on the motorway or highway.
Roads kill is better than art

You can consume real art too [1]. It feels "nice and warm".Art is like a tattoo for the whole universe to enjoy. Actually, it's more like a tattoo for the canvas and canvases are better than roads so art is better than roadkill.Art can teach you how easy it is to be killed as well. It can have a hidden meaning behind it.Pro says roadkill is good ebcause it's disposable, but with art it doesn't need to be disposable because you don't want to dispose of it, you want to keep it.Roadkill is gross because you can see the brains and guts! Yuck!Also, in order to create roadkill a vehicle needs to go over it which means that one vehicle driver will have a small bump, which would be a bit annoying, whereas art is not even a bit annoying.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Roads kill is better than art

I prefer road kill for the following reasons. It's easily disposable. You can just pick it up and throw it away without worrying about how much its worth. Also road kill teaches you about death. How easy it is to die in an instant.you also learn the anatomy of an animal by seeing its guts fall out and seeing its brains.roadkill is edible as you can just scoop it of the road and eat it.roadkill is also more interesting than today's modern art as you can just sit there in disgust looking at it. With modern art you look in disgust at how it's considered art but its just not the same.