BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty is the best way to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes

First I would like to clear some things up because it appears my opponent misunderstood some of my points. First he says " The NFL players were accused of rape, but none of them were actually convicted and charged with rape. Therefore that point is void." I mentioned that I was referring to people on their way to the NFL but ultimately got their careers ruined due to false rape allegations. The one case in particular that I was referring to was Brian Banks. He was on his way to play football for USC- a very good school for college football- when he spent more than 5 years in prison until it was found out the rape allegations were false. If it was never found out that the allegations were false- he very well could have spent much more time in his prison cell. [1] Secondly my opponent says that the solution to the huge cost of the death penalty would be to completely get rid of the appeal process and just put them to death right then and there. Not only would that mean that Brian Banks along with many other innocent people would have died- but it also contradicts his contention about the constitution. Would it not be cruel and unusual to kill people right after a trial, without an appeal process, without 100% certainty that they committed the crime? You make the call. Also my opponent seems to not care at all about the mentally ill. Sure those who are mentally ill shouldn't just get away with things- but my point was that if someone like James Holmes was treated BEFORE he committed his crimes- then he wouldn't be known as the mass shooter that he is. The solution to the problem is not to kill them after they commit crimes. The solution is to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place- something my opponent does not seem to understand. He also seems to think that taxpayer's money is more important than the treatment of a mentally ill patient. I would like to think that America is a country that does not kill its mentally ill because they are a burden to the hard working taxpayers of America. My opponent has not proved anything in this debate. Rather, he asserts claims that can be proven wrong. He misunderstood many of my points in this debate- and focuses and small definitions to try and be right in every aspect. At the end of the day my opponent is proposing an appeal-free process of the death penalty to save money. This will only lead to the killing of innocent people convicted of crimes on false terms (especially rape crimes since there is never clear evidence in some of those cases). He suggests all rapists should die and under an appeal-free death sentencing system- this would mean that anywhere from tens of thousands to millions would die- just under the rapist category. Is this practical and is this a system that we should enforce? I urge everyone to vote for the person with the best arguments- the arguments that were more convincing, more logical, and more factual. Thanks for reading this debate and thanks to my opponent for debating with me. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The death penalty is the best way to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes

My first contention: The death penalty is constitutional. My opponent said that the crime must be proportional to the crime. I agree with this. My opponent said I provided a vague definition of rape, I disagree. I showed that rapists, ALL rapists, deserve capital punishment. My opponent brought up the NFL football stars. This honestly makes me laugh. The NFL players were accused of rape, but none of them were actually convicted and charged with rape. Therefore that point is void. My second contention: Deter Method My opponent says that he already proved this to be void in his constructive speech, but I beg to differ. He proved one study in which North Carolina didn't have a decrease in crime rights. According to this [1] North Carolina still has a death penalty and has an okay crime rate. His arguments against my points: He says that it is unfair for us to make prisoners serve time in prison waiting for a sentencing. I disagree, people like James Holmes, deserve to wait in prison until a jury decides to put him to death. According to [2] it says that on average it costs 57.5 million dollars for a life in prison. If we take the wait around, and once they're convicted put them to death, then we would save more money than a life sentence in prison. He said I can not use taxpayers money as an argument. Yet, mental patients will require more money of taxpayers. We will have to pay for treatment, medicine, and the overall running of the facilities will cost taxpayers money. People like James Holmes don't deserve a mental hospital, they deserve to be put down. Why not kill him, when he is just going to rot in a mental facility. My opponent says that ought and should are the same. Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. Ought: used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Ought and should are two different things. Therefore the statement that ought and should are the same is a fallacy. I urge a pro vote in today's debate, because my opponents inability to bring up real points. For example his point talking about tax payers is incorrect. The next reason is the fact that my opponents arguments against mine have all been proven wrong, whereas my opponents have been proven wrong. The end Thanks one more time [1] . https://www.ncdps.gov... [2] . http://www.deathpenalty.org...
The death penalty is the best way to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes

RebuttalIn this rebuttal I will be addressing my opponents arguments, and why they are void. His Contention 1: "The death penalty is expensive. "I completely disagree. The case itself may cost on average 1 million dollars, but as does any othere case. According to [1] the average case costs on average 375$ per hour for both sides. This can add up very quickly. Making the statement that only death penalty cases cost a lot of money is a false and one sided statement. Onto his next point, he says "There have still been cases where someone who died on death row was innocent. According to [2] there have only been 10 people of the 1,386 that have been executed [3]. This statement proves that point wrong. His next point goes onto say, that these people deserve prison sentences, because maybe there is faith that these people will emerge back into the real world. This point is simply laughable. These people who kill, rape, and comitt crimes against the United States deserve to be put to death in the most humane way possible. These people don't deserve to eat up taxpayer's money to live in a cement box for the reset of their life. What they really deserve is to be put to death. His Contention 2: Life imprisonment is a far better alternative. He said that these people being sentenced to life is a better than the death penalty. He said that these people live with the guilt of their crimes. What about James Holmes? He killed numerous people in the Aurora Theatre Shooting, and is a psycopath. He doesn't feel guilt. He lauged while on trial about said shooting. He doesn't live with any guilt. He deserves to be killed. His Contention 3: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I agree with the fact ath The Pete and His wife rape scenario is a little out of hand in the eye for an eye situation. My proposal is that those who rape do not deserve to be raped, but deserve to be slaughtered. The same way that they slaughtered the lives of the women (or man) that they raped. They deserve to have a punishment equal in damage as they did to the people the hurt. The only way to accomplish this is with the death penalty. One thing that I would like to point out is my opponents lack of knowledge when it comes to what the definition of constructive means. Constructive means [4] "serving a useful purpose; tending to build up. " In your constructive speech you are not supposed to refute arguments. I will refute the arguments that you put in. You stated that just because something is constitutional doesn't mean that it "ought" to be implemented. This debate is not matter of ought. This debate is should the death penalty be around. According to the constitution, the Death Penalty is leagl and right and should be implemented. Not Ought. If a killer kills someone (redundency) then they should be killed. Not ought. Yes, it is legal and should be allowed to be used. Again not ought. Thanks.
The death penalty is the best way to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes

Thank you for accepting. Good luck. Contention 1: The death penalty is constitutional Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm that qualifies as cruel and unusual. Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States [1] Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol cannot be viewed as probationer of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment... Throughout our history, whenever a method of execution has been challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has nonetheless steadily moved to more humane methods of carrying out capital punishment. Contention 2: The death penalty will deter capital crimes Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder. [2] Contention 3: The retribution factor Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good... Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such... rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution. [3] [1] Baze v. Rees US Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Apr. 16, 2008 [2] Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University. "For the Death Penalty," New York Times. Oct. 17, 1983 [3] J. Budziszewski, PhD Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. "Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice," OrthodoxyToday.org Aug./Sep. 2004 Good Luck
Gun Control

First, the AR-15 fires a .223 caliber bullet. A very small bullet, fractionally larger than a .22 caliber. Here is a humerous description of what a small caliber bullet does compared to a .45 caliber (which many police officers use). The AR-15 has many advantages over other rifles, it is lighter, more accurate, and easier to use than other rifles.As far as lethality, an AR-15 is no more lethal than any other rifle used for hunting or recreational shooting, and less lethal than most.
Gun Control

Rebuttal to this? I would argue that an AR-15 is much more lethal then either grenades or a flamethrower. If I have either of those two devices I am limited to inflicting damage to people within about a 40 yard range. With a standard AR-15 my range is greatly increased to over 200 yards. I would argue that an AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction in a civilian setting. In your opinion what is so recreational about it? The fact that it holds a standard 30 round magazine (that can easily be upgraded) or the fact that it can be easily modified to make it fully automatic?
Harry Potter books promote sexism.

I only agree with Con's statement "my opponent is dumb." I am dumb. Otherwise I wouldn't have read the sexist book harry potter and participated in this debate. There. In yo face.I'm actually very dumb. I once thought a girl was joking with me when she asked me to be her prom date, so I showed up at the door in a hotdog-man costume I had borrowed from my dad(it was his day off). When I entered the house, her mother started crying and the girl stood there like a deer caught in the headlights. She took a deep breath and said, "How did you know this was my fantasy?" Well, things got complicated after that. I didn't like her fetishes and fantasies. Especially those which involved shoving unidentified objects and home equipment up my backdoor.Refutation1- The FDA is a masonic, Jewish group ran by green-shapeshifting lizards. They don't count.2- I don't know who Hawking is. He sounds like a bird, and birds cannot possibly read Harry Potter.3- Darwin liked Harry Potter because of Dawkins' main role. Someone else must have wrote the origin of species. Probably Charles Darwin.4- My mother is a female and females can't read.5- JK Rowling is a female. Her opinions don't count.My opponent resorted to fallacious tactics like logic to sound convincing, and in DDO we value debate tones more than logic and evidence. He surely loses the debate just on those grounds. He also is saying that something is not sexist. Everything is sexist. Even anti-sexism and orange-colored bunnies in the park. If you don't believe me, look deep inside your heart. The answer is there.P.S: I'm still wearing the hot-dog costume. Vote for me. ;)
Harry Potter books promote sexism.

Harry Potter is not sexist. The evidence for it is overwhelming. 1. The FDA tested Harry Potter for traces of sexism, and none were found ( http://tinyurl.com... ). 2. Stephen Hawking performed a calculation to see if Harry Potter would every become sexist. His results were negative ( http://tinyurl.com... ). 3. Charles Darwin wrote about it in his book "On the Origin of Species" ( http://tinyurl.com... ). 4. Yo mama told me about it last night ( http://tinyurl.com... ). 5. Also, J.K. Rowling confirmed it ( http://tinyurl.com... ). This evidence should be more than enough to convince you that my opponent is dumb.
Harry Potter books promote sexism.

Pro's responses are rather quick. Please penalize him for not acting like a typical DDO debater that leaves everything to the last minute.I'm not reading the list above but I'm certain that it disproves my opponent because if you look closely it looks like a fat woman working in the kitchen. I wonder where he got that sexist imprint from. I once thought I was alone in the house on a very hot summer's day. I felt like running and wanking, so instead of doing them seperately, I ran naked around the house while doing the handwork. When I reached the kitchen, I noticed that my friends were there wanting to surprise me with a birthday party. I have to say that I was the one who surprised them. I'm sure I would have not done such a thing if not for Harry Potter.PROOF THAT HARRY POTTER IS SEXIST1- Harry Potter's main characters are all males. Even hermoine who looks like Richard Dawkins. (I think she is Richard Dawkins) http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com...; />2- The 'Men are better without girls' principle deduced from Dumbledore's intimate, butt-buddies relationship with Snape.3- The fact that harry potter has a female author. And 'Female' has 'male' in it. 4- The fact that point 3 and 4 are brute facts.5- The fact that if we look deep inside we could find 'Harry Potter is sexist' next to 'There exists objective morals.'I have already won the debate because Pro agrees with me that Harry Potter is sexist. I know that he does. My intuition is to be trusted here. But I'm going to continue, so that people don't complain about me being too good for debates in the future. I'm really trying hard to be a normal, boring person like you guys. STOP READING THE DEBATE AND VOTE FOR ME IF YOU AGREE.
Harry Potter books promote sexism.

Harry Potter is full of feminist propaganda. 1. They have female teachers at Hogwarts. 2. One of Harry's parents was a woman. 3. Harry has female friends. 4. His owl is female. 5. His textbooks were written by women. 6. They use cauldrons, which are symbols of female sexuality (Dan Brown said it, so it must be true). 7. Dumbledore's sister was a girl. 8. Dumbledore is gay. Being gay makes you a feminist (and vice-versa). 9. Wands and broomsticks are obviously meant to be dildos, thus promoting feminist sexuality. 10. Harry once pointed his wand at Ginny's snatch and said "vibratio!", which proves point 9. 11. Harry then ate Ginny out, which proves point 10. 12. One of Harry's children was a girl. 13. He ate her out too, which proves point 12. 14. Hogwarts students don't carry guns, therefore they aren't real men and must be feminists. 15. Running into the barrier to access Platform 9 and 3/4 is a metaphor for blind faith in feminist dogma. 16. Harry ate out Germaine Greer, which proves point 15. 17. Harry bleeds a lot through the series. JK Rowling is trying to encourage menstruation. 18. Menstruation has been proven to make you a b!tch. 19. All b!tches are feminists and vice-versa, therefore Harry Potter is a b!tch. 20. Hedwig looks like a giant, bird-shaped tampon. 21. Harry ate her out too. 22. After using her. 23. For bum sex. 24. With Ron. 25. Which proves point 8. 26. 1 John 4:10 - 11 says, "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." 27. Which means that feminists are icky, and therefore Harry Potter is not sexist. 28. Which disproves my premise. 29. Koalas. 30. Have syphilis, just like my opponent.
Harry Potter books promote sexism.

I thank Jake224 for starting this debate. I have read all the books of Harry Potter, yes the three of them, and I think I have enough expertise in this regard. I'm also clearly superior to my opponent in any positive aspect you would find in a human being. I'm very intelligent for my age. The headmaster once took me to his office and disrobed me to see if I had any super-computer attached to my body, though instead of focusing on the upper region where my head is located (usually speaking), he did an extensive search in the bottom for any loose cable or batteries and took his time to identify them.This might be off-topic, but I still recall all the nights I spent crying in bed because of all those sexist inuendos that JK Rowling presented in his book. Like any male author, he is writing books to promote male superority. We all know what a wand stands for in bedroom terminology. The wizards could have easily used both their pockets and wands to cast spells on their opponent, but no, Rowling's ego wanted him to spread that awful sexism in his book to brain-wash little girls and boys and little boys and girls. [Just to avoid being sexist] Not to mention the fact that they place their wands back in their pockets when the magic is over. What does that tell kids about having sex?I just woke up so I'm disinterested in reading what Con said in his opening statement, but I warn my opponent that any argument that sounds like "I've been here longer on this planet, kiddo" would directly force me to go into the monkey experiment and call myself the new replacement and he the old "don't climb up the ladder" monkey.Other than that, the topic proves my point. Look what my opponent wrote in the topic. "Harry Potter books promote sexism." I shall regard this as an admission that Con agrees with me on whatever the topic says.
Women should be forced to wear bikinis in public

Bronto enters Debate- (Bronto Theme Music) http://youtu.be... * No Hayd. My pain would be worse than the females' pain. -Here is what happens when bronto does NOT get his way 1)When bronto does NOT get his way part 1 (Video) http://youtu.be... * 2)When bronto does NOT get his way part 2 (Video) http://youtu.be... 3)When bronto does not get his way part 3 (Video) http://youtu.be... 4) When bronto does not get his way part 4 (Video) http://youtu.be... ----------------------------------- -And here is what happens when bronto gets his way: 1)When bronto gets his way part 1 (Video) http://youtu.be... * 2)When bronto gets his way part 2 (Video) http://youtu.be... * 3) When bronto gets his way part 3 (Video) http://youtu.be... * 4)When bronto gets his way part 4 (Video) http://youtu.be... * Point? Bad things happen when bronto doesn't get his way. * We need for women to be required to wear bikinis in public for multiple reasons: 1)Girls love the idea. Con is wrong. 2)All straight men would be happy as meadow larks. 3)We, men, could check out the goods before we partake, making decisions that affect our future sexual loyalty and whether the female meets our fertility and breeding standards. 4)If Darwinism is true, then we could evolve into a species immune to sun cancer by this methodology. 5)This: (Video) http://youtu.be... 6)This part 2: (Video) http://youtu.be... 7)This part 3: (Video) http://youtu.be... * So I am right and Hayd is wrong. Vote Bronto. * Bronto leaves debate. (Bronto theme music) http://youtu.be...
Women should be forced to wear bikinis in public

The only actually relevent responses that Pro makes is that he will be suffering that women aren't wearing bikinis. So although this is valid, the amount of suffering that will be created by making women wear bikinis would outweigh this. So by weighing analysis this is negated. The same logic applies to satisfaction to men in general, because their satisfaction is superficial, whilst the psychological suffering outweighs. Also, forcing women to wear bikinis will result in more sunburns. As wearing clothing that covers the skin prevents sunburns [1], showing skin thus causes sunburns. Besides sunburns being painful, they also are the main cause of skin cancer which is very fatal [2]. Thus making women wear bikinis will cause many deaths. [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...