BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

I accept. I submit that the definition of a "logical argument" is any argument that uses a certain set of starting premises, makes a certain number of inferences that follow the rules of logic, and reaches the desired conclusion without creating any implied contradiction caused by the starting premises. Given those criteria for what constitutes a "logical argument", the task of creating a logical argument for the existence of God is quite trivial. Premise 1: Zebras exist. Premise 2: If Zebras exist, then God exists. Conclusion: God exists. The argument above makes two starting premises, makes one inference based on the established rules of logic, and concludes that God exists, without introducing even the remotest possibility of deriving contradiction from the premises. Because you have not included the requirement that the argument I craft must have true premises, but merely be logical in its construction, I have completed the task in a fundamentally irrefutable manner. Furthermore, I am compelled to ask you how you define the term "supernatural". Given certain definitions, the term "supernatural" may inherently preclude the existence of any supernatural thing, which would render your entire proposition tautological and thus an invalid candidate for debate.
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

As catholic's we believe that the death penalty is morally wrong and can never be justified. One of the major and irreversible flaws of capital punishment is the real possibility that an innocent person could die for a crime he or she didn't commit. As of May, 124 inmates on death row in the United States had been exonerated. Once a person has been executed, there can never be a chance to reverse sentences or give exonerations, even though the rising number of exonerations per year shows the need for the ability to reverse sentencing. Isn't killing one innocent person worse than setting the guilty free? The death penalty leaves no room for error, and the courts, as we well know, are far from perfect. The primary reason to oppose capital punishment has more to do with who we are than who death row inmates are. The death penalty is doesn't help in a civilized society. Three years ago, New York determined that capital punishment was unconstitutional and joined the list of 12 states that have abolished it. It's time the rest of the nation follows suit. Capital punishment is too flawed, ineffective and cruel to be continued in America.Most of the time, whether someone ends up on death row is correlated directly with how much money he had to afford a competent attorney. Too often, it's because of the color of a person's skin. The death penalty is inextricably bound up with our racist and class-biased justice system and for that reason alone can never be just.No matter how you defend or support it, capital punishment is morally wrong. To deliberately kill someone who has been captured and no longer poses a direct threat to society is murder. Capital punishment gives the government the legal right to commit first-degree murder. What kind or moral message does that send? As has been widely documented, with the shortcomings and inequities in our judicial system, the existence of the death penalty guarantees the execution of innocent people.Since its inception, the death penalty has never produced a decrease in crime. It is not only useless. It is itself a crime. It should be abolished. "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39 It is one of the hardest things to forgive the one who sins against you, but Jesus Christ King of King forgave the horrible things that people did to him during his Crucifixion. www.fadp.com/news/pnj-20071030/
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

It's accept, not agree. *facepalm*ARE YOU READY TO BE BLOWN AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY?!?!Check dis out. The Death Penalty Saves Lives Since 1996, 17 studies have shown that the death penalty reduces crime rates. Five of the studies find that the death penalty shows no difference in crime or that it has a slight increase in crime. Two studies are inconclusive in the issue, however one of them says that deterrence exists, but is not strong. In other words, 18 studies find some criminal deterrent, 17 find a strong deterrent, and 5 dissent. (1) From this, we can see that out of all studies performed on the death penalty, a large majority of them prove to have the effect to lower crime rates. Even more than this, when one uses national data, one of the studies was actually used on a localized area. This is important because other studies were conducted on a much larger test subject, such as a state for example. One study conducted by Joanna M. Shepherd concluded the following: On average each execution saves 3 lives From the total lives saved, it is shown that 50% of them will be African American, 33% will be White, and 27% will be of other descent. Shortening the time spent on death row also lower murder rates further. Precisely one life more life is saved per execution for 2.75 years taken off death row. (2) For further proof of deterrence, studies have also shown that a whopping 99.9% of criminals would vote for being kept in jail over the death penalty. (3)This shows us that they prefer life over death. If they fear death then they will not do crimes that would give them the death penalty, this is why the death penalty is beneficial. A study by Gary Becker proves this theory. He proved that most murderers have a fear of death, just like everybody else, and may not commit a murder with the possibility of future execution - that murderers understand the cost and benefit analysis of their decision. (4) Murder Rates From 1968-1976, the Death Penalty was actually suspended in 10 states. During this time period, the murder rates in the United States went way up. Fast forward to the 1990’s where the death penalty had started to become legalized again in some of the states, there was a huge decrease in crime-rates. In addition to this, states that reinstituted the death penalty experienced a 38% drop in murder rates by 1998. (5) Another study concluded, “Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.” (5) Conclusion The death penalty saves lives and lowers crime rates. Multiple studies prove the above statement and history itself has also proved that the death penalty saves lives and lowers murder rates. I would like to thank my opponent for debating with me. I await Con’s response. (1) http://www.cjlf.org...... (2) Joanna M. Shepherd, “Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 33 (June 2004), 283-321. (3) http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...... (4) Becker, Gary S., "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach." Journal of Political Economy. (1968) (5) http://www.foxnews.com......
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Cumwoo, I challenge you to a debate! (Friendly banter between personal friends) You will be debating that the death penalty should be done away with, and I will be debating that it shouldn't be done away with. Let's set some rules and definitions, shall we? Definitions Death Penalty - "the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes)" (1) Abolished - "To do away with; annul." (2) Rules No trolling, semantics, straw manning, lawyering, or actions that the average DDO user would deem inappropriate (with the exception of our banter) First Round is for acceptance. This simply means when you post your argument for the first round it will be along the lines of "I accept you debate" ect. ect. (1) http://definitions.uslegal.com... (2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Politiians Should Be Neutral

SummaryPro left every one of my arguments unanswered, effectively conceding the debate. The most important arguments are:1. People always vote for more government benefits and lower taxes on themselves, and that spells doom. 2. Voters do not inform themselves on the detailed issues that make up the day-to-day business of government, so depending on public sentiment is not feasible. A neutral candidate could only vote "present" most of the time.3. We should worry more about rights as a limit upon democracy rather than expanding democracy, because the majority always finds a rationale for exploiting the minority.There were other arguments Pro did not refute, but I won't repeat them here.Right to PetitionPro introduces a new argument in this final round. (Debaters are not supposed to introduce new arguments in the final round, but Pro is new to the site and probably doesn't know that convention.) His argument is that a right to petition amounts to a mandate for direct democracy.If the Constitution was mandating direct democracy, it would not have set up an elaborate system of government designed to foil democracy. The system includes Constitutional rights, three branches of government with checks and balances, a two-house legislature with a Senate not reflecting population, and an electoral college. The right to petition the government does not include a requirement for the government to comply with what the petition requires, It is solely a right of free speech, not a means o determining government action. Since it does not govern, Pro is incorrect in supposing it logically extends to a new mechanism of governing.Pro also errs in supposing it would be practical to extend the mechanism. Most of the important issues before Congress are not known in enough detail to poll ahead of elections. Voters would have no opinion on most of the hundreds of pieces of legislation pending. Much of it cannot be parsed in any case. Recall Speaker Pelosi's admonition that health care must be passed before we know what's in it. We still don't know. Pro supposes that the poll (or petition) results could become a platform for elections. Under the resolution, both candidate would have to vote according to the poll results, so there would still be no point n having an election. It would be direct democracy in every meaningful sense.-------------------I think this debate has been interesting. It addresses important questions: Why don't we have a true direct democracy? Should we try to move closer to direct democracy? The answers are that the founders knew the fatal flaw in direct democracy and set up a system to avoid it. Now, politicians are catering too much to the popular will to have the government provide everything at no cost to them. WE should move away from that through expansion of rights.The resolution is negated.
Politiians Should Be Neutral

Thank you for the response. I am going to solidify my arguement by citing the US Constitution, the document that representatives should honor. People have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation. This right is protected under the Right to Petition in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Right to Petition does not get as much attention as the other First Amendment rights, but its important in my arguement. Rather than having to petition a Congressman after they get elected, I suggest creating the petition up front. The petition of every issue can serve as the platform, and the neutral politician can carry out the will of the people. I strongly believe that good ideas "win" over time and that bad ideas get rooted out. Its up to the smartest, best and the brightest in society to argue for good ideas, thereby changing people's minds. So if someone's ideas on how to balance the budget, set the tax rate and deal with homeownership are so great, that person should not be afraid to put them up for public scrutiny. A good arguement should sway people in favor of the good idea. Its the politician's job to simply carry forth the idea. Thank you again for taking the time to respond to the debate.
Politiians Should Be Neutral

Politicians should be as neutral as possible and not have strong opinions one way or the other. Instead their opinions should be given to them by voters. Politicians are representatives of the people and as a representative you should do what your constituents tell you to do. Political surveys can direct a politicians view point. Any politician with a strong personal opinion should not be elected. Take for example the case of the Iraq War. Some politicians voted for it and now are arguing against it, the for it again. Based on what? Are they representing their constituents views or their own?
IPL should be banned. Yes/No

For people who don’t know what IPL is,its club cricket. 1. Cricket,being the absolutely amazing game as it is,is entertaining because of its novelty.Introducing IPLs just borders on ‘too much cricket’,if theres a thing like that. 2. With all the match fixing scandals around it,its no longer unpredictable.Its merely a show. 3.GOOD?The players are freaking exhausted,playing all year round.We lost to Pakistan last time.Its the deriliction of national duty right there.Its neither good,nor entertaining.
States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty

In keeping with the rules posted by my opponent, who has, unfortunately, forfeited again, this round should be a response to his answers, and my final arguments or rebuttals. As he has not answered any of my questions, I am left with my final arguments. To be honest, I feel my opening arguments stand on their own, as they were unrebutted and unquestioned. In the absence of any "meat" for discussion, it's hard for me to make up more objections to counter, and I certainly wouldn't want to misrepresent his position with any of hypothetical objections, whatever it might actually be. So I will simply make my final argument a restatement of my initial statement, and probably very similar to my closing statement. I feel one can be against the death penalty in general, and one can think there are a lot of reasons the death penalty should not be pursued in specific cases, but I do not think that prosecutors should be hobbled simply because a defendant pleads guilty, and I do not believe my opponent has given any compelling reasons to do so. I hope my opponent actually posts something his final round...
States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round. This makes the Q part of the Q/A period more difficult for me, as I have less "meat" about which to ask, and have no idea which points which I made Pro actually contests. Questions: 1. What do you think the purpose of the death penalty is? 2. Don't you think that the plea bargains which exist now exist as a compromise which benefits both parties, the State in its interests of Justice and the Defense in its interest of minimizing consequence? 3. Will you actually be able to post a round this next round? Answers: No questions to answer for the obvious reason that I didn't get any!
States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty

Does a police officer have the right to shoot a criminal after he has given up? Do soldiers have the right to kill soldiers after they have given up? Do you have the right to beat someone to death, after the other person has given up, even though you may have been acting in self defense? There are a lot of questions as to when reacting with deadly force is justified, but there has always been a standing moral rule, when someone gives up, the violence stops. Entering a plea of guilty is akin to giving up your fight against the state. I think if you consider the plea of guilty in this way, the state must give up their right to execute the Guilty party. States should not be allowed to purse the death penalty for a criminal that submits a plea of guilty.
States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty

In keeping with his rules: I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of the plea of the defendant. (I did correct the typo in "regardless", which I hope Pro does not fault; which is not to give him crap about the typo, because I'm sure I'll make my own) Though this is an administrative round, I would also like to note that Pro has conceded in the comments that the death penalty is valid in principle, so that this debate will not hinge on that point.
States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty

The State should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com... On April 1, 2013 the district attorney for Arapahoe County, George Brauchler, announced that they would be seeking the death penalty for James E Holmes. Prior to this announcement, The Defense had offered to plea guilty to all charges in order to avoid the death penalty. Positions: Me: I will be arguing for this position. PRO You: Will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of plea. Format of the Debate: Round 1 Administrative Round please state the following: "I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regadless of the plea of the defendant" Round 2 Me: Opening Statement You: Opening Statement / First Rebuttal Round 3 Me: First Rebuttal / Questions to Opposing side (3 Max) You: Questions to Opposing Side (3 Max) / Answers to Questions Round 4 Me: Answers to Questions / Response to Answers You: Response to Answers / Final Arguments or Rebuttals Round 5 Me: Final Arguments or Rebuttals / Closing Statements You: Closing Statements If you have no questions simply state : "I have no questions for my opponent" Good luck!
Capitalism in practice does more harm than good

And I would like to welcome him to this site and this debate. This is already the last round and my opponent has not yet proved that capitalism in practice is bad or give his "argument" a source. The only thing he says about my points is that it's blessings in disguise, but again he has no proof that it is so. His argument is really covered in my points. I await a rebut from my opponent and some sources. Thank you.
Capitalism in practice does more harm than good

to analyze capitalism you cannot look to the utilitarian mindset of body count or economic gain because we do not know how many people are killed and subjegated to capitalism and how many people die because of capitalism every day because it makes it's victims anonymous like we cannot know how many people died on the slave ships.... Further, the ultimate evolution of capitalism is the reduction of life to raw materials. This reduction has devastating consequences – the penetration of the law of value into the totality of social existence makes mass extermination inevitable as all life that is no longer deemed productive must be eliminated to ensure the smooth functionality of the capitalist machine – the instrumental nationality seeks to justify extermination of all life. This will be the ultimate goal of capitalism which is that we will all have value when we are of no use they throw us out of the system the government makes it seem better by giving social security but it is all still the same thing There is no value to life within a capitalist subjectivity, it is the Zero Point to the Holocaust embedded and permeated into every social field of our existence. All of his arguments are made by capitalism saying that they provide benifts but this is all just blessings in disguise such as global warming caused by capitalism turned into a profit by making solar and green tech also the standard of living arg is irrelevant because millions are killed every year because not enough food also we have never had true communism because true communism exists when there is no government to control because that would be a form of class... also we should suspend temporality you should ignore the excuse that the present system manufactures to stop its own destruction. They can't find an objective ethical imperative within which to evaluate their impacts. We need to act as if utopia is already here if it is its own ontological truth... meaning we are able to conceptualize our own future and not be held down to the qualitative differences this will turn all rev no work args and will turn the idea that this will never happen because it is that mentality that makes it not good We cannot wait for the right moment for the rev we must do it now in order to touch the real through t symbolic by striking at ourselves what is most important and use they system against itself to destroy it cap is bad and anyone who says otherwise has only lived in a rich 1st world country with internet and never seen de beer's diamond mines
Doctors Should Learn About Sleep Disorders

Thanks for the debate Contra. R1: Sleep is Overlooked Contra cites a quote from Dr. Clement saying that only 2% of patients were referred by GP's. However, Clement is a unique expert in sleep disorders and sees mostly patients with unique disorders, such as narcolepsy, wherein people often fall asleep while standing up. Since these diseases often involve neurological symptoms, it is not surprising that most of his patients were referred by neurologists, not GP's. We know someone had to be giving them a referral or their insurance wouldn't have covered the sleep clinic. In addition, Contra's own evidence from Round 2, from the Journal of Neurology (source 1) said that most people complain about sleep disorders to their GP's; it said that in a study of narcolepsy diagnosis, many of the referring physicians were GP's and the sleep clinic correctly diagnosed narcolepsy in 100% of cases, even if the GP wasn't sure what was wrong. We have experts in sleep medicine and should be using them. The referral system solves. My opponent says that 40 million Americans suffer from sleep disorders. His own source lists "insomnia" as the most common sleep disorder. Insomnia, an inability to fall asleep, is quite easy to recognize for GP's, since the patient will report an inability to fall asleep. Contra's 95% stat is just guesswork. Clement "scanned records" and found too few cases of narcolepsy and other sleep disorders, so he assumed doctors must be missing these disorders (see contra's last quote for methodology). Yet, many patients never go to doctors with their medical complaints. This is not a reason to blame doctors if the patient never complained about the disorder. R2: Sleep is important I once again agree with this. I like sleep. ==Unrefuted Arguments/Questions== 1) There is a tradeoff - if GP's spend hours studying sleep medicine, there are other things they can't study. My opponent's own evidence from Dr. Chris Miller (source 4) says there is NO MORE TIME in an already crowded med school curriculum to add sleep disorders. It would mean some other important subject, like psychiatry, wouldn't be taught. And suicide kills more people than lack of sleep. 2) Who pays for additional training? The federal government is broke. Med school tuition is already high and raising tuition (to pay for hiring additional staff and setting up a sleep clinic at that school) would deter people from becoming doctors. 3) How does a GP confirm his diagnosis? Only a sleep study at a sleep clinic can confirm a sleep disorder diagnosis. If the person must go to a sleep clinic anyway, why does it matter whether the GP knows the exact correct diagnosis? It only matters for bragging rights. 4) This defeats the purpose of having lower cost GP's if they must specialize in everything. 5) People forget what they learn in school anyways. 6) Educating the public about sleep disorders would do more because then people can ask to see an expert immediately. ^ALL dropped