BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S Federal Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment

Being a conservative, it is imperative that the death penalty is kept as an ultimate punishment against acts of pure evil. The death penalty is an absolute deterrent. The executed murderer will never murder again and sets an example to those who are thinking of committing such an awful and heartless crime. Society needs the punishment reserved for those who commit the most atrocious murders. Take Saddam Huissein or Adolf Hitler for example, they were both cruel dictators who killed innocent people by the masses in the most disturbing and inhumane ways.
The U.S Federal Government should declare the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment

We are not debating our military, we are debating the death penalty in our country. According to www.amasty.com only 21 countries in the world still use the death penalty in 2012. Also according to procon.com, The legacy of racial apartheid, racial bias, and ethnic discrimination is unavoidably evident in the administration of capital punishment in America. Death sentences are imposed in a criminal justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent. This is an immoral condition that makes rejecting the death penalty on moral grounds not only defensible but necessary for those who refuse to accept unequal or unjust administration of punishment. So in the past it has been evident of a more severe punishment due to racial injustices, and the amount of money you have.
Sweatshops are ethical

Contention 1: It improves lives Sweatshops don't cause harm. They provide better job options than the average job in these third-world countries [1]. They are also voluntary contracts between the employer and the employee. Nobody is forcing them to take these jobs. Now, the source mentions a possiblity of the Chinese government forcing people to work in sweatshops. If this is true, then these are not the core idea of sweatshops, and that would have more to do with communism. Any sweatshops that involve physical force to get people to work are to be ignored by this debate. I believe that this is all I need for now. [1] . http://www.independent.org...
We should abolish the electoral college

I believe that the electoral college is quite useful to our country, in that it is very rare that the popular vote majority is not the same as the electoral majority. Many people who do not believe we should take the time to count the popular vote are correct, for it is quite possible for the machines that would probably count it may either be rigged or naturally malfunction, leaving again with a president the popular vote did not actually want. Also, if we did change to the popular vote, many regions that may be solidly Republican and highly populate would have a major advantage over the other states. The electoral vote limits that and helps make sure that the voting is truly a democracy.
We should abolish the electoral college

I think we should no longer use the outdated electoral college systems, which has frequently landed us with a president that the majority of the country does not support. There are many things wrong with the electoral college system including faithless electors, its outdatedness, the inequality of citizens votes, and unwanted presidents. For these reasons, which I shall later explain in a greater depth, I suggest that Congress abolish this system and use the popular vote, like the majority of the world.
We should abolish the electoral college

However, in the swing states, the ones with the most electoral votes, voters know that it is their region that can change the course of the election. Therefore they are more likely to put more thought into voting, so the swing states end up being the ones where the voters are the most educated and will vote more wisely. The electoral college also restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. This may seem paradoxical, given that electoral votes are weighted in favor of less populous states. Wyoming, the least populous state, contains only about one-sixth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, but its three electors (of whom two are awarded only because Wyoming has two senators like every other state) give it slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of total electoral votes. But winner-take-all makes a slight increase in the popular vote have a much bigger electoral-vote payoff in a large state than in a small one. The popular vote was very close in Florida; nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small states does. And since presidents and senators are often presidential candidates, large states are likely to get additional consideration in appropriations and appointments from presidents and senators before as well as during campaigns, offsetting to some extent the effects of the unequal Senate on the political influence of less populous states.
I know your real name

"But my full name is not known to you, therefor, You do not know my real name. " First off, bad spelling. Second off, there is no proof that I don"t know your real name. I could have been hiding my knowledge about the spelling and/ or fullness of your name to protect identity theft. But a full name is not the same as a real one. Real means it is not fake. Real and full/complete names are different. It either is a part of you name or it is not. Here is a definition of a name: a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to. People usually don"t walk around saying your last name or middle name unless you have the same exact first name as someone you know through a group (church, school, clubs, etc. ) If Maddie is not what people use to refer to you then it is not your name. If it is, then it is your real name, and anything else that other people call you is therefore fake if you don"t respond to it.
Bread is the most underrated rock/pop group

"People who were in high school at the time knew Bread songs however, few of them really knew who the real Bread was." How do you define the "real Bread"? "Yes, It is true that they were popular, however few of their many songs ever reached number one on the charts." They had minimal songs compared to other bands from the 60-70's such as The Beatles, The Monkees, Pink Floyd, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Doobie Brothers, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, I could go on and on. Just because a band doesn't have more than one number one hit doesn't mean they are underrated, they had many hits that came in at top ten hits. "Make it with you" #1 "Baby I'm- a want you" #3 "Everything I own" #5 "It don't matter to me" In Top ten "If" In Top ten "Mother Freedom" #37 Also they had an album at #3 "Baby I'm-a want you" (The Album) And with all those hits it seems they got what they were worth compared to the amount of material they released and so on. AMG is the company that rates the albums. This is what they say about who they are and how they rate albums. "AMG's mission is to provide an independent expert editorial voice on recorded music. Our editorial staff and network of writers represent many of the most knowledgeable experts in music today…with broad and lengthy experience in the entertainment media industry. We strive to provide editorial content that is balanced and informed. Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only within the scope of an artist's own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist. We won't compare a Britney Spears album to the latest release by Incubus." --- Taken from FAQ's at Allmusic.com Thanks. --- Saint J
Bread is the most underrated rock/pop group

"Bread was one of the most popular pop groups of the early '70s" (allmusic.com) Yes it is true that "Most of the time if you ask someone if they have ever heard of Bread they look at you like you are stupid." when you are talking to a younger generation. I am assuming you are asking people that were not born when they existed. Ask most people that where in the "high school" era of their lives in 1970 and they have heard of them. Four of Bread's six albums received a four or more stars out of five on allmusic.com, how can you be considered underrated by getting those kinds of ratings? That is all I need to say. --- Saint J.
Bread is the most underrated rock/pop group

First off I would like you all to know that I am a fan of Bread. I am here to prove that they are the most underrated rock/pop band of their time. Most of the time if you ask someone if they have ever heard of Bread they look at you like you are stupid. Then when you say you aren't talking about the food, and that you are talking about the band they are like who is Bread.
bible is fallible

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. I did not say "I am completely and utterly okay with all of these things happening." What I said was, you have no way of knowing whether these things were necessary back then or not! All you know is that in TODAY'S world, you would find these punishments repulsive. This does not prove that the punishments were wrong during the time that they were used, as the only perspective you have is that of a person from the 20th/21st century. Obviously people back then agreed with the punishments; what makes you more right than them? Throughout this whole debate you have not presented any evidence to speak of that actually proves that things were wrong back then. You have presented what you believe to be flawed passages, and then used your OPINION to judge whether they were right or not. What the voter must realize is that darygirl's opinion isn't objective, as she would obviously prefer that she won over me. Her opinion also does not reflect the morals of the times of the Old Testament. This makes her inadequate to make any such judgement on the Old Testament and whether or not it is morally flawed. The Instigator of the debate has the burden of proof. This is basically the burden to prove all of her contentions. Debate is about arguments, obviously, and which to prefer. As the Con, I only need to give a shadow of a doubt in the voter's mind that her case is refuted. Now, this could be as simple as her saying "A Means B" and me saying "A doesn't mean B". If she posted "A means B" again, well then I would have to win, because she never disproved my arguments. My point is basically that without any substantial evidence backing up her claims, there is no reason to accept her arguments. She gives personal opinions and nothing else, merely stating "these things are immoral". This is obviously faulty, as what she thinks is not universal truth. The only way she could have suitably proved that her arguments held water would be evidence, which has never been presented. As the Instigator, she must uphold her case. A Con arguer could perfectly well only ask questions (like she did in her last round) and still come away with a win. However, a Pro can not and should not do this in order to win. Her questions didn't refute any of my arguments, or prove any of hers. In the end, due to the rules of debate, I deserve the vote. What I've said in all these words basically comes down to this: Dairygirl4u2c has not proved her points with evidence, merely provided her opinion on the matter. This is clearly not enough to prove that the Bible is fallible, and so she should not win today's debate.
bible is fallible

so you think women should marry their rapists? or, you think times can change what is truth? or you think a woman shaving her head is necessary response to the culture of those times? or you tihnk when a rapist doesn't treat the woman right, she's suddenly socially acceptable such that she can now not have to stay the guy and not worry about a social shunning? it seems more like the reason they had to marry is because she was now unclean and needed to marry the rapist.
bible is fallible

You responded to my argument that the Bible was open to interpretation; however, what you may have missed is when I said "things were different back then" (albeit in different words, but the point was the same). So in today's society, we may think that these punishments are completely unacceptable and ridiculous. But back then, these same codes may have actually reduced crime, kept the Church together, etc. You ask "why were these beliefs ever established" without having intimate knowledge of the time period, the day-to-day life, the morals, the values of the society. You have no idea if these laws really WERE necessary, you only know that living in today's world, you would frown upon them. Basically, you're trying to criticize things that you don't fully understand, which is not a good thing, to say the least. You're not proving that the Bible is fallible, merely that you don't agree with it.
bible is fallible

what it appears to me that you're doing is taking a vague theory that helps answer some of the issues, occastionally, which i acknowledge it does, and thinking that it works all the time. i could buy, as a possible proposition, the argument that, perhaps, we don't have bears attacking kids for making fun of todays prophets and people of God, because after Jesus, we're to be inherently more of a forgiveness society. but, that does not explain why women had to shave their heads when raped, or marry the rapist. this doesn't have to do with forgivness, but with harming the woman who did nothing wrong. this is just an example. you haven't explained then, why it was ever the case that those things were believed, to begin with. (you only answered some of the things, at best)
bible is fallible

Basically what you did to support your point is list several passages from the Bible that you believe prove what you are saying. However, the problem with this is that you are assuming that there is no room for judgement in interpreting the Bible. Obviously, just because things happen in the Bible doesn't mean you should do them in today's world. For example, there is a story in Judges where a girl invites an enemy commander into her tent, gives him something to make him fall asleep, and then drives a tent stake through his head. Does this mean that if you have an enemy, you should do the same thing? Of course not. What you have to understand when you look at the Bible is that not everything is to be followed exactly, because it was meant for that time and not this time. The Old Testament, which is mainly what you are talking about, was written over two thousand years ago. It is vastly different from the New Testament, which is where we are living now, in that there was no forgiveness. As such, stronger punishments were needed to deter crime (by the way, this is also an answer to your other argument of "why would this ever even need to happen?"). Does that mean that in today's forgiveness-allowing world, we should follow the same codes? Are punishments from over two thousand years ago necessarily still applicable? What you are saying about the Bible being fallible ONLY applies if you take everything literally (which, especially when reading Revelation, can get a little ridiculous). What you need is a more open interpretation and an understanding that what was necessary 2000+ years ago is not always necessary today. Following the specifics to the letter is a fallible way of seeing the Bible, it doesn't necessarily prove that the Bible itself is fallible.
It's time we set the moon alight.

Even though the voters can see for themselves what a great, fool-proof idea setting fire to the moon is, I feel my opponent nonetheless deserves the courtesy of a point-by-point reply. 1. The moon is already well mapped and, furthermore, will soon be subject to an in-depth survey being carried out my a moon-orbiting satellite which was launched from India yesterday. All this information can be stored for future generations. . http://www.spacetoday.org... 2. The moon is huge and will have enough fuel to keep burning long after the Earth has become uninhabitable due to global warming, don't you worry about that. 3. Don't worry about the Ruskies or America's reputation either. All the nuclear powers could enter into a spirit of international co-operation, as is the case with the space station, and jointly develop and launch the moon-bound nuclear missiles. 4. Although it is true that the crescent moon is an Islamic symbol, Allah doesn't actually live on the moon himself, so Muslims will not have to fret about his house getting burned down as a result of my proposal. . http://www.godallah.com... 5. The only reason that I propose to set light to the moon using nuclear weapons, rather than say, a can of petrol and a box of matches, is that the amount of heat required to provoke an exothermic chain reaction whereby the frozen oxygen trapped in the lunar soil is combusted can only be achieved by a nuclear explosion. The weapons will not, however, be powerful enough to knock the moon off its orbit. Think about it like a boy with a flamethrower standing by a railway track. He might be able to set light to the passing trains, but they will continue to travel along the tracks, albeit in big balls of flames. . http://www.mikeblaber.org... 6. The light from the burning moon will not be as powerful as the sun, but nevertheless, it will help plants photosynthesise, albeit at a reduced level. 7. Yes, the moon is sometimes in the same part of the sky as the sun during the days and not up all night either, but it will be up at night somewhere on Earth. 8. As far as teen-killing motorists getting confused by two flaming orbs in the sky at the same time, I would suggest that people that dim-witted shouldn't de driving in the first place. 9. We have already built the nuclear missiles and given that the escape velocity of the Earth is 7 miles per second and that the missiles are relatively light, the amount of energy required to overcome gravity and propel the warheads to the moon would be negligible in the greater scheme of things. 10. I have already conceded that the moon would not be up all night every night, but surely any reduction in crime is welcome?
It's time we set the moon alight.

Most people have seen footage of the lunar landings, but how many people have wondered why the astronauts didn't celebrate their safe arrival by lighting up a well-deserved cigarette? Well, here's the reason: the moon's surface is highly flammable. A carelessly discarded cigarette could easily set the lunar soil alight. That's because it's composed of large amounts of oxygen (42%), aluminium (7%) and magnesium (6%), which as every chemistry student knows, makes a highly volatile combination of elements. http://www.permanent.com... Obviously, a major fire on the surface of the moon would have spelt disaster for the Apollo missions, but what if we launched some thermo-nuclear missiles at the moon and set it on fire today? The answer is that it would be of great advantage to mankind. Apart from being a bit of a laugh (which is just what we need in these times of economic gloom) it'll mean it will be light at night, which will bring the following benefits: 1. Enable more crops to be grown, thus alleviating world hunger; 2. Reduce energy consumption, thus helping the environment; 3. Cut crimes which generally take place in the hours of darkness. Since any pollution caused by this extra-terrestrial bonfire would just dissipate into the emptiness of space, no harm can come of setting the moon alight, and we've got plenty of spare nuclear missiles, so what are we waiting for?
Rap battle

You talk down to me like you're on the top But your win ratio's 33%, just utter slop You thought Rap Battle 19 was my last time? Guess what. I'm no where NEAR past prime/ I'm like a robot with a rhyme chip in my head Before I even think it, it's already been said! Dropping f bombs with computer precision For me to choke isn't even a do-able decision! You've "upped the stakes?" then I'll get the grill I'll roast and eat you till I've had my fvckin' fill. You're a rapper in training, but who's your master? Prolly Gary the Snail, bro you gotta go faster I'm gone a month, you expect me to be rusty? No, I'm stainless steel, I don't even get dusty I rap so good that you should think to pay me If not, I'll rob you cause remember, I'm shady...
Rap battle

Oh look everybody. It is Jimmy returning If you think you might beat me again that's quite concerning Ima reform as a djck? Stick it in your pvssy When you cry it's exposed you're a wussy-wussy I was holding back last time, now just a little You were once on the top, demoted to middle This first round is just a test, no effort required Im a rapper in training, you are retired Im better than before I have upped the stakes Shjt bricks? 3 little pigs that's great Read them up till now since I was 8 Minus bricks wolf ate them up the 3 little steaks You aren't worth my time yet, show me your skill Or lose give me elo you get the drill 14 bars already, enough to make your bones chill 16 bars now you get overkill
Rap battle

cakerman freestyled, so I'll give him some leeway it's not like you're a boss rapper like T Pain Battling you is too easy, it's just another free day I'll mow you down like an MG-42 on D Day So behave- little boy with the first grade rhymes You're over here playing like it's birthday time Your stupidity makes me cringe in the worst way, sigh My fluidity is as smooth as a surf way ride If I knew your address, I'd go and pay you a visit Pull a MAC out and give you a little uh dis shjt I'd shoot up your entire body, not leave one tidbit And because you lack a djck, I'd go ahead and skip it Fvck you, you failed this test, get out my sight I'll admit that you did indeed put up a fight and I got one more thing to say before good night Tell your Girl friend (and mom) to keep it tight, right
Rap battle

("I bet you steal raps like Dane Cook steals punchlines, throw Carlos Mencia in the mix and I still wouldn't give them a dime just like i didn't join this rap battle to sit here while you whine and cry to yourself because you don't understand the words you found in the dictionary on the shelf in your living room, that's right, personal roasts, zoom") - Cakerman Look at the text above, you call it competitish? Your bars have already failed you before you even finished On a scale of 1-10, your bars are a 0 - ish By the time i'm done with you, it will leave you diminished I don't think, I know, I will win the vote total Your humiliation is being demonstrated global I think I got the point, but you don't got the focal You think that I self-implode, you ain't even mobile I'm a young apprentice? I flip while you fumble Old man, I spit bars while you mumble I'm quick and nimble, you slip and you tumble You might be my senior, but I am not gonna be humble Plot twist! Student beats the test You got to admit that i'm the best You tink you cant beat me? Surely you jest? This final line will leave you in a mess Peace
Rap battle

cakerman was outtie cause you're no competish, He only battles rappers who actually got some wit You don't qualify, leave now or you'll get shot to shjt Because for you to win would be a crazy plot to twist... You are the fire and I am the twigs? Well none of your fire has booked you any gigs On my flow you can binge (after you get over the singe) Your rhymes are cringe like eating your mom's minge Your training is futile, you young apprentice! You delusions of winning are as real as Atlantis No one can save you, not even the Savior can cause I'm ten times as tougher than your enemy cakerman. You accept this battle, thinking you are noble Yet you will sob when you see the vote total So you're uranium? is that your main focal? All you're doing is self-imploding like Chernobyl------