BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the death penalty be outlawed

The penal system’s laws concerning the death penalty within the United States of America are morally wrong. If the government is stating that murder is a crime, then how is the death penalty excused? One cannot instate a law about murder being illegal, yet committing that same illegal action to sentence another individual. In this case the government only proves to be a group of hypocritical officials. Religion should not be someone’s characteristic or moral standing, and should not be a person’s essence for their perspective on deciding an individual faith in prison. The understanding of life, punishment, and the justice system stated centuries ago, by almost 40 men, would not be the same understanding of it now. The bible, God, or any form of entity one chooses to refer to for moral standing, should not be the only source for deciding the faith of someone’s life. If one commits a crime that is so cruel to humanity, the punishment should proceed as life in prison. Science should not be investing time and money to learn waya to make the death penalty “less brutal”, but how to make life longer fr humanity. Criminals are criminals, and they should spend time in jail or prison, based on their crime. There is no science needed after declaring someone is guilty, because the citizens of the this country pay their taxes to keep these criminals behind bards, not in caskets.
Should the death penalty be outlawed

The act of deviation within itself, from societal policy, in reference to the sequestration of another person’s life nullifies one rights as a citizen of the state and ultimately the country; as a citizen you are in agreement of such rules and policies. In other words, the conscience choice to take the life of another human being voids the right one has to vote, take part in jury duty, bear arms, and in due course their own right to live. The penal system exists to punish individuals based on the severity of their crime(s), in which case the punishment is equivalent to the crime; a life of confinement cannot be compared death. As aforementioned The Bible is a book of many stories related to the concept of morality and is an example of an ideal righteous path, the fact that it has 40 different contributors, as you have mentioned, provides support for such a statement. Of course it would seem illogical if taken in a literal manner; “God” is not a physical entity but a system one chooses to follow which helps the individual decide right from wrong. The justice and penal systems, as well as the “The Bible”, are analogous in regards that both are systems of belief which guide the behavior and choices of others. In essence, God punishes those who go against a commandment with a punishment that matches; one is not automatically put to death but is punished accordingly. Many civil and criminal codes were originally founded on such religious texts, such a foundation has permitted reformation and change. With such improvements in science, there may be innovative ways to make such a punishment less brutal and more efficient.
Should the death penalty be outlawed

The rights of a citizen are indeed partially tarnished when convicted of a crime, such as the right to vote, take part in jury duty, and bare arm. Nevertheless, the act of being deviate in this sense, should not determine the lost of every basic human right. In the case of committing an unlawful act, the only charge against an individual should be incarceration for a certain amount of time, including life in prison. The court system has rules in place for those who commit a crime in defense to ones own life, their family, or home. The death penalty serving as a “severe method” should not be applied to those who are measly protecting themselves. Also if death is such a heinous crime, then it should not be done in the government’s courtroom. The bible is an inadequate and illogical book that should not be referenced to, especially when considering court cases. The bible is used to follow the “will of God”, but is not even written by this All Mighty Being, instead by almost 40 different contributors. If one was to use the death penalty in the way of God, then one must also put to death everyone who curses his or her parents, has premarital sex, works on Sabbath day, and every male who had sexual relations with another male. These are clearly not as “heinous” as the crimes supposedly deserved to consequently be punished by the death penalty, but according to God, are. Humans have evolved physically and mentally, and one must not place judgment based off a book written centuries ago, and use similar cruel punishment. People change, and so should the court systems sentences. The case with Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman does indeed prove the point that science and technology has improved in our modern age. Just as technology has changed to better society, so should the punishments and reasons for the death penalty. The mindset, and moralities of people change over time, so one should realize that the death penalty is a brutal punishment, and should be banned from all the United States of America.
Should the death penalty be outlawed

Our rights as citizens of this country are automatically violated once another human being decides, for whatever reason, to exploit, inflict psychological and physical harm, and ultimately steal what is considered precious to many of us, even to the convicted themselves. One’s choice to deviate from the norm sets the precursor to allow others to deviate as well, whether it be the state or another individual. In other words their actions serve as a message within itself; the conscience decision to consciously commit any heinous act, upon another human being, one chooses to forfeits the “right” to live. In respect to a claim of self-defense, the defendant or attacked victim justifies the act of killing the other person for this very reason, and can be viewed as a form of the death penalty as well. An example of an ideal that is still followed even after many centuries is The Bible. This book, made up of many stories related to the concept of morality, even refers to the punishment of death to those who actively participate in the aforementioned crimes (murder, manslaughter, and genocide). In the story of Genesis, God punishes the wicked with the elimination of their lives via The Flood; he also spares the lives of Noah and his family who chose to live by a righteous code. One can argue that the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime is death, not confinement. Life within itself is a gift, the experiences one lives throughout their existence; even when confined one can still relish in such experiences and have a sense nostalgia everyday up until their death. Why then, should the convicted have such a right after their actions against another human life? In the case Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman, their conviction occurred in 1975, a time when forensic science and technology lacked what exists in our modern age. In this day in age there exist methods and constantly improved science which offers certainty with each conviction. The fact that both individuals have been released is a testament of such improvement. There are new techniques used in how evidence is examined and handled which eliminates the error of wrongful convictions.
Should the death penalty be outlawed

P1: As citizens of the United States of America, people are granted rights, but when convicted of a crime are disbarred from specific rights. Even though people commit heinous crimes, they should never have to give up their life as a sentence for their actions. In the case of crimes being committed unintentional, in self-defense, by one with a mental illness, or in any situation; there are institutions created for people to endure time long sentences for their crimes. The famous phrase "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is referenced from the Code of Hammurabi, and relates to the death penalty, because these people in charge of torturing "criminals" or taking their life away are committing similar crimes. They are murdering these citizens, but since they are seen as people making a "positive difference" for society, the death penalty becomes justified, which is not right. P2: The death penalty is designed to force criminals to pay the ultimate price for their crime(s), but is just an easy escape from being institutionalized, which is the appropriate ultimate price. If one is charged with committing crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, or even genocide, they should be sentenced to life in prison. According to Dictionary.reference.com, prison is "...a building (or vessel) in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed". The death penalty is a pre-historic absurd conviction, and the innovation of prisons was to confine these criminals. Acting as an individual who believes they have the right to remove someone from this earth is unreasonable, and unjust. P3: Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman were two African-American men accused of murder, but then found not guilty and released after serving nearly 40 years in prison. There are cases in the United States, in which individuals are wrongfully sentenced. If these unfortunate and innocent men were given the death penalty for this crime that they did not commit, the government would have been on trial itself for murder in the first-degree. The death penalty is a drastic conviction that should never be taken into consideration when sentencing a person. C:The death penalty should be outlawed in the United States.
Should the death penalty be outlawed

P1: As a member of society, one is bound by a social contract. It is in consensus that if one behaves wickedly and/or inflicts harm on others, whether intentional or not, such agreement is voided and a punishment that matches one’s crime ensues. P2: The death penalty serves as a severe method of punishment that can be used in extreme cases in which individuals have committed heinous crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, and even genocide, either towards many individuals or society at large. C: The death penalty should not be outlawed in the United States. Kania, R. R. THE ETHICS OF THE DEATH PENALTY. Justice Professional, 12(2), 145.Zhu, X. DEATH PENALTY: ANOTHER VIEW. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(19), 1071
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.

Sorry for the confusion. Billy is still alive (although maybe like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he just can't work. Second, don't defer me to a website like that. I don't defer people looking for facts to Michael Moore (although he is amazing). But anyhow, the edges of the spectrum like to stretch the truth, and that is no exception. I found the article, and, since I haven't found that "fact" anywhere else, I find it hard to believe. And the average cost of healthcare, for Billy, might be 300% of his paycheck. It might cost more to the rich guys, but you can see how beautifully the Bush tax cuts worked, based on the same principle that you speak of. It is a sad thing, there really is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody has to pay. Truth is, just as the French have to pay for extra coverage, we don't need a comprehensive system. We just need basic necessities, paid for in a fair way. I wish I had more space, but basically, health is something we all deserve.
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.

My source for the 50% tax is from an article by Lynn Davidson, August 27, 2007, www. newsbusters. org. First, I will address the impact of the 50% tax on the United States. Just consider that for a second, if the government suddenly cut 50% of your paycheck, what would the response of all of the workers in the United States be? It is common sense that, considering all of the facts, this system of health care would not work in the United States, although it has good intent. Next I will address the case of "Billy". My opponent stated in his own case that "Billy" died because he did not receive treatment, and then stated that it was not considered an emergency, contradicting himself, but even if his injury was not considered serious, he could have still received treatment from a government-run or nonprofit hospital, which would have given free treatment, rendering my opponents scenario irrelevant in this debate.
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.

You make good points, but I still feel that Billy's story holds true. I am aware that Universal Healthcare is not free. Everyone is required to pay taxes. However, I did notice you said that the French pay about 50% of their paychecks directly to healthcare. Now, I won't pretend to be an expert but that sounds pretty excessive. Maybe if you would cite your source? However, one thing I did notice was that it was a percent, not a number. That is exactly why I hate sales tax (Thank God I live in Oregon). If it is that percent, Billy only has to pay the equivalent of $1.325 an hour, while a CEO (let's call him Pedro), who makes $1000 an hour, has to pay the equivalent of $500 an hour. Now, with non-universal healthcare, Pedro pays a much, MUCH smaller percentage than Billy. I'm starting to run out of room, so I will address your last point very briefly. What if Billy hurt himself badly enough that he can't work, but not so bad that it is considered an "emergency."
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.

There are several flaws in my opponent's argument, which I will attack in this round. Rebuttal: One flaw is that "Billy" could not afford health insurance and needed free universal health care. Universal health care is not actually "free". The way the government funds universal health care is through taxes. Every worker in France pays about 50% of their paycheck each month into health care. If the United States had universal health care, Billy would not be able to even afford food, and it would be unfair to the U. S. as a whole because every worker would have half as much money, and would also be paying for other people. Secondly, is the idea that he got turned away from the hospital. That would be impossible, as it is illegal for a hospital to refuse emergency medical service due to a lack of insurance or money. Even so, Billy could have received free treatment from a non-profit or government-run hospital.
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.

You are really formal! I guess I can respect that. One last note; since you are so formal about this, you might want to know that "spelling and grammar" is a category to be voted on, so you might want to boost your game there. Anyhow... I'll stop beating around the bush, and get to Healthcare. Billy from a small town in Kansas is a factory worker for a large company. He makes textiles, and without factory workers like him, people would be running around wearing barrels. Unfortunately for Billy, he is paid the Kansas minimum wage of $2.65 an hour, with no benefits. There is no way he could pay for health insurance, he can barely even pay for food. One day, a branch falls on him. The tree didn't belong to anyone. It turns out to be one of those Natasha Richardson things, and he can't pay the hospital bill, so they literally leave him for dead. I don't have many characters left, so I will actually have arguments next time.
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.

Hello, my name is Joseph and this is my first online debate. This will be a Public Forum style debate, and if you are not serious about this debate, then please do not accept it. i expect the voters to act as judges and please read the entire debate if you will vote, and explain why you voted affirmative or negative, i will appreciate it. I expect my opponent to respond to all of my arguments, or i will assume that they concede it to me, and vice versa.
was hurricane Sandy a 'super storm'

Hurricane Sandy caused more material damage than Katrina. Katrina was a dangerous storm. A superstorm is a dangerous storm. Therefore, Sandy was a dangerous storm and should be considered a super storm. That's my logic. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.businessweek.com... A person says that this hurricane was like Hurricane Katrina. Also, the lack of deaths could have been because back then in 1938, there wasn't enough technology to withstand and predict when a storm is coming. But with the amount of technology we have, 253 deaths is alot of people.
was hurricane Sandy a 'super storm'

Much of the East Coast of the United States, in Mid-Atlantic and New England regions, had a good chance of receiving gale-force winds, flooding, heavy rain and possibly snow early in the week of October 28 from an unusual hybrid of Hurricane Sandy and a winter storm producing a Fujiwhara effect.[51] Government weather forecasters said there was a 90% chance (the chance having increased from 60% on October 24), that the East Coast would be impacted by the storm. Some media outlets began referring to the expected combination of the tropical system and storm front, a few days before Halloween, as "Frankenstorm,"[52] after Hydro meteorological Prediction Center forecaster Jim Cisco coined the term in an extended forecast discussion issued on October 25.[53][54] As coverage continued, many outlets began eschewing this term in favor of "superstorm",[55] with CNN in particular declaring an embargo on the use of the term "Frankenstorm" in its reporting, citing sensitivity concerns." http://en.wikipedia.org... as taken from wikipedia, the coincidence of having two major low pressure systems is what first lead MEDIA outlets to coin "Frankenstorm" and then deteriorate it down into a much more catchy and ominous sounding "Superstorm". this leads me to conclude that the outcome of the storm, no matter how severe would have left the media with a bias toward calling it a superstorm even before it had even reached Cuba. yes it killed people. hurricanes tend to do that and the loss of life is sad but it does not grant it a fantastical "superstorm" name. it barely made landfall as a category 1 and had it done so at say low tide like many other hurricanes, the storm surge would have been much lower. maybe the death toll would be an indication of superstorm status? the New England hurricane of 1938 killed 600 people compared to the 253 caused by sandy. maybe we look at monetary value? currently Katrina ranks #1 and I think the only reason Sandy would tally up higher, is because of the affluent areas it damaged. the sensationalism that was hurricane Sandy in my opinion was nothing more then a good news story. not trying to take away from the damages but the term 'superstorm' should go to the 'Long Island Express' of 1938. hell Katrina packed more of a punch then Sandy.
was hurricane Sandy a 'super storm'

to start, this is my first debate. second, i dont care for spelling/grammar except to capitalize names and the use of sentence breaks. third, scientific 'evidence' will not be permissible in regards to proof. only historical facts of any other hurricane that leaves out 'global warming' or anything along those lines. finally, good luck. round one acceptance round two argument and rebuttle round three final arguments i propose that Sandy was infact just a regular hurricane that hit the heart of New York at the wrong time. i firmly believe that the media coined and propagated the term 'Super Storm'.
Rats make good pets

I can't dispute that yes, rats have short lifetimes compared to many other household pets (although I currently have a girl whose almost 3 and still going strong). I disagree, however, that this detracts so much from the overall value of rats as pets as to say that rats don't make good pets. On the point itself of the inevitably short lifespan of rats, I believe that this teaches children in families with rats the unfortunate but necessary lesson that the things we love eventually die. In this way children learn from an early age how to grieve in a healthy way, surrounded by loved ones and support. For adults owning rats, yes, the deaths can be hard as well. Some choose to give up rat ownership because of it, some don't, and for those who don't, inevitable death is a necessary evil. But those who don't decide so because rats are worth it. In their short lives, rats are capable of filling homes and hearts with so much joy and companionship that it can be difficult to remember a time without squeaky little runts trying to steal your breakfast in the morning, begging for boggle-inducing snuggles, or simply being a window into the inherent goodness of the worlds. There is no doubt that rat ownership is difficult, and comes with a certain contractual element of heartbreak, but there are so many admirable and redeemable traits to rats that I argue it's worth it. My evidence is Marty the Mouse (the Rat). For reference see his Facebook page Martin "Marty" Mouse, and his website, MartyMouseHouse.com. Here we have a rat who touched over 18,000 lives (based on Facebook following), who recently died. In his short life he brought happiness, hope, and warm laughter to me and thousands of others with his sweet ways and the anthropomorphism provided by his photographers and "translators" (his mom). Yes, he died, but even in doing so he couldn't take away all the joy that he had given us. When my sweet girl Nemosabe was put to sleep after contracting a pituitary tumor, I was devastated, and cried for days. But this experience gives me the authority to say that she was absolutely worth every moment of pain for all the joy she brought me. For some, it ISN'T worth it, but it doesn't change the fact that rats are good pets.
Rats make good pets

I hope we have a good debate! :DMy opponent says that rats make good pets. Rat pets can be cute, funny, and show a personality. But, rat pets quickly develop a lot of weird diseases:- Dematitis- Mange- Bumble feet- Cysts- Tumors- etc- and various infections and self injuries, because the rat scratches or bites itself because of one or several of the above diseases. The health and life of your rat will quickly become a nightmare. If like me, you tend to consider your pets like full members of your family, your rat pet will become a great source of worries. . and if you're not cruel, you'll be forced to give an end to its agony. (If I am bad, sorry! This is my first debate. A noob here. )
The drinking age should be reduced to 18 years of age.

I understand my opponent's sentiments, but unfortunately the relationship between the legal drinking age and drunk driving accidents and deaths cannot be decoupled. Additionally, early adult alcohol consumption has been shown to have detrimental effects on brain development, leading to a wide range of problems later in life, including a greater likelihood of substance abuse, reduced decision-making ability, and increased risk for depression and suicidal thought. [1] As well, while the federal minimum legal drinking age prevents minors from purchasing alcohol under the age of 21 in the US, many States grant exceptions on grounds of lawful employment, religious activities, or consent by a parent, guardian, or spouse [2]. Such legislation permits minors to consume alcohol responsibly in a controlled and safe environment. I would submit that this type of legislation is better poised to mitigate the risks traditionally associated with underage drinking. 1. "Dangers of Teen Drinking," www.dontserveteens.gov 2. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov...