BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be abolished

I am pleased to be debating Clinton Wilcox. I challenge him to a debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. I am going to make the case that it should based on two main reasons. 1.The Death Penalty has killed innocent people and will always carry that possibility. Since 1973 there have been 138 exonerations of people on death row. Now admittedly this is small number, however it still brings up an ethical question about the death penalty. "Is killing the guilty worth killing the innocent?" I say it is not worth it, because when the death penalty kills the innocent, it becomes the very thing that it tries to punish. The judge, jury, and executor become morally guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter, except that manslaughter isn't premeditated. No matter how many restrictions and reforms we would place on capital punishment, the fact that human beings can make mistakes will always make the death penalty a risk to the innocent. Since both Clinton and I are pro-lifers, I will also point out that maintaining a penalty of such risks violates the sanctity of human life. It would therefore make much more sense to replace the death penalty with a punishment that is both harsh yet reversible, such as life imprisonment. The death penalty is a math test with a pen, only deadlier. (On the number of exonerations http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) 2.The death penalty is not an act of immediate self defense. Very few people are pacifists, however when generally discussing the ethics of violence, it is only seen as justified in immediate self defense. That is the only situation where killing is necessary to preserve one's own life. With the case of the death penalty, killing the suspect is not necessary. Imprisonment has already kept him or her detained. So even in cases where the death penalty does kill the guilty, it is an unnecessary homicide and therefore unethical. I look forward to hearing Clinton's response to these two arguments.
the christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary view

fulfilling the law or overthrowing the power of the law not doesn't mean CV is right or wrong. if you want to insist that Jesus didnt come to destroy the law, then i won't argue the point. this is more a subpoint, to the larger point that CV means Jesus overthrew death and the consequences of sin. wrath isn't necessarilhy tied to this. as to how wrath or sin is dealt with. you get what you put in, and people get what they deserve, to quote kid rock. i know that's not an official source, but it says it well. God's wrath is fulfilled when people die and are not resurrected, or when they are put where they belong. are you a robber who is put with other robbers? you got what you deserve etc. those are the consequences of sin, too. not to mention that as God said, "you are dust, and to dust you shall return", that we are not guaranteed anything in life. if God just lets us live oru natural lives and then die as anaimals are considered to do, how can we really complain? we are not entitled to anything, far as we can see. and if we are given anything, karma's a bitch when we get what we deserve. etc. this stuff is also how i deal with God's wrath and sin, which you later questioend me about. as to the earliest beliefs, we shouldnt assume unless we have reson to think otherwise, that the earliest christians were wrong. if they thought something we should defer to them. you just have obscure academic reasons for not deferring to them. i have just as much basis. so, we should defer to them. i didn't mean my view includes the substitutionary view, i meant that while the substitutiopnary view doesn't preclude praising the resurrection, it is better emphasized by CV. and suddenlyu whn things that should be praised are praised, emphasize and chriastaintiy itself makes more sense. again, a bottomline line is that you think a death of an innocent person, which essentially establishes nothing, should be viewed as something that appeases God's wrath, and a technical legal requirement. you must think this is the best way of things, or at least the biblical way of things, when i have shown reasonable alternatives to both notions. here is the general website that contrasts CV with substitutionary http://therebelgod.com... and here is the part where he focuses on what are thought of as the more stronger points of substitutionary... http://www.therebelgod.com...
the christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary view

just because it's the first beliefs doesn't make it best necessarily, but it gives it credibility, and the earliest christians probably knew more than we do. whether CV overthrows the law or satisfies the law, isnt really the essence of CV. one could argue the law is satisfied by our deaths, even with CV. death doesnt necessarily have to be eternal. but i like to say CV is about overthrowing the power of the law, cause that's usually how forgiveness works, "just letting it slide". this is basically how id address your wrath point too. and id add that it is a pagan idea that sacrifices are to appease God's wrath. the origianl idea behind sacrifices was giving up of self for another's benefit, or honor. but not in an appeasing wrath kind of way. yes sacrifices are good, even Jesus' sacrifice... but it's all just not done for the reasons thought of by the people. Jesus's death was a sacrifice that bought us life... only he could defeat death and by extension we are only saved by virtue of him being saved, and desiring us to be saved as well. doing good, sacrificing for the poor etc, is what God wants, even if substitutionary view doesnt preclude these ideas, these ideas emphasize CV. and the emphasis on his resurrection doesn't preclude substitutionary, but it is better emphasized by CV. is it really better to say that Jesus' death was the only way to pay the price of a legal requiremet? what was actually accomplshed? and the bible says innocent people should not be held accountable for other's sins, so i doubt others could take the punishment. a pointless death to satisfy a technical requirement just does not seem what a truly loving and forgiving God would do. im not sure what you mean, that you say i'm just pointing out errors. i dont find error with the word propiation in the bible. all im doing is saying if you define propiation as mercy seat or whatever, it doesnt necessarily have the legalistic connotations usually attached to the word. we would as a culture attach our own ideas onto words, so our interpretaion is bias from the get go.
College football needs a playoff system.

As I am sitting here waiting for new debates to start, I am watching Hawai'i get pounded by Georgia. This gives me all the more reason to advocate a 16-team playoff. It would provide 15 games and the other 17 current bowls could be used for the same reason they are now. It would make the same if not more money. A playoff system would also provide college football with a more clear champion. All other major college sports have a playoff. I don't see why college football doesn't. The benefits are numerous as are the costs of the status quo.
College football needs a playoff system.

I'm going to pull out the arguments you make and summarize. 1) Injury The risk of injury is inherent in any football payers career. Countless practices and games since the age of eight make the possibility of a select few programs playing a few more games an insignificant increase in the injury risk, despite your mathematical formula. Also, you don't dive me a reason to value this possibility against any real consequences. If your mentality is taken, we shouldn't allow people to play the game at all. 2) Scheduling and the like Taking televised slots away from rebuilding programs is a non-issue. We would still alocate 17 slots for these types of games instead of 22 or so. Also, a team winning the Meineke Car Care Bowl is hardly an incentive to choose that school over any other winning program. This isn't enough to sway players to those programs. This talent cycle would be unchanged. As far as schedule overlap, why can't we use the schedule already in place? There was a full-month and a half of bowl competition now. Use that space to distance the playoff games and the scheduling remain the same. Only four weeks would be necessary. 3) Alternatives The fact remains, we have been encouraging and urging for years now and nothign has changed. Only rooted, fundamental changes in the system will force and produce the kind of change that is needed. REQUIRING change is the only way it will be brought about in this situation because no single conference wants to take the plunge. If we are ever going to have a true CFB champion, we have to install an institutional change that will make that happen. This playoff system would garuantee interesting games, something that the current system lacks. The status quo proves.
College football needs a playoff system.

I would first like to make it clear that the playoff system would have 15 games and leave 17 games for the bowl purposes they have now. Your argument here is that extending a particular programs schedule increases the risk of injury and decreases ticket demand. The risk of injury is inherent in any game and the number of programs and players who experience this marginal increase would be minimal because the number of programs participating would be smaller each week. You make it sound like ALL programs would be playing a 16 game schedule. This is not the case. Only 16 programs would have one additional games, while the next sucessful 8 would have another additional game. Also, the programs who advance would truly be the best, having the best players and coaches, making them most apt to resist injury and fatigue. The novelty of the games would not be affected. Making the top sixteen teams would still require a teams best effort every week. That is obvious in the system we have now. Also, ticket demand would do nothing but increase. The hype and hysteria of the playoffs is the most fan crazy time of the year in any sport, there is no reason to think that CF would be any different. Look at the ticket sales for March Madness versus college basketball's regular season. Also, no one said we have to get rid of the bowl names. Have the sun bowl and the capital one bowl etc. be the preliminary rounds and the progressive rounds will have the more prestigious bowl names. This will keep your prestige and sponsorship high, while providing the benefits of the playoff system. Every year we see this drama about a split championship. The playoff system would solve this. Yes, there would be "snubbed" teams in a playoff system. But the 17th team does not have the rights that a 3rd team has now to claim part of the championship. Ticket sales and fan appreciation would go through the roof while we can name a true CF champion. The costs of prolonging the season for only the best clubs is minimal compared to the benefits the entire CF community would experience.
College football needs a playoff system.

You are advocating a 16 team college playoff system that would feature 17 additional games played. The costs greatly outweigh the benefits of holding so many games. Such a playoff system would destroy a winning college football program with fatigue, increasing their number of games played from 11 to 12 up to 15 to 16, matching the length of a regular season college football game. College football, much like professional football, profits off the little number of games played to artificially raise the demand for ticket purchases. Instituting a playoff system would drastically increase the number of games played in only one year while giving little time of adjustment for the management and personell aspects of college football. Consider the career of a Heisman trophy candidate or star player seeking entry into the NFL Draft. Adding 4 games onto their schedule would position the coach to take an NFL approach and sit them for final games of the regular season that "don't matter", or even force them to participate in a drastically increased number of games and increase the risk of injury. Your intentions are driven by an outcry from college football fans who, in a very cocky manner, consider their team to be the best in the nation. UF, Michigan, Ohio State, Boise State, Hawaii, Georgia, Tennessee, OU, Kansas, Mizzou, USC, Illinois, VaTech, BC, Arizona State, Texas, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and other assorted college football teams may be considered qualified based on record, ranking, conference champions, strength of schedule, strength of conference, RPI, and other determinant statistics used to calculate the "deserving teams" for the 16 college playoff teams. Limiting the number of spots allotted to the best teams, like in the BCS Bowl system, allows a variety of qualified teams to compete one another for titles. Fans and college football programs will criticize the current system whether it is a BCS bowl system or a college playoff bracket. Furthermore, the main reason that is overlooked by college football analysts on why the current system exists in relation to the pre-BCS bowl system is that it grants name recognition. Instead of a team being merely a finalist or semi-finalist in playoffs, they are declared the Sugar Bowl winner, Orange Bowl Winner, and so on. This awards prestige to winning college football programs, and is why the transition from pre-BCS into current BCS kept the names Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose to inspire the fans of college football. Merchandising won't sell by stating "UF: Playoff Semi-Finalist", but instead "UF: Sugar Bowl Champions".
Should we return to the gold standard

Firstly,I would like to put the point that the inflation causes due to more money printing of the currency notes,increase in the demand compared to the supply,depreciation of the foreign exchange,etc.All this thing arise due to the expenses made by the government for the welfare of the country. So, the comparison made by you between the inflation rates during the past and the present is not acceptable because there is a lot of development in the present compared to the past.In the fear of the inflation we cannot stop the development and revolution of the country.So the gold standards cannot be accepted just for this purpose.Many others factors has to taken into account which tells us or suggests us to have good economic steps rather than returning to the gold standards.
Should we return to the gold standard

In today's current economy, which is by the way a product of a terrible economic system low middle class and a low minimum wage, in 1860 you could only pay in gold if you wanted to buy something, and 40 years of inflation only cost 1/6 the currencies value, what we lost in a couple hours in the government shut down of 2013, as opposed to 5/6 our currencies value without a gold standard, gold and silver are the only way for the people to have faith in the monetary system.
Should we return to the gold standard

Gold is very valuable thing and that is the reason it cannot be set as a currency.Because,for example,if you want to purchase a chocolate you cannot give gold for purchasing it.Further,we are having currency notes of many number(1,5,10,100,..).For making gold as a currency we would have to make many standards of gold.Besides,for your information,in the early days many such standards were used but in the end all of them didn't work in one or the other way so finally the present currency notes standards have to be made. Secondly,the inflation cannot be controlled by simply changing the standard of the currency because you are making the gold standard which means that the value of the gold will now be equal to the present currency.And people will used gold in the same way as they are using the currency now.So, only way to stop the inflation is by taking proper steps by the government in reform of the people.
Should we return to the gold standard

Value is a concept, it is something assigned in our minds, due to this enable to make a valuable currency, it must be associated with value, the most effective way to do this is to back it by gold, as people will always consider gold more valuable than paper, a lessened inflation rate Will be better for wage workers as minimum wage has to be adapted to inflation and this would protect them from the government failing to do so as it does, also it would be better for investment and savings as people would not loose as much money to inflation.
Border Fence

It will be a waste of money because It will cost billions to build and keep up thats why it would be a waste of money and wont do anything more than be a minor inconvenience. First i would like to show you a video http://www.youtube.com... this video is a episode of Penn and Tellers Emmy award winning show Bull$hit It is a three part video and please watch them all. Anyhow during the video They have illegal immigrants Build a fence just like the proposed double fence on the US Mexico border, They use Three methods under over and threw all got to the other side in relatively few minutes. The easiest way to get into america is by legal visa and just overstay your welcome much like the terrorist's during the 9/11 attacks. And answer me this. How many terrorists known to attack the USA has crossed the Us-mexico border illegaly. If security is increased to the south you would need another longer fence on the US Canadian Border which is the longest border between any two countries. Also by hinder is make a signifigant difference in not One or two illegals.
Border Fence

Hello "I think building A fence along the US-Mexico border would be a waste of money" How would it be a waste of money? This is a very generalized statement, that I can't reboot. Please add more specifics and facts before giving an argument like this. ".. not hinder illegal immigration" Once again how wont it "hinder illegal immigration? If we were to have the double border fence, the immigrants would have to get over 2 fences and numerous Border PAtrolmen and surveillance's cameras. There is always the possibility that the next illegal immigrant will be a terrorist.
gender regulation in medical examination contect

You have provided no actual evidence, only your personal experience, which is not universally applicable. 1) Your first argument is completely false; male officers can frisk female suspects. If they are uncomfortable, a suspect can ask for a female officers but it is not compulsory. http://www.avvo.com... 2) Your second argument is hetero-normative and has no warrants. I have nothing to refute because you have provided no evidence. 3) Sexual arousal is not always a choice Often rape victims can experience arousal this does not ;however, mean they wanted it . The same is true for patients arousal caused by contact with genitals does not necessarily mean ,that one is attracted to the person who is stimulating these organs. http://www.pandys.org...
gender regulation in medical examination contect

!. Discrimination. This is a for instance: Why is a male police officer forbidden from carrying out any sort of physical search on a female suspect, but not vice versa? This is just one of many examples you could make. 2. & 3. I do not think a male medical professional gets a kick from his daily probings and donning a white coat does not change the hard wiring of his brain to dislike looking at pretty girls. As a senior medical instrument engineer I have shared locker rooms with various medical doctors throughout a decade working as an NHS employee, and believe me ..... Unfortunately, the tables are rather turned here. I have heard a number of females admit that they can get turned-on by a male doctor palpating their sexual areas. A license for infidelity?
gender regulation in medical examination contect

The Pro's resolution would be detrimental to certain areas of the medical field. 1) Discrimination The prohibition of cross-gender medical examinations would prevent the hiring of doctors such as female urologists and male gynecologists, which is discrimination on the basis of gender. This type of discrimination is prohibited under several anti-discrimination laws, as well as the fifth and fourteenth amendments. 2) Doctor-patient relationship The relationship between doctors and their patients is ,ideally, purely professional. Although there are instances of misconduct, doctors who specialize "intimate" areas of the body are careful to avoid crossing any boundaries as this would threaten their careers. In a survey done by Gartrell, Milliken, Goodson & Thiemann of physicians and patients they discovered that only 10% of doctors who care for adults were sexually involved with their patients. This means that 90% of all doctors maintain a strictly professional relationship. 3) The procedures preformed by medical professionals are not for their own personal pleasure, but the well being of the patient. 4) Your personal fears do not reflect the reality of doctor-patient relationships. sources: http://www.coloradosuperlawyer.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
national health care

I am curious why anybody would oppose national health care. As a nursing student, I am in the hospital on a routine basis, and have a really difficult time knowing the financial debt that people have to deal with once they get discharged. What's worse is when people get turned away due to a lack of sufficient insurance. Why would any person oppose the idea of national health care, especially since we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer this to our citizens? All of the other countries who DO have socialized medicine have been successful with the implementation of the program. What is holding us back? 68% of people filing for bankruptcy due to medical expenses HAVE insurance. Even the middle-class Americans are having financial difficulty! Wake up, America, and support a candidate who WILL give us national health care!
national health care

It is nice that you are willing to pay more taxes to receive free health care. I, on the other hand do not see the need for more taxation than there currently is. I am not even going to bother bringing the War into this matter. Freedom is not free. Our lives are dependent first, and foremost, by living in a free nation. Health care is a large big business infrastructure. It isn't acceptable to make fleeting statements about pharmaceutical companies who do make a huge difference in the creation of vaccines and palliative care. We need the pharmaceutical companies too. They create jobs for Americans. They are doing the necessary research to come up with answers. Having health care in a free format is the only way to increase research, invention, and future endeavors. Also, More taxation means that you will also be paying for those who do not contribute to our free market as well. For example, legal immigrants- there needs to be reforms for the health care system to receive what it needs. Many of the health conditions are out there due to Americans not taking care of their health. Obesity and many other gluttonous vices play a role in the overpopulated hospitals. We need to start looking more for preventative measures to lessen hospital needs. The elderly are the American's eating up our insurance dollars by constant checkups. We have supplements out there currently. Laws need to be created to urge companies to supplement health care insurance for their workers. Attacking the homeland security measures is not the answer. Hillary Clinton is out there trying to set up a universal system, however she is not developing anything concrete that will make our economy transition nicely. Smearing the pharmaceutical companies and government sectors will not lead to a solution. It is about starting with baby steps, rather than a outright revolution. We had a tax cut that served the public in a beneficial way. We have not had inflationary periods, nor recession in quit in quite some time.