BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Murderers should be sent away to be eaten by cannibals.

I never said that the death penalty is what all murderers get, I said that it would be the best way to show the murderer the pain he has put on someone else. My opponent thus said that "how would you feel if you heard you are going to be eaten", good point, I would feel horrible and scared. However how would you feel if you heard you are going to be sentenced to electricution or be hung. I would feel even more scared because just hearing the word hung or electric frightens a person. Plus the poor people who have not eaten, just because they eat a human being, that can cause them to get even sicker, the only time that would help them is if they know they are going to die in the next couple of seconds and they need something to keep them alive. http://www.newscientist.com... Lastly, cannabalism is just putting the poor person in a higher percent of dying. How many people do you know that has eaten a human being and survived a long time.
Murderers should be sent away to be eaten by cannibals.

My opponent claims that the prisoner would not feel as much pain as they would in the electric chair. This is in fact, false. The electric chair happens very quick, and very fast. It is said by some that the person is dead before they can even feel anything. Also, the electric chair is not always what murderers get. Usually they get the lethal injection, or simply life in prison. On the other hand, you have no proof that the cannibals would not bring them any pain. But even if they did not, it would be a very good mental punishment. How would you feel if you knew you were going to be eaten in a few days. There would probably be less murders. Lastly, it is not only about revenge for the victims family. It would help the hungry people who cannot afford food. Millions of people die each year from starvation. It would be a charity to give them free meat. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1). . http://www.helium.com... (2). . http://library.thinkquest.org...
Murderers should be sent away to be eaten by cannibals.

No that is not right. Yes they are murderers but eaten by cannibals will not do the pain and justice. Death penalty is enugh to secure the deal. They will be electricuted and will feel the pain through every electricution, this will make the person feel the pain in which he or she has put on someones life. Cannibals will probably destroy the person, but the destroying will be quick so therefore the person might not feel the pain enough, you want the person to feel every bit of pain, so cannibals would not be the answer
Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used

----Agreed Upon---- Through messages, the following has been agreed on, and should not be disputed. Resolution: "Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used". My burden as PRO: "Ad Blockers Should Not Be Used". John's burden as CON: "Ad Blockers Should Be Used". ----Definition---- Ad blocker: "a program that prevents an Internet browser from displaying online advertisements". ----General Arguments---- The arguments I will use for this debate are as follows. 1) Ad blockers hurt the online industry. Imagine if everyone had ad blockers! Web entrepreneurs like Philip Ferreira would go broke! And many commercial sites like Google, debate.org, Facebook, Myspace, Yahoo, eBay, YouTube, and many more would go out of business!!! 2) Often times, ad blockers disable important Internet browsing functions.[1] 3) Often times, the ads on a website are essential to the layout. Blocking these ads will make the look of a website odd and distorted. A few examples include newgrounds.com,[2] the hotmail inbox, ultimate-guitar.com, and many more. 4) Ad blockers are not to be trusted. They are inconsistent (particularly with flash ads). And often times give your computer spyware![3][4] 5) Internet ads are good; they help consumers find the products they want. To cite a very relevant example, two major debate.org users and friends of my opponent--Rezzealaux and PoeJoe--found debate.org through a facebook ad.[5] ----References---- [1] http://www.marketresearchterms.com... [2] http://img110.imageshack.us... [3] http://www.download.com... [4] http://www.download.com... [5] http://www.debatef.com...
Vending machines should be allowed in schools

Hello everybody. Today we are starting a new debate. The topic is that vending machines should be allowed in schools. By schools we are talking about schools from grades 1-12. I will be taking the negative stance of this debate. We have two conditions -This round is for acceptance only. -the fifth round is for rebuttals only. No new points are to be made in the fifth round. Good luck to the contender, whoever that may be.
Vending machines should be allowed in schools

First of all, children do NOT have that amount of free choice. Their parents are responsible for those limits. If there were beer or cigarette vending machines in school would kids be able to take some of those? NO! We restrict children's choice all the time. I just don't think that suddenly allowing vending machines will increase their free choice. Argument #5: The cost What is the main purpose of vending machines? It's not so that the school can give kids food, it's so they can get more money! But think of all the factors. First, you need to get the machines (usually you get more then one) You get the snacks and drinks for them and stock them, get tax licenses and decal stickers, pay they people who deal with the vending machine(s) and later re-stock them! Plus there are chances of being dented, getting dirty, mechanical failure, the vending machine falling over, etc. Is it worth it to have such an expensive with so many variables? I think not. Once more. thank you DDD
Vending machines should be allowed in schools

I agree that vending machines in elementary schools are pointless for the most part, except the staff may get something out of them. I believe children are not given the credit of the ability to make good judgmental calls. Yes, they are still learning, but many children to show signs of understanding right from wrong, especially if it is learned. Children also have a level of stubbornness that will stop them from eating healthy food. If children are not given the food they want, and get food they don't want, they would rather go hungry. I believe that removing vending machines will cause a damage in freedom of choice. We are supposed to have freedom of choice, and with that freedom of choice comes freedom of advertising. People, even young ones, should be given a choice. If they decide that the teaching of junk food is bad for them does not work, and the catchy bag does, then so be it.
Vending machines should be allowed in schools

I will begin this debate my stating why what my honorable opponent said is wrong. Decision making is a skill that needs to be learned, but the problem is the consequences, a child's perspective is NOT the same as an adult. Eating a bag of chips a day seem to be (to the child) a good choice today, but in 20 years they will suffer from those chips. Kids do need to learn right from wrong, but at such a young and small age it's hard to think of the future. Also, yes the children "ought to have the power and education to determine right from wrong", as my opponent says. But do the children have this "education" to know what is right and wrong. How do we know that kids know this? Anyways, back to the points. Argument #3: Plain don't need them! Elementary schools just doesn't need vending machines. If you think about it, in elementary schools, you are taught all subjects by 1 teacher in 1 room. The only free times you have are recess and lunch. At lunch, the lunchroom supervisors will get you to eat your lunch and than do something quiet; they definitely will not approve of junk food. At recess, the teachers shoo you outside to get some fresh air and refresh your mind to help your learning, not wait in line for 15 minutes to get something from the vending machine. Also, elementary schools are not that big, so you will probably have a maximum of 6 in the school, which is not worth the running costs and the hustle installing and restocking them. Now, before you start typing "what about grade 7-12?", think about this: The resolution has to be every grade should have vending machines. So, even if we only brought down some grades and why they should not have vending machines, it would take down the whole resolution. Argument #4: Temptation This argument ties in with our argument #1 in our last speech, but oh well. If a kid had the choice to buy some vegetable burrito in the cafeteria for $5 or a bag of chips for $1.25, the kid would obviously buy the chips, not just because of the price but also because of a kid's lust for yummy junk food. It is the temptation that almost every child has. But, if we just take away the vending machines, then there will be no choice but to eat the healthy food! Thanks, dynamicduodebaters
Vending machines should be allowed in schools

Children ought to have the power and education to determine right from wrong. I usually get the argument that they are too young to make good judgement, but this argument is supported by an underdeveloped brains. However, if this is the reason, then vending machines should not be around on college campuses, because anyone with a brain under 21-24 May have underdeveloped brains if the research is right. Children of any age can have good judgement taught to them. This debate might turn into a debate over judgement of children, but a child can have judgement calls. The claims that Grand Theft Auto causes young children to act out is dead wrong. Children can make the right decisions if taught what is right
Vending machines should be allowed in schools

We very well might! In this first speech, we (this is a shared account between jacobie1121 and DarthKirones) will present two points on why Vending Machines should not be in schools. We will give references in the final round. Point #1: Health The average vending machine is full of chips, pop, and other junk food. According to FitDay. com "junk foods are high in fat, sodium, and sugar". " These can lead to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis. For example, one 12 once can of coke is equal to 10 teaspoons of added sugar! What's more, the average male should only take in 9 teaspoons of added sugar and the average female 6 teaspoons of added sugar a day! My opponent might say that vending machines can have healthy food too but healthy food is way more expensive so no one will buy it. Also, if they wanted healthy food, then they could just pack there own lunch! !! Point #2: Students that are not Allowed to use Vending Machines will Feel Left Out Addiction to vending machines. Sounds like bogus right? Wrong. Put yourself in a student's shoes. You see your friends buying things at the vending machine, and you have $5 dollars, but this is meant for the Health Foods Sore across the street. You feel left out, because you can't buy from the machine. You could easily just buy some things from vending machines instead of doing what your parents told you. You thought the junk food was so good, you do this again. Quickly, this is what you do every day. You are addicted. In the process, you disobey your parents, and you waste money on food that gives you bad health but is addicting because it tastes good. We can hear you typing "healthy vending machines" but will just tell you to reread our first point. Solution to this likely story, happening in schools today ? Just plain get rid of the vending machines! :)
Morality is based on consequences rather than intentions.

I will try to change your mind with the following example. Imagine if I killed and assaulted three children. For some reason, I am rewarded as a hero and celebrated and given piles of money. Now due to this, I continue killing children since it only benefits me in the end. However, Just because I was rewarded, Does that make what I did morally correct? No. My perception of morals might change, And I might beleive that killing children is right. However I beleive that most people can agree that killing children is wrong, And not morally correct. I do not beleive that morality is defined by consequences, Rather we either make the choice to do what is right or what is wrong. Now consequences might affect what we see as right and wrong, But right and wrong remain the same.
Morality is based on consequences rather than intentions.

While your points are very interesting I don't think it's correct. Consequences base your morals everyday. Let's say you robbed a bank and your consequence was that you got to keep all the money and you were seen as a hero to society. Wouldn't your morals change because you were rewarded? I don't know about you but If that was my consequence I continue robbing banks since it only benefits me in the end. Please change my mind with examples.
Morality is based on consequences rather than intentions.

You claim that no one intends to be a bad person, They are evil because of the evil done to them. I beleive this is largely true, Most people are the sum of their past experiences. However, I see two flaws in your argument 1) if evil people are the result of evil done to them, Where did evil start in the first place? In theory, People would never had become evil because no people would be doing evil to them 2) There has to be a point where people take responsibility for their own actions. Eventually, At some point people have to make their own deceisons. I have no doubt their past experiences influence their actions, But at some point in their life they have to make the choice to either do right or wrong. Their are some amazing people I know who had terrible, Awful upbrigings, Yet they still decided to move on and become their own person. If you have a rebbutal, I would be pleased to continue this debate.
Soccer vs hockey ( soccer is better )

soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best soccer is best
The Roman Republic and Empire were ultimately beneficial to the peoples of the world.

Hello, I won't add any points this round as obviously my opposition has circumstances beyond his control that have caused him to forfeit. Either that, or I crowded out round one with an argument that was perhaps too long and/or a badly phrased argument that is difficult to respond to, which would, of course be my responsibility. If the next round is forfeited then I will, if I may reuse the above argument in another debate.
The Roman Republic and Empire were ultimately beneficial to the peoples of the world.

Round #1 will be for acceptance of the debate. No new points may be introduced on the final round, as usual. Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful: the beneficial effect of sunshine. Said advantage/benefit may be monetary, in terms of liberty, in terms of order, or any other term with which "advantageous" is associated in modern English. I think that's all the clarifying I can do, other than to say that "ultimately" shall act in both a short and long term sense, i.e. the Romans burned this city to the ground, the Romans introduced this structure to this part of the world, etc. I'm actually not sure on this point, but I'll play the devil's advocate against my former pro - Roman self.
The Chicago Cubs are the best team in baseball

Since my opponent has failed to participate in this round, I will define how the Cubs pitching, and fielding is better than the rays. 1) Rich Harden is the one of the best trades made in the year by any team, ever since joining the cubs his era is 1.50. 2) The cubs have more quality starts then the rays. 3) All in all the Cubs are a better team then the tampa rays. The rays are too inexperienced to win in the playoffs. The cubs have players like Zambrono, Harden, and even there ALL STAR rookies. They have more talent and they are still over achieving
The Chicago Cubs are the best team in baseball

The Chicago Cubs play in the hardest division because they have two teams with 80 wins and another with 70. They have a OPS (on base plus slugging) of .804 compared to the Tampa Rays .762 They have a better team batting average for and a better batting average against. They have more RBI's for and RBI's against. They have a much better run differential. They have a better road record, which in the playoffs makes a huge difference. Among other things the team numbers overall are better. Lou Pinella- 3238 games managed, over 1600 wins. .522 win pct. 26 years of experience Joe Maddon- 5 years of experience, 510 games, .476 win pct. He has a losing record. Lou Pinella has a much more successful and consisten careers. http://sports.espn.go.com... http://sports.espn.go.com... http://sports.espn.go.com...
The Chicago Cubs are the best team in baseball

The Chicago Cubs are the best team in baseball because, 1) They have the best record in baseball, 2)They have one the all time best managers. 3)They have 2 of the best starting pitchers in base ball, Carlos Zambrano and Rich Harden, and the two best relievers Kerry Wood, and Carlos Marmol 4)They have two potential Rookiee of the Year award winners, Geovanny Soto and Koskue Fukadome. 5) They have alfonso soriano, jim edmonds, aramis ramirez, derek lee. 6) They are stacked and unlike the Tigers they have produced. 7) They have the best RS, RA difference. 8) And they are playing in the divison with 3 best teams in the National League, the Brewers, and the Cardinals. sources. http://sports.espn.go.com...,
Prayer is a failure to reason honestly and is the perfection of narcissism.

I am anxiously looking forward to this debate because I've wanted to debate my opponent for a while now so this will be exciting.As stated this round will be used for acceptance.Let my propose some definitionsNarcissism- 1. Inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. Synonyms: self-centeredness, smugness, egocentrism 2. Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.Reason- 3. The mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. 4. Sound judgment; good sense. 5. Normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.Perfection- 1. The highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art.http://dictionary.reference.com...Let me state some backgroundI am agnostic, a former Jehovah's witness,can expose the bibles flaws as well as I can defend it. As far as this debate is concerned I will be taking multiple stances to defeat this resolution. My ideals will be based on logic and reason by majority. It is also by the standards of logic and reasoning that I ask the audience to deem the winner of this debate.KANPAI!
Prayer is a failure to reason honestly and is the perfection of narcissism.

This is a debate that will not allow for semantics as a debate strategy. This is a religious debate on the subject of prayer. The title of this debate means that people who pray aren't using proper reasoning skills and they are enacting in a practice that allows for them to momentarily borrow narcissistic characteristics without the guilt or convictions of doing so. If you do not agree and are convinced of your certainty, accept this debate as con. 1 forfeit is an automatic loss of conduct. 2 forfeits earn an automatic forfeit of the entire debate. Round 1 is acceptance. Round 4 may have no new evidence or arguments.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

That isn't exactly an answer but okay. . . Some more things about why harry potter is better than twilight- Harry Potter is so complex and is a UNIVERSE, Not just a story. I mean, Do you see Twilight theme parks at Universal Studios? So many people have gotten into reading because of Harry potter. And now, About Twilight. This tale sets women back 50 years. The damsel in distress who can't do anything by herself, Who needs her 'sparkling' boyfriend to save the day? When he leaves her she jumps off a cliff, While the female characters of harry potter are strong and fight their own battles. They don't let the men just do it themselves. They are just as important in the role of the story. I love how in Harry Potter, There is love, But within a magnificent adventure! I rest my case.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Harry Potter is an ingenious world created by the goddess of writing herself, JK Rowling. It is simply marvelous how she created a haven for millions of children like myself to escape through the hands of a book. She was a genius, Who created amazing characters we saw grow up. We lived with them. We went on adventures with them. Some we loved (Hermione! ), Some we hated (Umbridge), Some we had mixed feelings for (Draco), And some we even had to watch die (Too many to count! ). And through all the crying and laughing and brilliance of it all there remained the fact that this series is an absolute classic. Not only was Rowling able to create such a successful book series, But she was also able to convince many to learn to love to read, Many to keep going no matter what, To learn strength and magic and wonder. As the characters grew up, So did we. And we at the end were able to look back and realize, We will never be the same again. Twilight is about how you can't live without a boyfriend. -Christina Kollins, Age 8, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Factory farming is cruel

Kind regards for this Debate. It is to note that, while pro supplied some assumptions, there were no arguments nor any evidence of why factory farming is cruel. It was simply stated that 'it is cruel'. This however, is no argument nor any evidence. Therefore Con has to state, as in round one, that Factory farming is not cruel. In Conclusion this would mean that factory farming is not cruel. Thanks to all readers and voters, have a nice day.