BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

Good luck to you as well. Most of your argument is based on a messed up prison system, which I agree has abundant flaws. This does not mean however that the death penalty can make up for how terrible the system is. I think that our prisons here in the U.S. have run amok with problems and it makes it hard to view punishment objectively because of our current capabilities to keep criminals at bay. Say we had a perfect prison system, where each inmate had the perfect amount of security, which I know is unrealistic, but it secures my point. In this attempt there is no need for the death penalty because a person can be incarcerated for as long as deemed a threat. On the closure sentiment I believe that if the system works properly then there really is no need for fear that the criminal will seek revenge, because he knows how the system works. I think that the death penalty to families that believe this "revenge" scenario, really is just a way for revenge themselves, by using the state to murder their criminal. Final point, even if the system is so terrible now, criminals escaping prison really isn't commonplace, and I don't think that killing them because we may not be able to contain them in our prisons is the correct way of dealing with them either. Maybe we should keep the truly dangerous people separated at all times from other people in a place where security is never "lax" and no gangs can help. Why should gangs in prison be allowed to happen anyways? There are ways of enforcing control that don't allow all of these problems we currently have.
Death Penalty

I believe that the death penalty is valid for the following reasons. 1. some people thrive in prison. Twisted people can actually become the leader in their cell block. They can issue bribes, even assaults on on random convicts. it would make prison feel like a cake walk. 2. Gives the family closure: it gives the family closure to know that the convicted will never come back to harm them. 3. Prevents any possibility of escaping or parole Many convicts are able to escape the prison because of lax security. This sets the family of the victim at risk for revenge! The killer could then lead a life on the lamb, and never fully pay for what he/she has done. Many criminals are sly and can convince people to give he/she a second chance. He would probably then never report to his parole officer, and live a life on the lamb. Those are my opening points. Good luck!
Death Penalty

I do not believe, under any circumstances, that the state should be allowed to decide on wether or not a person has the right to live. I think if a person has committed atrocities it should be the states job only to contain the actions of the individual, not destroy the life. If given the power to decide the fate of a life, who decides where the line is drawn? What crime deserves the punishment of death? I think that all forms of taking life are morally wrong, and there are always other ways of dealing with the situation.
Minecraft is Something That Kids Should Not be Aloud To Play.

I accept my opponents challenge and wish her a good discourse! I also would like to point out a spelling error in the resolution. The word "aloud" is used when I am quite sure that my opponent intended to say, "allowed." I will start by refuting my opponents "contention" and then building my own argument. If a child is exposed to foul language on a Minecraft server, then it is up to the parents of said child whether or not they want their child exposed to said language. It should be the decision of each individual parent as to whether or not their child is allowed to go online onto servers that may not be family friendly. Furthermore, if a parent didn't want their child to experience such foul language, they could easily set up their child's computer in such a way that prevents the child from going on to any online servers. My opponent believes that the problem is in the game, but Minecraft does not encourage the use of vulgar language. Minecraft encourages exploration, fun, and creativity. Minecraft is a fun game that appeals to all ages, due to the "sand-box" nature of the game. This allows players to explore and express their creativity in a fun and appropriate way. This leads me to my primary contentions. A) The game allows the child to express creativity B) The game is family friendly C) The game is entertaining
People should not buy products made by child laborers.

Opponent is con although his argument seems to show he is on the pro side, so I'll continue with that. Child labor: the use of children in industry or business Forced Labor: Forced labor is any work or service which people are forced to do against their will The difference between child labor an forced labor is, one has a say in what they do and one does not. Child labor is simply labor done by a child. What harm does that do? There are benefits of this for the child as well. dictionary.com
The pen is mightier than the sword.

Just to be clear, I will be trying to prove that physical force is greater than the written word. Pro will be trying to prove that the pen is mightier. In the past, the sword has proved to be a more powerful weapon compared to the flimsy thing called a pen. One needs to simply look back to what has caused both World Wars to start, and one will see that the sword was the cause of the outbreak of both. WWI broke out when Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and his wife) of Austria were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb. We seriously doubt they were killed by a pen. WWII only ended when the Allied managed to dismantle the Nazi government, through military intervention. Besides, the pen didn't seem to work against Hitler when he was marching across Europe, invading country after country. It didn't even prevent Stalin from killing millions of innocent people who had different ideals than he and his government did. Although, the pen is great at signing peace treaties and creating agreements between countries and people, it seems to be quite flimsy compared to the sword. Hitler easily managed to end the Versailles treaty, and create a larger military than he was allowed to. Osama Bin Laden, known for being a terrorist and the one who planned the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, was only stopped because of military intervention. He was killed. Now, moving on to famous peace-keepers who are believed to have used the pen only. Mahatma Ghandi: He was a great man who managed to get India its independence. Although, he did all of this through words, the only reason why his words were even listened to was because Britain was in a weakened state after the results of WWI and WWII. These are obviously actions of the sword. Nelson Mandela: in 1961 he led the “Umkhonto we Sizwe”, which was the armed wing of the African National Congress, into plans for a guerrilla war. In case you don´t know what a Guerrilla war is… We have a definition here. It is a form of irregular warfare of a small group of combatants, namely civilians, who use military tactics such as ambushes, sabotage, raids and hit-and-run-tactics. Once again, an action of the sword. <sp
Satan is Evil

To begin, this is a hard topic for us as humans to understand, because we weren't there with God when Lucifer Fell out of heaven. I will first start with the nature of God. God's nature is both perfect justice and perfect love. Both of these are equally powerful, and neither can be compromised. Let's look first at God's justice, God's justice is fair and reaches to all mankind. When we stand before him on Judgement day God will not Immediately Reject someone because of appearance, that would go against his nature because he is loving, fair, compassionate, merciful, and kind; therefore, he will not judge somebody based on their appearance. So how does God judge? Well in First Samuel 16, . " But the Lord said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees;[a] for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." Now only God can understand the man's heart and look into it. The same thing is with Satan. At the beginning before Lucifer became Satan, Lucifer was created with a free will like us to make choices. Now of course Lucifer was perfect, but not as perfect as God because if God could make something as equal as he then he wouldn't be God. Remember anything God creates he is above, he is LORD over all. Back to the point though Lucifer had the choice to do the right thing and serve God, or choose wrong and not serve God. God gave Lucifer the highest position in heaven and because Lucifer saw that God was above him he had PRIDE. This pride was what caused Lucifer to fall and become Satan. Satan wanted to betray God and that is why he took 1/3 of his angels with him. So as stated above it would be against God's nature and who he is to create evil, because he can not create that which is bad because he is good. Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yet another round has been forfeited! Perhaps it is because Jollo gives us about 5 minutes to write our arguements down.... This is a poor way to make a debate go by and it horribly effects my literacy... My oppponet has failed to put the sausage on the porilainen... His arguement is only the opening part of his debate. Othough my arguements are rushed because of my fair nemesis... I hope my arguement was heard. I love my nemesis, and I'll look forward to another speedy debate. Vote for Pleco!
anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

I shall chalenge you! I am pleco and I shall disagree with your stance that anthropocentrism should be valued above biocentrism. My argue will be based on the fact that humans are the most superior race on the planet, we are also the most advanced species known to exist. Since we are humans our species survival should be the most important to us! That is my arguement in a sloppy nutshell, forgive how rushed it is... I literally had like 3 minutes to write it all...
anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

value equity because: all forms of life have intristic value and hence, ought to be treated fairly B Anthropocentrism means 1 humans only care when we are directly effected 2 humans commiting against the enviroment are not entirley aware of the potential consequnces 3 Humanity hurts itself as it progresses criteria utilitarianism: or the greatest benift for greatest # b anthropocentrism only aids the agent, humanity since the progression of humanity often harms enviromental forces, humans , who are an inherent part of nature, are immoraly hurting themselves without knowing it.
As an atheist there is no objective morality.

Morality at it's core is nothing more than the question: "What should I do?" There are of course many different answers in different forms, but no matter what you go along with, be it religious or not, in the end it always comes down to something akin to: "You should try to prevent bad and create good." The question many religious people ask at this point is: "If there is no god, then how do you know what is good or bad?" Problematic is that any way you try to define something as "good" needs a bigger definition of something else as "good", thus the naturalistic fallacy. Before I get into my real argument I would like point out that this issue applies to a religious moral system in just the same way. If you want god's definition of good and bad to hold any weight you first have to define god himself as good, which is a similar logical leap as defining a sense pleasure or the lack of pain as good. Now, that being said, is there any logic fallacy to prevent you from not having any morality at all? Sadly, no there isn't. If you assume a truly nihilistic mindset and decide against giving anything the slightest bit of sense or purpose, then you have no way to determine what is right or wrong. However, if you do take a truly nihilistic mindset this also means that you cannot take any purposed action in life. Should you for example decide to steal your sibling's sweets, to eat them yourself, then the nihilistic mindset becomes invalid for you. In order to come to that decision, you first have to define the status of "having sweets" to be preferable to "having no sweets". You define sweets as "good" and that means you have an origin to build a moral system from: If sweets are a good thing, then taking them from others is wrong, because if everyone did that, it would probably end with less sweets for everyone, including yourself. In order to create any moralistic system you have find sense in life. I cannot help you with that, but there are many great philosophers who have written down their ideas on the subject. All I can tell you is: The moment you decide to do more with your life than to purposeless drift around, you will have reasons for your actions. You will have ideas that you find desirable and ideas that you find revolting. With that we come back to the old moralistic reasoning: If everyone helped others to achieve their own goals, everyone achieves his own goal faster, thus helping others is right, while impeding them is wrong. Objectively and universally.
Jesus is not in the old testament, he is not the messiah. he is fiction.

Actually the BOP is on you Bibletruth.This is my arguments as to why I believe JC is not the messiah.(1) Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic PropheciesThe Bible says he would:[A] Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).[B] Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).[C] Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)[D] Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).(2) Jesus Did Not Embody the Personal Qualifications of Messiah[A] Messiah as Prophet[B] Descendant of David: The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David but according to Christians, JC was the product of a virgin birth and he had no father, so he could not be the messiah.[C] Torah observance: The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot (commandments) remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)Throughout the Christian "New Testament," Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"(3) Mistranslated Verses "Referring" to Jesus[A] The Virgin Birth: Isaiah 7:14[B] Suffering servant: Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).So these are my claims as to why I believe there is no JC and the new testament was created by the devil to lie to people about some savior that is going to come back. JC is fictional, otherwise, he would have already came, but he didn’t, did he? JC is in hell burning with Satan.
Jesus is not in the old testament, he is not the messiah. he is fiction.

It is going to be interesting discussion. I'm a woman and a Biblical Christian. Pro, you expressed in round 1 that you will prove Christ never existed, he is made up, along with the new testament. You also voiced that Jesus the Christ is not the messiah. Pro, you generated these assertions, yet you provided no evidence for me to rebute. The BOP is on Pro. I await your reasoning in round 2.
"A cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit." - Nancy Pelosi

PRONG I: "Limit" My opponent missed, and conceded, a very important part of my attack against this prong: "As the HCB cannot exceed the gross income (otherwise the company would go bankrupt), the HCB is limited, by the law that health care companies are not allowed to print money." The company going bankrupt would result in a huge limit on your benefits, because bankrupt companies give no benefits. My opponent has conceded this prong; it is no more. PRONG II: "Non-HCC sources of revenue" My opponent claims that taxes are not by contract. However, the social contract [1] is what gives the government the power to tax. Because the power to tax is delegated by this social contract to the government, the taxes can be included in the HCC. My opponent concedes all other attacks made by this prong, focusing instead on this one problem, which I have shown to be false. PRONG III: Cap on actual vs. average benefits My opponent has chosen to merge this prong with his conceded Prong I and his falsified Prong II. My opponent has no more effective points standing. Vote CON. Thanks for this debate, omelet. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
"A cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit." - Nancy Pelosi

PRONG I: "Limit" on HCB There is, in fact, a "limit" on the HCB. The limit on HCC puts a direct limit on the gross income of the company. As the HCB cannot exceed the gross income (otherwise the company would go bankrupt), the HCB is limited, by the law that health care companies are not allowed to print money. The definition for "limit" does not require a direct limit. It can be satisfied by any limit resulting from a law. PRONG II: HCC isn't the only possible source of revenue Government subsidies would come from the people, so the people would be paying their health insurance companies through the government. A limit would still exist. Additionally, the government does not have infinite money, so a limit would still exist, as the benefits cannot exceed the total money. PRONG III: Average value vs. an actual cap The problem here is that there is still a limit on the benefits. The company cannot grant more benefits to the people than it can afford. It is against the law to print money, so by law, the company's total income must be the limit of the benefits it can grant to the people who actually get sick. That will be all for now. Good luck, omelet.
"A cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit." - Nancy Pelosi

http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Resolved: A limit on the costs of health care does not result in a limit on the benefits of health care. Limit - amount that may not be exceeded by law Costs of health care - what a person pays their health insurance company, as determined by contract Benefits of health care - what the health insurance company does for a person after that person needs the benefits, as determined by contract Now, here's some common business logic: the quality of the product directly corresponds with the cost of the product [1]. Therefore, when a health insurance company is no longer allowed to charge high prices, it also has no reason to provide numerous benefits. A health care company would not give an average of $20,000 in benefits to a man paying only $10,000 in costs. That would go against business logic. The company would start losing money, and soon go out of business, and nobody would receive any benefits at all. With that, I'll leave my opponent to argue in the contrary. Good luck to whoever accepts. 1. http://www.ingrimayne.com...
Islam is the most logical of the Abrahamic Faiths

Rules 'n stuff (I'm usually not this strict but given the nature of the topic it demands : Terms must be followed strictly (If a term is misused in an argument from Me or con then that said argument will be made invalid) Format must also be followed strictly (with punishment being similar to what is mentioned above) No trolling or insulting. If a verse from the Bible, Qur'an or any other Scripture/Sacred text is used to base ones argument then it must be taken in its complete form and in full context. (No mistranslated verses allowed) In terms of Islam, no illegitimate or mistranslated Hadith are allowed, only from authentic sources (hence removing the hadith of "72 Virgins" If the terms mentioned below are unreasonable or inaccurate definitions then Con may modify the terms but only if backed up by an argument as to why. Format of debate: Round 1: Acceptance of terms Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-rebuttals and Conclusive arguments. Terms: Abrahamic Faiths: The monotheistic religions of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam Judiasm: The religion of the Jews based off the teachings of the Tanakh and the oldest of the monotheistic faiths. Tanakh: The main Jewish scripture split into 24 books and three sections (the Torah, Nevi'im and the Ketivum) Islam: The religion of the Muslims based off the teachings of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad. Qur'an: The scripture of the Muslims, often split into 30 sections known as juz. Hadi'th: A collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad that, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunnah), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Qur'an. Christianity: The religion of Christians based on the teachings of the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth. Bible: The main scripture of the Christians consisting of 66 books from the Old and New Testaments . Gospel: The record of Jesus' life and teaching in the first four books of the New Testament. Constitutes as a second major source of guidance other then the Bible itself. logical: Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument. I will be arguing that Islam is the most logical of the Abrahamic faiths as con will be arguing to the contrary.