BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Sentence Should be Used

1. Why is capital punishment the only way to mete justice, as opposed to, say, life imprisonment? If we imprison criminals for life, how are we showing them that "crime is acceptable"? Furthermore, the role of government isn't to uphold "justice" - it is to maximize benefit to society. 2. Pro doesn't produce any of this so-called "proof." The argument that the death penalty deters homicides relies on an econometric model called rational action theory, which states that humans -- including potential murderers -- perform an analysis of costs and benefits before committing any action. Pro provides absolutely no evidence to believe in this model. Crimes aren't committed by foreseen rational thought. Dr. Jonathan Groner explains, "The psychological mind-set of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way." [http://abcnews.go.com...] 3. Pro's argument appears to be that they'll be let "onto the streets" and will "commit more crimes." This relies on a lot of assumptions. One, criminals can be rehabilitated. Research from Texas finds that those who participated in rehabilitation programs, in the vast majority of cases, did not reoffend -- a far greater number than those who didn't participate in similar programs. [http://www.governing.com...] Two, those that can't be rehabilitated will be put into secure prison-facilities for life, or secure psychiatric treatment facilities, which means they won't be "in the streets." Three, the harm from the death penalty caused to executioners outweighs, because so many people are facing severe psychological harms. 4. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 4.1% of death penalty convicts are innocent of their crimes. And 0.5% of all people executed have been innocent. [https://www.theguardian.com...] The fact that so many innocents are getting executed is a reason to abolish the death penalty, because we can't let that happen.
The Death Sentence Should be Used

Lets look at the pros and of the death sentence. 1. By executing criminals, we are giving justice to those who have been harmed and violated by said criminals. Without justice we are just showing criminals that crime is acceptable. 2. Use of capital punishment has been proven to reduce crime rates. By executing criminals we can prevent further crimes. 3. It prevents criminals from going back onto the streets and committing more crimes. The appeals in the court room today are unfair. They give more rights to criminals than to those who seek true justice. Capital punishment should be used more frequently.
The Death Sentence Should be Used

== Cost == Pro's argument from costs clearly indicates that they haven't done the research. The flaw in their case lies in their first sentence: "If a criminal is proven guilty beyond doubt, he should be executed." To prove that a criminal is guilty beyond doubt requires a trial with significantly more effort than an average trial. That's why cases where the death penalty is being considered (i.e. capital cases) are significantly more expensive - sufficiently expensive to outweigh the costs of putting the convict in prison. Sherod Thaxton's study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, published in 2013, found that capital cases cost $2 million more than non-capital cases. [http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...] The death penalty costs the state of California $300 million per execution, with is a lot more than life imprisonment costs. [https://www.theguardian.com...] According to an audit from researchers in Nevada: "Adjudicating death penalty cases takes more time and resources compared to murder cases where the death penalty sentence is not pursued as an option. These cases are more costly because there are procedural safeguards in place to ensure the sentence is just and free from error." [https://www.leg.state.nv.us...] == Executioners == Executions require actual people to oversee them, and to flip the switch that results in the death of the convict. But the experience of killing another human being is incredibly traumatic. Empirical evidence proves that executioners face psychological trauma, including permanent clinical depression and paranoia, from carrying out the task of the death penalty. [http://www.njadp.org...] The team of executioners present during each execution watch the convict say their final words, and possibly struggle for their last breaths - a gut-wrenching experience. The lives of executioners are often completely damaged as a result. Jerry Givens, a former executioner who killed 62 people, explains, "I performed the execution. So you might suffer a little. I'm going to suffer a lot, because I performed the job." [http://abcnews.go.com...] Executioners are often driven into these jobs by desperation, so this is a case of pure exploitation by the government. == Conclusion == Capital punishment is very costly, and makes people victims, so it should be abolished.
Free Will Exists

Thank you for the interesting topic. First, let me mention something in this debate something that was already brought up in the comments. When we say that free will exists we are not saying that it is a "thing," either physical or spiritual, which could be interacted with. Free will is a way of describing the human condition and our ability to, at some level, make a choice that is not entirely determined. I will not waste time with complex philosophy or multilayered arguments when the evidence can be plainly seen by all. The evidence for free will is this: We have the experience of making choices. Each of us knows what it is to exercise our free will. If Con responds to this post, he has used his will to do so. As Augustine of Hippo said, "Do not ask if you have a choice. The fact that you desire to know is evidence enough that you do."* Is it possible that our experience is mistaken? Is it possible that our free will is an illusion? Of course! Anything is possible, but that is not a reason to say that it is so. We rightly trust our own experiences unless we have overwhelming reason not to. If we cannot trust our experience of free will then we cannot trust any experience, and therefore any evidence against free will that we encounter would also be untrustworthy. Allow me to make an analogy. Imagine that you are walking through an orchard, you come across an apple tree, and you pick and apple. You then say, "This is not really an apple. It looks like an apple. It feels, smells and tastes like an apple. Everything I am currently experiencing tells me that it is an apple. But I still don"t think that it is apple." That is what it is like to argue against free will. The very act of arguing against the will requires us to use our will. We must deny our own experiences at this moment in order to say that free will does not exist. And if we say that our experience of free will is untrustworthy, what makes any of our other experiences trustworthy? The evidence is plain and insurmountable. We can make all the arguments we want, but at the end of the day we each have the choice at this moment to close our eyes or leave them open, to continue reading or to choose not to finish reading this sentence. We each have free will, and we are exercising it at this moment. I will respond to Con"s arguments in my next post. *On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine of Hippo, p2.
Free Will Exists

A common topic in philosophy. I find it quite interesting and fun to debate. Please comment if you want to accept this. Please note that following the Rules is mandatory, and violating them will cost you conduct points and, possibly, result in a loss. Acceptance of the debate is regarded as an acceptance of the Rules. Any issues/questions/requests must be dealt with before the debate in the comments section.DefinitionsFree will - the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. [1]Exist - to have actual being; be. [2]Burden of ProofAs this is not an obvious or easy topic by any means, nor is there any consensus on this, the burden of proof is shared and equal between both positions. Pro will need to show that free will exists, while Con (me) will need to show that free will doesn't exist.StructureRound 1: Acceptance only. No arguments.Round 2: Con's Case; Pro's Case. No rebuttals.Round 3: Con's Rebuttals; Pro's Rebuttals. New arguments allowed.Round 4: Con's Rebuttals and Conclusion; Pro's Rebuttals and Conclusion. No new arguments.Rules1. The Definitions above must be accepted. It is forbidden to alter them in any way.2. The Burden of Proof must not be shifted or altered.3. The Structure of the debate must be strictly followed.4. No kritiks or semantics.5. No trolling or swearing.6. No personal attacks.7. Sources must be cited at the end of the round. Do not use the comments section for that.Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good

I take the view that all people should have a chance to give to the public information they want to, whatever this information is. Because we all have the same rights, no matter where you are from, what your profession is, and of course no matter if you are a man or you are a woman. Wikileaks is absolutely made for that. This site is made for public because we all have rights to know what is REALLY happening in the world, the government sometimes may hide something, that should not be hidden. According to Joshua Philipp ("Epoch Times"): "An analysis of the recent release by Wikileaks of 76,908 reports regarding U.S. operations in Afghanistan, dating from 2004 to 2010, tell little that wasn"t already known, yet give details on operations and statistics, which were previously unavailable." That is why I believe that Wikileaks should not be banned for giving information to people they need or maybe want to know.
The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good

Reading your arguments so far, I believe you may think me to be against the giving of information to the public (e.g Wikipedia), rather than the leaking of privileged information (E.g Wikileaks). To be clear, I feel that people should be allowed to have information for students, or materials that they may need access to for lawful reasons. I do NOT feel that this access to information should extend to the public for information that is confidential, secret or potentially damaging to lives or national securities.
The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good

The information that is given in the Internet is not always true or reliable and everyone knows it. But limiting some kind of materials from one person may lead to the situation when simply another person who needs these materials does not have an access to it. The stream of information cannot be stopped, if someone knows something you won't make him forget it, and even if there will be closed some sites that will not stop people.
The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good

It is important for people to have information, however there should be a limit on the content. Should information be give out that could get people killed simply for the sake of transparency? I say no. We should also consider what this does to future information exchange. If people have knowledge that they are concerned may end up in the wrong hands, they may not share it at all. How much information could never reach the right person due to the fear of exposure.
The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good

In my point of view, nowadays people are all free in choosing information they want to get. It is important for people to know things, they would not otherwise know, and searching in the Internet the information they want is the easiest way to get answers on their questions. The information that should be hidden from people that should not get it is hidden by government; the other materials are free in choosing. But imagine if some students could not get the information from the Internet because the site was closed or something else.
The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good

There are many issues associated with the leaking of information to the public. The audience that sees the information as opposed to those that it was intended for, and the subsequent interpretation of that information, are some of what I would see as the key issues. Although a level of transparency should be expected from any government, the nature of geopolitics makes that an impossibility. When information is given the the population unfiltered, it is also given to the world. Technology has made a border less society, and even terrorists have google! It is naive to feel that all information should be available as not all people who would access it have positive intentions. In the case of technical documents, there are people who may also not understand it. In a world where paediatricians are attacked by groups of people confusing their job with the allegation of pedophile, I believe that society needs a certain amount of protection from itself. Otherwise, it is like letting children have access to a gun cabinet before understanding the dangers. If democracy is agreed, and people subscribe to it, then trust must be given to these democratically elected officials that they re doing what they should.
Pro: the Earth is flat, Con: The Earth is not flat

For all the voters, I'll refute my opponent's Round 2 argument in the comments. In this round I just want to propose my own. My opponent is wrong, the Earth is not flat. And to prove this, I'm going to use a very simple science fact. On Earth, there are these things called mountains. Here's some pictures of mountains: https://www.google.com.... According to my definition of flat in round 1, flat means horizontally level. Mountains, which are features of the Earth's surface, are not horizontally level. They have length, width, AND height. Therefore, the Earth is not flat. You might be thinking that, "Well hey, I thought this guy meant that the world is spherical, of course it is not going to be perfectly flat." I never claimed that the Earth is spherical, only that is wasn't flat. And because mountains exist and have the 3rd dimension of height, the Earth is not flat.
Pro: the Earth is flat, Con: The Earth is not flat

Another debate on the classic topic of "is the Earth flat or not." I, the Con, will be arguing that it is not, and you the Pro, will be arguing that it is. You are expected to use science in you argument and follow all the standard debate procedure on DDO. Round 1: Acceptance, definitions, questions on rules. Round 2: Arguments, Rebuttals This is going to be a short debate. I also want to point out that I will have no chance to have rebuttals on my opponents arguments, so therefore he or she will have a pretty good advantage and can make good use of it. Definitions (all from dictionary.com): 1. flat: horizontally level 2. curved: the act or extent of curving. 3. Earth: (often initial capital letter) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 miles (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 miles (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million miles (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.
Are schools a positive influence on physical health? (Eating/Exercise)

It is true that since 2012, students have been required to take a fruit or a vegetable at most schools. However, this has not successfully promoted any sort of increased health among students. Studies have shown that the 13.3% increasing students that pick up a fruit or vegetable has also come with an 11.8% decrease in their consumption, also increasing waste by 56% (http://www.upi.com...). Basically, if children wanted to eat a healthy meal, they would automatically do so. Now, it has become a common routine to throw away the unwanted items seconds after receiving them. As to your other point regarding physical activity, the opposite is actually true. The Sports & Fitness Industry Association has determined via household surveys that the number of children ages 6-12 participating in physical activity has decreased by 3.6% between 2008 and 2015. In a similar way, participation by 13-17 year olds (teenagers) dropped by 3.4% in this time period (http://www.aspenprojectplay.org...). Altogether, whatever the schools are doing to promote healthy eating and physical activity isn't effective.
Web sites should be culpable for the illegal activity of their users

"Knowledgeable possession or transmission of child pornography is illegal, however you cannot be held as an accomplice for the posting(which is the illegal activity(transmission)) itself. According to the law, you may be subpoenaed for the IP address, email and other user information, and failure to provide it (if it is reasonable to expect that you can do so). Once the cops come to your door, your ability to plead ignorance ends, since they inform you of the posting. If you continue to keep the material, it is YOU that is violating the law (in addition to the user). Therefore you are NOT being held culpable for the illegal activity of the USER, but your own activity." Actually you can. If the site is not specifically aimed at an adult audience, then criminal sanctions can be imposed on the website owner. This is exactly the reason why every porn site must ask whether the visitor is over or under the age of 18. "As I mentioned before, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, states that owners are NOT responsible, since they are attempting to provide a public good. If your friends secretly uses part of your lawn to grow Marijuana, you aren't responsible. Only if you knowingly permit him to grow it on your property. Website owners can claim ignorance due to the size of their communities, and the difficulty in managing them. (See the various failed lawsuits against craiglist)" My original analogy with the house and the marijuana, stated no such thing. If your friend uses your law to grow marijuana, AND you knew about it, you ARE culpible. And please point me to the craiglist lawsuit which include pornographic pictures posted in the toys section that was not deleted and left there by Craiglist.
Web sites should be culpable for the illegal activity of their users

"Two weeks later, the cops come at my door. They say that unless i take down the photographs, i will be charged as an accomplice to child pornography." Knowledgeable possession or transmission of child pornography is illegal, however you cannot be held as an accomplice for the posting(which is the illegal activity(transmission)) itself. According to the law, you may be subpoenaed for the IP address, email and other user information, and failure to provide it (if it is reasonable to expect that you can do so). Once the cops come to your door, your ability to plead ignorance ends, since they inform you of the posting. If you continue to keep the material, it is YOU that is violating the law (in addition to the user). Therefore you are NOT being held culpable for the illegal activity of the USER, but your own activity. On what basis can people file such lawsuits? Can you name ONE successful lawsuit of this kind? "websites owners responsibility to manage the site, and delete such pictures." As I mentioned before, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, states that owners are NOT responsible, since they are attempting to provide a public good. If your friends secretly uses part of your lawn to grow Marijuana, you aren't responsible. Only if you knowingly permit him to grow it on your property. Website owners can claim ignorance due to the size of their communities, and the difficulty in managing them. (See the various failed lawsuits against craiglist)
Web sites should be culpable for the illegal activity of their users

Okay, thanks for making this debate, although this debate is really short i promise you. I start a website that hosts pictures. Someone comes and posts a bunch of Child Pornography photos. I dont bother deleting them. Two weeks later, the cops come at my door. They say that unless i take down the photographs, i will be charged as an accomplice to child pornography. There. The website is culpable for the illegal activity of the user. Not to mention, people can then file lawsuits against the site owner for keeping it up so long. The point? If someone comes here and spams Child porn pictures, it is the websites owners responsibility to manage the site, and delete such pictures. Much like how it would be my responsibility to kick out my friend who would come to my house to grow Weed.
Web sites should be culpable for the illegal activity of their users

this is from my argument:http://arg.umentum.com... If you aren't the one who accepts this debate here, you can make your arguments there and I will respond.. Legally speaking, it is the Users of a product service who are responsible for illegal activity conducted through it. For example, should Sears be held responsible if someone used a Sears knife to commit a murder? This extends to internet properties through the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which explicitly protects Web site owners from culpability for criminal activity perpetrated by third parties. People in general should be held responsible for their OWN actions only. Additionally, the internet is a medium in which only information can be exchanged. This makes any culpability for illegal activity a Free Speech issue as well. The 1st amendment guarantees your right to say "meet me at 6pm on the corner of 5th and Main for some dope," or to convey this message through other informational mediums. This right exists above and beyond any mere law which might criminalize the actual transfer or use of marijuana. Summary: Web sites are mediums of information, nothing more. Any attempt to limit information transfer threatens Free Speech. In addition, other businesses do not have to deal with this problem(Sears in the example above).. why make an exception for websites?
John Kasich (PRO) VS Donald Trump (CON)

My economic argument is untouched. Trump had all the negative media coverage he could handle and he still got the nomination. What is Kasich's excuse? A view without action is worthless. So, we should allow these criminals who committed the crime of coming here illegally to have a chance to commit even more crimes? I don't see the need. This was Trump when he was a business man; not a presidential nominee. You did not respond to the majority of my claims. You agreed with more than two. Conclusion: This was a rather lazy debate for me since I didn't see much need in debating it. Kasich was not nominated while Trump got nominated despite all of the obstacles he endured.