BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sports gambling should be legalized 100%

For the sake of this debate I am not talking about FanDuel and DraftKings specifically but they are included. I am talking mainly about betting on moneylines and spreads with a bookie. Either online or with the Joe Schmoe down the street. By going against in this debate, you must be 100% against sports gambling. I am not talking about casino games like slots, blackjack, etc. This is only in regards to sports gambling. However you may use casino games in examples for your argument. I will present an argument once someone accepts the debate.
Sports gambling should be legalized 100%

Thank you for accepting and I look forward to an informative and respectable exchange with you. Legalizing sports wagering recognizes the plain truth that people are going to bet on sports if they want to. Despite the legality of the act in the jurisdiction. I ask you and anyone viewing this as well, whether or not you are for the legalization of sports gambling would you prefer people participating in the act do so through safe means? When you legalize sports gambling, you take the power away from crime organizations, from offshore gambling rings that operate in the gray area of legality. You put the power in the hands of the people with regulation from the government. This also can be a good thing in helping people with gambling problems. Just like other perfectly legal substances, gambling can do a lot of damage to someone with an addictive behavior. The legalization of gambling would also bring to the forefront the issues with gambling their life away. Financially, and literally when dealing with a some shady bookie. There is the argument that many sports teams, organizations, and casino owners mainly use. The argument is that the legalization of gambling takes away the integrity of the game. This is coming from casino owners who are already capitalizing on gambling, and sports organizations that for many years have been looking the other way when it comes to other things that effect the integrity of the game such as PEDs. This shows the integrity of the game is not their priority, but more like their wallets. The society we live in already has an underlying approval of sports gambling. You may not consciously acknowledge it, but it is there. Go look at ESPN's website. Any game happening in the next few days next to it will be a moneyline and a point spread. Along with a link to a video with an analyst telling people how he thinks they should bet on the game. Yet how do they expect the majority of people watching to bet? Unless you live in one of the 4 states where it is legalized, you are at least going through a gray legal area to make your bet. One of the major concerns in this country is the deficit. In New Jersey alone, Club CalNeva estimated the state would be able to generate 120 million in tax revenues from the legalization of gambling. Lifting the ban on sports wagering takes the advantage away from offshore betting and organized crime. It would create jobs in big cities and also create another avenue of economic flow. The way our economy works, the more avenues of money to move the better. Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Why the death penalty is ineffective and should be banned by the house

To Opponent:Thank you once again for your submission. Since we are running out of rounds, let's continue with the rebuttals for these two rounds. I could clearly tell that you have not paid any attention to what I have said. First off, let's review zealotry once again. I have given you the definition of a zealot, which is a religious fanatic. Zealots do not exist anymore, and I do not think it is worth arguing for. Zealot is an archaic meaning. The reason the U.S. Military Forces went to war with Iraq is because they suspected they had thermonuclear and biological weaponry (I will not bring in conspiracies). Afterwards, finding out they did not have any of that weaponry they just decided to help the people (1). Every governmental official is religious. Personally, I think that they advertise religion. You are getting both of us sidetracked on this information. Zealots do not have anything to do with executions whatsoever. The reason the South has executions is because it is something traditional for them (source mentioned before). The South has these executions is because of their rising crime rates, and the crime rates rise for various reason, such as, poverty, population, gang formations, etc. etc (source mentioned before). I am against executions, I think that there should be a more effective way to prevent these crime rates and executions. Unfortunately, it has not been solved yet.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttals:First of all, both of us are arguing that innocent lives are in danger, and I was the first to bring it up. I understand that all of these death penalties are well documented. The reason that George Bush declares so many death penalties is not because he is a zealot. George W. Bush came from the South, and according to many leading criminologists the Southerners have a taste for executions in their blood. Religion has nothing to do with this (Source mentioned in previous round: Business Insider). I would really want to see a single source that targets religion and says it is cohesive with executions. In fact, there was a debate between many religious organizations and most Christian organizations debate that capital punishment is ineffective (1).1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Why the death penalty is ineffective and should be banned by the house

Sorry about the 1000 word rule. I wasn't paying attention. I brought up Texas because both Bush and Perry in my view are political zealots, and Bush is a religions one as well. Both have had numerous death penalties come to their desk for review. An investigation reported in the Chicago Tribune in 2000 (1) found that George Bush's "certainty" about the soundness of the death penalty caused him to look the other way while people were executed based on convictions that were questionable at the time and later found to be faulty. It is a troubling report. Compare this with his views on religion and his behavior in Iraq. It is an uncompromising steadfastness in pursuit of religious and political ideals and deliberate ignorance of anything that might derail that pursuit. That's zealotry. Regarding your second paragraph, I actually did not compare a states religiousness or zealotry to violence. I said that in general the more religions states (according to Gallup) also have the highest execution rates. But like I said I didn't do an exhaustive study into that. My theory is that the more religious states are more likely to have religious and political zealots in control who pander to the religious majority and will allow executions to proceed without review (i.e. see reference (1)). Religious zealots often believe people are guilty until proven innocent. The reasons for violence per se are very complicated and your arguments don't even come close to the socio-economic complexities. I'm not saying that disrespectfully, you touch on some valid points, but the real issue is much much deeper. But It seems like you are going into things outside of the scope of our debate. I thought we were talking about different ideas about why the death penalty is ineffective and should be abolished. So again, yes I agree the death penalty should be abolished, but not because it's ineffective, costly, etc. It should be abolished because zealotry and corruption allow innocent people to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death. It's very well documented. See reference (1). (1) http://www.commondreams.org...
Why the death penalty is ineffective and should be banned by the house

Hello, thanks for a very thorough discussion. While I agree that all of the points you mentioned, there are more fundamental reasons against the death penalty. Corruption and zealotry in the legal and political system: Cost should not even be a question, in my mind. We are talking about human lives and setting an example for society. I could, and probably should, cite a couple of examples of how corrupt police and prosecutors knowingly withheld or falsified data that would have proven a condemned person innocent of the crime the were convicted of. Many times these convictions were overturned, and many times they were not. Human Rights Watch has the most comprehensive collection of these cases (1). Some states, such as Washington State, have issued reprieves on death penalty cases due to the shear number of overturned death penalty cases. In Washington State, 32 death penalty cases have been overturned since 1981 (2). Nonetheless, some states continue to crank out executions despite indications of the number of faulty cases. I could site case after case, but I'm sure most have seen or heard of them...prosecutors withholding information, police setting people up, incompetent investigators, coroners, etc. The Guardian published a lot of death penalty data for 2011 (3). I reviewed how they were analyzing the data but decided to download the data and do some analyzing of my own. I didn't do an exhaustive review. but I did see a moderate correlation between the top 10 most corrupt states and death penalties carried out from 1976, but a much stronger correlation between the degree of "religiousness" of states (according to Gallup) and death penalties (4). This was my own analysis so the correlations are my own, but you'd likely find the same result. The most religious states had the most executions, and the least religious states had the least executions. This was true for both total number of executions and for executions per million population (adjusted for state population). One more note on this regarding Texas: It didn't make the top 10 list of most corrupt or religious states, but it is one of the most religious, has one of the largest populations, AND....has a history of having extreme zealot Governors, i.e. George Bush and Rick Perry. And this state has by far the highest execution rate. More on that later. So, in my view, religious zealots in positions of political power and politicians pandering to the religions majority deserve a lot of scrutiny by allowing their states to legally murder people. For this reason alone the death penalty should be abolished. (1) http://www.hrw.org... (2) http://www.hrw.org... (3) http://www.theguardian.com... (4) http://www.theblaze.com...
Why the death penalty is ineffective and should be banned by the house

I accept the challenge. I too disagree with the death penalty, but not for the reasons cited. I assume that if the cited reasons were not a factor than the death penalty would be acceptable to Pro. I will argue against the death penalty under any circumstances, primarily because: > The U.S. legal system is corrupt > Punishing for a crime by committing the same crime is fundamentally...well....insane > The death penalty is the product of zealots who have pushed their agenda for religions and political reasons. and there is no sound basis for it.
Why the death penalty is ineffective and should be banned by the house

In this debate I will be arguing that the death penalty is ineffective and due to its ineffectiveness it should be banned by the house. The reasons that I will use will be that it's expensive, it causes racial disputes, it endangers innocent lives, and finally it doesn't deter crime rates. This is how I will put it down: 1.Introduction of the debate (first round) 2.Opponent's statement that he/she will agree to debate. 3.Arguments from both 4.Rebuttal/or counter argument 5.Conclusion Rules: 1.Include sources of the information that you've used. 2.Vulgar language is obviously disallowed. 3.Follow the list on the top. Agruments first then counter arguments. 4.A minimum of a thousand characters is advised. 5.Have fun. As you can see a maximum of 3,000 characters are supposed to be used. Also, sources are mandatory, so don't forget to include them. -Thank you, I hope both of us will enjoy this debate.
Call of Duty Ghosts was one of the best Call of Duty games ever made

Voting IssuesSplitscreen: Better to have 4 player & not use it than 2 player & can't have more people play. MW2 maps great, Ghosts maps decent.Spec Ops/Extinction: Agree to disagree, neither of us provided warrantsCampaign: Pro conceded, Con wins hereRankings: At the time I'm doing this only two comments have been posted, don't let Pro add evidence ater debate. IGN may have given Ghosts an 8.8 but check my links, MW2 got a 9.5. I also provided a variety of rankings instead of just IGN
Call of Duty Ghosts was one of the best Call of Duty games ever made

Ghosts does not offer 4 player split-screen because this feature is just not as required especially in 2013 when online gaming was hot. The majority of people play Call of Duty online, very rarely will people play local multiplayer. Maps such as Prison Break, and Stormfront are very popular and can be used in all sorts of game modes. What is also great is that the maps don't feel small or large, in fact they feel just right. Spec Ops although fun, is not as compelling and exciting as Extinction
Call of Duty Ghosts was one of the best Call of Duty games ever made

Concessions by Pro: Unoriginal plot, 4 player splitscreen option in MW2 is better than 2 player in GhostsMaps are better in MW2. Ghosts leaves us decent maps yes, but no memorable ones like MW2. I still contend Spec Ops > ExtinctionCritical Reception:Ghosts was the worst ranked CoD from the MW age onward. Most other titles were consistently in the 8-9 range, while Ghosts was mostly 7-8 (sources in comments, scroll to "reception").
Call of Duty Ghosts was one of the best Call of Duty games ever made

MW2 while it was still a good Call of Duty, I prefer Ghosts any day. Campaign: Yes the plot was not the most original thing in the world, but that does not mean it is a bad campaign, I will make the analogy of a movie for example, every movie has a good guy and a bad guy, it doesn't mean that all of today's modern movies are bad. Ghosts keeps things fresh with a dog for example, and new guns, and maps to travel across. Multiplayer - Great game-modes, enjoyable maps Extinction- very popular
Call of Duty Ghosts was one of the best Call of Duty games ever made

Characters are limited to 500 so this'll be quick. I'm for MW2.Campaign- Ghosts is a watered down MW2 campaign. Less plausible, same idea of a traitor. Russian invasion missions were great, Soap and Price were lovable, I don't think I've wanted to get any in-game kill more than the final kill of Shepherd.Multiplayer- MW2 allows 4 splitscreen, Ghosts allows 2. Maps are better in MW2: Rust, Terminal, Highrise, Estate, Favela, etc.Spec Ops- Far better than extinction, which was a disaster.
College Football D-I should have a Play-off System

BCS isn't mine, and play-offs aren't yours. "Obviously, since they suck: Don't watch them. " My opponent concedes the resolution. Vote CON. "And I won't watch your rigged BCS, 'cause its[sic] stupid and not right. " You are entitled to your own opinion, I guess. "Make your choice, but game seven of the Penguins/Red Wings. .. .mine all mine. .. .have you sixty point blow out[sic] championships. " Yours, all yours? College football belongs to the colleges. Be glad that you even get to watch. "I'll take my play-off. ('cause its[sic] better)" That's nice. My opponent gives no real reason to vote PRO. My syllogism of logic still stands. Then why don't they have this yet? They must obviously have a reason. Perhaps they can't have a play-off system. They might be locked into a contract. They might not have enough time. They might be unable to afford it. I don't know. But they do. They might be unable to do a lot of things. Perhaps they don't want to have a play-off system. They might like the current system better. They might have more profits under the BCS. They might appreciate the fan excitement from voting. They might want their students to study for finals rather than watch football. I don't know. But they do. They might want a lot of things. However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one. If play-off systems were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then College Football D-I would already have one. But they don't. They either can't do it, or they don't want to do it. Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do. But they shouldn't have something that they can't have. But they shouldn't have something that they don't want to have, when they want something else instead. Therefore, College Football D-I should not have a play-off system. The resolution is negated.
College Football D-I should have a Play-off System

"College football is unprofitable? Its[sic] extremly[sic] profitable. And a play-off would make it even more profitable. " That list just shows revenue. It doesn't say how much the colleges actually paid. From "Economic Facts and Fallacies," page 119: "On the contrary, [football and basketball] and other sports more commonly cost more money than they bring in. .. In 2006, Ohio State became the first academic institution to spend more than $100 million on its many athletic programs. " Furthermore, with play-offs, it would cost more money to set up all of the games, and get the teams prepared, and whatnot. The BCS remains more profitable, and more efficient. "Oh, and by the way. The reason its america's[sic] business[sic] how College Football runs the BCS is because, as I stated. Its[sic] Illegal. .. . I stated Ubstruction[sic] of Trade, because its[sic] rigged. " You have a source fail. Your source doesn't directly open up into anything legible. Furthermore, I proposed the removal of polls from the BCS, which would undo any "rigged" components. Plus, it probably isn't illegal. . http://sports.espn.go.com... "'This issue has been looked at before,' Swofford said. 'We're confident that it complies with the law. '" In conclusion, my opponent has still conceded the resolution.
College Football D-I should have a Play-off System

College football is unprofitable? http://www.fanblogs.com... Its extremly profitable. And a play-off would make it even more profitable. Oh, and by the way. The reason its america's bussiness how College Football runs the BCS is because, as I stated. Its Illegal....http://sports.espn.go.com... I stated Ubstruction of Trade, because its rigged.
College Football D-I should have a Play-off System

"I was kind of hoping to find a new opponent in this debate. .. .I just like the topic its fun. " You could have told me that before I accepted the debate. "But I'm seriously not re-debating the same person on the same side again. " Yes, you are. We are debating. This is a debate. "Go read our other debate and vote on that one. " No. The two debates are separate. Use the other debate to decide who won that debate. Use this debate to decide who won this debate. There are even different resolutions. My opponent has conceded my logical syllogism. He has conceded the resolution.
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl is inconsistent w prolife message

The "morally right" choice and the consistency with anti-abortion principles are 2 different debates unless you explicitly identify your operating use of "morally right" as "most consistent with anti-abortion folk..... The question asks the "morally right" choice. You did not ask which choice is more consistent with the anti-abortion ethos, but you provided an operating definition for which you use the word "pro life," and then proceeded to appeal to to the principle in defense of the pro life position without modifying the question to define the morally superior choice as the choice which is also most aligned with the position. In addition to failing to make clear the connection between the moral imperative and the pro life imperative, the operating definition of "pro life" ["who is pro life at all points of pregnancy, where they think the laws should pretty much reflect that by mostly outlawing abortion"] renders the test tubes incapable of the pro life requirement to escape the fire in the first place. A test tube specimen does not have the cognitive ability to be "pro life" or "pro choice" because a test tube specimen does not understand any language yet. The test tube is incapable of being pro choice, disqualifying the test tube from rescue. That leaves you and the 6-year old girl. How is it that your argument that condemns the 6-year old does not apply to you? More so, how does the argument that saves the test tubes apply to you?
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl is inconsistent w prolife message

there is a burning building. you only are able to save a box of test tube babies with at least ten inside, or you can save a six year old girl. which is morally the right thing to do? i would say save the girl. i define prolife here. someone who is prolife at all points of pregnancy, where they think the laws should pretty much reflect that by mostly outlawing abortion..... should to be consistent save the test tubes. how would it be consistent for them to save the girl?
love is omnipotent and omniscient

Jesus is really cool.http://i2.kym-cdn.com...Lovesickness refers to an informal affliction that describes negative feelings associated with rejection, unrequited love or the absence of a loved one. It can manifest as physical as well as mental symptoms.https://en.wikipedia.org...Common symptoms of love sickness:Mania - an abnormally elevated mood or inflated self-esteemDepressionNauseaTearfulnessInsomnia, which may lead to fatigueLack of concentrationLoss of appetite or overeatingHopelessness or helplessnessStress - high blood pressure, pain in chest and heart, acute insomnia; sometimes brought on by a "crush"Obsessive-Compulsive disorder - Preoccupation and hoarding valueless but superstitiously resonant itemsPsychologically created physical symptoms, such as upset stomach, change in appetite, insomnia, dizziness, and confusionAccording to Tallis, many symptoms of being lovesick can be categorized under the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases). Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (OCD) is a symptom of lovesickness because it includes a preoccupation, this would include constantly checking one's cellphone, Facebook, the hoarding of valueless items, etc.http://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk...If love was all powerful and all knowing then people would not choose to love and become lovesick if they knew they would end up lovesick. Also they would overpower the lovesickness which they can't. Jesus does not love Pro and never will. Jesus thinks Pro's mom looks like a trombone playing salamander.
love is omnipotent and omniscient

Being enslaved is not a good thing. It means to be shackled, controlled and dominated. http://www.dictionary.com... If love is mental enslavement, then love does not seem positive, and neither the definition of love nor the definition of enslavement have anything to do with affirming the resolution of omnipotence or omniscience. https://en.wikipedia.org... Pro is not Jesus and does not deserve to have his feet cleaned. I don't care if he sits or not.