BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The Death Penalty is Just

Just-based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Yes Revenge isnt exactly a good moral, Revenge is bad at times, but it isnt the families who decide whether the people die or not it is the government's decision so it couldn't be used in the defense of revenge as the jury have nothing to be revenged. The court, is about deciding what is fair and right. And if one person takes another's life isnt it fair that the murder dies himself? That is only what is right and has nothing to do with revenge. Secondly It does cost more to feed, cloth and give water to prisoners instead of simply just shooting them in the head it is easier to get a gun in america then food, for the homeless.
Resolved: The Death Penalty is Just

Hello challenger, I am afraid you have not specifically abided by the rules I have put forth for this debate. To address this, when it is your turn for Round 2, please present your main arguments again, unless that first statement was your acceptance. Anyway, I digress. Here are my main arguments.Resolved: The Death Penalty is Not Just I. The Death Penalty is Based on Revenge"revenge - the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands." (Google)My argument is as follows:1) The death penalty is based on revenge (as defined above).2) Revenge is immoral.3) Therefore, the death penalty is immoral.4) The death penalty is unjust.On Premise 1The death penalty is based on revenge, as it is inflicting death upon criminals that inflict pain and suffering on others. This revenge is instituted by the federal/state governments (I am referring specifically to the situation in the US in this debate).On Premise 2Revenge is widely considered to be immoral. The premise of revenge is to inflict near, identical, or even excessively more pain than the criminal caused the victim, and that is just escalating the amount of immoral action (think Gandhi's eye-for-an-eye principle).On Premise 3The death penalty, because it is based on an immoral principle (revenge), is an immoral practice.On Premise 4As 'just' includes the condition of moral fairness and righteousness, the death penalty can be concluded to be unjust.II. The Death Penalty is More ExpensiveA common argument for the death penalty is claiming that keeping one in prison for life is expensive; rather, it is more expensive to institute the death penalty and the capital trials associated with this institution than keeping a criminal in prison for life, as shown here in California. "California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment. California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement. Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age;" Source: http://deathpenalty.org... The institution of the death penalty is therefore unjust to taxpayers, as they are forced to pay more of their money to support the continuation of capital punishment when this expense could be avoided without moral or financial dilemma.ConclusionWith these simple arguments, I have illustrated that the death penalty is unjust both to taxpayers and the criminals being killed in revenge. The death penalty is based on revenge, an immoral principle, and is therefore unjust by definition. Also, as the extensive expense of the death penalty could be avoided without moral or financial dilemma, I find it unjust to impose this cost on taxpayers.It is resolved that the death penalty is wholly unjust.
Resolved: The Death Penalty is Just

Ok first of all, The legal system that exists without the death penalty is nothing to be feared, Many people commit crimes just to go to jail, Free food, Electricity water, clothes and bedding is all supplied. People who live in jails live in better conditions than most of the world, because of things like human rights ect, So with these lives being so good in prisons it is no doubt that people would want to commit crimes just for the sake of free food and water, If the death penalty would be put in place most criminals wouldn't risk it for the sake of staying alive.
Resolved: The Death Penalty is Just

Hello all.This debate is on the moral implications of the death penalty, and whether or not the death penalty is truly a just form of punishment.The debate will be 5 rounds.Round 1: acceptance and instructions ONLYRound 2: ALL arguments to support case (without rebuttal)Round 3: purely rebuttal, no new information or argumentsRound 4: rebuttal part 2, no new information or argumentsRound 5: conclusion/closing statementsMy opponent and I will have 48 hours to post arguments in turn, with a limit on 8,000 characters per round for each debater.-------Some key definitions (to be updated):1) just - based on what is morally right and fair.-------Good luck to us both!
why we should not have homwork

We should not have homework because we already go to school for six and a half hours a day. We get enough work done while we are at school. When we are at home we are not focused enough to do good work. When we are at home we want to do something else. The only homework we should do at home is studying because everybody has their own way to study and it is hard to do. and if we wanted to to do anything the homework will take up all are time than we have nothing to do but sleep and i am sure nobody want that :)
why we should not have homwork

OK look we really don't need homework think if you were to do homework will have no time to do anything but we study all week if not more now I am not stupid.I know that is to much we will not learn any thing like-13 things in a year and secondly it will develop stress witch you will release on ever one else that don't deserve it and you under stand me and round 2 my brother made and copy it :)
why we should not have homwork

Well you just have to balance it out. if you have a homework due in for like a week later than you dont have to do it all at once! Just do half of it and then do the rest later. Poeple need to know how to manage their time because then everything will get stressful. You said parents get stressful on homework but they get stressful on everything like doing the dishes, cleaning the house up , your grades. Some schools even have a system where if you dont do your homework it can affect your grades like for example i do ART GCSE and my art teacher said if we dont do our homework then it will affect our grades as it is one of the ways to assess our performance. The parents dont need to get involved into homework because its set for them and the child has to understand the homework otherwise how else are they going learn? There are alot of reasons why homework is set! To improve on time management, responsibilities, organization and self esteem! Children take so much pride when they finish homework without any problem and difficulties which will make them feel good about them selves! When students assume responsibility for their homework and complete an assignment, it is only then that they learn to be accountable for their actions. You said homework isn't needed but that depends on what your career is like, the exponent in maths is needed for accountancy and engineering and the schools aren't that stupid enough to teach stuff that we dont need! School is teaching us things for two things basically- Career and Life. You take Math for example, you knwo how to solve problems without any difficulty the you problem solve problems further on in life, you learn subjects like English you can learn to communicate adn you learn science to help you understand your body and just simple things. If you think what we learn is useless than might aswell not go to school and that might not be a problem as you cna still earn but you just wont have the respect, the knowledge about the most basic things you need to lead a life!
why we should not have homwork

Why do we have homework? Education is important and helps us to be successful in life, but what is the reason for doing work after school when you have been working hard all day. Therefore, I feel homework isn t necessary because it is stressful to students and that leads them to dropping out of school, it strains on the parent/child relationship, and if a student doesn t complete their homework they might fail one or more classes. Homework can be stressful enough that it can make students drop out of school because students spend too much time working instead of doing things enjoyable. Things I would rather do are shooting hoops, playing football, riding my bike, or playing games. Sometimes they push themselves to do more and finally they just quit school. The result of that is since they don t have any education they get less paying jobs. Most students think homework is just plain out STUPID and it isn t needed. For example exponents (in math) aren t needed because I asked my mom when she has used them in life and she said never. So all of these things can lead to a child dropping out of school. Also homework can strain on the parent/child relationship because they argue over doing the homework. For example if the child wants to watch T. V. and the parent wants the child to do their homework, there is a beginning of an argument. They also argue over the way to do the homework because the parent was taught a different way in school. Parents lose their patience because they are having to spend their time helping their child with their homework. For example the parent gets so frustrated that finally they yell at their child. So remember these things can lead to a strain on the parent/child relationship .p.s it will kill your vibe
why we should not have homwork

Firstly Teachers give homework because it is a way to study. The homework you get is most often related to the lesson you had that day and if you didn't understand in the lesson you go back to the teacher ask him or her and then do the homework as a practice because remember practice makes perfect. Basically you might not like homework because its stressful but that probably is because you didn't understand it. Homework helps remind you of the things that have been taught at school and some people prefer going home and working by themselves with music or food without the distractions of their friends or peers. Some also learn extra while doing homework as they don't listen in class so doing homework helps a lot of people in different ways. According to The Guardian "Spending more than two hours a night doing homework is linked to achieving better results in English, maths and science, according to a major study which has tracked the progress of 3,000 children over the past 15 years." Pam Sammons, a professor of education at Oxford University, said that time spent on homework reflected the influence of the school " whether pupils were expected to do homework " as well as children's enjoyment of their subjects. Sammons said: "That's one of the reasons Indian and Chinese children do better. They tend to put more time in. It's to do with your effort as well as your ability. N.B ( Credits to The Guardian for The Fact and Anecdote"
Same-sex marriage should have always been allowed.

Rebuttal 1: Has your dad donated his sperm before? Has your mom donated an egg before? From what I collect from your previous statement,you were made by intercourse. let's think about how vitro works. First, the collect semen from the dad. outside woman's vagina, the sperm have only hours to live. Inside a woman's vagina, the sperm have 3 to 5 days. This means your dad would have to give his semen to the hospital within 5 days before your sperm, technically you would die. It is very unlikely that your dad would do it in that time span. For your mom, they would take an egg from her breast and fertilize it. it is very unlikely that they would take you. it is even more unlikely for both your mom and your dad do you have there reproductive cells combined. There is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that you would still be here today if your parents went into the vitro. not to mention if your dad or mom was happy without kids and only with their gay lover. This reduces the odds greatly! Rebuttal 2: Notice how normal sex has always been called sex. Other are just differations. I am going to stop now because this is kinda wrong. Keep it PG-13! Rebuttal 3: This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! It's like saying I was born straight! No! I could choose to be gay any second, but I choose to be straight! This debunks your theory easy! (1) 1. http://www.pureintimacy.org... Here are my reason why I think gays should not be able to marry 1. It is sacred! Look up the definition of marriage by our good ol' friend Merriam Webster! (1) It states it is performed between a man and a woman! Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman! Men and women have been going through this special time for ages! Many straight people don't want it ruined by gays! 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. I just watched and the band played on... You know, in the 90's, gays just wanted to be acknowleged as people. Now, they want the sanctity of marriage that straight people have been valuing for thousands of years! What's next?! Them asking everyone to be gay? Really! I am being serious here. What is next?! 3.No reproduction Many straight married couples have children and further our species! This goes with the most certainty. If you great ancestors were gay, the species would die. there would be no humans. We would be gone! 4. Love has boundaries! Love is love is what I always hear when I bring up gay marriage to a person who supports gay marriage. We gave them civil unions so they would not need to get married. So maybe, just for once, they would be satisfied and be content. But no! They always want more. What is next? They resemble 1% of the Earth's population! Hopefully, their ideas will die off with this generation. Love has boundaries. We gave them civil unions! After this, what is next?
Same-sex marriage should have always been allowed.

Your first point is invalid. If my parents were gay, I may have still been born, via other methods previously pointed out. Your second point is a straight male point of view, as Lesbian's do not have sex with each other's 'buttholes'. Maybe you need to look up the definition of 'real intercourse', as penetration can be by mouth, fingers, dildo's and vibrators, which is still in the same category, and has the same effect as 'real intercourse', most cases, the satisfaction is much better. A lot of males and females donate their gametes, and womb's, to help complete gay couples that want a family. Nobody chooses to be gay, gay people are born gay. Not rebellion or as a statement. I hardly see the argument as to why you think gay marriage should never have been legalised, as your side of the argument looks like a way of venting your hatred for gay people.
Same-sex marriage should have always been allowed.

I think gay marriage is wrong and should never have been legalized for the following reasons. 1. If your parents were gay, you would not be here. This is pretty self explanatory. If your dad was gay, and your mom was lesbian, you would not be here. 2. Vagina or Butt Hole? Why the hell would you have a guy and have butt sex when you can have a girl and have real intercourse, and procreate? Sperm an egg donations donations only go so far. Like gay males will need to find a female (Who the should have had the baby with and not be gay) to carry it. 3. A lot of homosexuals want the child gay or lesbian. Many homosexuals want their child gay and will do so at almost any cost. The heterosexual child may be forced or influenced to be gay or lesbian when they don't want to. Before refute this, think about it. Do you actually think the mothers/fathers will want their child becoming different from them when the became homosexual either for rebellion or statement? They will view it as a sign of rebellion.
Same-sex marriage should have always been allowed.

Straight marriage never had to undergo debates. Straight marriage wasn't questioned. Straight marriage didn't have priest's refusing to perform them. Why does anyone have an issue with same-sex marriage? Most of the issues relating to same-sex marriage is responses from the religious societies. What right do they have to say whether two life partners can or cannot get married? A lot of atheists do not agree in religion, but the House of Parliament does not have a debate about whether a religion should be allowed. If the purpose of life is procreation, have the religions not heard about IVF, GS (Gestational Surrogacy), sperm donations, egg donors, IUI, etc. Some women and men cannot procreate without surgical or medical interventions, does that mean that they should not be allowed to marry?
Two's value is the same as that of one.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.
Artificial forms of child pornography should be legal to possess and produce

Con's logic may work in theory, but he has failed to cite a study that shows that artificial forms of child pornography cause people to abuse children at a higher rate, and I have cited a study that shows that people who watch child pornography and have not previously abused a child are highly unlikely to commit a future offense, which debunks Con's reasoning. Currently, there is a large black market for child pornography, and that is because it's so hard to come by. Actual child pornography (where children were used in the making of it) directly harms children because the consumption of it provides a market that is profitable for people who produce child pornography. If artificial CP becomes more accessible, there will be less of a market for real CP, because more people will be satisfied with what is legal and readily accessible instead of risking the hefty fines and jail sentences associated with getting caught with possession of real CP. In essence, child pornography is just an illegal act being depicted. Artificial CP is an illegal act being artificially depicted. Another example of an illegal act being artificially depicted is violent video games. Since violent video games have been shown to cause increased aggression in children who consume them [1], should we ban them too? After all, violence is illegal and bad, and these games have been shown to cause violence. By Con's reasoning, we can derive that porn involving rape or incest, also illegal activities, will cause more rape or incest, and should therefore be illegal. (Some states even have laws enacted that prohibit sex between step siblings.) Porn in which sex is conducted in public should also be illegal, by Con's reasoning, as it can show people how sexy and fun having sex in public, which is illegal and bad, can be. Why doesn't Con's logic apply to these offenses? In conclusion, there really isn't a reason why artificial CP should be illegal. [1] http://articles.cnn.com...
Artificial forms of child pornography should be legal to possess and produce

I just realised that there is not way to PROVE that people will do something they see a lot. My opponent is right to say that this is not definite and thus artificial pornography should be allowed to the type of people who do not do what they see.My issue is that since child pornography is virtually impossible to find, the risk of people ever seeing it would open ideas and avenues they never thought they'd get turned on by before which is essentially the slippery slope cliché argument to any debate like this. So it's like a girl who always just thought she was asexual seeing abusive BDSM sex (which is not illegal because the submissive individual is always a masochist [one who derives erotic pleasure from physical pain] who gives consent, not an ordinary person or sadist forced into such a position) and the dominator is usually a sadist [one who derives erotic pleasure from giving pain] not one forced to hurt others against their will). Now they had never known of bondage, spanking or candle-wax torturing and when they see, read stories about or imagine it they get the most unbelievable orgasms of all time. They will WANT to do it in real life since a porn does in no way compare to the real thing. They will go out seeking dominators, or submissives, depending which end of the scale turned them on more. The truth is I honestly think there are a huge amount of potential ignorant pedophiles who are totally unaware how hot child pornography or sex with a child can be and who go to their grave always settling for a secondary preferred sex partner wince they never knew their true hidden sexuality, but the moment they see this porn it would unleash all those repressed hormones and give them a far more rewarding and fulfilling orgasm that they'd be like OMG I NEED SEX WITH A KID! It's like when you first watched porn (assuming you're anything like me) at first it disgusts you, but by the time you've seen 20 videos you are already hooked on sex with an adult woman (or man depending). Porn inspires sexualities that people repressed or never knew they had to be unleashed via masturbation. We need to make sure pedophiles never get the chance to realise they are one, or at least minimise the methods by which they can. To allow a man to remain ignorant of his sexuality will please him more in the end than letting him know he's missing out on raping little children which would unleash the most unbelievable pleasure for him.Ignorance is bliss. That is all.
Artificial forms of child pornography should be legal to possess and produce

I would like to remind Con that this debate is about artificial forms of child pornography. This does not include anything where someone under the age of 18 was used in the production of the material.Con begins his argument with a common myth regarding CP, that "after watching a lot of child pornography the men (since men watch porn more often than women) would begin to form desires and dreams and fantasies for little children far more commonly than is already present today." I would like to cite a study [1] that shows that "consuming child pornography per se is not a risk factor for people who have not [...] molested children before" (Endrass). Con then goes on to imply that CP is illegal everywhere, which is not only untrue [2] but also has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.Then, Con explains that, as a psychology geek, he can tell you that people who view child pornography often will develop a tolerance to child pornography, and implies that this will lead to abuse of children. The study that I cited refutes this.In conclusion, censorship is always wrong. Preventing people from accessing information because it does not align with the morals of the country should never be instituted. And artificial CP does not harm anyone in its making and does not cause molestation of children. Thank you.[1] http://www.swissinfo.ch...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...