BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

RefutationsC1: DeterrenceA New York Times survey conducted discovered that the homicide rate in death penalty states was forty-eight to one-hundred percent higher than states without the death penalty. [1]A recent poll also showed how police chiefs disagree that the death penalty deters crime or works as a deterrent. [1]Furthermore, most criminologists, mind you these are experts in the criminal justice field, disagree with the fact that the death penalty deters crime. 88% of 79 experts showed that they did not believe that the death penalty acts as any sort of deterrent. [2]A 1996 survey asked criminologists were asked for their responses based on their evidence. The results found that 83% disagreed with the fact that the death penalty deters crime, based on their evidence. [2]C2: Bargaining ChipIn 15 to 20 percent of the DNA cases, police-induced false confessions were the primary cause of the wrongful conviction. [3]Obviously false confessions occur quite frequently.I also pointed out earlier that DNA analysis has numerous faults.I will describe in detail a case were DNA testing has been unreliable. [4]"Knox, from Seattle, Washington, and Sollecito, an Italian, walked free after forensic scientists said the DNA evidence on which the prosecution’s case depended could be contaminated."Obviously this is a factor that can and did alter DNA testing reliability. Of course there are many other factors that can contribute to faults in DNA testing's accuracy and reliability.C3: AccuracyI have shown how DNA testing has been proven to have many faults and been rather unreliable and has many factors that can and do decrease its reliability.C4: PopularityYou yourself have stated how popularity is completely opinion and is not a vaild argument. The general populace's opinion is not a vaild argument for the death penalty.RebuttalsC1: Life in Prison This chart shows the amount of homicides that occur in prisons. As you can see, this amount is extremly small. It is not significant enough that deaths in prison becomes a major issue. As you can see the homocide amount is below twenty, this is not enough to be a accurate argument. [5] C2: Risking InnocentsI have already shown, numerous times, how there are a great many flaws in the DNA testing procedure. Many experts agree that DNA testing is unreliable. There all also many factors that can decrease the accuracy of DNA testing. such as contamination.Sources[1] http://www.acadp.org...[2] http://www.newsmax.com...[3] http://www.jaapl.org...[4] http://blogs.nature.com...[5] http://www.inquest.org.uk...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

The Resolution:"Resolved: The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished."Details: --Specific to the US/Federal GovernmentDefinitions:Death Penalty -- Capital Punishment, or punishment by death for a crime [1] [2]. Should --must, ought [3]Abolished -- to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void My Position: I believe that in some circumstances, the death Penalty is the best form of punishment and should not be abolished.Rules:1. No Plagiarism2. No Ad Hominem3. No Semantics/Abusive Arguments4. Round 1 is Acceptance5. No new arguments in Round 5=======Best of Luck Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The minimum wage should be raised

My opponent claims that if we raise the minimum wage, that it would make such a difference that it would make employers not want to hire any laborers. But my opponent didn"t state how much the wage would be increased by. Therefore I can argue that we should increase the wage by one cent. And a one cent difference to someone"s wage, will not deter an employer from hiring someone. My opponent states that someone who works minimum wage has enough to be in a livable state. But the poverty iine for one person is 11,880, but A full-time minimum wage employee earns $15,080 annually. Yes it"s livable wage, but barely, there people also want things like education, clothes, and better food and be able to enjoy themselves. Plus the poverty line for a family of 2 is about 16,00, therefore if a mother is raising a children working as a fast food worker, this wage is unlivable. Also the wage is livable, means someone can get only the necessities they need to live. Shelter is not a necessity to live since people can live without a house, but people can"t live without food and water. Being able to live is not the only thing someone should strive for. "Seattle estimates that, before its historic decision, almost a fourth of its workers earned below $15 an hour. That translates into about $31,000 a year for a full-time worker. In a high-cost city like Seattle, that's barely enough to support a family. Most minimum-wage workers aren't teenagers these days. They're major breadwinners who need a higher minimum wage in order to keep their families out of poverty." Source- http://obamacarefacts.com... http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... http://www.cnbc.com... If this affects only 4% of people, then that mitigates the problems with raising the minimum wage. And people ages 19-25 are people I would say is not dependent on families. Under that probably, but not always. These people are still people that need to make money to do the things I have listed above. More jobs and faster growth. "The gains from a higher minimum wage extend beyond those who receive it. More money in the pockets of low-wage workers means more sales, especially in the locales they live in " which, in turn, creates faster growth and more jobs. A major reason the current economic recovery is anemic is that so many Americans lack the purchasing power to get the economy moving again." This is a good reason for raising the minimum wage, since it"s better to have more jobs and economic growth.
The minimum wage should be raised

The minimum wage should not be raised because: 1) Price-Demand chart shows that when the price of a good or service increases, consumers will demand less of it. In this case, laborers offering to sell their labor to an employer now must be worth at least the mandated minimum to the employer otherwise the employee is now unemployable and will not be able to work the job even if he would have done so for less than the mandated minimum. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for unskilled workers, just as raising height requirements decreases the amount of short passengers for a roller-coaster. 2) The current minimum wage is in fact "livable", as by the criteria of "livable", nobody working at the current minimum wage could do so if it were not. Since the minimum wage is in fact already "livable", then the minimum wage has already achieved what it is set out to achieve and thus, does not need to be raised any further. 3) Only roughly 4% of the labor force actually works at the mandated minimum wage. And out of that 4%, 50% are under the age of 25. [1] People who are this young tend to be dependent on other members of their families and so there is no reason to be raising the "livable" wage for those which are not dependent on the wage itself being "livable". 4) Since only 2% of workers could be said to be dependent on the minimum wage, and the minimum wage is federal policy which is contingent on the current political atmosphere and not sound economic policy, other methods besides the minimum wage should be pursued to better the lives of that 2%. [1] http://www.bls.gov...
Child labor should be illegal

I am glad pro instigated this debate and am ready for an interesting discussion! Since pro fails to define what a child is, I will start this that. Pro also did not bother setting up any rules about last round posting or any semantics, so I will do so: child-b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority. The legal majority being 18+ since 18+ or 21+ is commonly considered age of consent/legal majority. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I will set an intro for my arguments, Here are a few of my base arguments: Child labor, if mixed with good parenting is a positive thing for children above the age of about 12, child labor promotes: -Responsibility - Puts an economic burden off of the parent, child can now pay for their own entertainment and wants. - Teaches a child early about things like how to fill out a job application, how to present yourself at an interview, how to manage your time or fill quotas - Teaches social skills in some cases - Might teach your child a skill that they could use professionally and make a career out of. Children, of course should be limited to the hours they work when school is in session, and a part time job should not be a reasonable excuse to be released early from school or to drop out. This labor can still be limited, there can be a healthy medium. Back to pro.
Free will is an illusion

" For instance, what makes people play sports.. is it because they freely choose to play them or is it due to certain situations they have been put into that lead them to sports. Is it because they freely choose to be fit and strong and fast or because they have or do not have natural talents and abilitys. Will people that have asthma and that are other weaknesses generally end up playing sports.." People with asthma and other weaknesses do frequently play sports. They do not play them at a high level, but the exist of a limit on actional possibilities does not establish that there is only one such possibility. " If everyones will was truely free there would be no such thing as stereotypes. Why are we all so similiar, why do we all fit into categories, because our subconcious controls our will, thats why. " The entire point of the concept "Stereotype" is that it's a BAD generalization. If no one was free, stereotypes would apply perfectly. They do not. We do NOT all fit into such categories, and when some do, they are able to fit into multiple categories. The same person can be either a Punk or an Emo or something else entirely, which is all too frequently in their power. Influence =/= determination. "We believe we have choices (the illusion) but are those deciscions really controlled by a free, untampered will. The answer is Undoubtedly NO. " You have yet to provide evidence for this. Assertions without any sort of evidence do not constitute debating. You have rephrased it, but that does not constitute establishing it. " PRO: Now i ask you what your motives are for this, you may answer "because, i have free will, i can do whatever i want." But in fact you are merely falling into a rebelious stereotype, you are doing this because someone said you cant." As a matter of fact I'm not doing it at all. For someone who claims that everything is predetermined, you don't have a lot of prophetic power to back it up :). Further, it is also within my power to obey rather than compel. "An external force said you couldnt so you did." An "external force" saying I COULDN't would mean that I couldn't-- like gravity tells me I can't fly without a certain amount of physical prerequisites. There are external forces which impede it, but obviously they don't tell me I "Can't." People might, but people's words are not a force in the sense you're using it here. " PRO: I dont understand the structure of this arguement." In other words, any action taken by a determinist self-refutes their assertion that free will does not exist-- the belief in determinism necessarily implies nihilism, which, if determinism were true, would be a sufficient cause of doing nothing. Nevertheless, people do have the power to do that which they believe to be pointless, despite the belief that something is wrong being an external force which, if it had full power, would dictate not doing it. "But i think ive said enough..." Describing your position and providing ignoratio elenchis, which amount to what you've said, is never enough :)
Free will is an illusion

I am sorry i will explain my point better this time.. FREE WILL- The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Now my belief is in a way all our choices are fate.. I do not like this word though instead i think of it as how things are calculated. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen is one long chain of events. Just like Isaac Newton said, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Our minds are not exempt from this rule. Every thought that enters your mind is provoked by some other force, either a previous thought or outside stimulus. Free will may feel real, but it is actually just an illusion. For instance, what makes people play sports.. is it because they freely choose to play them or is it due to certain situations they have been put into that lead them to sports. Is it because they freely choose to be fit and strong and fast or because they have or do not have natural talents and abilitys. Will people that have asthma and that are other weaknesses generally end up playing sports.. If everyones will was truely free there would be no such thing as stereotypes. Why are we all so similiar, why do we all fit into categories, because our subconcious controls our will, thats why. We believe we have choices (the illusion) but are those deciscions really controlled by a free, untampered will. The answer is Undoubtedly NO. Responses: CON: To realize free will, simply sit still, in a quiet room, and reach out and touch something with one hand, then with the other. Or vice versa. Keep alternating. Notice that no external variable compels you to pick a hand. It's all up to you, to do it, or not do it at all. PRO: Now i ask you what your motives are for this, you may answer "because, i have free will, i can do whatever i want." But in fact you are merely falling into a rebelious stereotype, you are doing this because someone said you cant. An external force said you couldnt so you did. I know that is a really simplified answer, but think about it. CON:Now ponder why you have your job-- if you can't trace it to a choice you made about whether to value your life, what reason do you have for it? If you don't have one, quit and find out :). PRO: I dont understand the structure of this arguement. But i think ive said enough... Your turn
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point. if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut. tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

I certainly don't think the phone call tax is necessary, I believe that it could be considered as a last resort if we truly can't find any waste in our budget, which would be pretty hard to believe if we couldn't. Also, our land, when including the offshore drilling rights, is worth $128 trillion http://business.time.com... Please remember that I don't necessarily believe everything the article says I was just referencing its statement in the offshore drilling value. Now I don't believe in an immediate switch to private market healthcare, and existing members of it should rightfully be grandfathered in, as the government did promise it to them. But our continuation of this budget given to them if very irresponsible and we need to at least control their money problems. And by the way my claim of completely privatized healthcare was simply an ideal, I know that for know they are necessary. And f the rich make, as you claimed, "half the income", then why is it moral for them to pay for more then 70% of funding. I of course support having them pay for most things, but milking that cow is not as simple as just raising taxes. And in response to the laffer curve thing, it really is more complicated then, increased taxes equal increased higher revenue for all wage groups. It has been proven that the rich end up paying for more when the tax percentage is lower on them. The middle and lower classes are different cases.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

there's six hundred million acres of land. most of that land is probably not good for commercial use, as that's why it's government land to begin with. top acrew farm land is ten thousand, medium is five, and low is three thousand. assuming the best case sceaniaro and making it three thousand each, that's one point eight trillion. it's more than i admit but it's hardly enough to even run the country for a year. even if you were to make it ten grand per acre it's not enough. if you have somethin that says otherwise, a source, i am open to it but i will be very skeptical. you just assume that you can prvatize healthcare and people iwould be able to afford it. also, should they have to pay their own premiums when they've paid into medicare all their life? that's not fair or responsible. also they are basically like people with preexisting conditions as insurance companies don't like covering old people. and we see that with obamacare companies care barely afford to cover who they're suppose to now. if you add a bunch of sick peole it won't be possible to cover them. plus insurance compaines use medicare as a benchmark for how much to charge and then charge a little more. that means as it sits medicare is the cheapest option, if you privatize it it'd probably just get more expensive. tht's because medicare regultes the prices a little. it all adds up to not making sense that'd it'd be chaaper or fairer to privative healthcare. you want to possibly tax phone calls. i applaud you for at least wanting to find way to increase taxes. most are against that. but tht's still a tax on middle and low income people which i just oppose. i think they pay enough in taxes, and the rich should have to pay, especially when they earn half of new income the top one percent does. ive found other numbers for the laffer curve but will research your numbers. i think it's fair to say we'll have to agree to disagree at this point.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

"According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually" that says revenue went down with Reagan's tax cuts. i'm not going to take your word for it that it went up. it's counter intuitive. the most straight forward idea is, cut taxes, get less revenue and vise versa. I understand there's the laffer curve, but most economists say it changes from the obvious method I just described when we're at seventy percent taxes. right now taxes are less than half that. you also can't just privativze health care and get the same result. somebody has to pay for it or else you are going to not have healthcare for people. I've not seen any proof that you can find a way to pull it off. again i'm not going to just tke your word. the most straightforward idea is, cut healthcare spending, people have less or no healthcare. I would guess government plots of land account for a percent or fraction of anything, so I will just ignore that as something unconnected with reality. I don't know what your point was mentioning china and japan. it doesn't really have anything to do with this debate. just pointless ramblings as far as I can see.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

Now, I would first like to start with your common misunderstanding that higher taxes will always equal higher revenue. Well you may not have ever heard of the laffer curve. While the one I have made is sort of low quality because I had little time to make it, I think you will understand the point. http://tinyurl.com... Well, just n case you didn't understand, it is simple economics that help us understand that for some time, when you increase percentage, the revenue increases also. But at some point, the increase stops, when you have it to high, you begin to lose revenue. Now, I will use a real world example of how lowering taxes can actually increase revenue. In the great depression, the government decided that in order to increase revenue, they would increase taxes, but as a result, this lowered taxes and people stopped working. But when Raegan DECREASED the taxes, they revenue increased accordingly. I hope this settles that part of the debate Now, on to your claims about the budget. If we increase our revenue my lowering taxes, and combine that with switching medicare and medicaid to the private sector, along with selling useless government plots of land. We should be able to bring the deficit down over time And now on to another question, do we really owe anything to China and Japan? We saved China in WWII from a major threat that could very well have taken over there country. And Japan, while we did bomb them and kill citizens, we rebuild there country to a major power, so how could either of these countries find it moral to demand there money back in our time of trouble.