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

The United States is one of the last industrialized nations with capital punishment, among communist countries, such as North Korea. Contention 1: The death penalty is barbaric. The authorized obliteration of one's life is morally wrong. The reasoning, behind the delusion that the state must murder in order to show that murder is wrong, is completely asinine. Contention 2: The death penalty costs an exorbitant amount of money, while life without parole costs much less. The state and counties invest on average $741,000 over 16 years to execute a 30-year-old offender condemned to capital punishment, according to the Legislative Service Bureau. This figure includes the expenses of jail costs, prosecutor's and defender's fees from murder trial through appeals, and execution costs. It costs states and counties $622,000 to lock up someone for life, approximated to be 47 years in prison. That includes appeals, which aren't automatically triggered as is the case with death penalty cases, as well as health care costs. It costs $506,000 to imprison someone sentenced to 65 years with a 50 % reduction for good behavior. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Contention 3: The death penalty is not a deterrent. In a survey that the New York Times conducted in 2000, it was discovered that the homicidal rate in states with the death penalty had been 48 to 101% higher than states without the death penalty. The homicidal rate in states without capital punishment has remained consistently lower than states with instated capital punishment. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... In deterrence studies, there are improper statistical errors and missing data and variables vital to giving a full picture of the criminal justice system. These studies are just not within the bounds of credibility. Sources: Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University , Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Contention 4: The death penalty singles out the poor. The indigent can not afford proper representation and attorneys are appointed by the courts. A case takes 700-1000 hours to defend, and it is costly to find an adequate lawyer that will devote this time to an individual case. In areas where crime is abundant, courts don't have the capital to appoint proper representation. For this reason, courts often appoint attorneys that are "ill trained". In some cases, court appointed attorneys are allotted less than the minimum wage by the courts. For this reason, attorneys are unmotivated to invest the huge amount of time necessary to defend a case. The wealthy are generally spared the death penalty, because they can afford their own representation have many exclusive resources at their disposal, such as private investigation, DNA research, etc. In the OJ Simpson case, not only could he afford a "Dream Team" of lawyers, but he could also finance a DNA testing lab of his own. He was able to expose every error in the prosecution's DNA evidence. As a result, he was acquitted. Source: http://www.aclu.org... Therefore, the death penalty should be abolished. Hope you accept this debate! =)
should kids notebooks be replaced with computer textbooks

Kids notebooks should not be replaced with computer textbooks. It has been proven that students learn better when they write things out and repeat this. In exams students must right out their responses, and cannot type them out. It is important that students write things out. If they do this they will remember it and learn how to spell it correctly, rather than always counting on auto-correct to pick up and fix their mistakes. Students must learn to do this, or else they will never be able to write correctly.
The U.S. should stay in the Iran (P5+1) Deal

Let us start with a clear understanding of this resolution and what it means. I define the U.S. as the United States Federal Government. This definition is probably not necessary but there it is. Should -- ought Since the word should is in the resolution this is a debate about whether it is best for the U.S. to stay in the Iran Deal, not a question of whether we will. Iran (P5+1) deal -- the multilateral agreement, crafted in 2015, concerning Iran's nuclear program. The standard for judging this debate should be U.S. National Security. Whichever side can prove that when you weigh the pros and cons, on net the people of this country will be safer (either within the deal or outside of it) wins the debate. Well, now that we're clear on what we'll be debating (which is a relatively less thrilling task than actually debating it I can assure you) I'll save my opening arguments for round two. It would be wonderful if my opponent can do the same.
Evolution science is a religion and should be taught as one along side creation science.

"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." dictionary.com -this definition is inherently better because it addresses the philosophical aspects of religion. "It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring." -according to this logic, the dinosaurs never existed because we didn't see them. Evidence of microevolution is present all arounds us in the form of variations between animals in different locations. Evidence of macro-evolution is present in the form of fossil evidence. -in contrast with science, which is the study of the observable, religion is the study or belief in the unobservable, e.g. "the soul"
Evolution science is a religion and should be taught as one along side creation science.

- Actually according to every defenition I could find: 1. "A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around moral claims" 2. "A strong belief in a power that control human destiny. " 3. "A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community. " - So dose Evolution fit into these definitions? absolutely Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago! ). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.
Evolution science is a religion and should be taught as one along side creation science.

There is clearly documented fossil evidence of micro-evolution, so it isn't really a leap of faith to believe in macro-evolution. You can't claim that evolution is comparatively unlikely when using creationism. Creationism is by definition belief in something that is naturally impossible. This being said, it is clear that evolution is the only theory that has a sound basis in empirical evidence, while creationism has nothing to do with science.
Nuclear Families

[b] Brian said: This leads to depressed people seeking out therapy, but the therapist basically mimics the job of speaking to a family or friend, only it costs money. [/b] I would like to add that I overlooked this particular problem in the first round. Since Brian forfeited the second argument I will just make a short statement addressing therapy. It is a misconception that therapy is the equivalent of talking to your best friend or family. There are two misconceptions here: a) Your therapist does not know you. No matter how many "secrets" you spill he is not trying to be your friend through intimate conversations. The reason for privacy is to protect, and [i]only[/i] to protect the patients right to information. Since the therapist only knows [u]what you telling him[/u], basicallly he cannot really abuse or take advantage of you. b) The second point is related to the above. Since he does not know you why talk to him. Yes you could probably talk to your parents about your emotions. In return, your parents will give you emotional advice. The therapist will ignore your emotions, instead give you the pattern. What is "pattern"; It is the underbelly of your subconscious which we conscious beings do not notice. So know a Psychotherapist is not giving you advice about boyfriends and diets to lose some pounds, No! He is instead looking for hidden patterns and exposing them. The difference is that there is a small picture, that is the individual, and the BIG vision of how we fit into society. I post this as an argument against BadLuckBrian's overall debate premise that the Nuclear Family unit is responsible for psychological harm towards patients of depression. Thank you for hearing this debate - Faz
Nuclear Families

I accept your Challenge. To be specific, you are arguing that the nuclear family is not adequate in supporting the mental health of its members? I will debate for the Nuclear family is essential to the modern psyche. Personally, I noticed that I was in the minority since my Grandmother lived in our house for a long time. But even then families are much larger where I come from (the Indian Sub-continent). I have about 20 aunts and uncles and 50 cousins. Growing up we did not really need friends because we grew up with such a large structure. It is only in the West where the extended family does not play a strong role. However, the nuclear family was the basis of my family. My mother and father who had an arranged marriage were the sole role-models in my life. And that was all I needed. In relation to the contrast between my story and your vision of modernized countries I would add that you are right about increased work pressure. But by mentioning both ( a. nuclear family b. work pressure) you have made your question a bit wayward. Can you be more specific? For example, I could turn your premise on its head, and say that it is [i]due[/i] to work pressure that the modern family are split into single-parent homes leading to depression. I would cite the growing gap between divorce rates in my area of the world and advanced nations such as Japan and the US where divorce rates are skyrocketing. So, the answer, in short is no, I do not blame the "nuclear family" but exactly the opposite, ie, its absence, as the culprit. Then again, this might differ upon personal considerations, I think? In modern times there is increasing depression. But as somebody else has already mentioned this could clearly be a sign of good; [i]Not bad [/i]. Perhaps, as a society we progress and thus, those who were alone before can come out with their mental illness and not be ashamed as before. What you see as a symptom may only be the misconceived "growing pains" which are quite healthy for society at large. Who knows? But most, if not all, modern studies show that a solid family foundation, along with co-relation of support such as faith and tradition, play a strong role in happiness and well-being. [See link: http://abcnews.go.com... ]. With this, I conclude the opening statements. [i]Touche![/i]
Nuclear Families

It's been clearly proven that more and more people in first world countries are becoming chronically depressed and being diagnosed by psychiatrists as such. Do you believe this is correlated with the modern nuclear family (a household with just parents and one or two children) due to a lack of communication with relatives for emotional support? Many parents are either absent from home or too busy for long periods of time and do not have enough time to speak with loved ones about their issues. This leads to depressed people seeking out therapy, but the therapist basically mimics the job of speaking to a family or friend, only it costs money. Would you agree that depression and anxiety rates are more likely to go down globally if family households were to consist of extended family in addition to parents? In other words, are you against the modern nuclear family, or for it?
hitler hero or villain

In round one of of my argument I addressed the inaccuracies relating to Pro's resolution; primarily to the fact that Hitler was indeed not a "hero". Concerning the additional context of his debate (what bit there is) I'll outline why there is no moral or legal justification for "killing" fat people. (1.) Those who are "fat", are people like everyone else, while their lifestyle may not be agreeable with some there is not enough evidence to suggest that these individuals should be "killed" on the basis of their weight. There is a valid argument to be made about obesity being a hindrance to national health services and benefit systems, however, Pro has failed to introduce any of these arguments. In terms of combatting obesity, the logical response is endorsement of more active lifestyles and healthier living; not purging those who may be deemed as "fat". (2.) In round one, Pro also suggests that fat people are somehow likely to "influence the rest of the world", while offering no support to his statement. It is impossible for one specific weight of person (whether "fat" or otherwise) to assert superior power and unanimous influence over the entire world. There's also the significant question whether fat or overweight people as a whole would have the slightest interest in possessing such authority; the prospect, again, is unlikely.
hitler hero or villain

Accepted. I'll begin my argument by outlining two major flaws: For some reason, you have equated with Hitler with a (potential) genocide of "fat people". Hitler's dislike of certain groups was largely based on ethnic identity, religious/political affiliation, and sexual orientation. During his regime those who were "fat" were never targeted. In fact, a number of Nazi officials and associates of Hitler were themselves overweight; the most notable being Hermann Goering. As for your title resolution: hitler hero or villain (in which there should be a question mark) I will outline the following reasons why Hitler is widely regarded as a "villain" and the historical basis there is to support this fact. 1.) The genocide of eleven million people. An estimated six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust along further five million ethnic Polish, Roma gypsies, Jehovah's Witness's, Catholic Priests, and homosexuals. A significant portion of Jews were shot, burned alive in ovens and forced into gas chambers. This included Jewish babies, children, young adults, and of course old people. The remaining numbers died largely due to starvation and disease. Hitler's plan was to completely to ethnically cleanse Germany and surrounding nations and ensure that the Aryan race became the dominant force. 2.) Hitler was responsible for World War 2. Since 1933, Hitler and the Nazi party had governed Germany. Their overall plan was to seek retribution after World War 1, and to expand the German empire. In 1938 Germany assumed control over Austria, then in 1939 invaded and attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland. European countries such as France and Britain were then compelled to act. The result was six long years of war, in which over 60 million people, including many Germans, were killed. This makes WW2 the deadliest conflict in history, and quite convincingly confirms Hitler's image of a "villain" rather than a "hero". In fact there was not one thing that Hitler did that could be viewed as heroic. (1.) http://history1900s.about.com... (2.) http://m.huffpost.com... (3.) http://www.history.com... (4.) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (5.) http://warchronicle.com...
travel and tourism industry

As you have offered not a single contention in favour of the resolution I win.I shall now address your rant."so you never go on holiday, or desire to discover places" Yes I do."...that is very exiting[sic]." What is?"many countries are dependent on tourism" Why should we care? No reason given. "...which increases their quality of locals life's and opportunities furthermore." Thus, decreasing the relative quality of locals and their opportunities in nation's who do not depend on tourism. So unfair!"How does this link to diseases? Could you please explain.[meant to put question mark]" I did explain. I shall now copy and paste my explanation."this is an elitist system that only allows the rich of any nation to escape pandemic disease release (or even worse to escape WITH it and spread it a bit before they die)."All in all you have been annihilated.Let us end this stupid industry!Just kidding, I will become rich and benefit from it >;)
Ford is better than Chevrolet

ford proves themselves every year that they come out with a new version of the mustang for 50 years and running, new engines that somehow keep getting better even while meeting tier 5 emissions laws. They are the makers of many famous parts such as the ford 9" rear end, top loader 4 speed manual trans, 5.0l engine and more. Also we can't forget about the many vehicles that speak for themselves in proven performance and durability such as the gt 40, gt, the many different models of mustangs, rs200, f150 and the rest of the list that could go on for a very very long time.
school uniforms should be mandatory

I don't think anyone is intimidated by dressing up for school, seeing as how the stereotypical high school in movies does not really exist. Also, students during class are usually concentrated in studies instead of clothes anyway, unless someone is wearing something so ridiculous they can't take their eyes off of it. Even if schools had uniforms, people would still be getting judged even though they would be wearing the same thing. Finally, schools in poor places cannot afford uniforms.
school uniforms should be mandatory

Clothes allow students to express themselves. Unifoms can also get dirty, lost, ripped, or other conditions that make them unwearable. And People being conscious of what other people think of them should be a way of thinking expelled at birth. No one in schools care who is rich or not, or what you wear, if anything, only your face and personality is judged. Uniforms also don't affect academics or sports any way positively. They are just a waste of money for schools that is fixing a fake problem.
The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service

I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport:" The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market."" Taking the penny out of service will minimalist harm the economy.""Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit."As of 2011, it costs 2.41¢ US (or $0.0241 US Dollars (USD)) to make a penny, making the coin's face value less than its actual value. http://www.wisegeek.org...This fact alone is sufficient enough to justify removing the penny from the market, or more correctly simply stop creating them as this is the more efficient plan. The reason that this is bad, other then the obvious, is that it increases the national debt in a pretty useless way. Removing the penny is only good for debt. Without the penny the government estimates it will save 7.6 TRILLION dollars in just ten years. http://www.enzi.senate.gov...Argument 1: Economical HarmI don't think you quite understand the "penny plan". As a Canadian (with a diploma in business) I have witnessed this plan first hand. The consumers worried that their $19.99 product will increased to $20.00 need not worry as it will stay at $19.99. The penny only effects Cash transactions, not electronic. all debit, gift card, credit card, cheque, etc. will be handled as if there is a penny.As for rounding of pennies the cost of using cash normally does not change. We use a complete rounding system, not a rounding up system as you implied. This means that $1.01 and $1.02 would be rounded down to $1, while $1.03 and $1.04 would be rounded up to $1.05. If you play close enough attention to your pennies you can actually save money by only using cash when it is time to round down, but not much. http://www.cbc.ca...Argument 2: CharitiesThe penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly over shadowed by the nickel (5-1). There is no evidence that suggests people who donate will simply stop donating because there is no penny. In fact donations may rise because people "have" to give more then just a couple pennies. Furthermore Charities in Canada held drives to collect the "worthless" pennies once they where discontinued. http://theotherpress.ca...
The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service

I have not debated on this website for a long time. Glad to be back! Moving on, this is the debate of the topic: "The US Penny Should be Taken Out of Service." The first round is simply for acceptance. Rules: 1) No trolling/semantics. 2) No offensive content/swearing 3) Keep arguments within the spirit of debate/no personal attacks. In the event of a rule being broken by either side, it will result in an automatic loss. I eagerly await an opponent.
dose God exist

God exists there is no way around it. The Bible has all the proof that is needed to believe in God. It says in the Bible that God created the Heavens and the Earth so think if he didn't exist then we would not exist.Begging the question.My argumentsPoEP1. God is all-powerful.P2. God is all-knowingP3. God is all-loving.P4. A God with these traits would never allow evil.P5. Evil exists.P6. God with these traits doesn't exist.
Apple vs Samsung

Apple products can have less processing power than a Samsung device and still have better performance. E reason for this is that the advanced software of Apple is smarter and more advanced than any other of those that Samsung use, and therefore it can perform better with less. Also, there is no arguing that Samsung is copying Apple products. That obviously shows that they don't have there own original ideas. at least they have a good eye for products. Its a shame that they failed to be successful.
Apple vs Samsung

As technology advances of course there are going to be similarities in different devices. The fact that apple sued them over something as ludicrous as this just reflects on Apple's childish and idiotic ways. Do you think that anything that has similarities to something else should be counted as copying? For instance, should anyone who makes a silver laptop with black keys be sued by Apple because a Macbook pro has that? Should Ford sue Dodge because they sell trucks that look similar? I think that if anything Apple is copying Android with the Notification Center in iOS 5-6, Do Not Disturb & Call-Message Reply feature, and the tab sync that was first introduced on phones in Android. They were good ideas, so Apple used them and added their own flare to them. Do you see the Android developers suing Apple? No, because they're sensible. If Apple really wanted to stop the copying of their phones, they should be focusing on China. With all that said, it still doesn't hide the fact that the Galaxy phones can do anything an iPhone can do(and even more since it has android) for half the price. It's hardware is better, and so is the OS.