BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes

Since I have spent this debate arguing the negative impacts of the death penalty, I realise that I should probably also offer alternative punishment methods that "promote good values as effectively as the death penalty "(as my opponent has claimed) . But the truth is I dont see what is wrong with our current methods of preventing crime- which does not require the taking of lives- be those lives sinners or murderers. In fact according to a report found in the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com... ) ,crime rates have fallen- and guess what- the government didn't even have to kill people!!. Personally I am a big supporter in preventing crime (or any sin for that matter) before they happen rather than acting after it has happened. In particular, I believe that education is an extremely powerful tool to PROMOTE GOOD VALUES and that if we were to put more stress into creating awareness of these issues, their causes and preventive measures into the syllabus in schools , maybe then we may find the COMPLETE ANSWER. An answer that IS more promising. I am new to this site, this being my first proper debate however i really enjoyed it. This experience was although at times challenging, incredibly interesting. Thank you Alain.Ginger.
Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes

I apologise for the misinterpretation of the verse from the Bible. I accept it may not have been the best quote to use. In spite of this I am still not in favour of the death penalty. A law or punishment should not be merely a form of deterrence. It should be a way to enforce and promote good values and attitudes. Simply putting a barrier rather than giving people the opportunity to change their ways will not change anything in my opinion. There will always be crimes, the law will always be broken and so it cant be said that a death penalty is the complete answer to problems. My point is that if this act was lifted or simply if the criminals were to move to a location where the death penalty is not in place, then crime rates will increase again. A death penalty will not ensure the stability of our community in the long-term as in order for a more permanent state of stability. peace and prosperity needs to occur because people are willing to refuse immoral acts, not just because of the punishments placed by the law, although I accept that this will have an impact. By your request I will reinstate my last question. You mentioned how "Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind." My question is why does this verse only apply to the public and why does it not to the government should they make a mistake in their judgement. Also, I would appreciate if you made it clear to which extent a death penalty should be placed. Do you think that death penalties should apply for every serious crime or murder irrespective of the circumstances (such as the accidental killing) or do you think that it should only be applicable in certain situations? If so which?
Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes

In response to my opponent when he said, "In the eyes of god there is no difference between one human to another- be they be a member of the government or not." The fact is, God instructs us to submit to governing authorities. They hold power over people in a different way than people hold power over each other. Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." The government does have the power to implement laws in order to establish justice. The verse that the Negative made was clearly taken out of context... the Bible here was talking about the population spreading across the earth, not that governments shouldn't exist. "The death penalty is a deterrent. I agree. By establishing a death penalty there may be reduced crime however this will only be due to the fear of prosecution rather than as a result of moral consciousness or a development of moral beliefs." The fact is simple, the death penalty is a deterrent and it deters potential murders thereby reducing crime and restoring justice. It doesn't matter how the bad guys are deterred, the important fact is that we're saving innocent lives. "Furthermore a death penalty can not reverse the effects of the crime. It can not bring the life of a victim back. It cannot undo the physical or psychological effects of the crime. There is however one thing that a death penalty system can do, I admit- encourage a culture of vengeance." In implementing the death penalty we are not attempting to do something impossible, like bring lives back. I challenge the negative to find any evidence that the death penalty encourages vengeance. There is finally the fact of the case being misjudged. There is a risk in every court decision that it is not just. This is a risk we must take. I understand that there are false convictions but I also personally believe that polygraph evidence ought to be abolished because they are often so untrustworthy. In real life, more innocent lives will be saved with the death penalty because of the deterrent factor. The death penalty saves innocent lives. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies. Will you please restate you last question? I'm not sure I quite understand it.
Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes

"There is a difference between the government and regular people": Firstly the government is made up of a group of humans just like any other human that walks our planet. Governments and its policies are systems that we as humans established. In the eyes of god there is no difference between one human to another- be they be a member of the government or not. Therefore there should be no reason for the rules that apply to citizens to be different for the government."And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,". "the death penalty is a deterrent": The death penalty is a deterrent. I agree. By establishing a death penalty there may be reduced crime however this will only be due to the fear of prosecution rather than as a result of moral consciousness or a development of moral beliefs. Furthermore a death penalty can not reverse the effects of the crime. It can not bring the life of a victim back. It cannot undo the physical or psychological effects of the crime. There is however one thing that a death penalty system can do, I admit- encourage a culture of vengeance. Lastly there is the risk of a case being misjudged which is not improbable. For example in a study by Horvath (1977), 10 experienced polygraphists were told to independently score the charts of 28 suspects who turned out to be definitely guilty and 28 who turned out definitely to be innocent. Of the 560 blind-scorings only 64% were correctly judged. 49% of the innocents were mistakenly called deceptive. What this study shows is that the probability of mistaken judgements exists and it is more probable than we think. Mistakes such as these are inevitable- it is a part of our human nature however how will the government be able to justify the undeserved death of an innocent man. Will the argument that the killing of an innocent man should only result in the killing of the murderer apply to the government. Or do you still think that they and their morals lie superior to everyone else.
Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes

My opponent has chosen an interesting direction to take this debate. What they said is basically that, if we call murder bad, then why should we advocate murderers getting murdered? The answer is simple. 1. There is a difference between the government and regular people. 2. murder is different from any other crime 3. the death penalty is a deterrent . There is a wide and distinct difference between a just court ruling and a homicidal maniac. The government is in a position to provide retribution for those who break the law. It can be equated to the difference between a child stealing away the food of his sister and a parent withholding the child's food as punishment to him. It is possible for the government to maintain their morals while still punishing crime. According to Death Penalty Curricula for High School, "When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind." Also, are you implying that everything the government does that isn't consistent with the laws for the people is evil? The second point my opponent brought up is that murder is the same no matter where you find it. This relates to my first point somewhat. It is necessary, vital that the government punish wrongdoers with capital punishment because it is the only just consequence. Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." Destroying human life should have no lesser penalty than death itself. Lastly, the advantage that death penalty is a deterrent. Other potential murders know that if they kill, they will be killed. In this way, innocent lives are actually saved. According to Death Penalty Curricula for High school, "(T)he theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings." This point is extremely strong and its effectiveness been scientifically tested. I have sources and statistics for all my arguments upon the Negative side's request.
Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes

Murder and treason are by all means unacceptable however violence is not the solution and never should be. If murder is unacceptable and unforgivable than taking the life of another human in the name of a death penalty is just as unacceptable. Murder is evil no matter who it is that murders or the purpose behind it. The purpose of punishment is to teach and promote good values. By choosing murder as an answer to eradicating inhumane acts such as murder and treason, we would be contradicting the very morals and values we call humanity. An eye for eye will make the whole world blind~ Mahatma Ghandi
Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use.

Contention 1: Healthcare I have stated at the begining of the debate and as it states in the resolution that they should be used for recreationial use, not medicinial. Major difference and thus the argument is null and void. Contention 2: Drugs and violence. Here is a murder rate in the US History from the begining of last century to present. The murder doesn't start to drop off until the late 1930's were WW II is starting to pick up steam and FDR's New Deal Policy is getting Americans back to work. (. http://thepublicintellectual.org...) We can see that the crime rate drop that we've seen isn't due to the Prohibition, but it is due to unemployment. (. http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com...) So with that my argument stands as my opponent has no link to the impact for the debate and thus my argument stands. Contention 3: Economy Actually, if my opponent wants to get specific the United States has an unemployment rate of 5.9%. (. http://data.bls.gov...) Compared to Pro's numbers we can see that the US has less unemployment and thus my argument stands. Contention 4: Human Nature My opponent's own link states that support for anarchy was at it's highest in Spain. Anarchy never occured and any support for it was crushed in the Spanish Civil War. Contention 5: Addiction Though it may be concidered impossible I have sourced that there are deaths from it and massive hospitalizations in my last round. On my opponent's survey we can see that it is just a mear survey of randon people as my opponent could have targetted a select number of people and, because of this the survey is invalid. I also extend across last rounds massive hospitalizations numbers and economic harm. Contention 6: Strange Drugs. My opponent dropped this argument so I extend it across.
Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use.

My Argument On Healthcare is Void?If drugs are legalised for recreational use they would also be available for medical experiments (in the same way alcohol is) therefore my argument stands.Drugs and ViolenceWhen Alcohol was legalised in the US violence went down [1]. In fact a large bump in the murder rate can be linked to the prohibition of alcohol in the US. During this time gangs took over the alcohol trade and this increased violence. When alcohol became illegal violence went up and when alcohol became legal violence dropped.This same parallel works for drugs. When drugs are illegal crime goes up because the drug market is taken over by violent criminal gangs.EconomyWhat if we compare the unemployment rate of the US as a whole with the Netherlands? Remembering that the Netherlands has far more Libertarian drug laws than united states. The Netherlands has an unemployment rate of 6.6%, its neighboring country Belgium which has much more authoritarian drug laws has an unemployment rate of 8.5% [2].Human NatureI showed that there were working anarchist communities in the north of Spain before and during the Spanish civil war [3].AddictionIt is considered impossible to overdose on marijuana [4] I can find no record of anyone who has died of marijuana.(Marijuana is illegal in Scotland) I took a survey of 20 people under the age of 16 living in Scotland and this is the result.65% Had been offered alcohol over the last six months.80% Had been offered class B drugs over the last six months.65% Had been offered class A drugs over the last six months.Furthermore remember that the total cost of alcohol in medical bills every year is £6 billion [4], vastly more than marijuana.[1] http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com...[2] https://www.google.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use.

). EconomyWe know the economics of prohibition. We know that when a substance is prohibited the economy takes a hit [1]. This will reduce the standard of living for the populous as a whole. Human FreedomI would like to know what my opponent thinks gives him the right to regulate what a person does to their own body in the privacy of their own home. Lowers Drug AddictionUnder almost every example of legalisation drug consumption goes down, this is because in countries where drugs are legalised there is not legal pressure not to come forward as an addict and because of this in countries where drugs are legalised more addicts get treatment [2]. [1] . https://mises.org...[2] . http://www.forbes.com...
Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use.

This is a debate for A341 to finially finish his debate on this topic and I took him up on this. I thank him ahead of time for accepting this challenge. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. All- every (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Legalized- to make legal (http://dictionary.reference.com...) recreationial (drug)- (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition: ( http://dictionary.reference.com...) *Note- this debate is about legalizing drugs for recreationial purposes not medicinial.
dogs are better than cats

Dogs sure are cute but they are a bit dumb. I mean, they can follow orders, but so can anyone. Actually, people consider that one of the main flaws of the education system is that is teaches children to follow orders but not to be independent. Cats are very independent, and I know because I have three. I never had to teach them how to go to the bathroom nor what they shouldn't eat of of the floor, and they do follow me sometimes. I can also leave them to walk around the neighbourhood freely and be worry free because I know they will come back home. Dogs, however, are so high maintenence, they will destroy your house, you have to walk them, even if it's raining or they will do their bussiness in your house and most owners keep them restrained so they don't run away.
Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm.

Remeber what i said that they have to pass a test and the government isn"t that dumb and would not let buy any gun. Once a person have internal problems they can scan it on the way he acts while testing. Many people now in days are very more wilder than back then most of the people react to fictional movies. When a person is given a registered gun it has a barcode that can lead to your personal information, even inside the bullets that are assigned to you.
Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm.

People can be trained and check many times by the government but always people can get guns some how , people can make things happen and they can cause a disaster like some years ago in the Batman movie , or in schools like the ounces we see recently . Yes crazy people make this , but also people can get the permission and later on get crazy or against something and with a gun they could many thing happen . Maybe we could change the year of permission to 25 or something or really check people and try to make a safer society
Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm.

If you have your gun legalized and have special permission from the government which you will need to be trained by police officers, not only on firearms, but in self defense classes. Having permission to have a firearm requires a psychological and physical exams. If you have noticed all the people that go to schools and public places to "hunt", have psychological problems and they don"t think on what they do. it may be easy to buy one, but not to legalize please go back to topic on 21 year olds can use weapons.
Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm.

I think people above 21 does"t need a weapon in house , there are many cases in which a guy gets guns and kills everyone in schools or other public places . Also I think that people doesn't need to protect them self's , we have the police to protect people and also always in conflicts cops work gets harder when the criminal have a weapon to protect himself , they make things harder. Also if we could get a safe community we don't need guns and other weapons for personal protection , policeman and the government should keep people safe . I think we don't need guns in houses , this creates more conflicts in the society and in wrong hands can cause a disaster .
Rap battle

I run through quick when them guns blast fast Bust a cap in this niggahs azz, who finna have the last laugh I am b!tch, so get the fvck out my way My AK spray, you ain't got sh!t to say F the nonsense, I'mma toss you in the middle of the freeway I don't give you no leeway when my free spray You finna have my rhymes on replay for three days So what the fvck you even tryin' to say Yo wack rhymes is hella gay like them hyphy niggahs from the Bay Little nigguh braggin about the cities he's been B!tch, get the fvck out, you get yo wig split from where I've been But yo, I ain't even jokin no mo' You finna get yo cabbage peeled from this real killa fo sho I'm stealin the show, I'm willin to go Bitch niggah I'm reala than you so fvckin go back home I'mma make yo azz run real fast when I let my shotty blast And after that, I'mma make yo head leakin when I stick a knife in it Make a real huge gash I let my baretta spray, let my lead off for days You greasy azz niggah quit eatin' them Lays It's time for me to get paid, and after that, I'mma get laid Take a break, get some Gatorade, then go back to gettin laid At the Barber shop, just got me a fade Little pvssy niggah, you know I got it made You know you be cryin when my ammo split yo fvckin rib cage Cause you b!tch made I slash yo face with them Cruger gloves on When my rugar spray niggah you gone!
Rap battle

Look my flow is crazy have you crying like baby idc thou i keep a gun and a strap hoe but you know i am the hardest boy went new york 2 new orlean went to texas became one of the bestest mc's in the world but still go to the hood to support my little homies like the egine wagon that could we got backpack full of crack in the back and we always stay strapped so dont worry i got your back
Black ops is "better" than MW2

1.This may seem like a disadvantage but it is insanely fun to get a NUKE.Eventually the noob will get a chance at getting a nuke. In BO you get attack dogs (boring).Furthermore, the slaughter by the respawming only happens in 1 map and it only happens when exceedingly good player become obnoxious. 2. COD MW2 has a balanced and didactic system which allowes player to customize their gun baced on their skill. But a major issue with BO is the currency system. COD points are aquired through player matches and wager matches. These points are an interesting addition to the game but they become useless because as soon as you have purchased a gun you automatically get access to every attachment and camo (except gold). unlike in MW2 where you actually had to earn the special attachments, you can straight away buy the best attachment for that gun without even firing it once. 3. Black Ops is the fact that they spent so much time trying to balance perks and killstreaks that they completely unbalanced the weapons. Shoguns are incredibly short range, okay fine, but they are also incredibly prone to hit markers.. umm i think at short range you'd die one shot from a shot gun.. Snipers are also now inadequately slow, inaccurate and stupid. In fact if your not using one of the 20 or so SMGs and ARs you'll find yourself at a severe disadvantage playing online. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MW2 was great in the fact that most maps were suited to every weapon type and it was up to the player to decide on their class layout and gaming style. 2. According to Product Review's poles [1] 46% people think CODMW2 is better than COD BO as oppose to the 26% who this the contary. 3. MW2 is a more successfully executed FPS. The precision of guns, equipment and even the sound effects they generate are more realistic and streamlined in MW2. 4. It is clear that COD MW2's graphics are superiorBlack ops graphics are on a way lower level, the sound effects are nowhere near as crisp and the general gameplay is seemingly arcadish compared to MW2. I mean look at Nuketown ! Or the sound of the Famas! It sounds like a lawnmower! These flaws may seem minor but the fact is they ultimately affect the overall gameplay and in turn your gaming experience. [1] http://www.product-reviews.net...