BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty for Murderers

" Killing someone can never be excused, even if it's a murderer's life." "If we kill them, we're just stooping to their level. We must set an example to the people saying, taking another person's right to live is not right." "Secondly, if he was just killing my friends and family, I would still kill him. I would kill him, not for justice, but revenge, something I don't think our justice system should be based on." When I made the statements before I was just making sure that you aren't taking the side that says killing is wrong no matter what. I think that by your newest statements, we can determine that you at least believe that killing murderers can be necessary. "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice."-Desmond TutuThe definition of Justice: the act of being just and/or fair.Honestly, taking a life when a life has been lost seems to be the only form of Justice according to the definition. How many years in prison could ever account for the years the victim will not be spending FREE with his/her family, breathing, eating, sleeping, playing, thinking, laughing, sharing... We have come to a point in the debate where we must determine weather life in prison, or death, is the correct penalty for murderers. This is the basic debate. Death Versus Life in PrisonNow for anyone following and/or reading this debate, it has just become a game of would-you-rather.Possible Downsides to Prison - Possibility of being beaten. - Possibility of being raped. - Loss of dreams for the outside world Upsides to Prison - Three square meals a day - Possible friendships - Play Games (cards, sports, etc.) - Extra Privileges for good behavior - You can write letters to family and friends - You can still learn and think about anything - You can study anything you want - You can pursue religious hope. Also, you have the possibility of cutting those downsides out if the murder was due to gang or mob activity, because there may be protection waiting for you in prison.Based on my knowledge and my belief in the quality of life, I conclude that I would most assuredly choose prison over death on any given day and I'm not even in a gang.Based on what I believe, and what I think most would believe, Death is the only justice when it comes to murder.
The Death Penalty for Murderers

Sorry, for the spelling error."So if a man came to your house everyday and murdered one of your family members and/or friends, and the only way to stop this man was to kill him yourself, you would not? You would stand by and allow your loved ones lives to be taken because you want to make a point ?" (Hope everyone notices the grammer mistake, just saying)First of all, if he was about to kill me in a matter of minutes then, I would kill him. I would only kill for self-defense, and the only law I would listen to in a situation like this is nature's law, "Survival of the fittest". As you should know, in situations like this, there is no time for anything (especially diplomacy), but for quick decisive action.Secondly, if he was just killing my friends and family, I would still kill him. I would kill him, not for justice, but revenge, something I don't think our justice system should be based on."To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice."-Desmond Tutu "This type of blind peace ideology is the father of slavery. If you believe and stand by what you say, you are a slave waiting to be taken by a master."For the record, I believe that some wars are necessary as a means to the end, but other wars end in needless violence and death. I don't think peace is the answer for everything, but violence isn't either."I guess this is just a differing opinion between you and me. I think Life in prison is better than dying. In prison you get three meals a day, you don't have to worry about bills or anyone else, you can read, play games, take college courses, watch television, listen to music, socialize, write letters and occasionally visit with friends and family. Yes there are some downsides, but that's life."All those facts maybe true, but the truth still stands, prison is not a hotel. Prison is a place where you are sent and forgotten by the public. Prison is where you can't do anything feeling safe. Prison is a place where your life is constantly endangered by your roommate, fellow prisoners, and sometimes the guards who are supposed to protect you. In time a prisoner's spirit will break there, most of the time they stop dreaming of freedom and start hoping for the cold grasp of death to cradle them away from their living hell. Yes, life has its downsides, but being in prison for murder is a pitfall, with no sign of going back up.
The Death Penalty for Murderers

" Killing someone can never be excused, even if it's a murderer's life." "If we kill them, we're just stooping to their level." - Con StatementsResponse: So if a man came to your house everyday and murdered one of your family members and/or friends, and the only way to stop this man was to kill him yourself, you would not? You would stand by and allow your loved ones lives to be taken because you want to make a point ? This type of blind peace ideology is the father of slavery. If you believe and stand by what you say, you are a slave waiting to be taken by a master. Life is a right. A right that deserves to be protected. Murderers must be stopped. Sometimes murder is necessary. "Dieing from lethal injection is like getting away with the crime they committed."- Con Statement (hope everyone notices the spelling mistake, just saying) I guess this is just a differing opinion between you and me. I think Life in prison is better than dying. In prison you get three meals a day, you don't have to worry about bills or anyone else, you can read, play games, take college courses, watch television, listen to music, socialize, write letters and occasionally visit with friends and family. Yes there are some downsides, but that's life. I bet that if anyone who was murdered could see their murderer, sitting on a bed reading a book or maybe playing cards with new found friends, they would be disgusted by the complete lack of justice.One who takes a life, forfeits their own to the hand of execution.
How do compassionate liberals reconcile themselves to "Survival of the Fittest?"

I understood the general idea of what you were trying to get across, but there were at least three or four topics being discussed as one. I wanted to get a common understanding of terminology out of the way, which in itself took care of the alleged link between Darwinian thought and modern liberalism. I accepted the challenge primarily to speak about the philosophical side of evolution, but terminology bogged us down. As far as the debate that we ended up having goes, however, I will show how charity, as that is your example, does make an individual more "fit" and thus more likely to reproduce. For the sake of argument, I'll use homo sapiens for the species in question, although the same principles apply fairly evenly for all animals. What all of the traits you mentioned have in common is reciprocal altruism, or basically "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Let's say person A is on the verge of starvation and person B decides to help person A in a large way - take them in off the street, nurse them to health, get them started in life again, then person B has probably made a friend to say the least. Person B can count on person A to be there when they are down, or if they ever need anything. So, through charity, person B has made an ally. This is not to say that every charitable action ever taken was considered in terms like this (some individuals are nicer than others) or that person A couldn't be a liar and never come back to help person B, or even possibly harm them - that is a chance that person B took. The point is that person B could *afford* to do this in the first place. Helping others is a sexual selector (imagine person C saying, "Wow, if B can take care of himself and A, too, then he is very "fit.") And the more that B does this, the more chances he will have to make allies (helping to ensure his own survival) and the better he will "look" to the opposite sex (helping to ensure the survival of his genes.) Of course there are many other factors and variables, but that is the gist of the argument, in simplified form, of course. See Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for more in-depth material. I've read your debates and I respect your views and skills. Hopefully our next debate will be a little more substantial. Thank you, and good luck. See you around the site. Britt
How do compassionate liberals reconcile themselves to "Survival of the Fittest?"

It pains me to admit that this was a poorly-thought-out debate, and certainly one that I deserve to lose. It was one of those spur-of-the-moment things which one regrets later. My original point was the seeming incongruity between Natural Selection and human compassion, the lack of an Evolutionary basis for compassion. I concede that it was unfair to my opponent to begin a debate with such vague terms, and I can't fault him for trying to define them further. It was also, perhaps, not a good debate for this format. But I do intend to go down fighting. You are quite probably far more knowledgeable about the subject than I am, but I deny categorically that there is any evidence that the traits I have mentioned (compassion, charity, unconditional love, etc.) make an individual more "fit" and thus more likely to reproduce. The idea of charity, for example, which is giving of yourself to help someone less fortunate than you would seem to weaken yourself and perhaps put the recipient of your charity on an equal footing with you and thus make it a competitor for food, territory, reproduction, etc. Very well, it probably doesn't serve any purpose to continue to argue since my fate is in the cards, so I'll stop. Thanks, britt waller, and sorry I wasn't able to actually debate you ;)
How do compassionate liberals reconcile themselves to "Survival of the Fittest?"

1)Fair enough. 2)It might not matter greatly, but it does matter. Geocentrism was an unfalsifiable hypothesis; the descent of beings from a common ancestor is a scientific fact. 3)Agreed. 4)What terms did I redefine? You gave no definitions at all. The question of abiogenesis (not spontaneous generation) and the process of biogenesis are parts of Darwinian thought; the Big Bang theory comes from physics and cosmology. The Big Bang theory may be part of universal evolution (using "evolution" in the widest possible sense), but no, it is not a part of Darwinian thought. I already explained that it is a big leap to jump from biological evolution to trying to explain the origin of the universe. These two forms of "evolution" are far from parallel. 5)I'll assume that you meant "extra-personal welfare," as the nature of the debate seems to hinge on this point. Don't be resentful. I did not deny your argument credence - I'm sure you do accept it as true. I explained that there is nothing to reconcile, as being compassionate (or loving, or virtuous, or charitable, etc) has nothing to do with what Darwin meant when he used the phrase "survival of the fittest." As said before, there is no contradiction. I think you may be defining survival of the fittest in a sense other than what Darwin meant. See Point #2 in Round One. As far as what evolutionary purpose the afore-mentioned things serve, I already explained that these are factors that contribute to the "fitness" of an organism, improving its chances both for its own survival and the survival of its genes (accomplished via reproduction.) Forgive my shortcomings and faults. Britt
How do compassionate liberals reconcile themselves to "Survival of the Fittest?"

1) I'm not trying to anthropomorphize Darwinism, I'm just trying to illustrate my argument. When I said Darwinism was "hard and emotionless," I meant that there is no room in it for emotion. It is, therefore, emotionless. 2) If Darwinism is "a central tenet of rational thought," something I am by no means sure of, it would not matter greatly because rational thought is, ironically, subject to change. Geocentrism, for example, was once regarded as rational thought. 3) You seem to be what I would term a "positive athiest. " You admit that Evolution/Darwinism does not explain everything, and that the answer to some hard questions is "I don't know. " I definitely agree with you there, but I tend to think the structure of the universe is far beyond the reason of man. 4) It seems a tad unnecessary for you to redefine my terms. I use Darwinism and Evolution interchangeably, and when I refer to them I mean not only natural selection, but spontaneous generation, biogenesis, and Big Bang theory. I'm sure you'll agree that these ARE parts of Darwinian thought. 6) By compassionate liberalism, I meant that liberalism is devoted to personal welfare. There is no basis for this without compassion, and so I used the qualifying term "compassionate. " Compassionate Conservatism, by the way, was nothing more than a campaign slogan. I think I've asked an answerable question, so to speak, and I resent that you say you look forward to a "Mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and information" but deny my argument any credence. I'll go more in-depth: Evolution has no place for emotion, or for virtue. What Evolutionary purpose does, say, unconditional love serve? Or charity? It would seem that these are completely opposite Survival of the Fittest. And yes, I intend to keep using that term. I used liberalism because, let's face it, liberalism has accepted Darwinism far more than anyone else. Maybe it's because they're so "enlightened. " ;) I hope I've clarified the terms a bit more, and I'm sorry you didn't find them coherent enough to make an actual argument. Thanks, Sola Gratia.
How do compassionate liberals reconcile themselves to "Survival of the Fittest?"

Evolution, passing over the relative truth or falsity of its various claims, is hard and emotionless. The "Survival of the Fittest" doctrine, for example, would seem to put a moratorium on human compassion, if indeed it is true. Darwinism has become, like it or not, a central tenet of liberal thought since The Origin of Species came out in 1859. And so I ask you, and I'm hoping for a thoughtful, esoteric liberal, how does "compassionate" liberalism reconcile with "Survival of the Fittest?" I suppose it's up to me to define the parameters. Okay: I would like a debate that touches on the philosophical side of evolution, rather than the purely scientific. Whereas Darwinism is all too often grounded in empirical data, no one can deny that if it intends to explain the origins of life and indeed of the universe itself it needs something more. This is about Evolution and Liberalism. Please don't bring up Creationism or Conservatism. Thanks! Sola Gratia
Scotland should be an independent country

My first argument would be to focus on the issues of the voting system here. I live in a country where the parliament is ultimately decided by the majority, which is fair. The issue I hold with this is that the interests of Scotland (and arguably northern England are ignored). It's often referred to as London-Centric power. n terms of population London is higher than that of Scotland. The simple fact is we surely have our right to self determination, and I completely understand why that is scaring some people, but as a country of great resources (oil, renewables - wind power in Scotland is fantastic, technology research, food and drink e.g. whiskey/ Scotch). Regardless of the facts that Scotland is not a nation which has nothing to offer the simple fact of self determination is one of the most important within any democracy, how can we not feel excluded when our votes have note effected the results in the UK parliament for the majority of elections (please see below wings over Scotland link). Regardless of left or right views, we are talking about a country which doesn't own/ have a proper say on who governs it. We may have the Scottish Parliament, yet this at present is heavily subsidising a decision made by the UK government known commonly as the "Bedroom Tax", which was not supported by representatives in Scotland. Our current scenario involves our government (Scottish Parliament) paying the UK government this money that was pretty much overall unsupported in Scotland. I don't deny independence has it's risks, but asking people to ignore their own right to self-determination and democracy in general is unfair, unjust and overall asking them to accept that they can do nothing against the people who have caused them issues (without trying to go too political on this, you are libertarian? I would be amazed if argue against these facts). http://www.yesscotland.net... (Bedroom Tax) http://news.scotland.gov.uk...(bedroom tax) http://wingsoverscotland.com... (Scotland's current impact on it's own major government) /http://en.wikipedia.org... (for population purposes) http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wind power in Scotland) http://www.scotland.gov.uk... (Wind power in Scotland) http://www.rockstargames.com... (not the only example but a good example of a world famous company, however our economy would need to increase in this area to survive long term)
All religions should be taught in school as mythology.

Pro: "First I would like to address the misconception that atheism is a religion. To denounce something is not to be something." It doesn't matter. Each individual atheist has a belief construct that consists of many beliefs that have triggered the "lack of belief". Not adhering to a "named religion" doesn't make one non-religious. Everyone is religious in some way. Some atheists believe in darwinian evolution, which is unproven. That is a faith based belief that has led to disbelief in God for many Atheists. For the next Atheist some other belief hasled to unbelief in God, but it all constructed by beliefs. I can say I have a "lack of belief that God does not exist", but it's meaningless white noise and a twisting of words. Atheism by definition is the full rejection of a scientific hypothesis, which is a "religious" stance and dogmatic by definition. Agnosticism is no defined stance. Atheists are not Agnostics. Atheism rejects a hypothesis by dogmatic motive, rejecting creationism even when evidence is provided. If there is a God, atheism is mythology. Since we cannot prove either definitively, atheism must fall under "mythology", being that it is unproveable and there are proofs that infer that the opposite is correct or possible * Pro: "all religions are "a collection of myths." Religion being belief systems that cannot be definitively proven, which includes Atheism. * Pro: "Atheism or the lack of belief is not a belief system." Okay. Christianity is not a belief system. It is the "lack of belief that God does not exist..." See how belittling I sound? We now cannot declare it a myth since it is simply a lack of belief... * Pro: "To denounce something is not to be something." Fine. I denounce atheism. I'm not anything. Therefore it's a false dichotomy to say my denouncing of pr lack of belief in Atheism is "mythology". * "This is a huge syntax fraud." Then so is calling our "lack of belief that God doesn't exist" a religion, belief, or mythology. All Christians have at least mild differences in these lack of beliefs, so we are just like Atheists. We aren't claiming God exists. We just doubt that He doesn't. And in reality, if lack of belief cannot be called mythology neither can our lack of belief in something.
All religions should be taught in school as mythology.

"Then Atheism needs to be taught as mythology. The overwhelming majority consider Atheism as a myth. So if Atheism is not taught as "mythology", we have pandered to one particular religious sect." First I would like to address the misconception that atheism is a religion. To denounce something is not to be something. Atheism is the disbelief in a God or Gods, not the belief in no God or Gods. This is a huge syntax fraud. "The key ingredient that has given power and authority has been "Darwinian theory". It has never been witnessed, measured, or tested. It does not meet the bare minimum of qualifications under the Scientific Method, thus it is a myth by Pro's own definition. So Darwinian Evolution must be taught as a myth if it is taught in schools." Here, again you are confusing and combining unlike terms. Atheism is not associated with evolution. " And if Creationism is true, it is not a myth, making atheism a myth by default." This is insinuating a false dichotomy between ideas. There are more than two options opposing each other in this scenario. Atheism or the lack of belief is not a belief system, however the negation of such systems. Now back on topic, for my conclusion I once again state that all religions be taught in schools under the subject of Mythology. I argue that all religions are "a collection of myths, especially belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition." Thank you and may the best arguments win. Innkeep
All religions should be taught in school as mythology.

I will start by stating that religions being taught in school is beneficial for the youth in ultimately deciding their own faith or lack there of individually. To teach all religions would broaden ones knowledge on their own beliefs and that of others. To understand not only ones position but also that of the opposition. The reason I would classify it as being mythology is to accredit no religion as purely superior to the other religions. Religions over the eras have fallen into this category after the loss of its hold over its own followers or subjects. Now to define mythology as "a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition." -dictionary.com. Religion is to be considered myth if there is no substantial evidence to verify its claims. I have seen many use, for example, the bible as evidence of its own claims. This is a flawed way of providing substantial evidence. You can not have a singular codex make claims and also validate itself. Thank you and may the best arguments win.