BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Retribution ought to be valued above rehabilitation in the United states criminal justice system

In response to my opponent's comment about this not being preschool, and that it's the real word, he is correct about that. Doesn't that mean that we should be grown-ups and give people a second chance? Where does it say anywhere that because a person committed a crime, we should kill them in return for their crimes? It doesn't. We need to be giving positive input to the community, and rehab is the way to do it. To respond to my opponents attack on my contention 1, you can not assume that I dropped the notion. Crime rate is indeed a problem. Does that mean that I supported my opponent's case? No. We need to rehab these criminals so that they aren't clogging up prisons. If we rehabilitate, they alter their state of mind and become good people. Obviously the past system of retribution hasn't worked, otherwise our country would not be so concerned with the issue. As for my opponent's attack on my contention 2, he gave no clear reason on why there is no impact through cost in the debate, therefore his arguement does not stand. My opponent said to think big picture when he attacked my contention 3. I am thinking big picture. As I said before, retribution obviously hasn't worked. Therefore his arguement against my third contention does not stand. Contention 4: the only "attack" he had was saying that I had no evidence. This is my last arguement, and I would now like to explain why I won, then give evidence supporting my claims. 1: My opponent never laid out a clear case, only attacked mine. Therefore, I had no case to attack and should not be docked points for that. 2: I have substantial evidence supporting my claims below 3: My opponent attacked my case once, and I defended it. I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate, I know that I had fun. I am in high school and on the debate team, so my opponent's arguements helped me to see where I will need to defend in a round. Evidence: . http://bfi.utah.edu...
Retribution ought to be valued above rehabilitation in the United states criminal justice system

Let's start by looking again at my responses to my opponent's case. Opponent's Contention 1: Retribution increases crime rate across the nation - Retribution actually acts as a deterrent as people are afraid to act based on the consequences. 1) My opponent dropped this idea thus we can extend it. In other words, my opponent agrees that retribution acts as a deterrent. Thus his contention 1 regarding is null and actually supports my side. I entirely agree that crime rate across the nation is a problem which is why we need to resort to retribution Opponent's Contention 2: Rehabilitation costs less than retribution - Money does not link well to equality and whether Retribution "ought" to be valued - no impact in today's debate 1) These ideas were not rebutted. Please extend them. We do not have to consider money in today's debate. Opponent's Contention 3: Rehabilitation is beneficial to the prisoner - true, but think big picture - we can be beneficial to more people by using retribution as a deterrent. - the prisoner has already violated his/her rights - do not put much weight - how does this link to Equality? - Retribution is more beneficial to the prisoner as before the fact, they would not commit the crime in the first place. My opponent asked me "Can you tell me why equality does not link up to my case?" - It is the burden of proof, or the responsibility of my opponent to link his contentions to equality if he is going to connect his contentions to his value. As he has not, they have no impact in today's debate. - my other points regarding his contention 3 still stand. Opponent's Contention 4: Rehabilitation has greater regard for the offender - first of all, no real evidence that Rehabilitation works. - secondly, all of his evidence here is theory based 1) I am sorry that I was not very clear. Ask you, the voters, to look at his evidence. It talks about ideas in theory. To make a claim such as "Rehabilitation has greater regard for the offender", I ask for concrete evidence. Does Rehabilitation always work? Can we always trust rehabilitation? Responses to my opponent's new arguments: "Is it morally right to punish people who can be giving positive input back into the community?" The short answer is yes. It can be moral to "punish people" who in theory could be helping the community. However, let's consider the following. If we can use the threat of punishment to deter the to-be criminals, we can prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. That is the the central reason why we are voting affirmative. We are helping society by preventing crime. Also, my opponent claims that "Every person deserves a second chance". We are not in Preschool where kids fight over their toys. This is the real world. There are real problems in today's society. Does the Serial Killer deserve the second chance? Do we give him another chance to continue what he had started? This is wrong. Thus, I strongly urge an affirmative vote. Thank you.
Retribution ought to be valued above rehabilitation in the United states criminal justice system

1. Can you tell me why equality does not link up to my case? 2. Is it morally right to punish people who can be giving positive input back into the community? Every person deserves a second chance. Is it morally right to not give criminals that second chance? As for evidence, I have some if you would like to see it. You only need to ask. My opponent has not layed out a case, only attacked mine.
Retribution ought to be valued above rehabilitation in the United states criminal justice system

I agree with all my opponent's definitions. Opponent's Contention 1: Retribution increases crime rate across the nation - Retribution actually acts as a deterrent as people are afraid to act based on the consequences. Opponent's Contention 2: Rehabilitation costs less than retribution - Money does not link well to equality and whether Retribution "ought" to be valued - no impact in today's debate Opponent's Contention 3: Rehabilitation is beneficial to the prisoner - true, but think big picture - we can be beneficial to more people by using retribution as a deterrent. - the prisoner has already violated his/her rights - do not put much weight - how does this link to Equality? - Retribution is more beneficial to the prisoner as before the fact, they would not commit the crime in the first place. Opponent's Contention 4: Rehabilitation has greater regard for the offender - first of all, no real evidence that Rehabilitation works. - secondly, all of his evidence here is theory based Overall, the reason why we are voting "Pro" is that Retribution acts as a deterrent. ==== "Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder." Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University "For the Death Penalty," New York Times Oct. 17, 1983 === In addition, let's consider what my opponent is advocating. Should we always work to rehabilitate people? Do you think that people will always magically change their minds? Why does the two year old not touch the hot stove the second time. Everything is based on action-reaction logic. Imagine the case where every time you commit a crime, you get to go off to a nice center and be "rehabilitated". This does not deter criminals but instead would encourage them to commit additional crimes. I am trying to argue for the greater good of the greater number people. This involves minimizing crime. Thus, I strongly urge an affirmative vote.
No planes were used on 9/11

This debate is as stated: "No planes were used on 9/11" In R1 he goes on to say: "There were no planes used to crash into the towers, but there were planned explosions and maybe guided missiles that have brought the towers down.' 'The planes that you saw on the news were not real planes, but fake 3-D animations of planes that were inserted into the videos PURPOSELY, and then later aired on LIVE TV to the WHOLE WORLD.' 'But in reality, not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.' He claims that all of this is "undeniable proof". Where is the proof/evidence that the videos you have displayed was subject to editing and 3-D animation? You assert that: '... not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.' How are the videos proof of that? My task in this debate is to provide credible evidence that supports my position: "Planes were used on 9/11' I don't have to refute anything concerning Norad, structural integrity or the technology of 3-D animation as all of this is completely irrelevant. If I can prove that people saw planes hit the intended targets I have won the debate. Which is exactly what I provided in R1. Your response to the links I provided is: 'The part that you went forward with was the eye-witness accounts. Now the eye-witness accounts are not enough, for many reasons...' None of the 'many reasons' are stated. It goes on to say: '.... And many, if not all, eye-witness accounts, could may as well all be fake. 9/11 was a thing that has been planned, there may as well be 100s, if not thousands of people, behind this terrible incident. The exact numbers, nobody knows.' This is clearly fallacious 'argument from wishful thinking' or 'argument from incredulity" Here Pro is claiming the evidence I provided is invalid simply because he feels that it is. Pro is also making a claim that the events of 9/11 was a plot in which thousands of people including the general public was involved. A claim that cannot be backed up by sound logic. The events of 9/11 took place in a major city of more than a million people. People witnessed planes crashing into the buildings, and the evidence I provided for this in the links I displayed is overwhelming. They can't be dismissed by simply saying it's fake. Back to Pro
No planes were used on 9/11

Since my opponent already posted what seemed to be most of his argument in R1, and also provided "evidence". I accept and will provide my counter argument here. Pro is defending the claim that planes were not used in the attacks of 9/11. Pro claims: 'The planes that you saw on the news were not real planes, but fake 3-D animations of planes that were inserted into the videos PURPOSELY, and then later aired on LIVE TV to the WHOLE WORLD.' He even says: 'But in reality, not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.' I find this especially hard to believe since these events took place in a city with well over a million people. There are scores people who witnessed planes flying into the towers as well as the Pentagon. My evidence is provided here: (A) These are eye witness accounts taken from this web site which I believe to be a fair and unbiased investigation regarding the events of 9/11. (A)http://911research.wtc7.net... Eyewitness accounts describe jetliner approaching and striking Pentagon. (B) Of the more than 100 eyewitness accounts inEric Bart's compilation, most refer to a jet aircraft approaching the Pentagon in the moments before the explosion. Of the accounts that indicate the type of aircraft observed, the majority describe a large twin-engine jetliner, consistent with a Boeing 757, whichFlight 77was, or a Boeing 737. Far fewer witnesses recalled a small aircraft approaching the Pentagon. Following are accounts organized into two categories. (B)http://911research.wtc7.net... (C) This is the eye witness account of flight 93 from the 'St. Petersburg Times,' (C)http://www.sptimes.com... (D) Aircraft Remains (D)http://911research.wtc7.net... Eyewitness accounts of planes hitting the Trade Towers: (F)This account is from 'Joseph Pfeifer', Battalion Chief, Battalion 1.'...We were there for a while checking on the gas leak, and then we heard the loud roar of the plane come over, and we turned around and we looked and we saw the plane coming down, heading south towards the Trade Center, and made a direct hit on the Trade Center. ...' (F)http://graphics8.nytimes.com... (G)This account is from:FIREFIGHTER 'MICHAELSCHROECK' ENGINE 220 (G)http://graph Since Pro insists on posting youtube videos as evidence, I think I should post one as well. http://youtu.be...
No planes were used on 9/11

I'll just restate my conclusion. There are many solid pieces of visual evidence"video recordings and photos"that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

1. As Pro as already confirmed the definition of Darwinian evolution in round 3 in response to my inquiry in round 2, I see no reason to discuss conclusions based on it being defined as "what Darwin said happened."Regarding the agreed upon definition, pro claims that transitional fossils "...confirm [D]arwinian evolution perfectly." And yet, they provide no evidence for the natural selection referenced in the definition they have just provided.2. Pro states that the logic of my argument flows like this:P1. Darwinian evolution requires a continuous fossil record.P2. There are gaps in the fossil record.C. Darwinian evolution is not supported by scientific evidence.I would revise this to be:P1. Scientific proof of Darwinian evolution within the fossil record requires fossilized examples of a continuous change from one species to the next, along with evidence that this change was driven by natural selection.P2. No continuous changes from one species to the next are known in the fossil record, and no evidence has been provided to suggest that changes observed in species via the fossil record were caused by natural selection.C. Darwinian evolution is not supported by scientific evidence.As this is the last round and pro cannot respond, it will be up to the readers to decide if this progression is sound.3. As pro has agreed that no evidence supporting Darwinian evolution is present in this section, I will not address it.A. Pro finally provides some evidence that relates to natural selection. However, reading pro's source for this information, one will realize that it simply offers up natural selection as a plausible explanation for differences or changes in a species; the definite reasons for these are not actually known.Finally, I would like to thank jh1234l for providing the challenge of this debate, and for being a worthy opponent.I hope to participate in further debates with you.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Thanks to Fatso for responding.1. If we define darwinian evolution as "What Darwin said happened", then the transitional fossils are evidence for darwinian evolution. It shows that it can happen, but does not show whether or not it happened the way Darwin said it did. However, the fossil record, as I said earlier, confirms that it happened the way Darwin said it happened: That reptiles evolved from birds, etc. If we define darwinian evolution as "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory."[1]Then it DOES confirm darwinian evolution perfectly.2. Con has misrepresented my argument. I was trying to explain that the gaps in fossils does not make me fail my burden of proof, as it is impossible to dig up every fossil and it is not evidence against Darwinian evolution. Con's logic is this:P1. Darwinian evolution requires a contineous fossil recordP2. There are gaps in the recordC. Darwinian evolution is not supported by scientific evidenceThe logic does not follow. The only way for it to follow is for us to add an assumed premise.P1. Darwinian evolution requires a contineous fossil record, or else it is most likely not supported by scientific evidenceP2. There are gaps in the recordC. Darwinian evolution is not supported by scientific evidenceBut if we add an assumend premise, premise 1 will be wrong, as one single objection (that does not disprove evolutionary theories because it is not really sound, as we found some of those missing links and transitional fossils already (in round 2), and there might be more) does not make me fail my burden of proof, even if I concede the point, which I will not.3. I said that the time and the transitional fossils were evidence that the cambrian explosion was caused by evolution, not that the cambrian explosion was evidence for darwinian evolution. I was trying to prove that it is not a valid objection to evolution in other words. It was a rebuttal, not a positive argument. I wasn't quoting anyone, I was just trying to make the words in the quote stand out. A. I said "humans have a common ancestor as primates", not "humans evolved from primates" so what I said was not linear. There are many examples of natural selection.For example, the rat snake adapts to their surroundings through natural selection. Rat snakes that have a mutation that turns them yellow might be beneficial in a desert, but not when in an urban area.[2] That is an example, right there.Another one is pesticide resistance in insects. While the cause for the selection was artificial, humans were not purposefully breeding them, so it is technically natural selection happening in an artificial environment. Insects that have mutations that allow them to resist pesticide have been shown to survive and reproduce. [2][1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]http://dsc.discovery.com...
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

1. Pro states that speciation and transitional fossils are evidence of Darwinian evolution because they show that Darwinian evolution is possible, and the Darwinian evolutionary theory predicts this. I would submit that any evolutionary theory would have predicted this, and that both examples are clear evidence of EVOLUTION, but not of Darwinian evolution.2. Pro states that a lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution and a lack of evidence against it does not contribute to it being not supported by scientific evidence. I would respond that, as Pro has the burden of proof, it most certainly does contribute to Darwinian evolution not being supported by scientific evidence.3. Pro states that the Cambrian explosion is evidence for Darwinian evolution because it took time for species to evolve. I would argue that evolution taking time is axiomatic, and that it is simply evidence for evolution, not Darwinian evolution. I am also not certain whom pro is quoting.A. Pro seems to be arguing that the evolution of primate ancestor to human was linear. I do not dispute this point. Pro, however, seems to be conflating evolution in general with Darwinian evolution. I would remind pro that Darwinian evolution is the evolution of an organism over time guided by natural selection. The example Pro has given here contains no evidence of this point.I. Finally, I would say that as Pro has provided ample evidence of evolution in general, but does not seem to have provided any definite evidence for Darwinian evolution, it cannot be logically argued that the latter is supported by scientific evidence.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Sorry for forgetting to say this last round: Yes, you can get an extra round, because I forgot to put it in the rules. Don't post new arguments, though. Only reutations and conclusions. This debate, is indeed, regarding darwinian evolution. 1. and 2. Con states that speciation and transitional fossils is not evidence of darwinian evolution until I say it is evidence for it or come up with something else. It is evidence for darwinian evolution because it shows that it CAN happen, and the fossil record says it did. For example, we have seen transitional fossils between birds and reptiles, and mammals and reptiles, which was exactly how darwinian evolution predicted it. [1]2. Con states that transitional fossils stand, but the argument that there was no complete and contineous change between species also stands. The problem is, there is no easy way to dig up every fossil in the world without digging archeological sites everywhere, which means that it is not evidence against darwinian evolution, and does not make darwinian evolution "not supported by scientific evidence".3. When I wrote the argument, I meant that all of the points I made were evidence that the cambrian explosion was caused by darwinian evolution.(S&G gong to con! Sory fo badd gramr and spelingz confusion to con!) The time that the explosion took was evidence that it was caused by evolution because evolution needed time: It is not "multicellar organisms popping out of nowhere". 4. As con concedes this argument, I will not address it. A. Con states that I have to prove that darwinian evolution was indeed the reason for this change. The genetics to produce a tail present in the human body was likely caused by darwinian evolution because it states that humans had a common ancestor as other primates, which had a tail. This is further proven by the transitional fossils that show humans did have a common ancestor as primates.[1] If we know what can cause tail genes in humans and that it is the only possibility (apart from the possibility that we evolved from another tailed animal), and we know that what can cause tail genes in humans already happened, then it implies that that was likely the cause. B. Addressed in 1. and 2.[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...