BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abolish the Death Penalty

I do acknowledge that in some cases that innocent people have died out of mistakes, but this in no way calls for it abolishment. It merely calls for reforms in procedure. The numbers of innocent people on death row have been exaggerated over the years. [1] We should just use DNA technology to confirm if the suspect is innocent or not. My opponent's next premise is based soully on cost. I would like to ask the voters and my opponent a simple question. Is it really right to deny adequate justice to a person who has taken many lives just because it costs a few extra penny's out of our wallets? What are we to tell the victims families? I woulds also like to add that even though the cost is a bit high, simple reforms in the procedure would in fact take care of this problem. Rather then spend a lot of money on chemicals to kill the condemned, we should use procedures such as the firing squad which costs a lot less money then the countless chemicals that are used in current death penalty procedures. Contention 1: If a person who has been proven to have murdered another individual. The this also proves that the murderer has silenced that person or persons. Therefore, it is justified to silence the murderer. [2] Contention 2: There have been many condemned criminals through the years who have been executed. If we deny the current people who are responsible for the same crime the punishment that the condemned in the past had, then we are not being fair to the people in the past that have been executed for committing the same crime. [2] In conclusion, We should reform the procedures in both the conviction and the procedure in which a death sentence is carried out to solve the problems rather then abolishing the death penalty all together. Abolishing the death penalty would be denying justice. Abolishing the death penalty would not be fair to those who were executed in the past. The death penalty should not be abolished. Vote Con [1] . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [2] . http://socyberty.com...
Abolish the Death Penalty

In my opinion the death penalty in the United States should be abolished because of its current extreme financial costs and the possibility of accidently executing innocents. Executing criminals is not worth it if the cost of doing so is radically more than simply confining them for life and the chance of mistakenly executing an innocent. DNA evidence has already proven some thought to be criminals as innocent. New inventions in technology may also free innocents as DNA technology has, but If they have already been executed it is too late for them to freed. The small deterrence effect of the death penalty is nowhere near effective enough to justify the financial cost of the death penalty in the United States nor the possibility of executing innocent civilians. Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008) "Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year." - http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Turtles are the best animal

Again, I am dealing with trolling. A previous debate of mine has been ruined because of this. I await my opponent's proper argument, one not based on opinion, but one based on fact. I will, however, be an optimist and ask this question: Why? You are going to lose the conduct points because of the trolling. Why would you do this? My part in this debate is over. I hope the vote turns out well. Thank you.
Turtles are the best animal

Before we begin, I would like to ask what you mean by "best animal." I understand if turles are your favorite animals, but that would be opinion, not fact. If you mean "animals with best defense," I would say snakes and wild cats have the best defenses. If you mean "most beautiful animal," that would be a matter of opinon. My favorite animal is the Bald Eagle, but I believe that it is irrelevant to this debate.
Docter Pepper

First, Dr. Pepper was invented in the late 19th century by a pharmacist in Waco, Texas, who created it by combining twenty-three flavors.[1] I submit, therefore, that Dr. Pepper is a schitzophrenic, and should be considered one of the inferior soda pops. Second, despite the brand's longetivity and following, the Dr. Pepper company became insolvent in the 1980s and had to be bailed out.[2] Surely this would not have happened if Dr. Pepper were able to compete very well with other soda brands. Thus, Dr. Pepper must be considered an inferior soda pop by free market standards as well.Third, all things being equal, I submit that diet soda is better, and better for you, than regular soda[3]; therefore, Dr. Pepper is inferior not only to Diet Dr. Pepper, but to all other diet sodas.Finally, I have two words for you: Mountain Dew.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]My mother.
Universal health care

ok now to make my oppent feal better i will adress everyone of his issues "1/2 of bankruptcy filings in 2001 were related to medical issues. Out of those medical bill-related bankruptcies, 75% HAD INSURANCE. It would greatly benefit citizens. The government is in place for the well-being and state of life, of its citizens." No this is wrong the purpose of the goverment is to punish the evil and to defend from outside threats. second you know what insurance companies are not here to pay your bills there there to follow a contract you signed and if you were to stupid to read the fine print well you desevere to die cause of natural selection. "It is estimated that about 18,000 die each year because they do not have medical coverage." yet once again not the goverments problem whose fault is it that they have not worked to get what they need to survive. "In 2005, there were about 47 million Americans uninsured. 9 million of whom were children. Compared to 300 million people that live in America, that figure is very large." ok the 9 million that are childern i am sorry for them. the other 38million that is there own fault. "5% of all cancer patients go uninsured at their diagnosis." agian not part of the goverments responsibilites. "The congressional budget office determined that universal health care WOULD SAVE 100-200 billion dollars a year. So you can not make the claim that it would be bad for the economy." This just says were being cheap and not spending the 100-200billion that is nescary for those 263million to be insured and adding ther stress of another 47million. i posted this in my second argument "well here is what i belive is wrong with universal health care is that i will pay x amount in taxes because of how much i make and lets say that is $5,000 dollars lets say bill gates then pays $100,000 for his health care but both of us get the same amount off attention from the doctors. The element of universal health care also takes out the competition of hospitals which stops them from trying to serve us and makes them do as much as they think nesscary not to get fired. If universal health care was to come about i think there should still be hospitals were i can go put down my dollar and get the attention i need cause i can pay for it yes people may die cause they are poor and cant afford health care is this the goverments fault or there fault?" my point was not that bill gates would suffer from taxes but that he would suffer from not getting the help he needs. So far this is what your entire argument has said to me those who dont work and dont pay there fair share in taxes should get the health care that those who sweat every day for it should get while they get ignored cause they work hard. that is what your argument says to me. ok for the rest of my argument i say if the goverment pays for my health i want free food free heating cause i live in a cold climate i need a free house made so i dont get sick and i need a free chef so he can make sure i am properly feed. how ridiculous does that sound to you.
Universal health care

"well here is what i belive is wrong with universal health care is that i will pay x amount in taxes because of how much i make and lets say that is $5,000 dollars lets say bill gates then pays $100,000 for his health care but both of us get the same amount off attention from the doctors" You should really try to put that into individual sentences next time. Yes, and the same thing goes for libraries, schools, the police department, and the fire department. I could hardly think that Bill Gates will suffer from a high tax. It is good so that America is not broken up into distant social classes. "The element of universal health care also takes out the competition of hospitals which stops them from trying to serve us and makes them do as much as they think nesscary not to get fired" This, apparently, is only theorization. England has Universal health care…and this has not been going on there. It takes out the competition of health insurance businesses, but not hospitals. The hospitals could still make profit. And as for government hospitals, it would be the same as a library or the fire department. "If universal health care was to come about i think there should still be hospitals were i can go put down my dollar and get the attention i need cause i can pay for it yes people may die cause they are poor and cant afford health care is this the goverments fault or there fault?" Is it there fault that the health insurance industry is a bunch of capitalist fat cats who make very high prices and cover very little, in reality? NO. EVERYONE deserves health. Not just you, because you apparently make a salary over $150,001. It is a natural right of all people. My opponent, alas, cannot see things from the eye of one who becomes bankrupt from a single, very ordinary and simple hospital bill. He, from his privileged stand point, would rather pay for his own health care, letting others DIE or go into bankruptcy, then pay a SMALL tax for them. Almost every one goes to the hospital at least once in their lives (this is not including birth 8) You have unfortunately ignored my points. The readers can obviously observe that my opponent ignored all my points from round 1. They can see that he might not have even read it. A PERSON'S LIFE TRANSCENDS CORPORATE BEAURACRACY. -Harlan
Universal health care

well here is what i belive is wrong with universal health care is that i will pay x amount in taxes because of how much i make and lets say that is $5,000 dollars lets say bill gates then pays $100,000 for his health care but both of us get the same amount off attention from the doctors. The element of universal health care also takes out the competition of hospitals which stops them from trying to serve us and makes them do as much as they think nesscary not to get fired. If universal health care was to come about i think there should still be hospitals were i can go put down my dollar and get the attention i need cause i can pay for it yes people may die cause they are poor and cant afford health care is this the goverments fault or there fault?
Universal health care

Before I start, please excuse any typos, as my right wrist got a bit messed up. In you're first post you wrote a sentence about what you believed. You said you would post in the second round, so that is excused. It doesn't quite seem fair to make me show my cards first, but I guess I will just get more arguments. Here are some facts: -1/2 of bankruptcy filings in 2001 were related to medical issues. Out of those medical bill-related bankruptcies, 75% HAD INSURANCE. It would greatly benefit citizens. The government is in place for the well-being and state of life, of its citizens. -It is estimated that about 18,000 die each year because they do not have medical coverage. -from 1981 to 2001, the number of these bankruptcies related to medical issues increased 2300%. -In 2005, there were about 47 million Americans uninsured. 9 million of whom were children. Compared to 300 million people that live in America, that figure is very large. -5% of all cancer patients go uninsured at their diagnosis. -The congressional budget office determined that universal health care WOULD SAVE 100-200 billion dollars a year. So you can not make the claim that it would be bad for the economy. I assert that the health and well-being of the citizens of a country should be an important priority. Health and well being is a natural right of all people. Having to pay individually for health care makes it so that the upper class get medical service while those who cannot afford it simply don't go to the hospital, because they know that it will make their family's lives very difficult. For many people, the cost of a medical bill can be a good portion of their annual income. The health insurance business does not actually cover all that much. They, (HOPEFULLY unlike the government,) do not care for the customers very much, but instead of their income. WE can not rely our personal well-being on a corporation that is concentrating on profit, and not our health. Corporate bureaucracy cannot be the determining factor in whether an individual dies! So how, then, is the idea of health absurd. How is the vision of all people –rich people AND poor people- being able to get MEDICAL CARE. This is extremely important. Their well-being is not absurd, at all. Your turn -Harlan
Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

Another forfeit from my opponent. All withstanding arguments extend, and they have not even been rebutted. A note to judges: My opponent chose "Con" but probably meant "Pro" judging from his arguments. Who is "Con" and who is "Pro" in this debate does not matter, so please judge from the arguments themselves and not on this particular stance when voting. I was hoping for my opponent to finish the debate at the very least, but I guess not. Any ways, vote for me! Regards
Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

My opponent needs to understand that i to was a victim by police. But i have also taken witness to police that have abused their power by beating up certain people who have done nothing wrong period. I have also witnessed police officers harassing and disrespecting people that have been offended by police. In the past and even now people place a lawsuit against our law enforcement because they either break their own laws or they are abusing their police powers. so don't take what my opponent is saying lightly cause i am living proof that police are crooked and dishonest.
Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

My opponent is in a very strong case of deniable facts. Law officers are corrupted and crooked i'm not saying this about all officers there are a few good ones out there but only a few cops. But a good many of them get away with more crimes then an ordinary citizen. what my opponent is saying makes no absolute sense. There are a lot of people that can back me up and support my debate that cops should be punished according to state law when they break them. I Apologize if my opponent dose not understand what is going on in this debate vote for me and lets put a stop to crimes being broken by our own law enforcement.
Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

I think that our Law Enforcement has gone to far. They get away with breaking laws that we as citizens can't. Now i feel its time for all that to stop for example: If a cop is speeding down the road without any real reason they should be pulled over and pay a fine like we do. If they are using their cell phones while driving again they should be pulled over and pay a fine just like us citizens. If they harass a citizen for no reason they should be punished to the fullest extant of the law. the fact that cops get away with breaking laws that we as citizens cant makes me sick to my stomach. Also if a cop beats up an unarmed man or woman they should be charged for assault. anyone who agrees let me know.
mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

Okay, despite the forfeiture by my opponent I want to mention just a couple of issues mentioned by my opponent and address by Justice Ginsburg. Again, I am going to follow the same format, relying on the substance of Ginsburg’s dissent—which I believe undermines the HYPE argument. Pro states that the best argument possible could be a slippery slope argument, something I stated in an earlier round is not the same as precedent but still, if there is a slippery slope it is best manifest in a question posed by Ginsburg in her dissent: "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision." (Ginsburg, pages 92-93). In reality, the "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." (Ginsburg, 94) And according to no less authority than Justice Ginsburg (and the only acknowledge by Pro as valid) is real, not hypothetical and presents a terrible precedent that: "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." (Ginsburg, 94). While I could continue, Con does not feel obligated given that in Round Two Pro neglected add to his argument and Round Three ended in Pro forfeiting. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence and argument made by Con to rebut the proposition by Pro in the opening round. I hope voters will consider all. And I encourage them to vote CON! [Sources remain the same, but I will give the link to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case]: http://www.supremecourt.gov... And again, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent begins on PAGE 60.
Should celebrities be held responsible for misleading advertisements

"If celebrities earn millions of dollars by endorsing a particular brand then they should be held responsible too if someone is affected by misleading advertisements"But why though, they werent the ones who knowingly duped consumers into buying a faulty product, thats the company that made the product's fault. " So in the same way a brand ambassador is benefitting through the revenue earned he should be held liable for any suffering caused to any of the customers purchasing the product. "Recycling the same dumb and illogical opinion over and over isnt a real argument pro. Just because the person benefitting from the ads is connected to the product, that doesnt mean they know if it is faulty and are still endorsing it anyways. The simple truth is that if a product proves faulty, the company that made the product is the only one in the equation who should be held responsible for trying to pass off a bad product. Celebrity endorsers are a third party that are sued by the company making the product to try to market it to consumers. All blame for a bad product eventually points back to the company that made the bad product in the first place, not the celebrity that the same company also tricked into marketing the product.
Should celebrities be held responsible for misleading advertisements

If its the company that is advertising the product in a misleading way then it is the company that should be held responsible for being misleading, not the celebrity.... Its not the duty of the celebrity to know inside-and-out if the product they are advertising is in any-way misleading, nor are they the ones to blame if the product is indeed misleading in some way. If anything the company advertising the bad product are also trying to mislead people by using a celebrity endorsement to dupe people, making them double responsible for screwing over consumers.
Should celebrities be held responsible for misleading advertisements

I believe that celebrities should be help responsible because they are role for a vast set of audience. As a role model it is the duty of the celebrity to only advertise those products which he would have purchased if he was watching the ad. It is also unethical for a celebrity to promote products through a misleading advertisement. Lakhs of people purchase a seeing a celebrity endorsement. These people purchase a product because of the faith they have on the celebirty who is endorsing the product. By promoting a misleading advertisement celebrity is deceiving the trust rendered by the people.
ban islam

It's one thing to say that you disagree Islamic beliefs or that you think they're stupid. I'm not a religious person myself. But I don't think we should "ban Islam". The 1st Amendment gives us religious freedom, so long as we practice it peacefully. First of all: How are you going to enforce a ban of Islam? How can you ban something that's an idea, for starters? To ban something is not to just voluntarily get rid of it, but to use the state as a force to take it away from other people. You are essentially suggesting that if someone is at a mosque, they should be rounded up by the police, fined and put in jail. There are hundreds of millions of people who are muslim, and only a trace of a trace minority) of them have commited acts of terrorism. If 99.999...% of people practicing Islam are peaceful, then Islam itself isn't a problem. Do you think violence is a part of Islamic texts? Guess what, the Bible has plenty of acts of violence in it too. Times have changed and society, on the whole, has moved on from slavery and such. Do you think Islamic countries are despotic? Guess what, athiest/non-Abrahamic countries (like Soviet Union) have commited lots of human rights crimes too. There are predominantly Christian countries in Africa which subjugate women and kill gay people. It happens on both sides, and at that point, it's not about the religion - it's about the people who practice it. Don't blame Islam (or any religious view for that matter) Personal advice: Get out of your isolated cultural bubble and actually meet plenty of great people who have different religious beliefs than you. You'll realize that they're not diseased or violent at all and have more in common with you than you think.