BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Government should pay housewives

Lets start off with what the topic, "The Government should pay housewives", Is about. Basically, Women who do not working order to look after children or a household should be compensated by the government. This includes women on maternity leave. About 50% of all employers do not pay women during this time. Shifting the responsibility from the employers to the government is beneficial for the employers-they don't have to pay money-and it is also beneficial for the women as they are guaranteed pay. This would potentially solve the wage gap because the biggest factor that contributes to it is women not getting paid during maternity leave/taking care of kids instead of working. My first debate on this site, Please be gentle.
Religion is a force for good in the world.

I would posit that religion is, demonstrably, not a force for good in the world. Religious people may of course do good things on an individual level, but that is to say nothing of the institutions to which they belong. Religion has caused an untold amount of suffering, death, misery, and had an overbearingly negative impact on society since its origins (or at least until the Catholic church came into existence). This debate is not necessarily intended to prove or disprove the existence of god, although I would be happy to accept that challenge if anyone wishes to present it. If anyone thinks they can prove that religion (not religious individuals), by its own rights, has had a more positive impact than a negative one, I will concede that you have won this debate.
Religion is a force for good in the world.

Here's a joke: A preacher asked this lady "Why she didn't go to church?" And, the lady replied "I don't go to church because of all of the hypocrites." And, the preacher replied "Oh, that's O.K., come anyway...One more won't matter." There are always some truth in jokes...hypocrisy in the name of religion does exist. Now, my religious faith is based upon Judeo-Christian doctrine. My arguments are bounded by two important teachings in my religion. One: Jesus Christ is divinity, and is the manifest of God in flesh. I can't say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ." Two: Judeo-Christian doctrine is the only single true religion. Immediately, society perceives Christians to be ignorant. That's a social prospective upon Christians that can't be escaped. Doesn't mean that the NEW TESTIMENT justifies acts of violence's against people that do not have "faith" in Jesus Christ; but, having a right to an opinion about Jesus Christ, and that opinion being right about Jesus Christ, are two different things accordingly in Judeo-Christian teachings. Now, as for my first premise: the following groups are not associated with the true religion of Judeo-Christian doctrine: Buddhist, Confucianism, Hindus, Islam, Jainism, Shinto, Sikhs, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Ancient Aegean Religion, Ancient Assyria Religion, Aztec Religion, Ancient Babylonia Religion, Ancient Egypt Religion, Ancient Greek Religion, Inca Religion, Native American Religion, Mythology, Phoenicia Religion, Roman Empire Religion, Animal Worship, Animism, Devil worship, Fire Worship, Nature Worship, Sun Worship, Taboo, Voodoo, Ancestor Worship, Baha's, State Worship, Druse, Gnostic, Heresy, Sacred Music, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Seven day Adventists, Masons, Nazism, and any other group that does not recognize Jesus Christ as Divinity and that Judeo-Christian doctrine is the only single true religion. My second premise: Religion is defined by Judeo-Christian faith only, any wrong doing by any other group not associated with the Judeo-Christian faith cannot be attributed as religious wrong doing. My third premise: Judeo-Christian religion is of three elements: Sanctuary of the Church, Administration Offices of the Church, Congregation of the Church. All three elements can be corrupted at any time. Any corrupt element of the Church at any time is disassociated from Judeo-Christian religion. My forth premise: The sum of good upon mankind by the three associated elements of the Judeo-Christian religion outweighs the inequities upon the world. Or, to say metaphorically: Judeo-Christian religion is like three diamonds buried underneath a mountain of the world's garbage; find those diamonds, then mankind has something worth more than all the world's garbage those three diamonds were buried under.
College is worth it

Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...
Marrying more than 1 person

If the wives live in seperate households then there is no problem if the husband files a divorce if he is strained enough. And also, if the wife lives in seperate households, thats not the problem, the husband again, can file a divorce if the stain is enough. And, back to polygamy, if there is more than 1 spouse, who are you to say that the women will just sit around in the house? The benefit is obvious, that more people will work for a single household, hence it will become easier to pay for the houses/families expenses. And if it is for sexual satisfaction for men, then that is a social problem. People cheat and use girls for sexual satisfaction for dating and even regular marriage as well, are you going to stop them from marrying or dating?
Marrying more than 1 person

I will state my points here and you will argue them and then present me with points of your own.I think this is a stupid law. Laws are created to enforce our freedom and stop others from causing disruption in the community. Polygamy does not disrupt anyone in the community and restricting it, although not in the bill of rights, I think is taking away our freedom. It also makes having a family easier as more people contribute to the rent. It lets more people work for one household while letting someone possibly stay home to care for the house/kids.I wish all good luck!
The death penalty should be abolished.

I would like to point out that you are EXTREMELY rude. All you have done is repeat yourself. YOU HAVE YET TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING KILLED. A life sentence puts people in prison in danger. The prison workers and inmates. If you would do some reaserch people in prison can actually get killed by other people in the prison. Would you imagine that. Please do prove how I am lying in anyway. Your argument is 70% based on "the innocent people" being killed. You have yet to provide ANY evidence what so ever that innocent people have been killed. The basics may cost more. However sometimes the price is worth to pay when defending the name of justice. May I also say that I did know the man was incapable of remorse because that was part of his criminal profile. Let me show you one quote that completely disproves half your argument: "Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976..." Furthermore here a little good read for you to show it does effectively reduce crime: "A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) " what am I going to do, hide them?"" Source: http://www.cbsnews.com... Thank you for your time, it was an honor to debate with you
The death penalty should be abolished.

"never said it was false, but a Bible quote plays 0 in determining law." - Neither do opinions and the only thing you have provided so far are opinions. Facts are the only evidence accepted in law. "If it is only given with indisputable evidence, why are people innocent of crimes being executed?" -Because they are not, convictions are based off facts. They don't say "well this probably is our guy so we will just kill him". Give evidence that innocent people many have been killed recently. "The last words of one criminal were "How is this for your headline: french fries. Showing a very cocky attitude." A. How the hell does this help your case? What about the innocent people? - It proves that it is not mostly innocent people being executed, that more often it is people like that same cocky guy who is incapable of remorse. "B. You never answered my question. What purpose does the death penalty serve other than sometimes killing innocent people of a crime and satsfy some families the nice warm fuzzy feelings of retribution?" -It kills guilty people, carries out punishment for crimes, it shows the world that dangerous criminals will not be privileged, gives the families peace of mind, and removes dangerous criminals from threatening more lives. "Each year, it costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 PER DEATH SENTENCE, while a life in prison for 40 years costs roughly $1,000,000-$1,300,000 http://okcadp.org...; -It must be considered that you kill them once and it is over, giving someone a life sentance makes up pay that amount for years to come. Since you keep mentioning the innocently convicted: "There is no way to tell how many of the more than 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent." Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... -I would like to not that since 1976 only approximately 1000 people have received the death penalty. If they are innocent it really can't be proven. May I ask where is the undeniable evidence you speak of? The evidence of many innocent people being killed.... There is not any because you can't for sure prove if anyone has been wrongly accused.
The death penalty should be abolished.

"I would like to reiterate that my quote was not false. The old testament talks about that, before being changed in the New Testament as turn the other cheek." A. never said it was false, but a Bible quote plays 0 in determining law. "The 1970s tape is invalud because it was almost 50 years ago. The criminal system and America has come far since then." A. No it isn't invalid. B. It was some time ago, but the data is cumulative, it takes place over a period of time. It has been spread out over years. In a criminal justice system, people will fall through the cracks. "It is only given when there is indisputible evidence the convicted criminal commited the crime. Rarely has the penalty even been given to an innocent man." A. If it is only given with indisputible evidence, why are people innocent of crimes being executed? B.It has been given to an innocent person hundreds of times, just in the U.S, and they have been killed. C. So far I have to ask again, why do we need the death penalty when innocent people get killed? "Must I also point out that not everyone is scared ti death of gettign executed. Some twisted criminals feel no guilt for what they did, and are not fazes by their execution." A. And... what about the people innocent of the crime that get killed. "The last words of one criminal were "How is this for your headline: french fries. Showing a very cocky attitude." A. How the hell does this help your case? What about the innocent people? "Now I have a question: How would seeing a child serial killer live the rest of his life around others, with privileges such as internet time feel? How would you feel when comparing that criminal to the crying families at their child's grave?" A. What is he/she is innocent? Like I said this has happens about 4% of the time. B. You never answered my question. What purpose does the death penalty serve other than sometimes killing innocent people of a crime and satsfy some families the nice warm fuzzy feelings of retribution? I have heard like 1,000 times or so the argument about the cost of prisoners, but it is actually the other way around. A. Literally, while they are on death row the prisoner cost is being paid anyway so this isn't really avoiding it? Let's see the cost of the death penalty compared to the average cost of a prisoner. Each year, it costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 PER DEATH SENTENCE, while a life in prison for 40 years costs roughly $1,000,000-$1,300,000 http://okcadp.org... So the death penalty is actually so much more expensive than sentencing them to prison, again another reason to abolish it. So what is the advantage of the death penalty?
The death penalty should be abolished.

I would like to reiterate that my quote was not false. The old testament talks about that, before being changed in the New Testament as turn the other cheek. Now it is my turn to disprove your point as false. The '1970s tape" is invalid because it was almost 50 years ago. The criminal system and America has come far since then. It is EXTREMELY hard to receive the death penalty. It is only given when there is indisputable evidence that the convicted criminal committed the crime. Rarely has the penalty even been given to an innocent man. Must I also point out that not everyone is scared to death of getting executed. Some twisted criminals feel no guilt for what they did, and are not fazed by their execution. The last words of one criminal were "How is this for your headline: french fries." Showing a very cocky attitude and no remorse these are the criminals that receive the death penalty. The ones that deserve it. Now I have a question: How would seeing a child serial killer live the rest of his life around others, with privileges such as internet time feel? How would you feel when comparing that criminal to the crying families at their child's grave?
The death penalty should be abolished.

"...fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. -Leviticus 24:20." After this, I assume my opponent is part of some sect of Christianity, and with many Christians, I have to say, the Bible does not have a place in law. "...but the death penalty is sometimes needed. Why should we as people show mercy to anyone, and instead ruthlessly murdered their own kind." A. This is factually incorrect. The thing is, I hear people go on about the idea of the death penalty, retribution. I get it to a certain extant, if some one rapes and kills anyone close to you, why would you want them to live? However the problem is, in any criminal justice system, people are going to slip through the cracks, innocent people, will be wrongly killed for a murder they didn't commit at times. Do not forget, if you say the death penalty is good, then you are accepting that through the years, this system will be killing thousands of people innocent of the crime. Imagine yourself in that situation, waited to be injected with a drug that kills you, knowing that you played no part in the crime you were arrested on. But I need evidence for this, as it is, I am only making a claim. There was a fascinating article done by the guardian about 2 years ago, that commented on a study done by legal experts and statisticians from both Pennsylvania and Michigan in order to analyze the effectiveness of the death penalty in the U.S. The study found that AT LEAST 4.1% of people executed in the U.S since the 1970's were later proven as well as anything could be proven to be innocent, this is a crazy number. This is hundreds of people put to death who were false convicted, keep in mind, there are bound to be more cases that have not been proven yet. Source: http://www.theguardian.com... The significance of this is that the death penalty is killing innocent people. So now, I have to ask, what does the death penalty do besides kill some people innocent of the crime and satisfy some families the nice warm fuzzy feelings of retribution?
The death penalty should be abolished.

"...fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury." -Leviticus 24:20 It should be rarely used, but the death penalty is sometimes needed. Why should we as people show mercy to someone who showed no mercy to anyone, and instead ruthlessly murdered their own kind. "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln Abe himself, know from his honesty and good intention, states that someone who stole the freedom of one person should not deserve to live and keep their freedom. "If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first steps taken by my friends the murders" -Alphonse Karr
The death penalty should be abolished.

The death penalty should be abolished. Death penalty-the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. "The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrant, and the appeals process is expensive and cruel to the survivng family members."-Martin O'Malley "The death penalty issue is obviously a divisive one. But, whether one if for or against, you can nt deny the basic illogic, if we know the system is flawed, if we know that innocent people are on death row, then until the system is reformed, should we not allow the death penalty to protect those who are innocent?"-Richard LaGravanese "My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody."-Steve Earle
Plethora Virgin 79

Agriculture arose pretty much because hunter gatherer societies were growing in population and wanted to feed more people. The alternate solution that I argue they should have taken is to simply have not made more babies. This would have been very beneficial. Hunter gatherers work less, about 3 hours a day on average(1). They also are healthier, as forensic analysis of their bones has shown. Also, height is indicative of nutrition. The average human height before agriculture was about a foot taller than the height after agriculture. The height of agricultural people did not pick up for a few thousand years, and still is slightly shorter than HG's, even in rich developed countries. Third, any modern problem one could think of, global warming, war, pollution, poverty, social inequality, persistent crime, et cetera arose from agriculture. If we were still hunter-gatherers, we would not have coal plants and oil cars that emit CO2, war would be much less deadly, and much less frequent. Pollution, also would not occur without our industrial factories. Poverty would not exist because HG's worked with each other and shared food. HG's were also very egalitarian, and had little sexism or social classes. Crime only happens on a large scale when there are large populations, 60000 years ago, when everyone was an HG, there were only 10000 people. Sources: 1.http://www.environnement.ens.fr...... Read it, it's pretty short and it's interesting. The world problems points I made are pretty much common knowledge, we all know that what I said is true, but I can find a source if you need me to.
Plethora Virgin 79

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places. 1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights. 2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism. 3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be. 4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged. 5. Agriculture was a mistake. 6. Anarchy could feasibly work. 7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind. 8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate. 9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election. 10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world. 11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot). 12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed. 13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate). 14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.