BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the death penalty

-->I'm sorry, but either I am reading your response wrong or you're contradicting yourself. You responded with "Now I am not saying a sis deserves a sin because that is kinda being unfare", but then you go on to say "Let's say you stole from your girlfriend would you want her to do the same to you" If theft is a sin, which in the Christian sense of the word I am almost sure it is, then by that statement you would be saying that theft, in return, deserves theft. And of course, if theft is a sin, then you're in fact saying that sin shall be dealt with with more sin. -->Coming to this conclusion I am ever more confused by your response, because you quote the bible with "God said do unto your neighbor as you would want them to do to you". This is taken severely out of context, because this is meant to express that one should not commit any of the sins upon his neighbor, not that people require equal retribution for any act committed upon him. But suppose this were taken in the context that you're assuming, that every act of kindness deserves an act of kindness, and every sin deserves a sin. I'm not well versed in the bible, but i do recall Jesus dying on the cross, eternally absolving mankind's sins so that we could all go to heaven. If Jesus, and the holy trinity(assuming you're of that specific faith, appealing to your perspective specifically) has already purged these sins, then there is no need for this punishment. -->Also, what of other religious beliefs aside from Christianity? In Bhuddist beliefs, if one commits sin in their lives, then they will be reincarnated as a lesser being, such as a plant or a fly, and after that retribution has been paid, they will be reborn again as humans, or perhaps something else. -->Since you stated that you are in fact, talking about lethal injection, perhaps you could answer my question from the previous round. If one were to have the lethal injection administered to him/her and that person were to survive, would you consider that to be justice? Because according to the laws of our country, they have filled their requirements to repay their debts to society, and they will be let out of jail and welcomed back into the community. -->This is why the death penalty is flawed, which i stated from the beggining of this argument, which for some reason you shrugged off as a "Casual response". You're argument is merely a misinterpretation of the bible, which is clearly contradicted by Jesus' acts on the cross, and is further contradicted in the sense that sinners are sent to hell, where they will be eternally punished for their sins. You could argue that we should send them to hell immediately to start their eternal suffering as soon as possible, but again, not everybody is a devout Christian, and I don't think think that many Americans are entitled to that sort of divine justice. If that is the point that you're arguing, I think that those decisions should be left to your god, not congress.
the death penalty

Ok I can see what your saying, however, isn't kinda a casual approach. And you are saying a devout christian "sinless" let me just say no one is sinless, but anyhow i am in fact talking about injection. Now I am not saying a sis deserves a sin because that is kinda being unfare. this is a hard topic but my debate club is debating this subject. ok let me put it this way. If I was saying a sin deserves a sin. Let's say you stole from your girlfriend would you want her to do the same to you. God said do unto your neighbor as you would want them to do to you. You also said what if he belonged to one of those religous groups where they would be sent to absolute peace. Now that can be said, so say if the person did die "justly" he was convicted and found guilty and he was a Christian wouldn't the death penalty fit him well
the death penalty

First i would like to say good luck to you, Nater. This should be an interesting discussion. -->But as pertaining to the argument at hand, you are stating that you are in favor of people receiving the death penalty. Is this the penalty in general, or one in particular? As of yet I will assume you mean the two biggies at the moment; lethal injection and the electric chair. Both of these penalties have interesting aspects about them, which not many people take into consideration. I'm also going to assume that your opening argument is in essence the biblical "eye for an eye" statement? That a good deed deserves a good deed in return, and a sin deserves a sin. I agree with this statement completely, but i think that the consequences of the death penalty are not entirely appropriate. This really falls within the realm of perspective of not only the victim, but the murderer, and even the judge and jury. -->What if the victim were to be, say, a devout Christian, who led and entirely sin-free existence, and was assured that they were going to the kingdom of god? In this case, it seems that the victim was a victim of nothing more than an accident, one that turned out very well for him or her, in which case, the murderer should be rewarded for shortening the lesser existence of the man and progressing him to absolute peace for eternity. Does this seem to be the appropriate act to be punishing? -->Also, in the perspective of the murderer. Say he belonged to one of the many religious extremist groups, wherein they whole-heartedly believe that if they die for what they believe in(say, for example killing this person), then they would also be sent to a place of absolute peace where everything is wonderful. Are you saying that this is a fitting punishment? Giving a murderer what he believes to be an eternity of peace? -->Finally, my third point on this matter, do you find it appropriate to just enforce the death penalty as the law abides? In the case of lethal injection, the law merely states that the criminal is to be given the predetermined dosage of sodium penathol. I do not know of any situations in particular where a person has survived the lethal injection, but to my understanding it is completely plausible, and i have heard of it happening from several people. Do you think that these people have served their debt to society, because according to the law, they have been given the lethal injection, and that's all they had to do.
the death penalty

hello, I first want to say I am in total favor of the death penalty. I don't think it is fair that we let guilty murderers free, but i don't feel great about it. Look at it like this you do something kind to someone else, they return the favor. You kill someone and even worse don't feel bad about it then well for shame on you. When you kill someone out of anger it is so unjust, you take a family member and even worse you hurt youself not physicaly but mentally. The rest of your life you have to go on and remember the life you took away.
teens should NOT stay with parents after 18 years old.

Oh goodness I'm sorry! No matter, I will rebut my own points then (seeing as you have nothing to add). I will also add arguments for this side. CA 1: Although it provides the opportunity for 18-to-30-year-olds ("youths") to get themselves financially stable, it can be argued that this is unlikely to happen in practical terms. Youths are unlikely to be able to truly appreciate the magnitude of the responsibilities or difficulties that they will face in life unless they encounter them themselves. This means that while it may be useful to live near to parents, living with parents will deprive youths of the knowledge and appreciation of the challenges life has in store for them, and will put them at a disadvantage over those who understand these realities early. I can site several examples of people who have reached great success by taking charge of their lives early, like Steve Jobs, Johnny Depp, and Jim Carrey. CA 2: An attempt to gain financial stability can be a dangerous veneer for complacency and over-reliance on parents. The Pew report also notes that youths living with their parents have a significantly lower employment rate than their counterparts, as well as a lower rate of marriage. This implies that most youths living with their parents are not the kind that are mature enough to gain a thorough understanding of their circumstances and then leave. Marriage, to most people, is a milestone in life. A lower marriage rate suggests that less youths living with parents reach this milestone, at least at the same time as their counterparts. This implies slower and lower development. CA 3: It is unnecessary to live with parents to be close to them. One can live nearby as well, which will work just as well. CA 4: The increase is marginal, but I concede this point. I do not, however, think it is a major point. It merely points out that children who live on their own encounter greater difficulty. There is a saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". There are some that are unable to cope. I shall provide an argument for this as well. Allowing youths to live with their parents makes it such that they are provided with everything they need. Obviously life does not work that way. Holding them back from the reality of life merely erodes their drive to fight for what they want. These bad habits will put them at a significant disadvantage over their counterparts, and in life. I apologise to my adversary for misunderstanding the debate, and to the voters, because I fear that I've put them in a real conundrum, given that I've argued both sides and my adversary has argued neither (not his fault of course). I used the same sources as in my opening argument.
teens should NOT stay with parents after 18 years old.

I feel privileged to be part of your first debate. The structure appears largely informal and since this is a normative question, we have a shared burden of proof. I'll just present my arguments here, and give you the opportunity to rebut them before you present yours as well. My position, of course, is that children should stay with their parents after 18 years of age. A1: It allows children to get themselves financially stable Children who leave their parents house immediately at 18 are immediately burdened with expenses. Personal, rent, utilities, etc. Furthermore, they face financial catastrophe if they cannot pay these. If children remain, however, it allows them to earn some money and gain ownership of certain essentials (e.g. a house, which appreciates in value over time) This ensures that they would not face homelessness, for example, in times of financial difficulty. In fact, a Forbes report has shown that over 10% of children who leave their homes at 18 in USA end up returning. Furthermore, it allows children to already set apart a portion of a (presumably) meagre salary for emergencies and investment purposes. This can give the children a sound financial foundation. A2: It allows for children to mature a little more before settling down It is optimistic to think that even most 18-year-olds are capable of understanding the world and their future, having just entered adulthood. For that reason, American universities don't even permit their students to pick specialised courses such as Law and Medicine as courses, because it limits options to one career path. Allowing children to stay home, while encouraging them to find out more about what they want to do, allows them to make better decisions as they move along. A3: It keeps them close to their parents It is certainly not necessary for everyone to move away from their parents' home at all. Many families, especially in Asia, live as extended families, with several generations living together. This improves familial ties, and ensures that parents are always there to offer advice to their children if they need it, and that children are there to care for their parents if they need it. A4: College enrolment is higher in children who live with their parents A Pew research report has reflected that 66% of college students are likely to be living at home. This can be attributed to the greater security it offers them. Allowing children to accumulate knowledge, credentials (in short, human capital) gives them much better prospects for their future, financial and otherwise. For these reasons, I think it is clear that children should, in fact, live with their parents after they reach 18 years of age. I look forward to your counters and wish you a good first debate. :) Sources (I recommend you use sources too!): 1. http://www.forbes.com... 2. http://pewrsr.ch...
Resolved: The Native Americans should not have been removed from original tribal lands

Whew! I finished a 12 page technical report for a competition. So thanks again, I really appreciate it! Now my case: I negate: Native Americans should not have been removed from original tribal lands. Observations: 1. We are debating on simply removing N. A from original tribal land. 2. Definitions are self explanatory. 3. Pro has the burden proving N. A not removed from original lands are more beneficial than removing them. Native Americans had been removed from original tribal lands. 1. Because all of this has been done, our modern day is the result. We are a superpower. So by relocating N. A we have benefited more people. Notable N. A have also stood out. (Our impacts and position today should be thanked by the relocation of N. A from original land. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. By removing them from original lands we have found natural resources such as gold, silver, copper, iron, and coal. These ores have seriously boomed our economy. If we hadn't then the ores or oil will be useless to the Native Americans because they don't know how to apply to daily life, so we lose a resource to use and an opportunity of a superpower. So by removing them we have taken the advantage of our resources to make the U. S great. (Impact: We have the advantage of not depending on foreign resources that will drain our treasury. ) 3. In a global perspective if we haven't removed N. A from original lands then the world is the complete opposite. Nazis may rule and kill off all Jews, South may win the Civil War, colonization in the Latin Americas (without the Monroe Doctrine), etc. A small simple relocation prevented all this. Much is benefited for the majority. As for the N. A they will live on, their arts are preserved, their culture is continued. (Impact: by removing land and relocating them we have prevented such inhumane atrocities) I await your rebuttals. Thank you.
being a virgin is beautiful!

As pro for the debate I'm for the following statement, Virginity is beautiful it can define a woman/girl and give her a sense of pride For a boy it can be an achievement I guess :) As my opponent has not stated any opposition I have not much to say , but I would like to know when you thought I said " fun is another context for beautiful" big misinterpretation there. I chose the following argument as I thought its different and could be alt challenging for people wanting to uptake me on it Please extend your further argument and elaborate on your stance on this debate :) Than you
being a virgin is beautiful!

Firstly can I let my opponent know we have not as yet discussed the definition of semantic for the word " beautiful" yet in this debate. My opponent suggests I meant "Beautiful" physically as he quotes ! "your virginity looks beautiful today " I have not as yet during this debate explained what definition for beautiful I was using so that's a big misinterpretation.. Many spiritualists , Buddhists etc believe to be a " virgin" is pure and they then describe it as being mentally a beautiful thing, this is to remind women what pride they should show in still being a virgin and having that pureness. Many of society peer pressure etc has a bad tolerance for sex the younger generation are having sex, many not knowing everything there is to know, many who are not are are being branded as "oxidants" "frigid" etc thus wanting to go out and have sex to fit into the crowd. Virginity is beautiful because it gives you some respect and pureness it allows you to be different and have a sense of unique tolerance and willpower over yourself. I hope my opponent can see where I'm coming from and what sense I meant in using the word " beautiful" Definitions of beautiful on the Web: •delighting the senses or exciting intellectual or emotional admiration; http://answers.yahoo.com...
being a virgin is beautiful!

I apologize for the inconvenience I have caused with the forfeiture of my debate round. I was in Houston, Texas for a family reunion and had no access to a computer. I was in this little hick-ho-dunk town. Anyways, I thank my opponent for being patient and allowing me to continue this debate with her. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. Now to begin my first argument: "Virginity is beautiful it can define a woman/girl and give her a sense of pride For a boy it can be an achievement I guess :)" First off I would like to point out that my opponent believes virginity to be a foreseeable thing. Meaning one can approach another, and say "Why, your virginity looks beautiful today." This is simply incorrect. Virginity is simply when one has not had sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, meaning you are a virgin if you have not had sex. It is impossible to know if one is a virgin by looking at their face, so it is impossible to know whether or not one is a virgin and therefore, one cannot see it's "beauty" even though a mentality cannot be beautiful. "As my opponent has not stated any opposition I have not much to say , but I would like to know when you thought I said " fun is another context for beautiful" big misinterpretation there." Thank you for furthering my point. She uses beautiful as in the sense of cosmetic beauty. But as I have already said, this is impossible to have. "I chose the following argument as I thought its different and could be alt challenging for people wanting to uptake me on it Please extend your further argument and elaborate on your stance on this debate :)" No offense but i'm having a lot of difficulty understanding what you are getting at here. Please elaborate and explain. Please vote CON as my opponent has inevitably set herself up for defeat. Thank you.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

I don't know any gays. Its dominance sex male or female is power in the anmail kingdom it really means your my b*****my dogs do it all the time and they are heterosexual. It is our buisness. Because it is not love. No I have also heard that a Homosexual can munipulate a Heterosexual to become Homosexuals its like vampires spreading thier diease. No they are compareable you have no morally justified reason besides what people want so in your standard I can kill someone. I don't know if gay sex fells natrual or not i'm taking a guess. The constitution does not let me go to the next town over and burn it to a crisp free country or no free country some things are evil and just can't be allowed. Please name the things that rebel aganist nature then. Because thats what you get married for. Tell me who gets married and dosent have sex And let me guess you will say people get married for love thats true but math problemLove=sex
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

I know lots of gays actually. I have three gay cousins. Can you please tell me how or why gay sex is not natural? Animals do it all the time. It's not our business anyway to tell someone you don't even know that they cannot marry, nor is it our business to say that they don't love that person because you aren't that person, you don't know what emotions that person is having. How can you say it's not love? How is it not love? Do you really think they can choose who they love? I don't think so. Some are born with it. It's love rather it's with the same sex or not. There is a difference between killing someone and not allowing same sex marriages to marry. You can't even compare those two. They are completely different. In the US Constitution it says that there should be equal rights for ALL citizens. Do you mean to tell me that gays are not citizens of the United States? Of course they are! So, why are people going against the Constitution? It's not equal, nor is it right, that gays cannot marry. We will not be a free country, nor will we be an equal country, if gays cannot marry. How do you know if gay sex feels unnatural? It's not bothering you if two people of the same sex get married. You're never going to see them again most likely. There is no reason why someone shouldn't be granted the right to get married to someone! If you don't like it, who cares, you don't have to marry the same sex! There are a lot of things that rebel against nature, and gay sex is not one of them. Also, who said they were going to have gay sex just because they get married? They might have a sex free life! And just because they're allowed to marry doesn't mean they are going to have less or more sex. Marriage and sex have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. By not allowing gay marriage, you're not reducing the amount of gays because they can't help who they fall in love with or who their type is.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

How is it right lets say I want to kill my best friend is that right its want I want so in your standard it is what's right. It is only a free country to a degree I can't go to the next town over and burn it to a crisp and say its a free country. Homosexuality is not natrual tell me if you were to have sex with someone of the same-gender would it fell natrual probably not. Homosexuality is not love it is rebillion aganist nature. Who cares money isnt everything. Argument 2 This is serious. I did say gays should be punished for having gay sex. Yes, it is the middle ages. It is not love it is called rebillion aganist nature. Do you know any gays did they tell you this.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In The United States

Is this a joke or are you serious? You have to give reasoning behind your answer. Gay marriage is evil? How is it evil, if I may ask. You have no reasons to back yourself up. Did you say gays should be "punished" for having gay sex? What is this...the Middle Ages? It's called love...and no one can deny it or say they weren't born like this. Actually, I think some people are born this way. For example, some people are already born having "types." If you're a girl and you find guys who are short extremely unattractive, you can't help that, whereas someone else might find that really attractive. Also, if you're a straight male or female can you make yourself like the opposite gender? I'm guessing not. It's the same for gays.Good luck in round 2 ... ...