BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death penalty should be allowed

Rebuttals to opponent's arguments:It seems my opponent advocates the "eye for an eye" morality. What makes this morality superior? While they stated the golden rule, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. You wouldn't want to be killed if you murdered someone, right? So why should the murderer be killed when you, yourself, wouldn't want to be killed? Unless you're suicidal, you wouldn't want to be killed, so the golden rule would actually be reason against the death penalty. Now, as I said, what my opponent actually seems to advocate is the eye for an eye morality. To quote Gandhi "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind". We would be no better than the murderer by killing them. My main arguments:1) The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison sentences. No matter what state you look at, lawsuits where the death penalty is the goal, are a lot more expensive, as much asmillions of dollars more expensive in some cases[1]. Over all, capital punishment is much more expensive than life imrisonment without the possibility of parole[2] 2) The death penalty is making us less safe. "The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country. " [2] So, since resources and money is being spent on the death penalty instead of in other areas, it is actually making America less safe, not more safe.3) There are people who are innocent who get the death penaltyI consider it much worse to end the life of someone who is innocent of the crime. We don't have a perfect justice system, so we shouldn't be using extreme punishments such as ending the life of someone. It's estimated that 4.1% of those sentenced to the death penalty are innocent[3], but only 1.9% are ever discovered to be innocent after that they are convicted. How is the death penalty justifiable at all, when there is a chance for innocent people being killed? At least with life in prison without the chance of parole, there is a longer amount of time for us to discover new evidence that would make the person innocent. Once a person is dead, it wouldn't matter if new evidence arose that proved their innocent: you can't undo the death of that person. Sources:[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] http://www.pnas.org...
Human beings are justified in killing animals for the resources animals provide.

I will continue my argument that human beings are not justified in killing animals for the resources they provide. I will additionally discuss the consequences of this fabricated dependence. After addressing my opponents argument, I will similarly highlight some points for discussion. Research and Medical Advancement "When developing a new drug, it is necessary to run many animal trials before human trials are allowed. " I argue that it is no longer necessary to test animals for new medicines. Human cells can be grown within an incubator and fabricated to represent organs. Due to stem cell research, animal testing is growing obsolete. Human cells can better represent actual human responses when exposed to new drugs. Involving animals such as pigs and mice in laboratory procedures has produced misleading data before. Although experimenting with human cells is far more expensive, the results produced by such experimentation have far more potential. Animal Organs and Their Use in Humans I would like to address the first permanent and successful artificial heart, the Jarvik-7. The first permanent heart transplant undergone by a human patient took place with a mechanical heart. Additionally, animals can be grown to produce organs outside their bodies. It is not necessary to kill the host of the transplant organ. A host pig, for example, can be inseminated with multiple hearts. Animals and Economic Good/Hunting The word resource indicates, by definition, a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively. Pleasure is not a resource. Likewise, jobs are not a resource. Neither is trade. In this case, the "resources" proposed as being derived from animals are not tangible. "It is necessary to provide a certain level of animal population control. " Population control is not a function demanded of human beings. Animal populations regulate themselves by exhausting natural resources and starving. Human beings have a very poor track record of keeping nature in balance. If the ultimate goal of human beings it to preserve ecological balance, inaction would be the best approach. My opponent has highlighted multiple ways in which human beings utilize animal species. I maintain that none of these measures are necessary and/or superior to alternate means. Additionally, diseases such as the bubonic plague, swine flue, and bird flue, have found basis in animal species closely associated with human beings. Involving animals in research and transplanting the organs of such animal offers a possible route of cross contamination. Finally I would like to apologize to my opponent for preparing such a limited response. Due to personal conflict, I was unable to spend as much time as I would have preferred discussing this topic. I hope to compose a more adequate response in the next round.
Human beings are justified in killing animals for the resources animals provide.

I am new to this debate format. I hope I have completed the normal procedures in opening a debate. The basic premise for my argument (con/against) is that animals are no longer necessary to human survival. Indeed, land resources can be better utilized to provide larger yields of consumable crops than animal feed. Additionally, human beings no longer need animal-based meat products to survive and many vegetarians live healthy lifestyles without animal-based products. This is the basic argument I propose. If my opponent would like to explore moral, economic, or cultural basis for the killing/consumption of animals/animal-based products, I would love to debate those as well. Please excuse any grammatical errors or any other oversight in my writing, I am a student.
There is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that any god exists.

Since I am asserting there is no empirical evidence that any god, not just the Christian variety, exists, my first argument is actually a challenge. I am aware of all of the philosophical arguments for the existence of a Creator, which many choose to call god. They are not acceptable in this debate as the rules call for empirical evidence. I cannot refer to any evidence of that nature to challenge because there is none. All evidence of gods is entirely subjective, entirely untestable, and dependent entirely upon books written for the specific purpose of promoting a religious agenda of one sort or another.
There is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that any god exists.

I submit that there is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that any god exists. First round is acceptance only, second round is for arguments, third and fourth will be for rebuttal and additional argument with fifth for summary. Any evidence provided must originate in a peer-reviewed study that was NOT done by an organization backed by a religious group of any kind. Definition: Empirical. Obtained by direct or indirect observation, falsifiable, and repeatable.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Sorry!! Can I state my opinion still? Definitions cannot change. Marriage is a special bond between a man and a woman. A new term must be coined for gays to get a civil contract showing they are together of some sort. Anyways, in the State of Nature man is man, woman is woman. Naturally a man and woman go together. If it was okay to be gay then gays would be able to reproduce too, but they can't so obviously it is immoral. Being gay is also a choice. In fact if one wanted to be straight when they are gay they can undergo rehabilitation just like an alcoholic does.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Gay marriage should not be legalized, for many reasons. One, it is immoral and is banned in most major religions. Second, it is unnatural. A family must consist of one man and one woman to carry out their respective motherly and fatherly roles. A same sex couple can not use this universal rule of marriage, and can definitely not raise adopted children the same way biological children of opposite sex couples are raised. Third, if gay marriage is legalized in the United States, think of the repercussions... the people will then start demanding legalization of other unnatural and immoral forms of marriages and sexual relationships, such as polygamy and sodomy.
no rules debate

I think Con is missing the mark (so to speak). The question is not one of accuracy. I agree if one is inaccurate, one must clean up after one's self. However, assuming that a guy lifts the seat before firing, and assuming that any errantly aimed "junk" is promptly cleaned up, I don't see why the seat has to be put back down. It is simply in inefficient waste of time and energy after using energy in generating waste. Let us imagine for a moment a household of one man (M), one woman (W) and one bathroom. Let us assume that both parties frequent the toilet equally. I realize this is far from reality since women spend so much time in the bathroom, but it is for the sake of the argument. Since "going #1" is done at a greater rate than #2, let us also assume that both parties go #1 (P) six times a day and go #2 (S) two times a day (PM=6, SM=2, PW=6, SW=2). The total number of bathroom visits is 16. Now, if one leaves the seat in the position of last use, it will result in a higher number of instances that the seat is left down. The seat is left up only six times (PM) compared to the 10 instances where the seat is left down (SM+PW+SW). The seat is left down an overwhelming 62.5% of the time compared to a paltry 37.5 % when it is left up. Based on these statistics, one wonders why seat position has become such an emotionally charged issue with women.
John deere is better than fendt

John Deere is WAY more expensive, and I can prove it to you.John is an American name.Lots of Americans are fat.Fat people eat lots of food, which they buy. Buying three tonnes of food a day is extremely expensive.John Deere is expensive.Also,Deere belong to the earth.Things that belong to the earth are expensive, as the earth is a tough negotiator. I give it offers and it says nothing. It just waits waits for a really good offer. I think it's because I keep forgetting to pay my rent to stay on this planet and so it's really cranky with me.John Deere is expensive.I have two arguments that both prove that John Deere is really expensive.Thank you.
The idea of God exists.

1) Yes, the concept of infinity is "used in mathematics and physics." And yes, people have attempted to theoretically prove its existence. We can IMPLEMENT infinity, but we cannot conceptualize it; we cannot hold in our mind something that is infinite. In the same way, we cannot conceptualize God, because his traits are infinite in nature. 2) The opponent proposes a peculiar rhetorical analysis of the "lifting a mountain" paradox... Yet the blatant paradox remains. Indeed, God is a paradoxical concept. And as a paradoxical concept, we cannot have an IDEA of him in our minds; we can have ideas ABOUT him, but not OF him. Keep in mind my "cornerless square" example. --- It is clear that we cannot conceptualize God, because we cannot mentally imagine his traits. Therefore, we cannot cognitively possess an idea of him. Vote Con. Thank you.
The idea of God exists.

The human mind cannot comprehend infinite anything.This statement most likely is true for most people. However, the concept of infinity is used in mathematics and therefore physics. Georg Cantor spend years trying to prove the concept of infinity. Stephen Hawking uses the concept of infinity when explaining black holes. So while infinity may be hard to understand, its used in math and physics. Why then can't the concept of infinity be applied outside mathematics?http://en.wikipedia.org..."The simplest picture of a black hole is that of a body whose gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. The "escape velocity" of a body is the velocity at which an object would have to travel to escape the gravitational pull of the body and continue flying out to infinity."http://people.bu.edu... The concept of God is a paradox. "If God can do anything, can He make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift?"This is a verbal brain teaser for sure. But it speaks more of the limitations of language and the nature of people who use the paradox more than a refutation of the idea of God. If God is infinite, the mountain that He creates exists outside His infinite bounds, outside of infinity. Its as if the mountain exists in a parallel universe, unable to be lifted by its creator. There is a concept of infinity implied by God. Then the paradox contains an object, whether a mountain or stone, which is mentally "placed" or "created" in a setting not affected by God's power. Its a seeming contraction, but really just a nice verbal trick.Maybe the statemnent is a metaphor for doubt? How can God create all human life and then have people doubt the existance of God? Surely he could change everyone's mind to believe in Him? Free will lets people doubt the idea of God, doubt is a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift.Whether God exists or does not exist is not the topic of debate. The debate centers around the fact that people hold the idea of God true. The idea is demonstrable through people's words, actions and outward attitudes. One must draw the conclusion that the idea of God exists.
The idea of God exists.

1. Indeed, there are world religions that have members who worship God. And a lot of them. I concede this point.2. Yes, every religion has a creed that professes members' faith and loyalty to God. I concede this point, as well.3. Someone taking their own life for an idea that he or she believes portrays God means that the idea was, in fact, that of God, in his entirety? Not at all. I'll delve into this further in my own arguments. 4. "The idea of God is alive in the sports world"? Eh, not so much. I'll explain.5. "How can someone explain a notion if the notion does not exist?" Very easily, actually. I have never seen a man with a rainbow afro growing on his chest; although such a man may not exist (from my perspective), I believe I can explain the notion pretty well. But, more importantly, the IDEA of God is distinct from one's EXPLANATION of God. Let us take note of that.6. "One can simply prove the idea of God by simply stating, 'I have an idea of supremely perfect being.'" Oh, if only it were that simple. ---God, according to the opponent's definition, is an "omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being." Can we really imagine an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being? 1) The human mind cannot comprehend infinite anything. Omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are examples of traits that require one to imagine infinity. Without the ability to conceptualize these traits, one cannot effectively mentally hold the idea of God, by definition, in their mind. The idea of God would have to take into account these traits; although we know the nature of these traits in theory, we cannot conceptualize them when trying to form an image in our mind. Therefore, an idea of God cannot exist.2) The concept of God is a paradox. Here is an example regarding omnipotence: "If God can do anything, can He make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift?" 1. God can do anything. 2. God can make a mountain (because of fact 1). 3. God can lift anything (because of fact 1). 4. God cannot lift the mountain. [1] If 4 is true, then 1 is false. If 4 is false, then God cannot make a mountain that is too heavy for him to lift, so 1 is again false. So, can one have the idea of a square without corners? No. We have the idea of a square, and we have the idea of "cornerlessness." But the idea of not having corners opposes and contradicts of notion of being a square. Therefore, we cannot have the idea of a square without corners. In the same way, we cannot have an idea of God, by the definition presented by the opponent; we can have ideas ABOUT God, but they would never be accurate representations of what he is. ---An idea of God is simply not feasible, due to the infinite and paradoxial natures of the God concept. ---[1] http://simple.wikipedia.org...
The idea of God exists.

Thank you for accepting. In this round I will arrive at a logical conclusion based on the available evidence that the idea of God exists. 1. Many People Belong to World Religions World religions are organizations that worship God. Many houses of worship have been build to honor God and house religious ceremonies. God is central to religion. Without an idea of God, the many world religions that can be observed today would not be around. Time, money, effort and energy is spent to praise God. This behavior can best be explained that there is a deeply held notion of God. Christianity: 2.1 billion Islam: 1.5 billion Hinduism: 900 million Chinese traditional religion: 394 million Buddhism: 376 million Sikhism: 23 million Judaism: 14 million http://www.adherents.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Religious Creeds Many religions have a creed that professes their faith. The creeds contains a reference to God. The creed would be just empty words if the people reciting them did not truly believe in God. Accepting the sincerity of religious people reciting a creed means, at least for religious people, they are accepting the notion of God. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Religious Wars The mantra today is that Religion has caused most of wars in human history. Religion is based on God, therefore an idea of God must compel people to kill one another. Suicide bombers blow themselves up in the name of their religion. This illustrates the existence of God on a personal level. One of the strongest pieces of evidence that an idea of God exists is someone taking their own life. It the idea of God that compels people to take their own life and the life of others. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Sports Athletes e.g. Tim Tebow Tim Tebow is a quarterback on the New York Jets. He clearly demonstrates his belief in God on the football field by genuflecting after a touchdown. Many athletes believe in God and give thanks to God after a victory. Athletes outward support of God demonstrates that the idea of God is alive in the sports world. http://online.wsj.com... http://www.npr.org... 5. Random Sample Testing Ask someone "What is God?" The person will try to explain in the best manner they can. How can someone explain a notion if the notion does not exist? Therefore, the idea of God exists. 6. Descartes Ontological Argument The idea of God is not necessarily proof of God. One can simply prove the idea of God by simply stating, "I have an idea of supremely perfect being." There is no need to draw any conclusions from that statement, the statement alone is enough to prove the argument. http://plato.stanford.edu... A clear explanation has been given for events and actions that have been observed for thousands of years. The evidence clearly supports the hypothesis. The rational explanation to the observed behavior above is that an idea of God exits.
The idea of God exists.

The idea of God exists. Definitions: Idea - any conception existing in the mind. An idea does not require physical proof. God - omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being. Exists - to continue to be. Existence of an idea means that people still believed in the idea. I want to emphasize that the acceptor of the debate should not be arguing for physical proof/disproof of God. The debate revolves around the existence of an idea of God. I am not looking for a defense or evidence for atheism. Also, I realize that the specific views on God can come from many religions. This is a secular debate to determine if ideas of God do in fact exist.
Resolved: The USFG should eliminate its nuclear armed ICBM force

Resolution: Resolved: The USFG should eliminate its nuclear armed ICBM force Context and Definitions:USFG= United States Federal Government ICBM force= Intercontinental Ballistic Missile force; the roughly 450 existing silos, staff, and facilities supporting the ICBM. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round. 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. The artificial character constraints listed below MUST be adhered to. Rounds should telescope in length as the debate focuses on the salient points of debate. The total characters for this debate is equal to a three round debate but is spread over four rounds. 6. Pro accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions. Any dispute over definitions outside of R1 are to be resolved through argumentation within the debate. 7. BOP is shared. The winner of this debate is whichever side best supports their case. 8. R1 is for acceptance only. 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. Structure: R1. Acceptance R2. Constructive Cases R3. Constructive Cases R4. 6k character Rebuttals R5. 4k character Rebuttals
Universal Brotherhood Is More Important Than Patriotism

My knowledgeable opponent you know what's going on in our country. There are lots of terrorism.....you know why, why it is....because we never make internal brotherhood. Our own politicians are not aware of what is going in the country, then universal brotherhood is very far from our thinking.......just leave it...first we have to improve ourselves and our own country. Mahatma Gandhi is known all over the world for his patriotism towards India. He was respected by Martin Luther King yesterday and by Obama today. Obama got Nobel peace prize and his role model is Gandhi. Gandhi is known for his patriotic feeling that got freedom to India. When a person keeps some one who is patriot he is able win NOBEL PEACE PRIZE,so patriotism doesn't lead a country to blood shed but to a peace paradise. MAHATMA GANDHI died only in INDIA but the whole world was crying....
Universal Brotherhood Is More Important Than Patriotism

I would like to inform you that when we are unable to achieve brotherhood even in our own society, our own nation...then how can we go further for universal achievement.....universal brotherhood is a very big platform. Firstly we have to create the feelings of patriotism in our self after that we can talk about universal brotherhood. We have to create internal brotherhood....that is the basic thing of our life it gives us inspiration to love our mother land to show our regret towards it. First we should learn to walk before we start running....
Universal Brotherhood Is More Important Than Patriotism

I will be arguing Pro for Universal Brotherhood. Yet, I don't believe World Peace is possible, I still wish it was and think it is important. Argument: Patriotism CAN lead to thinking one's country is supreme which leads to conflict. One could argue that Hitler and the Nazi party were just very patriotic and a little insane. I do include that patriotism for the world as a whole would be a good thing. Yet, the only way one can have world patriotism is if the whole world was working together- Universal Brotherhood. I do not see any coalition between Universal Brotherhood and Patriotism unless you want one country to take over the whole world. It is more likely we will be forced to ban together for some apocalyptic reason. We must love each other and care for everyone before we can have Universal Brotherhood and History has proved Patriotism leads to the opposite.