BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Watchmaker argument is a bad argument for the existence of God

What makes a good argument? Fayestteville State University defines a good argument as “one in which the premises give good reasons to believe the conclusion is true”(1) It’s important to note that an argument can leave room for doubt in order to be valid (not everything in life has been conclusively debunked or conclusively proven! ) and therefore the watchmaker analogy simply has to further the case for theism for it to not to be dismissed as a "bad" one. I believe that most critical thinkers would be happy with this definition and assume that Omar2345 is too. Some backgroundBefore we judge the argument, We must first make sure we’ve correctly understood it. The 17th century saw a major change in scientific thought; Isaac Newton had shown that the planets moved in predictable patterns and this gave raise to the concept of the “clockwork universe”. As the Encyclopaedia Britcannica explains, “Mechanics came to be regarded as the ultimate explanatory science: phenomena of any kind, It was believed, Could and should be explained in terms of mechanical conceptions. Newtonian physics was used to support the deistic view that God had created the world as a perfect machine that then required no further interference from Him, The Newtonian world machine or Clockwork Universe. ” (2) Of course, Many might argue that a universe governed by precise laws leaves no room for God; this is where the watchmaker argument comes in. It must be stressed that the watch is not an analogy for human life (as some creationists and atheists, Such as Richard Dawkins, Wrongly believe) but a Newtonian universe. It could be argued that evolution is simply an extension of the mechanical universe (perhaps a more modern analogy would be the person who stumbles across a CD containing some computer code laying out a beautifully implemented genetic algorithm). The argumentWilliam Paley’s argument can be summarised as:1. If you found a watch lying on the ground, A reasonable person would assume that there was a creator and that this watch didn’t just assemble itself. Just because the watch behaves in a predictable manor, Following rules, Doesn’t remove the need for a creator2. Therefore, When a scientist discovers a clockwork universe, They too might assume that there is a creator behind it all. Just because the universe follows the laws of physics doesn’t remove the need for a creator. I believe both the premises are reasonable (note, I’m not saying they’re conclusive) and therefore the argument falls short of being a bad one. Demonstrating it is a "bad arument"I won’t waste time attacking straw men, Therefore I will let Omar2345 explain why they think the argument completly fails. To do this, They will need to show that its premise is unlikely to be true or that there is a fault in its logic. 1. Http://faculty. Uncfsu. Edu/jyoung/what_is_a_good_argument. Htm2. Http://abyss. Uoregon. Edu/~js/glossary/clockwork_universe. Html
Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty

I don't know why my graphs didn't load, but the death penalty should still be abolished. I will restate my argument.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...^ Go to the last graph. Then you can see that 43% of the people who are white are going to be executed. 41 percent of the people are African Americans.http://facts.kff.org...The bar graph on this link describes the the percent of each race that are living in the United States.As you can see, 64% of the population of the United States is White, and 12% is African American.If you compare both graphs together, you can see that more African Americans are going to be put on the death row than Whites.The Death Penalty still doesn't deter crime.The U.S has the highest number of crimes. There are people who commit a crime because of someone else's belief or race. Race related crime will never be stopped even with the death penalty, because there are those whose beliefs are such that no other race has the right to exist. There is no deterrent to murder at all nowadays Most killers are unlikely to serve more than 10 years and a lot will serve even less.We now have so many cruel deaths are pleaded as manslaughter and a manslaughter used to get a sentance of at least 7 years. Then, there are always the cases that vicious killers get suspended sentences. Really it's nothing to do with capital punishment and all to do with no punishment at all for most. It would be reasonable to conclude that many people would not have been murdered, just because they knew about the Death Penalty and it was in place, however, as you can see from my opponent's graph, this information came from the 20th century. Times had changed. Now its just easier to go out, buy some drugs, on once you're drunk, would you stop to think? Nope! You practically wouldn't even control yourself and the next thing you know, you're on the death row.To me, I would rather go to jail and learn from my mistakes than to be controlled to not do what I want. At least I'll be able to go through a process call Rehabilitation.
Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty

Extend arguments.~Racism~---> My opponent claims that the DP is racist. Here is a graph: see #1 source. This shows the majority of people executed are white, this makes sense though as they are the majority. In the current people on death row, 44% are white, 41% are african american. [1] This system doesn't seem racist. Another estimate says 48% of people executed are white, 40% black, 9% hispanic. [2] The right to a fair trial and other US supreme court rulings have stuck down the bias, the system now it totaly fair. [2]---> blacks benefit the most from the DPStudies show that 1 white is saved by the DP each usage, 1.5 balcks, and 0.5 people from other races. [3, 4] This is an average hence the decimals. This disproves racism.~LWOP comparisons~ ---> My opponent claims and presses the cost arguemnt. I will not use the traditional DP costs less, I will use another common argument. Justice. Justice is where the punishment fits the crime, you cannot have a price tag on justice. Justice in this case means giving the punihment that the person who did it deserves. [5] Keeping order through deterence, saving lives, and justice has no price. ---> My opponent then cites evidence that says people on LWOP do not kill. LWOP actually degrades over time. Many people get let out on LWOP (pardons) , or parole is given. [6, 7] This is one flaw that means hey can kill people if they get out. Also the longer they live the more of a chance they will kill inmates or prison guards. [6, 3] LWOP is not a good option.---> My opponent then says it never brings back the victim: True. But it deters crime and also serves the crime better. [6] It provides closure for the victims families for they actually see that the eye for an eye is actually happening, not sitting in cell watching TV. [8]_______________________________________________________________________________________________________I will add on to the deterence argument, with one simple graph. source: http://www.johansens.us...green = excecution, red = murder. DP increases usages save lives. ----| Conclusion |----The DP saves lives, deters crime, and is better then LWOP. VOTE CON. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [1]http://www.newsmax.com... [2]http://www.heritage.org... [3]Joanna M. Shepherd, "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment," Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 33 (June 2004), pp. 283-321. [4]http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]http://www.wesleylowe.com... [6]http://macombdaily.com... [7]http://www.bbc.co.uk... [8]
Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty

The US needs to abolish the Death Penalty. Why, you may ask.Does a person's race affect the likelihood of him/her receiving the death penalty?>Despite the fact that African Americans make up only 13 percent of the nation’s population, almost 50 percent of those currently on the federal death row are African American. And even though only three people have been executed under the federal death penalty in the modern era, two of them have been racial minorities. Furthermore, all six of the next scheduled executions are African Americans. The U.S. Department of Justice’s own figures reveal that between 2001 and 2006, 48 percent of defendants in federal cases in which the death penalty was sought were African Americans…To the NAACP, the biggest argument against the death penalty is that it is handed out in a biased, racially disparate manner.”(From the "The federal death penalty, like its application in the states, is used disproportionately against people of color. Of the 18 prisoners currently on federal death row, 16 are either African-American, Hispanic or Asian."(From the American Civil Liberties Union)Does a person's income affect the likelihood of him/her receiving the death penalty? "Nearly all of the 3,500 Americans awaiting execution on death row today have low-income backgrounds" (From the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP))Is life in prison without parole a better option than the death penalty?"The death penalty costs more, delivers less, and puts innocent lives at risk. Life without parole provides swift, severe, and certain punishment. It provides justice to survivors of murder victims and allows more resources to be invested into solving other murders and preventing violence. Sentencing people to die in prison is the sensible alternative for public safety and murder victims’ families."(From the American Civil Liberties Union)"The death penalty never brings back the victims of violent crime, but it makes all of us killers by proxy--and gives our government the ominous power to decide which citizens may live and which citizens may die."(Quote by Tom Head)These are some excerpts from different sources that you should look at.
Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty

C1: The deterrent effect of the DP (death penalty)We must first look at deterrence theory. "Deterrence is a theory from behavioral psychology about preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. This theory of criminology is shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries." [1]This means more harsh punishments = deterrence. This is a gateway to my next argument:Many studies count that the DP saves 3-18 lives every execution. [2] Science does draw a conclusion, the DP saves lives in turn deterring crime. [2] Another study actually cited the DP each implication saves 74 lives. [3] Other studies show each DP usage saved 5 lives in 2003. [4] When Illinois had a moratorium, crime rose and 140 more murders occurred. [5] One study was done to prove an original study, they found a direct deterrence effect from the DP. [6, 7] This shows when the usage of the DP increased murder decreased. [8, 9] The DP deters crime. C2: The accuracy of the DPThe examples of innocent executions are rare. Only one possibly happened in 2004 (recent times.). [10] Also these are POSSIBLY innocent, we can never prove their innocence. There is a lot of doubt even that inncent people in the US are actually executed! [11] and these suposed innocent cases are very rare. [11] When there is a case that someone is innocent they are pardoned before, thats why we have the appeal system today. [11] So if there is reasonable doubt they get released, and they generally do. The risk of executing an innocent is very rare. DNA testing is old and a refined technology and is fairly accurate. [12] DNA testing almost always is correct and is accurate enough to dtermine people guilty. [13] Also people must face a jury of 12 and have no reasonable doubt before being found guilty. [14, 15] Hundreds of executions have been committed, and only 67 proclaimed possibly innocent. [16] That means the DP is very accurate. ----> Concusion <----The DP should not be banned, and it is a deterrent and is accurate. There are other arguments that may be used in rebuttals later, but this is good for now. The DP should be allowed. VOTE CONSources:http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2]http://www.npr.org... [3]http://archive.newsmax.com... [5]Naci H. Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings, "The Impact of Incentives on Human Behavior: Can We Make It Disappear? The Case of the Death Penalty," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 12631, October 2006. [6]http://www.heritage.org... [7]http://www.johansens.us... [8]United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-1997." [9]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [10]http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org... [11]http://en.wikipedia.org... [12]http://www.forensicmag.com... [13]http://crime.about.com... [14]http://en.wikipedia.org... [15]http://www.guardian.co.uk... [16]
Resolved: The US should abolish the death penalty

We are not arguing: other DP systems, only the US one 8th amendment religion Definitions: Death penalty: Capital punishment http://dictionary.reference.com... US: United States of america We are arguing the current system of the DP, not any others. Rules: first round acceptance/definitions/clarifications round 2 opening cases, no refutation. Round 3 refutations defense of arguments for pro Round 4 refutations defense of arguments closing arguments. 8000 characters
Drinking age

Pro's arguments that 18-20 year olds lack maturity and that their brains are not fully developed basically offend every 18-20 year old in uniform. Pro's argument was bias against the millions of 18-20 year olds that behave responsibly. I don't think that 18 year old brains can be too much different from a 21 year old brain and Pro provided no evidence for her case. Pro also argued that the earlier one is exposed to alcohol, the greater the likelihood of future alcohol problems. Unfortunately, Pro has given no reliable sources to show that making the drinking age the way it is made any improvement on society. I have evidence that Alcohol Prohibition failed before in the past. The National alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933 failed, which shows that strict regulation of drinking is counterproductive, unenforceable, and can lead to an increase in illegal and underground activities.[1] Due to Pro's unfortunate arguments I urge a Con vote [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Drinking age

Good point but teens brains are not fully developed therefore most cannot make rational decisions especially when it comes to alcohol. When teens drink alcohol, they are more likely to binge drink than people above the age of 21, demonstrating that teens are more prone to alcohol abuse and should not be allowed to consume alcohol at an earlier age. In addition, because teens are simultaneously undergoing physical changes, peer pressure, and new situations and urges, allowing them to consume alcohol can make them more vulnerable to drug and substance abuse, unplanned and unprotected sex, depression, and violence. Like I stated earlier teens brains are not fully developed therefore most cannot make rational decisions especially when it comes to alcohol.
Drinking age

In round 2 Pro made a valid point but the problem when debating this is that everyone is different and you cannot fairly apply a system like this without affecting the entire age group of 18 to 20 year olds. Surely the millions of 18 to 20 year olds that behave responsibly deserve the right to drink. Also prohibiting teens from drinking in bars, restaurants, and public locations has the effect of forcing them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties. When teens get hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents, they are sometimes afraid of seeking medical help for fear of legal consequences. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision. The drinking limit of 21 is expensive and inefficient. Drinking is still a major problem among teens. It would be more effective to spend money on educating youth about alcohol than to spend it on enforcement of drinking laws for 18 to 20 year olds.
Drinking age

The earlier a person begins alcohol use, the greater the chances are of that person becoming an alcoholic later in life, which can lead to negative physical symptoms in turn that can cause harm to his/her brain during its development. Also if teens use alcohol earlier in life it could also result in other drug and substance abuse as well. Keeping the drinking age at 21 will also reduce in the death rates in teens. States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachussets, Michigan, and Maine experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group.
Drinking age

Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, which includes taking on the responsibilities of life and death, and be prosecuted as adults. Adults from the age of 18 should therefore be trusted to make decisions about alcohol consumption. 2. Keeping the drinking age at 21 sends the wrong message that alcohol consumption represents maturity, which leads teens to want to consume alcohol to appear mature. Lowering the drinking age would help dispel this misconception. 3. Keeping the drinking age at 21 sends the wrong message that alcohol consumption represents maturity, which leads teens to want to consume alcohol to appear mature. Lowering the drinking age would help dispel this misconception. ..
LD debate--Audio/Video style!

I sincerely apologize for typing this debate, but I have 2 major blocks in my way preventing me from doing a video. 1) My friend took my webcam (bah humbug)… and 2) I have about every symptom of illness possible. ==================================== Same Value- ‘Couldn't kill one single person to save the lives of every other person in the world' (this argument was repeated as absurd many times in my opponent's speech)--> -My opponent said this argument many times in his last speech saying that it was ‘absurd' not to allow us to save the majority and kill off the minority. But what I have to say against this is that I (con) am not disallowing the saving of the majority, I am just saying that it is NEVER morally permissible to kill ANYONE to do ANYTHING. This is why I have my Criterion of Equality of all Individuals. Under my Criterion, we recognize that the killing of anyone (for better or for worse) can NEVER be morally permissible. In day to day life, you will find that morally HARDLY EVER deals with what is smart or what can or should be done, it ONLY deals with what is right. And killing ANYBODY is NOT right and therefore does not fit under any moral code. -Also go back to your own quote about morality and it's okay as long as you are ‘sacrificing something of moral comfort.' Well, I don't see anything of more moral "comfort" than a HUMAN BEING! So cross-apply that quote (that HE gave). Affirmative is preventing more death--> -BUT the prevention of that death is NOT morally permissible because you have to KILL someone AND you don't KNOW FOR SURE (dropped argument) if you are actually saving someone else (this goes back to the real world examples such as bombing a city during war time. The Bus Example: -Don't worry, you can still get on the bus! If you look to the resolution you will see that it says "kill." This means and act of DELIBERATION and you getting killed on the bus is accidental. Accidents can not be a moral violation thus does not deal with the resolution or either of our cases. ‘If we always save the majority, more people will live.'--> -This argument only makes sense at first glance, BUT what happens when the majority start becoming the ‘one innocent person.' ‘This Resolution assumes that you know that you will actually save more lives.'--> -BUT in all real world examples, you never KNOW for sure. For example, if 100 innocent people were killed through out a decade to ATTEMPT to live under the resolution (by saving more innocent people). Now let's say that only 50 ACTUALLY save more innocent people. It would be ABUSIVE to CON by saying that we are only debating the 50 cases when you know that there are cases out there where ‘more innocent people' were not saved. Because of all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON! Thank you and sorry for typing this speech :(…
LD debate--Audio/Video style!

Okay, here's how it'll work. No CX, I don't know a good way to do that, I already tried it and failed. But what will happen is the debaters will post a video of them giving their constructives, rebuttals, et cetera. If you don't have a web cam, do what I am doing, that is only recording my voice, then subsequently putting it on Movie Maker, and then YouTube. Oh, and keep your arguments at the right time limit please. Aff 1, 6 minutes, Neg 1, 7 minutes, Aff 2, 4 minutes, Neg 2, 6 minutes, Aff 3, 3 minutes. So here's my speech. Just so you know, the reason I sound stupid is because I have a really bad cold as of now. http://www.youtube.com... I think it'll work.
Team Debate: Mace Windu vs. Darth Sidious

FINAL ARGUMENTSince the release of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, one important question has divided fans and has been the cause of much debate. Fans have wondered if Sidious’ survival was a consequence of Anakin’s actions, or if Sidious could have fought off Windu. Another question: Did Sidious allow Mace Windu to win, or could Windu win in a fair fight? We have taken the position that Sidious would have been the victor. Here is our final attempt to convince the readers. Please vote Con. Pro made compelling arguments in the final round. However, one quote that we posted in R2, and Pro neglected, provides evidence supporting our claim: “As some Jedi had feared from the start, Anakin had been ripe for conversion when Qui-Gon Jinn had first brought him to the Temple, and for well over a decade all of Sidious's plans for the boy had unfolded without incident. ” As we stated earlier, if Sidious was truly defeated, would the duel not be listed as an “incident”? As a major part of Sidious’ plan, the duel would not be forgotten in the future, and surely such an event would deserve a mention if Sidious’ plans were moments away from destruction. The duel earns no mention, showing that Sidious had planned every single step in his rise to power, including that duel, and his supposed defeat. Sidious was in complete control of the Jedi, and as powerful as Windu was, he was no different. It is also worth noting that while Pro has described and elaborated the powers of both combatants to a great extent, the bigger picture and the scenario described in our main source must be seen. While the question still remains of who would win in a fair fight, keep in mind that the duel in the movie, which should be considered our main source, was set in a different scenario. It was not a fair fight. Sidious needed to turn Anakin to the dark side, and as we stated above, Sidious threw the fight. The fact that Windu cornered Sidious is irrelevant in the scenario in the duel. Sidious purposely “lost” the fight, as proven above, so any arguments regarding Windu’s performance, or powers used, during the duel may not be very relevant in the context of a fair fight, especially those that may specifically counter Sidious’ powers. For the final time, we affirm that Sidious threw the fight, and in an ordinary situation, Sidious would have the advantage over Windu.