BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should ban death penalties around the world.

Because you have forfeited Round 2 I will get on to my conclusion. In conclusion I believe that we should ban death penalties around the world for reasons I have already said. There is really nothing else I can say because I believe I have commented on all your points and due to you forfeiting this round there is nothing else to say. Thank you very much and good luck.I hope you can have your say in round 3.
We should ban death penalties around the world.

Now you said that it costs so much to put someone in prison for life without parole,which is true,but Death Penalties actually cost more than life in prison.http://www.nbcnews.com... you do not wish to look click the link then its just showing that Death Penalties cost way more than life in prison. Also if you click the link, there is a paragraph on the website that says It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row. http://www.forbes.com... Here is another link showing an article on death penalties.In the articles it shows a shocking statement "Every time a killer is sentenced to die, a school closes. So if we do death penalties it will affect alot of people and even close down schools(like it said in the article.) Now you said that Each one of us at one point or another has had Nercophobia. If one had the matter of death on the table, the violent act would less likely occur and the crime would have never occurred in the first place! But due to statistics in America more crimes happen as a result of looking at horrific acts,like genocide,murdering s,and torture.Same example applies when people watch movies with gory and horrific things in them.The images that they see will be stored in there mind and will cause them to make bad choices from what they have seen.Your idea will not be a solution but will make the problem worse. http://cursor.org... On this link is a article on Television and Violence. In conclusion Death Penalties should be ban. Also Death Penalties cost MORE than life imprisonment. Thank you.
We should ban death penalties around the world.

"My 2nd point is that if someone did a bad crime that's so horrible then they should just get life in prison. .. " It would be easier to just imprison all of these inmates if it did not cost so much to even have them present in the first place. Have you looked at the cost to even have a person incarcerated ? "We spend almost $70 billion annually to place adults in prison and jails, to confine youth in detention centers, and to supervise 7.3 million individuals on probation and parole. .. .Nearly 75 percent of imprisonment spending happens at the state level, where dollars are drawn from a general fund that is meant to pay for a range of public needs, including health care, housing, public assistance, and education. "Take a look at page 10 of "Figure 4: The Taxpayer Costs of State Prisons per Inmate, Fiscal Year 2010" (. http://www.vera.org...) Now I am not saying the solution is to kill off all the prisoners that stayed the longest or anything as such. But notorious criminals that have done horrific acts should be considered to have the death penalty. To much money is being spent on Inmates! The graph below drawn by the Bureau of Criminal Justice gives a general overview of the murder rate compared to the number of executions that had taken place in the US up to the year 2000: Each one of us at one point or another has had Nercophobia. If one had the matter of death on the table, the violent act would less likely occur and the crime would have never occurred in the first place! Globally, America should not be sticking their foot into every foreign affair. It is not our country we have no right to butt into such practices. (America is one that protects the practice of religion anyhow! ) . http://prospect.org...http://www.wesleylowe.com...
We should ban death penalties around the world.

I believe that we should ban death penalties around the world. My 1st point is that if a man or woman is sentenced a death penalty because she/he killed someone then it would not be fair because another man/woman is killing them due to the death penalty. My 2nd point is that if someone did a bad crime that's so horrible then they should just get life in prison.The man that raped 3 young girls in america did a horrible thing and now has life in prison which is good,because instead of dying a quick and easy death they get to have a punishment of life in prison.Ending up mental and full of regret.Knowing that what they did was wrong for the rest of their life in prison. So in conclusion I say that we SHOULD ban death penalties around the world. Thank you.
Pineapple DOESNT go on pizza

If it isn't your point then why are toppings put on pizza (e.g. pineapple)? The reason why we put toppings on pizzas is to eat them (taste it). To conclude my side of the debate, I believe I have disproved all my opponent's point and have won the debate to why 'PINEAPPLE DOESN'T GO PIZZA" * The "It's a fruit" point was made redundant as I posed the questions "Why do some fruits go on pizza while others don't" as I made the point that tomatoes are consider a big part of pizzas when they are technically fruits. *The "It's pineapple" is wrong as it is just an opinion. *The "Tomatoes are not toppings" and "It's not solid point" was proven wrong because the taste of the pineapple is unaffected by its different forms. *The "Pineapple doesn't go on pizza as a topping" (Not for taste) is also wrong because the reason we put toppings on pizza is to actually eat it.
Pineapple DOESNT go on pizza

If you say that pineapple doesn't 'go' on pizza. Why is it that tomato sauce/puree (a vital ingredient of pizza) is a required ingredient in almost every pizza recipe? Tomatoes are developed from the ovary of the base of its flower, and subsequently tomatoes are considered to be fruits. Why is then that some fruits (such as tomatoes) 'go' on a pizza while others don't?
Abotion is not a dead baby. Babies arent babies at the time of Abortions.

My opponent has failed to make ANY arguments to support her side of the resolution. Due to my opponent's lack of any contentions, last round I argued as much as I could: I broke down the resolution and proved it supported my side of the argument. I strongly urge a PRO vote. Here are the sources I used for the definitions in the previous round: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abotion is not a dead baby. Babies arent babies at the time of Abortions.

With the failure of my opponent to post a contention for round one, I shall attempt to elucidate the resolution with definitions and contentions. The resolution states, "Abotion is not a dead baby. " (I assume abotion is supposed to be abortion, for my opponent stated the word 'abortion' in round 1) Abortion is in fact not a dead baby. Abortion is defined as any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy. Because abortion is not a dead baby, my side (Pro) is supported by the statement. The resolution further states, "Babies arent babies at the time of Abortions. " Babies in fact are not recognized as babies at the time of abortion. A baby is defined as a newborn or very young child. Because a baby is classified as a newborn/very young child, that means a baby is out of the mother's womb, and since abortions only take place when the fetus is in the womb, I have shown that in fact the fetus is not known as a baby at the time of abortions. I believe I have cleared it up, but I would hope my opponent exemplifies her points further in the following round. "People say that at the time of Abortions, that they are not yet babies" This does not present an argument, so no rebuttal is necessary. I have shown the statements in the resolution to support my side. I urge a Pro vote. Thank you
Argentina benefits more from its alliance with the US, than a hypothetical one with Brazil

I was going to extend the BoP waiting time as requested by my opponent, but unfortunately, he was banned, and therefore probably won't be coming back in the last round. This is a shame, not only because this debate will be wasted, but especially because Jifpop09 seemed to be quite an interesting member of this site.Anyway, I'm still interested in debating this or any other related topic, so if anyone reading this would like to engage in a similar debate (or even a different one) just send me a PM and we'll set up the terms.
Argentina benefits more from its alliance with the US, than a hypothetical one with Brazil

Thanks Jifpop for presenting this debate.My intention is to argue that, if facing a situation that forced to choose between remain an allied of the United States, or making an alliance with Brazil, Argentina best option would be an alliance with Brazil.I'd like to notice that this is a hypothetical situation that doesn't allow neutrality as a choice, so there is a shared BoP: both Pro and I have to prove the merits of the alliance we are defending.
Argentina benefits more from its alliance with the US, than a hypothetical one with Brazil

Welcome Friends of DDO! I'll be challenging political science student, Joepbr, all the way from Brazil. The topic we will be arguing, is that Argentina's MNNA alliance with the US, is more beneficial then a hypothetical alliance with Brazil. My opponent will argue that Argentina would do much better allied with Brazil.The context of the debate, allows Argentina to only be allied with one of the two. RFD's can have a one comment extension. Round structure is as follows....(1) Acceptance(2) Opening Arguments(3) Rebuttals
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot overlap in terms of topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics, 2 cannot be about Music, 2 cannot be about Science), the topics cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by submitting, as his or her response, the phrase "Thank you for this debate" repeatedly until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

I'll go Pro. Contention 1: One can prove the existence of God if one makes several not so irrational assumptions. If one assumes that a) the universe had a beginning, and b) something must have caused that beginning, God is necessary. For example, things such as the Big Bang still require creation of their own, and so something must have come first. This something must have caused itself. That is fundamentally illogical, so the only entity that could cause itself is an entity that is not constrained by logic. Enter the all powerful God. He can cause himself (He can do anything), and that is required if one makes the above assumptions. Contention 2: Pascale's Wager rationalizes belief in God. Blaise Pacale said that basically, if you support a religion, you have a net gain. Possibility A, God is real, you believe in him--go to heaven Possibility B, God is real, you are an atheist--go to hell Possibility C, God is not real, you believe--oh well, you die Possibility D, God is not real, you don't believe--oh well, you die. So can only win if you believe in God. There's no real point in not believing, believing however has a point, that is, I might get to go to heaven. Contention 3: Empirical evidence can justify belief in God. For example, many things in this world are amazing, beyond belief. For example, in mathematics, there are irrational numbers that are closely related. Euler's number and pi, both irrational numbers are in a sense, magic numbers that relate to many functions of mathematics, trigonometry, statistics, calculus... the list goes on. However, there is no good reason for this. A god could explain this. I can lsit other examples easily. Contention 4: Pragamatism supports belief in God. Pragmatism says the truth is unknowable, so the best thing to do is to believe in whatever makes us the happiest. Studies have shown that religion increases happiness, so therefore, one should follow a religion. Religion can entail a number of things, and one of these is belief in God.
The direction "Weast" needs to be put on a compass

Does it though? Here are the reasons why it shouldn't. 1) Unnecessary It's completely unneeded, because who ever needed a compass to stay right where they are? 2) Not a real direction Maybe if it was South East or North West, MAYBE even West-East. Wait never mind, that's not a real direction either. 3) Where would it go What would this compass look like? Where would the direction be put on this compass? It's completely unfeasible.
Violent or misleading video games or other media and content do not directly cause behavioral issues

Moving on:RebuttalsMy opponent frequently states that violent or misleading content can cause behavioral issues to anyone, with several anecdotes and other pieces of proof. However he completely ignores the point I made in which I stated that misleading content cannot harm or cause behavioral problems to people DIRECTLY. TheSymbiote: did the people you mentioned simply just start to be perverted or violent because what they were viewing or doing just simply appeared in front of them? Or did they actually have to view the content and, after some evaluation, accept those things as normal? What's more, my opponent only states several anecdotes to prove his point. There is a humongous flaw in doing so. Firstly, he is trying to prove that EVERYONE is directly negatively influenced by misleading content by stating/mentioning just a few people, compared to 7 billion and counting. How can he prove this by stating that he knows of around 10 people who are influenced this way? Around the middle of my opponent's argument, he states a brief argument:"Look at the trends. "This does not support his statement whatsoever, and it might possibly even contradict him. Why? First, because he does not cite where to look for the trends. Secondly, he does not put any chart up to support his argument. Thirdly, it might be that not many people are influenced negatively by misleading content. Finally, because of the resolution, this debate is more of a logic debate rather than a statistics debate. Last but not least, he makes a very general statement that "That youtube video of Anaconda will make people think that showing your body and wearing small clothes are what boys want. " He does not know for sure that EVERYONE is going to think this way, and he does not have anything to back this up. I have easily refuted all of my opponent's arguments and will move on to the backing up of my contentions. ContentionsIt seems that in my previous argument, even though my opponent seems to be fine with it, one of my three pieces of proof did not seem to make much sense. I will explain this now: The hardware that processes the energy represents the willpower that is being used by a person so they are not negatively influenced. This way things stay as they are. The wire that does not have this hardware represents the person that is lacking willpower or does not want to use it, so they become corrupt and "explode". I hope this makes my argument clearer. ConclusionAs you can see, I have easily refuted my opponent's arguments and made my own clearer and stronger. I hand the floor over to con! (Sorry, I addressed con as pro last round! )
Violent or misleading video games or other media and content do not directly cause behavioral issues

In the past when I was young. Guns used to be the most popular thing. If you watch full house there is an episode where one of the daughters has friends over. They are boys. She asks "Want to bake?" then I am pretty sure they say "No lets play guns!"They made a gun from thier hand and said "Pow Pow Pow" at each other (Stephanie's Wild Ride Season 8, Episode 9)People thought that cowboys and rangers were the coolest things everA 5 year old back then is influenced as much as now.My 9 year old cousin Alex, he knows the best weapons to kill people in COD BO2.It is sad that you think that the Sandy Hook killer wasn't influenced by those gamesI try my best not to be a stickler, yet it is the truth.FPS games involving weapons are influencing people.Look at the trends.Let me ananlyize Twerking: Was an internet trend for a while and it still is. Now people are making music videos of thatHarlem Shake: Though the trend was short, people craved for one to happen for them so badly. I remember in a high school a kid went on to the PA and told everyone to go into the gym. He played the Harlem Shake. It was so over crowded that 7(I think) got hurt. Now you are going to be asking "Why does this corespond with the debate?" But it does. That youtube video of Anocanda will make people think that showing your body and wearing small clothes are what boys want.To conclude. People can get influenced by anything. Video Games can influence people too.They did tests with children. They put a lunchbox in a room and they let the kids play in that room. One of the kids opened the lunch box and it had a plastic gun in it. (Check it out it was on the news) One of the kids picked it up and said "bang bang bang" They asked the parent why he might have done this and she said "He plays those gun games you know, the one with the people cursing and stuff" There was a whole segment on it. Pretty sure it was on my9 but whateverTo finish it yea people can behave more agressively because of video games
Violent or misleading video games or other media and content do not directly cause behavioral issues

Limitations: No insults. 72 hours to argue. 10,000 characters. No forfeiture. I, pro, will have to state arguments as to if violent and misleading content directly causes behavioral issues. The contender, con, will argue the opposite. Order: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Contentions Round 3: Back up contentions, rebuttals Round 4: Crystallize both contentions and rebuttals Round 5: Crystallize both contentions and rebuttals, conclusion. If, at any point, due to whatever reason except the contender cannot access his/her account at all, the contender forfeits, all points go to pro, and vice versa. Let us begin!
Marijuana should be legalized

I would like to respectfully disagree with you, friend. If smoking of marijuana was entirely a private issue and did not affect anyone else, usage of marijuana wouldn't even be a controversial issue. You see, marijuana severely impairs your judgment, mental health, and coordination. Your main argument is that 'its my body, so none of your business'. However, its been empirically proven that usage of marijuana causes an individual to double his or her chances of getting into a car accident. Obviously with car accident, you can easily hurt more than just yourself, and that's a reason to make sure marijuana is illegal to prevent harming others. Not to forget, impairment of one's judgement and abilities are often associated with the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases or unprotected sex. Next thing you know, you could've infected yourself or a complete stranger that you had just met with some sort a sexually transmitted disease, thus marijuana will end up harming the health of other people besides yourself. So if you believe doing pot is only going to affect yourself, you're entirely wrong. There is even recent studies showing that increased usage of marijuana is directly linked to increase in number of organized crime. There is just no reason why marijuana should be legalized.
I Challenge Again On God's Existence -- God Exists And People Need To Know That

No you're forgetting something vital Voldemort and dark wizardry! If you don't believe you'll always just be a muggle and unable to fly with a magical broom. What the hell? Don't you understand you're simply blathering nonsense? You're an atheist when it comes to every god out there of the millions of millions of potential deities, but we atheists just go one God further. Some gods are false? All gods are false. Do you have any reason why I should possibly accept your God over Allah or Zeus? My short reply is a product of a short amount of evidence. When a person is ranting and howling at the moon, there's no reasoning with them. You just got to sit them down and point out that you have no reason to believe a jot of the blathering nonsense you're spewing. I could make more compelling claims about elves or fairies or gods as such. It's utter nonsense and rather than point out a massive and long diatribe, it's better to just state the facts and sit down. In 90 years time, nobody I know will be dead. I say this because I will be dead and not know anybody. There's no everlasting existence and no reason other than fear to ever suppose there should be. You are substituting wishful thinking for honest appraisal of the facts. You're accepting what you want to be true over what there's reason to accept as true because you simply want it to be true. There's no honor in accepting a comforting lie over the truth. http://www.youtube.com...
I Challenge Again On God's Existence -- God Exists And People Need To Know That

You are forggeting something vital, the Devil and sin. Jesus said you must be born again. Chairs hold no answer, I could live in a world with out chairs and not question them because chairs would be called something else. The word god is in all religions but what god is right? Some gods a false and have not showed them selfs my God has and my God makes the most sense. If we have problems with money God would have sent and banker, if we have ploblems with land God would have sent a landscaper, if we had problems with reading and writting God would have sent a teacher of language. But we have problems of evilness so God sent a saviour. If there was a God you would do what you are doing. Like I said: What do you exspect God to be like if God existed in your life? I say God is fulfilling and saving. And that is what God is. Life is good and God is life. God is wisdom. I am surprised with your short reply. I am only saying what willl benefit you. The fact that thousands of people enter hell every day for ever is so fundimentally hopless. There intire existence now can not be descibed. In 90 years time, someone you know now may be dead and their everlasting existence depends on Jesus Christ. The crazy thing is that you would not let anybody die on a boat, but people let hundreds of people die in their life time. An average person knows 7,000 people in his/her life almost all will die. (Enter hell) That is the "death" of the spirit and you will sease to exist no more. This is unbeariabliy important. Ok thank you.
I Challenge Again On God's Existence -- God Exists And People Need To Know That

The fact that you even need to have this debate is a testament to the fact that God doesn't exist. How many long debates have you had making excuses for why you can't see or detect elves but they totally exist. How many debates are there on the existence of chairs? If there were a debate on the existence of chairs, why would it be derided as a joke whereas this debate is seen as mildly serious? -- Because CHAIRS EXIST. If there were a God, there would be only one religion and everybody would believe.