BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

There is a better way to help the families of murder victims. Families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance. Capital Punishment also goes against almost every religion. Although isolated passages of the Bible have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. Mentally ill people have also been executed. Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury. Some have been forcibly medicated in order to make them competent to be executed.
Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

1. Worse sentence"Few convicted murderers sentenced to life in prison declare years later that they wish they had been sentenced instead to death and executed. Few if any death row prisoners refuse clemency if it is offered to them." [1]. They fear death more than life in prision. 2. Mistakes"there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976" [2]. There are some doubt in cases like in Willingham's case, but he was not aquitted. The death penalty deters criminals meaning it saves lives. When we fail to execute a murderer we are effectively valuing the murder's life higher than that of the person who might spare though the deterrent effect of their execution. If even one innocent person is saved through the deterrent effect of executing a murder, who has given up their right to life when they take a life, the execution of that murderer is justified.Sources[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...
Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

If someone commits a murder, then yes, they do deserve to be punished. But think of it this way, death it the easy way out. Would you rather have a life sentence in prison, or die? What about the family of the victim? Many people assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty to be imposed, but it isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral ground. Then there is the worst thing about the death penalty: Errors The system can make tragic mistakes. There have been many unfortunate people that have been killed, and later on been proved innocent. We'll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.
Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

Deference"Capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else" [1]. "And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence" [1]. "Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else" [1]. Concluding, capital punishment deters crime. 2. Retribution "We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred" [2]. The punishment should fit the crime and destroying one life the only justice would be to take the life of the criminal. Concluding, capital punishment serves proper justice. Sources[1] . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl...
Women are the root of all evil in Shakespeare's Macbeth

I shall keep this closing short. To go back to the original argument: The women in Macbeth, the 3 Weird Sisters & Lady Macbeth, are the root of all evil in Shakespeare's Macbeth. I state, "No. " Macbeth could have killed all the people that he needed in order to get that crown without any feminine intrigue. Macbeth's nefarious desire to be ruler of Scotland made him act upon his thoughts. Famous Shakespearean Quote: " The very firstlings of my heart shall be the firstlings of my hand. " ~ Macbeth (Act 4 Scene 1) Yes, the women are a part of Macbeth"s life, like Banquo, as supportive persons, yet the root of all evil? No. "Turn, hell hound, turn. "
Women are the root of all evil in Shakespeare's Macbeth

My esteemed opponent asks pertinent questions: Who encouraged Macbeth to kill Duncan? Of course the three witches & Lady Macbeth encourage Macbeth to become king and by ways of becoming king, he must kill a few others. Any high-born lady wants her husband to become king, as well as the three local, old biddies wanting their favorite lord to win the crown. They are supportive women, who are the weaker sex especially in the middle ages, truly the root of all evil? No. The three weird sisters, do not really cross Macbeth's mind until Banquo brings them up (Act 3 Scene 1). Macbeth starts to think that Banquo perhaps thinks on the crown. Macbeth, who had slain Duncan, usurped the crown, and now command two murderers to slay Banquo & his fleance (son) would have done these deeds with or without the women. He was focused on getting control of Scotland for himself. What were the witches' involvements? The witches' involvements were a simple plot excitement. Let me put this into a sort of contextual history. Shakespeare wrote Macbeth in 1606.[1] Women in Macbeth are a necessary distraction not the root of all evil. So give or take a few years leading up to the completion of writing Macbeth, most of Scotland has been rife with clan battles & English wars. Here is a wee timeline: 1564: Birth of William Shakespeare. 1587: Mary Queen of Scots beheaded. 1590: North Berwick Witch Hunts - 16th-century Scots worried about foreign enemies, but they also worried about an enemy within - the minions of the Devil. In 1590, it was brought to James VI's attention that some witches had been apprehended. Those accused were supposed to have raised storms to sink the newly-weds' ship. [2] Witches were big business. If Macbeth were a bachelor or had no influence of women, as my Pro suggests, Macbeth still would have committed his killing spree. 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2 http://digital.nls.uk...
Women are the root of all evil in Shakespeare's Macbeth

Women were not the root of all evil in Shakespeare's Macbeth. Rather they were the weaker sex especially in medieval times. Lady Macbeth needed to bulwark herself from the world next to a strong man. Insofar as the motivator, Lady M & the 3 witches saw Macbeth's desire to be king. They nurtured the path Macbeth was already on. Consequently, whatever crazy path her husband decided on, Lady M dedicated her body and soul to attain it for her husband. What the three little ole biddies, er, witches and his wife say are not the same as deeds. Facta non verba (Deeds not words) carry the weight solely on Macbeth"s shoulders. Even when Banquo & Macbeth (Act 1, Scene 3) come upon the three witches, doing their coven thing, on a barren heath, they greet him with bizarre titles of flattery probably because old ladies don't get a lot of company. They were probably having an girls night out with some welcomed the chance to talk & share the company of handsome, strong, healthy men. This is not so far-fetched. Warrior men don't really take time with old women in tales of yore. Old women are a usually feared & shunned; they can help the men with prophecy or act as an evil witch, which of course is feared by most Christians. Their words Witch 2: "Not so happy, yet happier. " seem mysterious and convoluted; most likely further evidence of magic mushrooms. Eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog were most likely utilized by Shakespeare to rhyme it all (Act 1 Scene 4). Or else that is all their widow's pension could afford. "They have more in them than mortal knowledge" is what Macbeth wrote to Lady M, she wants to believe in his passion & no matter the cost (Act 1 Scene 5). Macbeth was determined to ascribe prophecy to the fancy, esoteric claims of three witches. Btw, here is a nice rendition of Macbeth via PBS: . http://www.pbs.org...
The United States going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and starting the War On Terrorism

Allow me to reiterate:Iraq We invaded Iraq on two premises:Weapons of Mass Destruction and Links to al-Qaedaa) WMDsThere was a strong concensus amongst Western leaders that Iraq planned to obtain or already had weapons of mass destruction at their disposal and was a sentiment shared by the US, France and Britain in the late 90's. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 there was no evidence of nuclear weapons which caused everyone to believe that there were no WMDs whatsoever but this is not the case. Since 2003 over 500 chemical WMDs were discovered in Iraq bolstering the claims that Iraq had a dangerous weapons arsenal. [1] There was also the Iraq-Niger scandal where a bunch of confusing documents were coming out of Niger pertaining to potential uranium sales to Iraq during the time. [2] With the discovery of chemical weapons and the potential for nuclear weapons the United States invaded Iraq in order to prevent them from passing these weapons on to terrorist groups that wished to harm the United States.In a time when the US had just been attacked these fears and claims were legitiment. b) Links to al-QaedaIraq had allegedly been supporting and or linked to al-Qaeda and in order to stop terrorism from spreading through out the region and in the interest and defense of the United States we invaded in order to disrupt the terrorist networks that were running strongly in the region at the time. The Iraq - al-Qaeda was later uncovered in Guantanamo Bay when an Iraqi intelligence official was discovered to have ties that led all the way to Osama bin Laden. [3]So with fears of WMDs falling into terrorist hands and a proven connection between Iraq and the terrorist group (that "one group" that attacked us) we moved in in order to establish a base to continue to our hunt for al-Qaeda. Also, we disposed of Sadam Hussain, a classic Middle Eastern dictator. President Obama has supported the newly born Arab Spring which has ties back to our disposing of Sadam. If we can say that this set off the recent Arab Spring then it just one good thing that came out of this war that renders the resolution false. You have failed to disprove any of my claims.In conclusion: - Sadam Hussain removed from power- Arab Spring inspired by US introduced freedom to the Middle East - The Taliban curbed in Afghanistan, freedom promoted- Iraq holds free democratic elections [8]- Afghanistan holds free democratic elections [9] - Terrorism movement crushed- al-Qaeda destroyed and is no longer a threat to the US- Osama bin Laden killed - No successful terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11(source Numbers coinside with round one)
The United States going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and starting the War On Terrorism

"First of all, Sadaam Hussein was killed before 9/11, during George H. W. Bush's presidency."Saddam Hussein died in 2006 via execution after a trial put on by his own people. [1] Your information is simply false...My opponent dropped almost every one of my arguments and failed to address any of the key points I laid out for him. Refutation:We invaded Iraq in order to get to al-Qaeda while ridding the world of a dictator. Without our invasion and the information it brought us we never would have found Osama bin Laden in the first place. You can't carry out top secret missions on an enemy you know nothing about. Also before the invasion terrorism was too deeply engrained to simply root out with special ops alone. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a completely different matter. Kennedy would not have negotiated with Cuba if they had attacked us first. Also the United States has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We were attacked and an attack does not call for negotations it calls for action. Same goes for your nuclear missile point: you don't threaten people who have already attacked you. You attack back which is what we did. Please reread my previous argument because all the points on why this war was a success and NOT a waste of anything at all is nicely laid out for your reading enjoyment.Thank you. Also the economic crisis is a completely different matter that is only indirectly tied to the war on terror. Another debate for another time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and starting the War On Terrorism

First of all, Sadaam Hussein was killed before 9/11, during George H. W. Bush's presidency. And yes, even though Al-Quaida had ties to Iraq, that doesn't mean that they personally were the ones responsible. Instead of starting a full scale war, we should have went after Al-Quaida on a top secret lever, just like the Osama bin Laden mission. Also, though the weapons of mass destruction could cause great damage if used, why did we act so foolishly to take their bait and enter their country. Fidel Castro said that he had missles that he would launch at Florida, but what happened? The thirty-fifth President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, had a discussion with him, and at the end of that discussion, Castro decided that it would not be wise to wipe Florida off the face of the Earth. Why couldn't George W. Bush have done the same? When you are President of the United States, you have a briefcase that is carried around everywhere with you called the Football. Inside the Football are codes for nuclear missles that the President can use to point the missles at any place on Earth he wants. Why couldn't George W. Bush have threatened them with this information the same way that Kennedy did, instead of costing us valuble time, moneyy, and thousands of American lives. Maybe if we hadn't been in virtually three wars, we wouldn't be in an economic crisis/recession right now.
Death Battle: Goku vs Superman

I thank the Contender for accepting. Here's a few reasons why Goku would win.Argument:Point 1; The power of Ki.Ki is a spiritual technique used by most characters in DBZ. You can use it to create energy blasts, teleporting, and flying. It's a bit like Magic, really. And magic is one of Superman's weaknesses."Superman's biomatrix is his most powerful asset, but the strength of this field is also its greatest weakness. Its permeability to certain wavelengths makes him vulnerable to certain radiations, particularly magical energies whose chaotic electromagnetic or extra dimensional signatures disrupt this force field."Again, ki isn't exactly physical. It's like magic.Point 2; Superhuman abilities."Perhaps one of his most notorious traits between him and his human friends, is Goku's vast physical strength, which he has showcased across the years in many ways that far exceed those of most alien races." Goku is quite powerful."Another one of Goku's most important traits in combat and as a Saiyan, is his uncanny speed, which he has used to do some impressive feats across his life." Also, he's very fast. Might I say faster than a speeding bullet?Also, he's durable, and has increased senses.Point 3; Super Sayain. Goku has the ability to gain more power by going Super Sayain. He has 4 levels of this, each level more powerful than the last. If need be, Super Sayain 4 is extremely powerful.Conclusion:Goku is ridiculously powerful, as you can see. When he goes Super Sayain (especially SSJ4), little can match his power level. How powerful is Superman?Sources:Goku's powers: http://dragonball.wikia.com...Superman's weaknesses: http://dc.wikia.com...(New_Earth)#Weaknesses(I acknowledge that Superman had several reboots, but he still has all his weaknesses.)
Death Battle: Goku vs Superman

Dragon Ball Z is one of the most popular anime ever released (which I'm ashamed I haven't even watched an episode). Goku was the main character in DBZ, defeating many foes. Then, another idol exists; Superman. Both characters are treasured deeply within all of us, and the debate came: Who would win in a fight: Goku, or Superman?After careful analysis, I conclude Goku would probably win in a fight.Rules: 1) You will not be allowed to reference videos that say who would win. When posting a video, it must contain only information that backs up your claims. (So you can't reference ScrewAttack's video, but you can reference websites they used, but not referencing ScrewAttack themselves)2) No kritiks, semantics, or trolling of any sort.3) Forfeiting a round counts as freezing time, and an instant loss.Again, I claim Goku would win. The Contender must show that Superman would likely win.
Should marching band be considered a sport

Again, my opponent has not countered anything I have said, nor has she tied any of her arguments into why she feels they justify marching band becoming a sport. I am glad that she is providing information on what kind of things they do in marching band, but unless she connects it to why these justify it being classified as a sport, this information is extraneous. In order to continue this discussion further on the topic that it was intended for, that is, why we feel marching band should/should not be considered a sport, my opponent must counter what I have said AND tie in her arguments in order to further advance her point that marching band should be considered a sport. She has not done this yet. I will not add in any other arguments or rebuttals, as I have already done such. I will revisit what I have established for those who missed it, and so hopefully my opponent will begin to connect her claims to the prompt. Marching band, although physically challenging, cannot be classified as a sport just because it requires such dedication. I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say, hopefully addressing the things I stated above.
Should marching band be considered a sport

In marching band we do a lot of drills before a competition in my band we have a dance block, stretches, balance, traffic jam and work on keeping or upper body facing the front side line, back side line(or side only when directed) we also do choreograph in which we did for 1 minute of our show which was only 6 minutes the max in our circuit. we also do not walk we can't bend our knees the band ( color guard has a differnet technique).
Should marching band be considered a sport

I am sorry that I addressed my opponent as a male, I don't know why I did that. I looked at her profile to make sure that I knew what her gender was, and I knew that she was a female, but for some reason forgot and addressed her as a male. I also feel that I may not have clarified well enough what I meant by marching in this context. As my opponent has stated, marching in this case has special directions and uniformity. But this is essentially "walking in tempo" because the musicians are performing the choreography to the structure of the piece as well. Nonetheless, my opponent did not counter my arguments as to why marching band is not a sport, so I really don't have much else to write. I will finish by reiterating a point from earlier that just because carrying a band instrument may be physically exerting while marching, as hard as it may be, cannot qualify it to become a sport. I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses.
Should marching band be considered a sport

Then the instruments depending on what instrument you play. A sousaphone is heavier than a piccolo and sousaphone weighs less than a base drum but fells like more because it is on one solder and is the biggest instrument you marching on the field ( pit dose not count in this argument as they are just on carts in the back of the field. ). This the website to the band's contest info that I have been in the past two years as I was in it's first year of existence and we made top 10 in every contest we were in over the summer . http://www.indianatrackmarchingbands.com... and the website to the actual band . http://decaturcountymarchingband.org....
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament in America

I would rather have bin Laden watching his back in fear that we drop a nuke on him, than have him rolling over in laughter as we destroy our own weapons. If another country drops a nuke on us, I say we give them a 10-1 ratio of nukes. Ten for each one they drop on us. Throwing their country into peril and turmoil is doing something. You're crazy if you think that bin Laden won't be a little thrown off if he's running from place to place trying to not get nuked.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament in America

Once again I have to reference my third argument, we carpet bombed in WWII because we had to, there was no other way to get the job done. Now, technology has advanced and the situation has changed. Since this debate now seems to revolve around the idea of terrorism, here is the question that you have to ask, does the US having nuclear weapons deter terrorists? The answer is obviously no. The US, China, Russia, France, Pakistan, all targets of terrorism in recent years and all have nuclear weapons. Even if we said that we would use them in response to a terrorist attack, why does bin Laden care? We don't know where he is in order to drop the bomb on him. The most basic flaw that I feel your last argument has is what it seems to say we should do. Since terrorists will kill anybody, we should to. How does that make us any better or different than them? Let not forget that this "War on Terror" is not just a normal war. You CAN'T kill all the terrorists. We can and should go after the heads of organizations and such but if you really wanted to completely eliminate the treat of terrorist acts you would have to kill every person on the planet. This is a war over ideas and a nuclear bomb, no matter how big, cannot kill an idea. Only words and thoughts can kill an idea. Thats why I would much rather meet an Iranian citizen on here and have a discussion like this than meet them in the desert of Iran while looking though a bomb scope. On here you can talk and exchange ideas and maybe, just maybe, change their minds. Remember, the US was a victim of what many would call terrorist attacks from the very beginning. Some British officers decided that indiscriminate killing was the only way to get rid of the revolutionary fires in this country. But they were wrong. Their actions only stoked the fires of freedom in our forefathers. So today, I like to think that I live in a country where, when the choice is given, we chose to take the high road, even if it is the road less traveled by. I had fun, look to see you all on here again soon.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament in America

This is what I love. Almost nobody can understand the following concept. I have not met more than 2 people who agreed with me on this. TERRORIST GROUPS DO NOT CARE WHO THEY KILL. THEY WOULD KILL MILLIONS OF OUR INNOCENT CITIZENS IF PRESENTED WITH THE CHANCE. THEY THRIVE ON KNOWING THAT WE WOULDN'T DARE DROP A BOMB ON THEM TO KILL THE GUILTY IF IT MEAN KILLING INNOCENT. THAT IS HOW WE WON WWII.