BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Welcome to the final round of the March Tournament Bracket, hosted by Wylted! Congrats to my esteemed opponent, Lee001, on making it to this round! I look forward to a stirring debate on a controvertial topic. Just a note to voters: the ELO minimum has been set to 2500. I think this resolution is relatively straightforward, but I'll be as clear as possible. This is a policy-based resolution, and as such, it is my burden to present a case. The burden of proof is on me, as I am seeking to change policy, though if my opponent decides to present a counterplan, our burdens will be shared. The United States Federal Government: In this case, since we're referring to U.S. policy and what it allows for, we're necessarily referring to what should be done by the U.S. Legislature. To be clear, we're not talking about the political will for this to be done, but rather the positives and negatives of the legislature passing my proposed bill into law. Legalize: "make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law." Prostitution: "the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." This debate will have a total of 4 rounds. The usual rule of no arguments in the final round still applies as always, first round is acceptance, and the opening rounds may include no rebuttals, in order to balance the debate. With that, I await my opponent's acceptance.
The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Yes pro, you are correct, I stated that ""Government should offer more organization's that help women who are prostitutes. They should be teaching them business ethics, how to build a resume, interviewing tips and mentoring them along the way. This would get more women off the street's and get them to start working on a 'business' not, and educational real job. " and then you say that: I see Con arguing that they'll "help women", and some of what they'll actually do, but I've already shown in my rebuttals that programs that do these things exist in status quo. Notice how I said the government SHOULD provide organizations. I never technically said that they DID have organization's for these women. Should is an idea, they should have organizations for women so that way they can get their life's back on track. I never said that we did have organization's for these women. How was I ignoring any of your point's? If anything, you twisted around my own point's and made them seem like they are something there not.
The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

I'm sad to see that my opponent didn't make another argument. Instead he only really gave me 1 round to rebut. So instead, I guess I will just have to prove his point's in this round wrong, or I must just clarify my points better. OV1: Generally when you put a " this means, its not you're own words, meaning it's from another source. Then I had listed my sources in order so you could exactly see what I referred to. Just because I don't do things the way you do it doesn't make me wrong :) How exactly do I know that you're sources are creditable? Debating isn't all about using other people's work. It's about applying you're own knowledge as well. OV2: I did explain these organizations, and what a benefit they would be to society and these women who are stuck in prostitution. Maybe you just overlooked that part. " I ask that judges take the vagueness of these policy changes into consideration, as it is impossible for me to evaluate their effectiveness and harms without knowing how they would be implemented" Here you're basically saying that, organization's to help these abused women would do no good therefore we shouldn't waste time trying to help them? If everybody felt that way, our world would be in great despair. Pro wants to argue that my point's are invalid, yet he only made 1 main argument in R2, as in the other round he didn't. So I really didn't have much to rebut, other that his critique on my own point's. He then goes on to say that: "Con says prostitution is "torture," but the only support she provides is that clients are allowed to engage in practices that "are acts of power and violence over the female body." Multiple responses." I did provide much evidence as to why it is "torture" and also explained as to why it's considered torture. Because they want to enter the business, but can't leave because they are afraid at to what their employer's will do. The employer's are holding them against their will, thus torture. If you had read my argument's you would have seen that. I don't see much else to do in this round. Let's see what he brings next round.
Jesus was born in Nazareth

I'm sorry, my grandma had a mini-stroke after her initial stroke. We went all the way back to the hospital and we stayed in Akron until yesterday. She's still okay, and that's important to me. The wifi at the hospital was really slow (I couldn't even get to Google) so I apologize for minimal debate. I would like to formally forfeit because I have only 41 minutes to post this and I'm going golfing with my dad. Sorry about my absence.
Jesus was born in Nazareth

What I'm about to tell you directly contradicts Matthew 2:1."Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,"In Luke 2:1-2:3, Luke explains why Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem."And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city."That census never happened. You can only find that information about the census in the gospels. You'd think someone in all of the Middle East would write down something like, "Today Caesar ordered all of us to go back to our original cities." There is no actual evidence outside the gospels to support this census. Joseph and Mary would have no reason to go to Bethlehem to give birth, effectively deciding Jesus was born in Nazareth.I eagerly await my opponent's arguments. Also, sorry for the extreme delay in argument, my grandma had a stroke and my family and I drove two hours to go see her. She's fine now, though.
Jesus was born in Nazareth

I accept this challenge, and look forward to PRO’s arguments. For clarity, I will provide the following definitions: Jesus-The central figure of Christianity, often referred to as Christ, or “the messiah” [1][2][3]. Nazareth-A city in Northern Israel [4][5][6]. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] https://bible.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://www.google.com... [6] http://www.nazareth.muni.il...
Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment Without Possibility of Parole

Death, a cessation of an organism's life. For the religious people, Heaven or Hell. For the atheists, darkness. The ultimate fate has not been discovered yet, but giving the unknown fate can be manipulated. As I said earlier, I am against death penalty. To end anyone's life is immoral, innocent or guilty. Take a guilty mass murderer for example. Jury has found him guilty and even the whole case conveys that he is guilty. Telling the case is unnecessary to tell. Back to topic now. Now his/her punishment is death penalty, whereas it should be life imprisonment. Why you ask? Both the victims and the murderer have their own families. Killing the murderer would just pressure his/her family with sadness and with other emotions. For the victims families, you might think it vanquishes their vengeance, sadness, etc., but it doesn't. What good has it done to you? Maybe a little hope, a little less sadness...? There is and will be a burning fire inside you mixed with hatred, sadness, etc., till you die. You'll still remember that missing, loving smile of your loved one. Say you were the mass murderer that had a death penalty as a punishment. You wouldn't like the sound of that! At least there is some point in life. There would be some chance you getting released even without parole. What if the prisoners broke out somehow and made an army to go against the government because of its actions. There are things that could happen without parole. You never know what life has in store for you. What if that murderer was your favorite uncle/aunt? What if he/she was your mom/dad that you loved a lot? Having to give them a death penalty would shatter you to pieces. Your heart would break like a dropped fragile plate. It would plunge you into a river of sadness. At least a life imprisonment punishment would give you a dent or a broken piece. With a death penalty, you will also miss that loving smile of your loved one.
Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment Without Possibility of Parole

This is how the debate will function; Round 1: State your stance and that you will be debating (for instance "I accept this challenge and oppose the death penalty"). Round 2: Opening statements Round 3: Rebuttals to opening statements Round 4: Closing statements and second rebuttals Before we begin the debate, I state the following: I am arguing for the death penalty with Propositions 3 and 4 from judges Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Paula M. Mitchell. I hope there is no confusion of what is being debated, and look forward to debating this topic.
Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment Without Possibility of Parole

All the links are links to graphs. The links are on the BOTTOM of this debate. Sorry for the inconvenience. My opponent states "Fear of death is a superior deterrent when placed alongside life imprisonment without possibility of parole." This is untrue as you can see in the graph "Murder Rates in Death Penalty States and Non-Death Penalty States". [1] As you can see death penalty states have higher homicide rates than non death penalty states. From this graph you can conclude that death penalty is not a superior deterrent. This makes this argument inaccurate and invalid. My opponent states "Every human wants to live. Every human can say they do not want to live, but they are instinctually programmed to." From what the opponent states it is not true. In round 4, the opponent states "Those eligible of the death penalty wish to be killed in some cases..., so not only would we be doing the prison system a favor by removing such persons" This statement does not help the former statement. The opponent said instinctually, which is not a word. My opponent states "When my opponent states "'(W)ould you not want the murderer to be killed?', my answer would be no" My opponent has never been in the given situation, therefore his opinion is invalid." My statement does not have to be invalid because I gave my opinion and supported it. I don"t have to be in that given situation. [2] "Is the death penalty a deterrent?" graph supports this statement. This is a poll created by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado. The study finds that 88% of criminologists don"t believe that death penalty is an effective deterrent. These aren't just from any criminologist, these are from U.S.A"s leading criminologists. [3] "Does the death penalty act as a deterrent to crime" graph supports this statement. Over the recent years, the most of the public has answered "no" to the question above. In 1985, 62% of the public answered "yes". In 2004, 38% of the public answered "yes". In 2006, only 34% of the public answered "yes". This also makes the argument invalid. With these graphs, they make my opponent"s argument invalid and death penalty a VERY inefficient deterrent. [1]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] and [3]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment Without Possibility of Parole

My opponent has said "You can cut costs dramatically with propositions 4 and 3 by...faster trials." This is not true. A fast trial has no relation towards a cost of a case. Maybe I might be wrong. Also without death penalty, the money saved can go to families for funds and for other causes. Also the opponent stated that life imprisonment is better than death penalty. This is not true. It leads to more suffering. There are bad people in that prison, tasteless food, etc.. My opponent has not stated many of these challenges. As my opponent stated that prison breakouts have low chances. This is true, so my statement was invalid and I admit it. But we are talking about the death row. They are bond to be placed in prisons with high security. It would be nearly impossible to escape it. So why not give the murderer more suffering than just death. As I said "The ultimate fate has not been discovered yet", so don't know what happens after life. So as my opponent said "(W)ould you not want the murderer to be killed?", my answer would be no. My idea is also vengeance, but I would not want to act like him/her even if it is constitutional. I would want him/her to suffer and think about it death is not the only deterrent. When the judge says life imprisonment, you would still get scared. There are still many more cons than there are pros for life imprisonment. For death, you might have a lot of suffering in a small amount of time, but the total suffering for life imprisonment is probably more than death.
Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment Without Possibility of Parole

My opponent stated "For the atheists, darkness" This is in so way true. Atheism is the disbelief of god(s). Atheists can be classified as such even if holding belief in reincarnation. My opponent states "The ultimate fate has not been discovered yet, but giving the unknown fate can be manipulated" Change is one of the greatest fears of humankind. Especially transition to death. The strongest instinct in the majority of humankind, is that prompting survival. My opponent states "What if the prisoners broke out somehow and made an army to go against the government because of its actions" This is exactly the kind of danger, although minute and highly unlikely, that exists when keeping the prisoners alive. The actions of one man are upon his own burden. Unjust would be to execute the entire criminal's family. This alleged criminal worthy of the death penalty has done actions which have consequences. Has not this criminal violated the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Right's Article 3, which states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." This is one of the worst crimes one human can commit unto another. Life imprisonment does not mean a person is sealed from society. There are still others in the prison system who are open to suffering from the murderer. If he who murdered others in the past was placed in a prison, would it not be likely that he kill his fellow prisoners, whom he deems worthy of such a punishment, as well? Certainly afterwards you can place him in solitary confinement, but what good would that do the family of the criminal who was just murdered? If anything, the murder of a family member would hurt them emotionally! Why not consider the sadness of those who have not yet been affected? If you were the family of the initial victim(s), would you not want the murderer to end his dangerous presence in this reality of ourselves? My opponent's argument, essentially, is that one must feel bad for the family of the killed. Think about this. The families of the murdered. Think about their loved ones. Think about how they are dead. Think about how the one responsible for their death was still breathing. Think about how the one responsible for their death was still eating. Think about how the one responsible for their death was still dreaming. If your family member was killed, would you not want the murderer to be killed? You cannot answer this question, as it is hypothetical for most, although you can think about it. My opponent states "There would be some chance you getting released even without parole" Parole is the legally valid release of a given prisoner, with promise of good behavior. Parole is not the release of a prisoner. Therefore my opponent's argument is invalid.
Home Schooling

My opponent states that we have failed public schools, but if that is true then why does the US have 2 schools in the top 5 colleges in the world? (http://www.deanstalk.net...) Or here in this graph were the US has 3 in the top 5 and 6 out of 10 of the world's best vocationial schools. My opponent's claim reguarding the children failing based on their situation at home helps my case as it shows the atmosphere at the homeschools are dangeriously terrible for the chilren and when you add in the fact that there is several states that do not regulate homeschools is leads to a terrible education for the children. Cross extend my chart I brought up last round where the children expierence abuse at home you can see that the children have nowhere to turn to for help and they are left like a fish without water. Some turn to homeschooling after a bullying problem, but here I will site Pschologist Izzie Kalman. She says, "Homeschooling is a poor way to try to remedy a bullying problem. The children will learn absolutely nothing about why they are having the problem and how to solve it. If they go back to the same school, the problem is likely to recur. Sometimes a school change will solve the problem, so I prefer that as a solution rather than homeschooling.The absolutely best solution is for the kids to be taught how to stop being bullied on their own."
Home Schooling

If parents take their children's education seriously, then the technology argument is obsolete. There are tons of programs and websites that can test and challenge a student. The parent shouldn't nessiarly have to sit down at a table and write up problems for their kid to do in front of them. Sure they may not know what the latest gizmo that their kid is texting on, but the education system in America has not changed much throughout the years, particularly in the public school system. The means to learn is there, and if the kids are falling behind in Chicago, I suspect it's more of a family issue, rather than an educational one. But my origional point is that American kids are falling behind internationally, even though we spend almost 10K per student in the public school. So who is to blame? The money's there, but the kids don't learn.
Home Schooling

Contention 1: School and gains From the state of Alaska, which does not regulate homeschools, we can see that they scroed less than public schools in the "Advanced "Range. Homeschoolers are represented by the blue and have only 28% compared to the 43% of Public Schools. Here is another chart, but this one is on the three core subjects, and we can see in Reading, Writting, and Math that the public schools have defeated the homeschoolers. (. http://politicsofchildhood.org...) My opponent states that the US is lagging in world-wide education, but the US is actually increasing in their Global Educationial rankings as they climbed from 20th to 17th. Though it does not seem like much the US educatioinial system is actually improving. (. http://www.ibtimes.com...) I have also provided key recent evidence and my opponent has yet to provide evidence, so my source and argument is more valid. This graph here shows that 61% of people that teach homeschoolers do not have a degree and this can hamper the teaching epierence that the children recieve as 100% of teachers at public schools have to have a teaching degree in order to teach, so you can see the great teaching difference in terms of skills. When you cross-apply my evidence for the public schools out preforming the homeschoolers you can see that there is a reason behind all of this. (. http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...) Drops My opponent has dropped several key points in this debate. -Contention 2 -Homeschools abuse -Homeschool extremism -US has top colleges compared to other countries -Most states do not regulate homeschooling -Homeschools can hurt a family financially -Homeschooling causes cabin fevor -Homeschooling doesn't help the bullying problem My opponent has not shown how homeschools are better than public schools and have dropped tons of arguments showing that the homeschooling system is terrible and not a great envirnment.
The egg came first, not the chicken.

Your attempt to justify your error is pathetic. You CLEARLY posted: << 3). If you grant me this definition, I believe I can defend my position from either an evolutionary OR a creationist standpoint. Can you really pass up a challenge like that?>> And I JUST AS CLEARLY posted: Yes, I can pass up a challenge like that and am going to -- better luck next time. I've already strategized how I'm going to use your 'misquote' to my advantage, so just do your best and learn from your mistake. What part of that did you miss? Read it seven or eight more times. You can make all the claims to victory that you want, but you alone do not decide whose argument is better and whose was more tragically flawed from the start. LOL! Thank you. < Chicken: a domestic fowl bred for flesh or eggs. Egg: an egg containing a growing chicken.>> Since an egg contains a growing chicken, a fact that you did not build a rebuttal against, you cannot not claim that the egg came first. By your own definition it is an impossibility.
The egg came first, not the chicken.

We seem to stand at a stalemate. I made a mistake, and then you made what I hope is the bigger mistake. I grant you number 3, you do not HAVE to accept my new definition of "egg." But you lose anyway. In round two, I did, in fact, dispute your points. Specifically, I disputed your definition. I said that my new one was better, and I gave two reasons why. YOU however, did not dispute either of those two points, or say why any of the previous definitions, yours or mine, were better than my new one. I can't do your work for you. You did not dispute that my new definition was the better one even when I gave reasons. Since it is the only definition that was actually argued for, it is the only accepted definition. But wait, you have no arguements about my new definition. All of your arguements stem from inferior (by default) definitions. And this is my last post. That means that you have put yourself at an unfair advantage. I can not refute any of the arguements that you might now bring up. *************************************************** On the grounds that YOU are the one who failed to address your opponents arguements and therefore don't have any for me to refute during my last post, I claim that I win by default.
The egg came first, not the chicken.

Yes, I can pass up a challenge like that and am going to -- better luck next time. I've already strategized how I'm going to use your 'misquote' to my advantage, so just do your best and learn from your mistake. As you did not dispute any of my points, I'll assume you accept them, as I accepted Round 1 without any dispute. Considering the logical side of my debate fulfilled, I will attempt to make Round 2 scientifically support my argument. < Egg: an egg containing a growing chicken.>> If an egg contains a growing chicken, as you've defined "egg", then it is reasonable to assume that the chicken does come before the egg. It always has, by your own definition. Thank you.
The egg came first, not the chicken.

I sort of screwed up here. I did not post my "Chicken" definition exactly as would have liked. That definition is "an egg containing an organism which, once it hatches, will be a chicken." There are three reasons this definition should be accepted after the debate began. 1). You ignored my definitions to begin with. I initiated this debate with a certain set of definitions in mind, and you went ahrad and posted your own, leading me to believe you would have ignored my definition of chicken as I wanted it to begin with. 2). You are getting away from the traditional debate. Obviously, if what was in the egg in the first place was a chicken, they would have existed simultaneously. It is taken for granted when people debate chicken vs. egg that what is in the egg does not count as a chicken. 3). If you grant me this definition, I believe I can defend my position from either an evolutionary OR a creationist standpoint. Can you really pass up a challenge like that?