BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
see=no god

Right, correct that you have not seen Santa. Would you like to know why? Because Santa does exist, but he is your parents. Also Saint Nicolaus did exist per stories, so Santa is not totally fictional. Honestly you are giving me the run of the mill response to my logical argument.You are trying to defy my logic, but casting uncertainty onto life as a whole and what we know. Note this, if you wish to question whether we can know anything, make a debate on that, not on a topic of whether God exists. If you want to debate whether God exists, then don't make a universal negative proposition. It really is not that hard. You are a pinning me as the failure point of your argument, but really it is you who did not provide a good logical reason why God does not exist. As for mirages, here is how you know it is a mirage. If you think you see water in the desert when you are dehydrated, and walk towards that beautiful pool of water for 4 hours before realizing it is staying in the same place ahead of you the whole time, then you begin to clue in to the fact that the pool of water is a figment of your imagination. If a gps were shown to you then, you would see that water was not for hundreds of miles in all directions. This would prove to you that your eyes with the help of your brain were constructing a mirage. I was merely suggesting that because God is all powerful and all knowing by nature, he could pull the wool over your eyes, give you a mirage, and you would not realize it until death. So that argument was not responded to you at all actually. You just misunderstood it, which is fine.In the end, voters I urge you to VOTE CON because Pro was highly illogical in this debate. Thank you, and thank you to my oppoenent for presenting this challenge.
The death penalty should exist

I do not have enough time to make a proper defense at this time, so if this round is shorter it is because I do not have enough time.I do not feel as though my opponent's rebuttals were adequate; he dropped my argument about high cost and even added to my case by saying that the death penalty is highly inefficient by saying that there is a large amount of legal troubles that people have to go through for an execution.My opponent says that innocent death is not a bad thing... I ask him what the role of government is if it is not to protect life and to uphold personal dignity. He shrugs it off as a minority but does not actually say why this isn't a bad thing, which I ask the voter to take into account.He also brushes off the fact that Nebraska has bipartisan support of abolishing the death penalty due to high cost by just saying that there will be a public referendum. This isn't a rebuttal to my impact of bipartisan support, just that it may change due to some people disagreeing.Thanks Kylar. You have to waive this round.
The death penalty should exist

Thank you for the debate and I am trying to post arguments/ rebuttals Alright let us look at this... I am having a difficult time with this debate but I will try and make the best of it. The death penalty acts as closure for the victim's family. Think about this, if someone you loved was killed, you would want the murderer to pay the price. The death penalty is that price, they die for their crime, and never haunt you again. Secondly, we have DNA testing now to help if their is doubt of an inmate's guilt. I did not attempt to plagiarize, and if I did I am sorry I did not mean too or realize I was. Thanks for the debate :)
The death penalty should exist

I thank my friend and apologize sincerely for the slowness to add my rebuttals its been a crazy summer break :). Refutal I California has spent a ton of money on the death penalty this is true. But that is because of legal issues and such mainly. Too many death row inmates too-just inject them and dismiss the stupid legal challenges on lethal injection drugs and stuff. Who cares where it was from or whatever if it does the job, it doesn't matter! Refutal II Yes, in California it seems to cost more. But that is only due to an extreme backlog on cases again due to pointless legal challenges. Refutal III 4% is not an lot of the death row population at all. It is only a small minority. Consider that means 96% could be guilty as charged, and deserve execution. Refutal IV Some families do not believe in the death penalty-to each their own :). Refutal V Yes Nebraska has repealed the death penalty. But for how long will that last? There is a push to reinstate it by public referendum, now whether that happens I don't know. I rest my case so far, thank you Lexus for the debate :)
The death penalty should exist

This is a debate sent to my good friend Kylar, since I saw on his profile that he believes that the death penalty should exist, while I do not.Resolved: The death penalty should exist in the United States.The onus is shared between the two of us, I must prove that we should not have the death penalty whereas my opponent must prove that we should have it. My reasoning for the sharing of the onus is because both sides call for a change in the status quo in the US.Rules:1. No forfeiting2. No semantics/trolling/kritiks/etc3. My opponent must start their constructive case this round and waive the final round saying "Round waived in accordance to rule 3" or something similar4. Keep appropriate conduct5. Do not reject definitions/structure or anything otherwise laid out in this debate. If you reject please do so in comments or PM so I can address it.Structure:Round X: What pro does | what con doesR1: Create debate | Provide constructive caseR2: Provide constructive case | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | WaiveVoter ELO is set to 2500. If needed I can change this.Votes are on a pick winner basis so we can get more in depth RFD's as opposed to just explaining specific points.Definitions:Death penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.should: ought to; mustexist: be in practice/be made into practice
Death Penalty should be Abolished in all States

There's a very large difference between the old lady in the nursing home and a convicted criminal put on death row. The former of the statement is not a drain on society, she is still being paid to live in those conditions and we're not spending money without getting anything back from the family keeping her there. There is a positive that we're gaining, as a society, from keeping that person inside of the hospital; we're collecting money from the family that is keeping her hospitalized and we're also continuing the well-being of the family by keeping her healthy. With someone like Mark Goudeau, no such positives are given, as we're simply paying for his institutionalization knowing well that he will never be a contributing member to society and never amount to anything other than a killer in a jail cell. I feel like we're retracting from the point, so allow me to pull us back on track. If you put people like Mark Goudeau, an incredibly dangerous individual, into an institution as an alternative to capital punishment, there are a few concerns that I have posted before, but will reiterate now. One, is that there is absolutely nothing saying that he will not be a detriment inside of that facility, more specifically, there's nothing saying that he won't hurt or even kill someone inside of that institution. Two, is that, among the amount of prisons and prisoners in the United States, 1% of those prisons escape. A very small number, but are we really going to allow the chance for Mark Goudeau to escape and hurt other innocent people because we failed to give him the death penalty? We should also consider the families and possible witnesses that put him in this position, as well. There's a sort of closure to having someone like Mark Goudeau be put to death for his disgusting crimes. A closure that allows the people who testified against him, the people who witnessed his crimes, or the people that got away from him live in peace without worrying about this serial killer and rapist coming back for seconds. If I witnessed a crime of Mark Goudeau, testified against him, and seen that he was put into life-without-parole, I would be scared out of my mind because I know people make mistakes. Mistakes so big that they could let Mr. Goudeau escape and, if he had escaped, then I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that he could be after me. The death penalty has more positive facets than it does negative and I think that any alternative to capital punishment would result in a higher crime rate (as per my previous argument), higher risk to witnesses and living victims, higher financial responsibility for little-to-no positives coming from the alternative we have in place. Capital punishment is given to those who deserve it and who would not change their behavior because of such consequence, to those people, we should not allow them to be apart of our society as they only act as a detriment.
Death Penalty should be Abolished in all States

I still think that everyone's life is worth something, no matter how sadistic or evil they act or appear to be. I agree that Mark Goudeau has committed unspeakable crimes and done atrocious things to innocent people, and he may be beyond help and impossible to reform. To answer your first question, I think that some people allowed to have a life sentence without parole may never be able to contribute to society, or "pay their dues". However, like Mark Goudeau, these people's lives still have worth. Human life always has worth because it is human- unlike other forms of life (animals, plants, bacteria, etc.) humans can reason and think. They can feel emotions. Human worth is not based on whether a person can contribute to society- an old woman in a nursing home who cannot shower or dress or eat by herself still has worth, even though she is arguably just a drain on society. Human worth is not based on your actions- criminals, no matter how atrocious their crimes, still have worth. All these people- criminals, the elderly, and even Mark Goudeau have worth because they are human. Someone who has shown they have no pity for other humans and acts like they have no feelings or empathy for other humans (someone who acts inhuman) is still human despite that, and so must have value. There is nothing an individual can do to invalidate their humanity. I do believe that justice must be served and people need to be punished, and I realize that keeping people who would have otherwise received capital punishment alive makes it possible for them to possibly escape again and is a drain on taxpayer dollars, but I think that the value of human life trumps both of these things. Even the life of a person who does not believe In the value of other human lives has worth.
Death Penalty should be Abolished in all States

I think that what you are saying is that because we don't have a good way to deal with people who cannot be trusted to be a part of society, so the only thing we can do is kill them. Even though people who might be sentenced to death have done terrible things, their lives are still worth something. If extra money is needed to provide an environment where they can live in acceptable conditions and not be a danger to others (solitary cells, special facilities for high-risk criminals, etc.) then it should be raised and spent. Whether or not the death penalty is less or more expensive than life without parole is irrelevant because it would be unethical to decide whether someone lives or dies based on which option is cheaper. If there was an alternative sentence for criminals bound for death row that allowed them to exist in an environment where they posed no threat to others, would you agree that the death penalty should be abolished? In other words, do you think that the death penalty should be legal because it is the only practical option for some criminals or because some criminals deserve to be killed for what they've done?
Most of the people on this website vote based on their standing on the issue not the debate.

I'm sure everyone here does know the feeling of losing a debate based on bias towards one position or another. This however does not uphold the resolution which states, "Most of the people on this website vote based on their standing on the issue not the debate." A similar situation would be me stating that "MOST of the people I know are angry", then to support my claim stating, "Everyone knows that feeling when someone has been an angry at you." Yeah, the second statement is true, but it doesn't mean that MOST people are angry. In this case my Revleader5 has shown that some people do vote based on bias. This is not to say MOST, I have given compelling counter arguments, I urge a Con vote.
Most of the people on this website vote based on their standing on the issue not the debate.

Everything Revleader5 said in his last speech was completely true. Many people do vote based on what their view is. But that my fellow debaters is not what this debate is about. We are debating whether or not most people exhibit this particular behavior. To disprove the point I will be citing a few debates from debaters who appear to be well known on this cite. The first is this: http://www.debate.org... A debate in which the instigator argues that if god exists then we should not follow god. An unpopular position to say the least. It is apparent that the instigator however is winning by a 5 vote margin. Why would this be? The answer lies in the contenders 2nd a 3rd round, the rounds which he forfeited. It is apparent through this example that while debaters will vote solely on the popular position, more debaters will vote based on forfeits. This debate proves that most people do not vote for the popular position but rather vote for forfeits. Second example.... http://www.debate.org... A debate in which the instigator creates a bullet proof position that cannot be argued against. The number ten does not equal the number five. In this debate it is apparent that 4 debaters voted for what is quite obviously the truth. 19 however voted for the contender and the unpopular position. Why? Perhaps because the instigator appeared to be a troll or was just flat out annoying. Either way this proves once again that people will vote for other reasons than standing on the issue more often than not.
Most of the people on this website vote based on their standing on the issue not the debate.

Sorry. I was being lazy. To argue this debate I'm going to have to cite all sorts of debates where someone playing Devil's advocate made an amazing debate, and still lost. Instead, I'll appeal to everyone's memories. Do any of you recall when you made an astounding argument, but you were fighting in a debate where you didn't even believe in your own arguments? That is what happens all the time. When someone has an unfavorable view, people vote based on the view, not argument. There isn't anyone on here who hasn't felt that.
There is nothing wrong with flying the Confederate flag anywhere.

I will respond to my opponents words and his words will be in italics. "It was used a symbol to promote slavery" Don't you think the American flag would have flown over slavery longer than the Confederate flag. Think about it, America had slaves since the start, since the 1790s. The Civil War and the Confederate flag, were created seventy years after the American flag. I didn't see the Confederate flag flying over the ships bringing the slaves over. Of course there were different types of confederate flags [1] that could have flown over the slave trade, but none of the versions did. Only the American flag was flown there. So is the donkey for the Democrat's party, but that argument was disproven by a well informed man, who is disagreeing with me in the comments, who goes by the name of Taliesyn. " It is just as offensive as flying a Nazi flag. The actual Nazi sign..." It's funny you bring up Nazi's. Neo- Nazis today also fly the American flag at meetings. I totally agree, the Swastika is offensive to fly. But we're not talking about that flag. We're talking about the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag is something to fly just because it shows Southern Pride. Not that you want to promote slavery, hate people of a different race, or that you want to secede from the United States of America, it's just a flag that was flown during the Civil War. Sure, it flew over slavery, I'm not denying that, but the Civil War wasn't about slavery, of course, it was an issue, but not the only one, as you indirectly mentioned in your first sentence,"... to the point where states should have their own rights." Sorces:[1] http://www.civilwar.com...;
There is nothing wrong with flying the Confederate flag anywhere.

It is wrong. It was used a symbol to promote slavery and show the diversion towards the south to the point where states should have their own rights. It is offensive to those who know the story behind it. It was used in an inhumane nature and represented it so. FLying this flag is the promotion of the nature and the promotion of the sad and tragic history it left behind; it is completely and utterly offensive. It is just as offensive as flying a Nazi flag. The actual Nazi sign was originally a Sanskrit svastika symbol for good fortune. The Nazis stole it and used it as their symbol. A child in school would get sent to the principal's office if they was caught drawing it. It as the same as the flag is symbol of something peaceful but the history and how it was used is offensive and horrid.
Should english be the main language in america

In the previous round, my opponent has expressed the belief that there is not a significant difference between the traditional English language and Simple English to constitute defining them as two distinct languages. This is simply false and is clearly based off of a misconception of the linguistic differences between the two languages. This is what English is: http://en.wikipedia.org... This is what Simple English is: http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia maintains too separate Wikis using the two different languages. I am not going to go into a long explanation of the differences between the two languages because you can click on the links and read a better explanation that way. The most significant difference, however, is that one is a natural language and one is an artificial language. Simple English was based off of English but it is not the same language at all. Furthermore, I doubt a person who is competent in traditional English would consider a Simple English speaker to know English. Traditional English uses a much wider vocabulary and is far less contextual tan Simple English. Alternately, it would be very possible to create simplified versions of other languages too. Thus, everyone could speak both English and Spanish. In fact, we could probably speak several languages because the amount of grammar and vocabulary we would have to learn would be minimal. Then America would need no primary language at all, everyone could just speak all sorts of languages. However, I think sticking with the tried and true case for Simple English is the best approach. Learning different languages would probably be too much for most people even if the languages are simple. Furthermore, many people have a disinclination toward learning the tongues of people who are not sufficiently pasty in hue. The advantages of Simple English seem to continuously build. It will allow people from all backgrounds and levels of intellect to converse as one without offending the sensibilities of the less racially tolerant. We should all rally behind Simple English as a force for equity and practicality in the world of tomorrow. No longer will the lawyer or the gifted nine-year-old be able to confuse us with a tapestry of verbal illusions. Simple English will give everyone an equal chance in society by bringing the level of language and thought down to a level everyone can tolerate. It is time to accept that the complexities of traditional English have become woefully outdated.
Should english be the main language in america

For this round, I will focus on explaining how the use of Simple English would easily solve the difficulties in communication between Americans who speak different languages. It is true that a factory should not have to accommodate for the languages spoken by each respective worker. Otherwise, what would happen if all 100 workers spoke a different language? There must be some standardization. Forcing everyone to adopt English is not the proper solution. It takes years of learning to fully master a language such as English and factory workers who are struggling to support their families do not have the time or energy that must be devoted to such a task. Furthermore, language classes are often necessary for beginners and they are not very affordable, especially to the generally less wealthy immigrant population. Recall also that in a factory of 100 people, we can reasonably expect that only 50% of them are completely fluent in English even if they are American. Imagine if a worker needed to create an accident report and could not write coherently? Half of the American workers would be no better qualified to use English than their Spanish-speaking coworker. The solution to this is to adopt Simple English. Everyone in the factory, regardless of their native language, would be able to learn to speak, read, and write in Simple English at an acceptable level of fluency after only a small amount of instruction. Simple English would free us from the complexities of traditional English. It is true that traditional English was the language of America in the past. But traditional English was the language of a hard working, productive nation that valued education and innovation. Simple English is a much more fitting language for America today. Thank you.
Should english be the main language in america

That was wel put together grape but as i say English as always been the primary language but you see now spanish is starting to become the primary language it should not be allowed that spanish become the primary language everytime you get a sheet of paper it has spanish and english on it in K-12 you are required to learn spanish whwy is that spanish is the central american and south american language why is it requried that we have to learn it over here thats not right English founded this country there fore the immigrants shou;ld learn english and not try to change it where english wont be the primary language. Lets relate this to something if you own a factory and have 100 workers all of the speak english because english is your primary language but a new worker comes in and he speaks spanish are you gonna make all 100 worker learn spanish of course not you are gonna make that spanish worker learn english if he is not gonna learn then he needs to get out you see english was the primary language but many lations come over here and force it to where the english need to learn spanish when they should learn english because english should be the primary language of our country
Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

"We aren't debating what the United States is currently, or what it ever will be. We are simply debating what SHOULD happen. I would like to wish my opponent good luck and wait for his/her response." Game over. You opened the door for both of us to debate what "should" happen. Equality "should" happen. We "should" be in a world in which everyone loves each other. We "should" be able to accept the fact gays are there, and accept their marriages. In context of actual advocacy, we should not be having this debate. We "should" embrace each other, and move forward with one another, as a societal group. This is what I advocate, the aff allows me to advocate this when defining the debate as what "should" happen. Societal barriers mean nothing today. Civil Unions "should" be illegal, because when they are, we know America as a whole has become understanding to each other. Separation of church and state does not matter, because they accept the gays. That is what "should" happen. I hope you finally get my point sir.