BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death penalty

I thank the affirmative side for asking me to this debate round. Thirty-five states in American currently practice the death penalty. For most practicing states, the death penalty is in response to first-degree murder along with one of several aggravating circumstances. The death penalty is one of the most controversial subjects in American society today, as some argue that capital punishment is immoral, uncivilized, not to mention ineffective at bringing crime rates down. Others accept as true that certain crimes are such an affront to humanity that the only proper punishment is death. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as on a free moral actions able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense. Reason 1: Cost Effective As my opponent has stated, "Although couldn't you just give them life in prison because they most likely wouldn't have the chance." But what he doesn"t understand is that the requirement for taxpayers to pay for the room, board and legal costs of these evil people is more than enough. When you finish the earthly existence of an immoral person, you are no longer paying for their free food and board. Reason 2: Humanity and Fairness We are respecting human life; we are asking that someone who is convicted of taking someone else"s life is put to a finish themselves. If you take the life of someone else you know the consequence, it is your choice not to abide by the laws. Reason 3: Deterrence Deterrence is when punishment suggests that putting a person who has committed a capital crime to death sends a message to other would-be criminals that the worst crimes are not tolerated. They suggest that any lack of deterrence comes not from any fault in the punishment, but because it is too slow in coming. Those who are against the death penalty insist that capital punishment does not deter crime by other criminals, stating that most people who commit the kinds of offenses that might land them on death row don't think rationally about their behavior. Summary: Reason 1: Cost Effective Reason 2: Humanity and Fairness Reason 3: Deterrence For these three reasons I implore you to vote negative.
Death penalty

I am sorry for my forfiet and ask with a humble heart to take this as a apoligy. Please reward pro with Conduct points, but do not let my forfiet be the main decider of today's debate round. God is the same, as in the Old and New Testiment, he will never change, and his judicial systim should never change. As I have stated in the first round the death penalty is practiced in response to first degree murder, and rape. Some people would agree that the only proper punishment to these horrible affronts to humanity, its punishment is and only should be death. I thank, you and now send this debate into the voiting period.
Death penalty

I don't know if you know this but before Jesus died on the cross god wasn't graceful like he is now. Back then when you did a sin you had to kill a Amina's if you sinned. The animals blood would cleanse your sin. But sometimes if the sin was so bad like rape or murder( several times) and you didn't have any animals to kill. You were going to he'll. that's why he use to kill people right on the spot. If you disobeyed his direct order(which was more common back then), he would kill them(not in all cases though). When Jesus died on the cross, he cleansed all of are sins because he has perfect blood. So anything we do including murder or rape when can be forgiven. So god is now graceful. Hey did you know when Jesus died he actually went to hell , but he beat death(which is actually a spirit or demon I'm not sure:) and came back three years later. Is hitch is when he rose back from the dead. I think Jesus went to hell to show death that he can't beat Jesus. I'm just guessing that Jesus went to hell to show death a lesson. I hope understand because I don't know how to crystallize this statement. :)
Weapons in schools

Pepper spray is actually considered a weapon. It can blind the shooter and make skin burn. Also, the argument is about having weapons in school, so this can mean a wide variety of things. Obviously, it is unlawful for students and teachers to bring weapons to school at this time. Everyone has the right to the second amendment so if the teacher wants to bring a practical weapon to school then they can. But their also be a limit to the second amendment. If a student or teacher came to school with a gun or knife, they are committing assault. Their actions are putting fear in the people around them.
Weapons in schools

I concur that a teacher does not have the authority to hold a gun in their possession while in a pubic teach facility. Although, everyone has the right to the second amendment, it is unlawful for someone, that does not have authority to hold a gun, to take a gun to school. Therefore, my argument is that police should be the ones to carry any sort of firearm and teach should be given pepper spray. Just last week another school shooting happened in Pittsburgh. The school shootings have been happening more and more frequently across the country. There need to be some sort of protecting in or around the school to keep the students protected.
Weapons in schools

So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.
Weapons in schools

Weapons are absolutely necessary to have in every school. Since 2010, there has been 43 school shooting throughout the United States. Not all of these school ended in causalities because they had a police officer near by the school. It is impractical for a teacher to pick a classroom object, such as a ruler, to stop someone with a gun. If a police was patrolling the school, most of these conflicts would be stopped before they even happen. All teachers should have some object to go up against the shooter in case the police can not reach the room in time, like pepper spray. School is suppose to be a safe place to send your children not some place to be scared of.
Weapons in schools

A teacher does not need to have a "mental insanity" in order to make a wrong move at the wrong time. We are all human and make mistakes. A teacher may have anger issues and get very mad at a student and take it to the next level. Like stated before, most high schools have a patrol officer on campus. Teachers do not need to protect the students of an invader. Teachers should lock their classrooms, close and cover the windows, and have the class wait in silent. Not to mention, what if a student gets their hands on a weapon?
Weapons in schools

The school board would not employ a teacher that has any kind of mental insanity or has criminal record, because they want the kid to be safe. You can't really compare the teacher to the kids and in the past school shoots teacher have been the one the protect their class by risking their life. The teach should also have some form of weapon to defend its class agaist a invader. While we are school, the teacher is our legal guardian and it is their responsibility to keep us safe and protected. How are they suppose to protect us agaist a intruder without a weapon?
The Catholic Church is the one true church of the Christian faith

Ok, so let me clear something up, I am not say other denominations are bad. I know a lot of good people that are from other denominations. What I am trying to prove is that the Catholic Church is the official church that Christ made through the Apostles. And of course the Catholic Church or any church isn't perfect, for "all have fallen short." But the thing is though, Christ intended for the church to be one, unified body. ------------------------------ 1 Corinthians 1:12-13- "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." My opponent intended to use this verse from St. Paul to back up his claim that the true church is the people who believe in Christ, and while that is true, I think it more supports my claim. Paul here is talking about the believers following separate leaders, and he asks, "Is Christ divided?" No, Christ is not divided, and that is why there has to be one single true church, to stop people from splitting from the foundational beliefs. And as for people leaving the church because they believe something is "unbiblical", that is exactly why we have the church, to show us why we believe it is biblical. If we have conflicting ideas and beliefs, how can all denominations be one true faith? ------------------------------- Let me use an example. Baptists and Catholics. Now, Catholics have what we call the, "7 Sacraments." I'm not going to list them, but two of them are Baptism and the Eucharist. Now, Catholics believe you must be baptized in order to be saved from Original Sin, (though there are some exceptions) and that the Eucharistic Bread and Wine is truly consecrated and transformed into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, just as the early Church and Apostles believed. Now, Baptists do not believe in either of these, though. So, if both groups of believers are both part of the one true church of believers, then that would mean both beliefs are equally true. But, using common sense and reasoning, we know that both cannot be true because they contradict one another. So, either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong, but they cannot both be equally true. ------------------------------ Again, I am not of of those people that think, "If you aren't my denomination, you are a bad person." All I am working to prove is that the Catholic Church is the official church that Christ set up here on Earth to carry on his teaching. As I pointed out in my opening argument, all other churches split from the Catholic church and were set up by MEN, but the Catholic Church was set up by Christ Jesus HIMSELF.
The Catholic Church is the one true church of the Christian faith

There might be a small misunderstanding on what I am trying to show. I am not saying that the Catholic Church is not part of the true Church, I am saying it is not the ONE TRUE church. My opponents main argument is that the Catholic church was the first church. I won't contest this point, since I don't think it is very relevant. Humans are not perfect. The Catholic church is not perfect. No church is perfect, really. -------------- Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11) ------------- The Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures to make sure what Paul was preaching was true. Today, people are encouraged to do the same thing. People leave churches when they believe that the church is teaching something or doing something they don't think is biblical. Because of this, I don't believe that there is any reason why we should consider one denomination, in this case the Catholic church, as the one true church of Christ. God gave us a list of rules and examples in the Bible, and it is our duty to follow those as best we can. If my opponent believes that the Catholic church follows these rules best, good for him. Everyone who truly believes in the Bible and Jesus is part of Christ's church. It isn't just limited to the Catholics.
The Catholic Church is the one true church of the Christian faith

So, my opponent has pointed out several good points, such as the Great Schism. But, he says nothing that actually disproves the Catholic Church is the one true church. So, let's analyze his argument. ------------------------------- "I believe that the true church is the family of believers who believe that Jesus is the Christ, who died and was raised to life for our sins. The church is not mutually exclusive." So, this does nothing about Catholicism being false because Catholics believe the Catholic Church is "the family of believers who believe that Jesus is the Christ, who died and was raised to life for our sins." Now, I am not entirely sure about what you mean by, "The church is not mutually exclusive." If you wish to expound on that, be my guest. ------------------------------- "You say that the Catholic church is the one true church. Romans 16:17 says "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them." Again, my opponents use of St. Paul's writings does nothing to contradict my point. I pointed out that the Catholic Church, (along with Eastern Orthodox, since we do not consider them Protestant) never split off from any Christian faith. --------------------------------- https://en.wikipedia.org... Now, I actually did not know about this fact, but here is my interpretation of it. So, yes, Greek churches were shut down in Italy, but I believe for good reasons. 1) If anything, it was the Greek Orthodox setting up obstacles, because they were changing the original beliefs. 2) It was Italy, so they would want to do thing in the vernacular. This was a rush argument, so I will cover the rest of it in my next one.
The Catholic Church is the one true church of the Christian faith

I believe that the true church is the family of believers who believe that Jesus is the Christ, who died and was raised to life for our sins. The church is not mutually exclusive. You say that the Catholic church is the one true church. Romans 16:17 says "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them." According to Wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org..., if you want more sources it's always good at sourcing its material) -------------------------------- The ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West pre-dated the formal rupture that occurred in 1054.[2][3][4] Prominent among these were the issues of the source of the Holy Spirit, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,[a] the Bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[8] In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism: the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople, in response to the Greek churches in southern Italy having been forced either to close or to conform to Latin practices.[9][10][11] According to the historian J. B. Bury, Cerularius's purpose in closing the Latin churches was "to cut short any attempt at conciliation".[11] -------------------------------- So from what I see, the church split because some people though that what the church was teaching contradicted what they learned themselves. In Romans, we see that this is perfectly valid. I'm not saying one branch of the church is better than another. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13- "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephasb "; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul"? So the church should not be defined by what human creation we are a part of. It should be defined as the body of people who follow Christ. As such, there is one true church. But it is a body of people, unified in Christ, not a specific denomination.
The Catholic Church is the one true church of the Christian faith

So, my opening argument will mostly be the fact that the Catholic Church is the original faith. Let's take a look at the Gospel of Matthew. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew 16: 13-19 13: When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14: They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15: "But what about you?" Jesus asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16: Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, this is when Catholics say the Catholic Church was founded, with St. Peter as our first Pope. So now, let's go back through time from the present day. Please open this site before looking at the next part of my argument. http://www.religioustolerance.org...... So, if we take a look at this chart, we can see most of the major denominations listed by date founded. If you look at the very top of the chart, you will see both Catholicism and Orthodox, who we do not consider Protestant. Catholicism is the only denomination that has not "split" from any other denomination, it is the original faith. It is the same faith as the Apostles and the Church Fathers.
Socialism vs Capitalism Which is better

Pro describes the cycle of poverty and how some people become rich not by working hard, but by being ruthless. He points to how companies "are trying to get a step ahead and always one up their competition they offer the lowest prices possible. Usually to achieve these economic goals companies outsource jobs for much cheaper just to maximize profit". Frankly I have no idea how this is relevant to the debate. A company is a private institution, they get to do what they feel like. While some people deserve being poor, Pro explains that their children and future generations don't. Actually, they do. It's called social Darwinism. Pro gets historical here. Allow me to remind Pro why the Great Depression happened; the banks stopped making money because of government regulations. Pro, I hate kids. They are stupid, I don't understand why the heck my parents raised me. I don't understand their idea of love. Pro claims that socialism liberates the people. Okay, look at Germany. They made all colleges free. How you may ask? They raised taxes for people so they can fund the colleges. Thing is, the funding was not that good. Staff don't receive as much pay they do when the colleges were private. Now, the biggest clue that socialism is worst than capitalism is that these free colleges were worst than the private ones in term of quality. And this is true throughout the world, a capitalist alternative will always provide you with better goods and services than a socialist one. Good game.
Socialism vs Capitalism Which is better

Since the pro concedes all of my arguments let me clear up some misconceptions. In capitalism my opponent says "Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated." While this is partly true it is not fully true. In capitalism their is a lack egalitarianism.Since companies are trying to get a step ahead and always one up their competition they offer the lowest prices possible. Usually to achieve these economic goals companies outsource jobs for much cheaper just to maximize profit. Let me provide a scenario. A man works very hard for his family and all of a sudden the company is downsizing and to cut cost they outsource jobs to Indonesia were work is very cheap. The man is now out of work and cannot provide for his family. Since he is the main wage earner the family must downsize. Give up the premium education in favor of 3rd rate education in a more affordable neighborhood. The result of this poor education is a less equipped next generation. Since the family has very limited resources they cannot afford to send their kids to college. Since degrees are valued for white collar positions the children are stuck in a perpetual cycle of working to maintain their meager existence. This scenario is also known as the cycle of poverty which can be defined as"The cycle of poverty has been described as a phenomenon where poor families become trapped in poverty for generations. Because they have no or limited access to critical resources, such as education and financial services, subsequent generations are also impoverished." http://www2.crcna.org... Historical example the Great Depression Those same people who you said ,"deserved" their wealth amassed large wealth in a faulty structure so they could maximize their profit. The result an economic depression unparalleled in the United State's existence. During the depression it didn't matter how hard you worked, you were poor so the claim hard work equivocates wealth in every circumstance is hogwash. Why do I care about the poor? Con says,"I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live." It is the same reason your parent's care about you when you are a baby and child. All you do in the first stages of life is consume and create debts for your parents. Children do nothing for society except live, but why do we care for children? Because we know that the investments we are putting in to them will one day turn them into productive citizens. Poor people can be the same way, just with an investment they too can join the ranks of productive society. So In review con, corroborates all my points so Socialism solves harms from capitalism because we share resources so the people can liberate themselves. Good round
Socialism vs Capitalism Which is better

Pro has his first argument, it claims that capitalism causes economic inequality. That is true. Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated. Therefore, if some people are wealthy than they deserved it. You also state that "Since their is a very limited amount of money in any economy's circulation if a few people hoard a lot of the wealth that means there is very little to be shared with the multitude of masses." as if to say that is a bad thing. If you have money, you get to decide what to do with it. You want to share it, go ahead. You want to save it? Go ahead. Wanna spend it on a Starbucks coffee? Go ahead. Your money. Pro goes on to how the economic inequality from capitalism causes poverty. That is also true. There are poor people in this world. A larger number of people living in poverty commit suicide than normal people. Here is why: if poor people don't contribute to society, that's why they don't get a paycheck. Pro explains how poor people have it bad. I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live. Pro claims that socialism helps people in poverty. That is because poor people will be able to have access to goods and services that normal people do. Basically, everything will be public except for clothes, watches, etc. Now, if this was capitalism then it would be better because things would be privatized. This is a genuine question: why do you care about the poor?