BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes.

Hello, and I look forward to calmly and politely debating with you. First of all to start my argument, life is truly wonderful thing, in the christian (Or most mainstream religious views) we were created by a great deity and are their greatest creation, In an atheist or agnostic view we are a species evolved to such an extent that we have gained not only sapience but sentience. In both of these views it is truly amazing that we are humans and should take great pride and respect for lives. Of coarse the crimes that you speak of in this debate are absolute atrocities that shames the human race, but we as human cannot and should not decide who lives, and who dies. Because if we do this are we any better than the murderer? While of coarse we did not kill in cold blood while they did, how can we as humans truly deserve who gets to die and who gets to live. Second of all can you please link me to a source that shows that the death penalty is a good deterrent to these horrible felonies. Thank you. Also when I think about crimes and jail, the thing that i am not scared about is getting killed from the death penalty. The thing that deters me and probably deters others from even thinking of doing these crimes is being locked up in some cramped jail cell with a bunch of other murderers and rapists for the rest of my life. Being in a place until the end of my days without being able to do anything and lose your entire life's chance is much scarier than dieing to me. Kind of like I would rather die than be a vegetable for the rest of my life. Why? because there are fates worse than deaths and if we truly want to punish and deter criminals I think that the best coarse of action is to show how horrible living in prison for the rest of your life is. many (But of coarse not all) who commit these crimes are not afraid of death, (As shown by many mass shootings where it ends with the shooters suicide) some who commit these crimes are in a part of thier life where they want to die or are hurting so bad they need to let someone else die or get sexually assaulted. Also new studies and reports are giving signs that lethal Injections is not as humane as we thought. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... Then you must think about the doctors or executioners having to do these executions, can you imagine the regret and sadness they must feel. Not only are we letting 2 people die all for waste, but also condemning the executioners and their mental state. Thank you for listening and I look forward to your counter thesis.
Humans killing and eating animals

I accept the challenge and wish you good luck! I will be arguing the stance that killing animals for the purpose of meat production is acceptable or, at least, excusable. I will not be arguing on the basis of ethics, as I will concede and agree that ethically, the slaughter of animals can be construed as inhumane in most cases. I will also publicly admit that I believe factory farming practices as a whole are inhumane and cruel to the animals. I will, however be attempting to explain and defend the concept that humans need the essential nutrients that can be found in animal proteins, and that humans have adapted to eat meat, so our bodies are accustomed to eating animal proteins. I will also be discussing the economic and agricultural reasoning for the meat industry. Finally, I will propose a reasonable argument regarding the repercussions of ceasing all meat production, and provide a theoretical scenario of what will happen to the agricultural industry, as well as the human population, if meat production were ended. I will attempt to provide as many sources as possible, but much of my experience is of the firsthand nature, involving friends and family, and coworkers. I look forward to a spirited and highly informative debate!
Rapists Are Victims

Before I begin, I would like to say that the resolution of this debate is "Rapists are Victims." It is not "All Rapists are Victims." Therefore, it would not be a loss for me to admit there are exceptions to my claim. You talked about rape in Uganda which attempts to make homosexuals straight. I believe such a thing can be done, but definitely not through rape. I was referring to men who raped men/women with sexual motives, though perhaps I should've made this more clear at the beginning of the debate. Let's take black people. The majority of incarcerated rapists are black according to this source: http://budokan.wcart.net... If you don't like this source, just let me say that it was shockingly difficult to find statistics on this. Now, let's take a look at Black Matriarchy. In 2011, 72% of Black babies in the United States were born to unwed mothers http://en.wikipedia.org... I conclude that without fathers, many young black males (YBM) often are not adequately taught a sense of right and wrong, and thus they don't see rape as a serious crime. Do not interpret this as racist; I am merely stating facts. Women's Role: "22% who have sent or posted nude or semi-nude pictures or video of themselves: 22% of teen girls; 11% of girls ages 13-16" Source: http://www.safecom.net... Many (though not the majority) women INTENTIONALLY post suggestive photos of themselves! I understand that NO woman wants to be raped (unless they're really, really messed up in the head), but in a way many of them are encouraging it. Ultimately, I conclude that many men in today's American culture are victims of an increasingly sexual society, and that they are also victims of a society where many young people are not adequately taught right and wrong. I await my opponent's response.
Rapists Are Victims

No trolling, no people who intentionally misspell words, no sexually-explicit material, no violent threats, and no profanity, please. Before we begin, I would like to say that I am well aware this debate will either be ignored or cause me to receive a HUGE amount of flak from angry users. Regardless, I have started this debate, and I ask that only opponents who are AT LEAST decent at debating accept this. I await a worthy challenger.
This house believes that parents should secretly install spyware on all electronic devices

I believe that putting spyware around the house is actually a good thing, than a bad thing. It will place more safety within the child and family, with having spyware around. Even though, admittedly, trust can be considered an "issue" does not mean that safety should not be placed first, than trust. Trust is earned, and if the parents place spyware; that is just an obstacle children need to overcome to gain their parents trust. This gives parents the right to look upon their children and make sure they make right decisions under their household. Parents are in charge of their property, and kids must obey most of their parents commands. Its as simple as that!
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

My opponent asserts that the All-Seeing Eye is an Illuminati symbol, but I argue that this is actually a common misconception. The All-Seeing Eye represents God,[1] and the Illuminati was actually founded as a group of freethinkers, going against the Catholic church.[2] If they were founded as a secular organization, then why would they use a religious symbol? Secondly, my opponent uses markdice.com as a source, and since it is not a .edu or a .org site, it may not be very reliable, so we have no reason to believe my opponent on his claims drawn from markdice.com. My opponent also uses Wikipedia, which is reliable (I myself am actually using it in this debate), but using Wikipedia's article on the Skull and Bones society to support his arguments is weak at best for my opponent. The section about conspiracy theories (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones#Conspiracy_theories) says nothing for or against the validity of the conspiracy theories, and even what it does say about what people claim has a "Citation needed" next to it. In short, I argue that the All-Seeing Eye has nothing to do with the Illuminati, and the Skull and Bones society has no ties to the Illuminati. [1] wikipedia.org/wiki/All-seeing_eye [2] wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

I'm not really going to expand on my arguments here too much. This probably should be a 4 round debate anyway, also admittedly I'm a little lazy. I will say my opponent can't just state facts without citing them. We have no reason to take his word for anything he said. I also will state that my opponent at least has some burden of proof here. I'll leave it up to the judges to decide how much, but rest assured he has some, and that needs to be taken into consideration. To summarize my last round. I've shown that the iIluminati likely survived long after the Bavarian government cracked down on them. I've also shown that a lot of the Skull and Bones' society initiation rites as well as other things I the "tomb", would lead people to think a likely connection to the original Bavarian illuminati exists. The illuminati is a secret society who hides it's very existence and by it's nature is hard to pin down. However, I've given plenty of reason to think it still exists until this day. I wish good luck to my opponent in this upcoming round.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

While I can't prove 100% that the Illuminati doesn't exist, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist, I will do my best to make a case against the Illuminati's existence. I will also attempt to debunk the rumours about the Illuminati. My opponent believes that the Illuminati was not abolished but merely went underground. However, if they still exist and rule the world, I argue that there would almost certainly be some noticeable signs of their existence. You'd expect an organization that rules the world to leave some signs of their ruling the world. My opponent will probably argue that there are signs of their existence, so if and when my opponent does, I will attempt to debunk those arguments. As Pro, I will also attempt to debunk common rumours about the Illuminati. I will not attempt to debunk all of them in this round; I will also use later rounds. For now, I will attempt to debunk the claim that the Illuminati is evil. My opponent believes that the modern Illuminati is a continuation of the original Bavarian Illuminati, as my opponent believes that the original Bavarian Illuminati survived and continues to live today. However, to reiterate what I asserted in Round 1, the Bavarian Illuminati was not evil. They supported gender equality, and opposed superstition and prejudice. If the modern Illuminati is the same group as the original Illuminati that supposedly survived and went underground, then it would seem logical that they would hold the same views as the original Illuminati. Are supporting gender equality and opposing superstition and prejudice really evil, as conspiracy theorists often claim? I welcome my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

My opponent is arguing 2 things in this debate. 1. The illuminati no longer exist. 2. Rumors about the illuminati aren't true. If he proves one but fails to prove the other he loses. I will not attempt to prove the illuminati exists in this debate. I will merely show that there is a reasonable chance that the group still exists. If there is a reasonable chance they still exist to this day I should win the debate. The second point my opponent is arguing is that the illuminati doesn't control the world. I'll attempt to show that a handful of people from the illuminati do in fact rule the world. Remember my opponent must prove 2 things in this debate. My opponent didn't really make any arguments yet, so I'll refrain as well. I'll give a brief overview of what I'll be arguing like he did. I'm going to show that the illuminati has in fact not been abolished, but have merely went underground. They migrated to America and formed the skull and bones society which still exists to this day. On top of that. I'll show that the members I the skull and bones society does control much of the world. I'll also briefly discuss other places that the skull and bones society went underground. I wish pro good luck and look forward to his opening arguments.
The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

At Wylted's request, I challenge him to this debate. (NOTE: I already debated this against Burningsnow. As of writing, the debate with Burningsnow is in the voting period.) (The following text is taken almost verbatim from my old debate. I may or may not paraphrase more loosely as the rounds go on, depending on how this goes.) Conspiracy theorists often assert that the Illuminati is evil, anti-Christian, trying to hide their symbol(s) in pop culture today, controls everyone in pop culture and media, or any combination of the above. As the Instigator, I am going to attempt to debunk these ideas. I believe the proposition that the rumours about the Illuminati are false, and the Illuminati no longer even exists. The Illuminati was formed in 1776, by Adam Weishaupt. Historians refer to the Illuminati that existed at the time as the Bavarian Illuminati. However, they permanently disbanded in 1785. A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that they actually survived, and continue as a group today. However, there is no evidence to support this claim, so we can safely assume that the Illuminati no longer exists. In addition, the Bavarian Illuminati was a group of freethinkers, who were against superstition and prejudice. They supported the separation of church and state, and gender equality. If the modern Illuminati is a continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati, then presumably, they would hold the same ideas. Using this logic, we can conclude that the modern Illuminati would also support equality, oppose prejudice, etc. This debunks claims that the Illuminati is evil. I will use my other arguments in later rounds. I challenge Wylted to debate me, at his request.
You are currently using debate.org

I apologize for the faulty links. I guess that's just protecting my privacy. The fact of the matter is, you simply say when you refer to websites you leave out the ". http://www. " part and just call it the antecedent. Not only does this contradict your argument, bu also proves me right. 1) Leaving out the "http;//www. " part makes it debate. org. Wrong. By leaving that out, you get "debate. org/" the slash is present yet still. The fact of the matter is, even if you leave it out, you still don't have debate. org. 2) Referring to a website and using (as the resolution states) a website are two different things You say that when referring to this website, one calls it, debate. org. The fact of the matter is, your resolution says not what we refer to it as but merely what website we are using, and the website we are using is . http://www.debate.org...
You are currently using debate.org

It's pretty common to refer to websites by what comes after the "http://www." part. I'm not sure why this comes as a surprise to you. Even still, the site you are using right now is called "Debate.org." Is it not? I can't think of any reason why you would deny this. Also, I'm not sure if you realized. But, the hyperlinks you provided all go to 404 page.
You are currently using debate.org

=========== Contention 1 =========== This is not debate. org. "Anyone who could possibly deny this would be crazy. One can simply look at the URL on their address bar and see none other than "debate. org" itself. In fact, you ought to be able to realize it just by looking at your screen or the logo at the very corner of it. " Yes I agree in the top left hand corner it says explicitly "Debate. org". However, the fact of the matter is, the URL begs to differ. The URL is essentially the portal in which to travel to a website. Heres the thing, the informal name of this website is Debate. org. The formal name is ". http://www.debate.org...; As we can see, we are using ". http://www.debate.org...; and not just debate. org. I thank you for your time. Please vote CON as we are not using debate. org but rather ". http://www.debate.org...;
Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education

Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality
Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education

Here's the rules: This debate will follow a loose Lincoln-Douglas style format. Round 1: each opponent will give a small introduction, a display of definitions, and the two or three grounds upon which each argument is based. Round 2: each side will elaborate fully upon their argument. Round 3: refutations will be given to both initial arguments. Round 4: arguments will be defended against refutations. Round 5: small refutation of round 4 and conclusion. Please participate, but only if you are willing to strictly follow this format. This format is designed to give the debate more structure, which will lead to stronger arguments, and a clearer line of persuasion. I have read too many confusing debates that get off track. Let's make this clean and professional. Also, please use quotes, and not links to resources. This will allow for a more effective refutation, and easier evaluation for those voting. Thanks, and looking forward to the debate. Resolved, that American college students should receive free education. This is a controversial view, one with strong socialistic ties, but it could perhaps be the answer to many problems American citizens have. According to Bernie Sanders, a democratic senator from Vermont, "Colleges must control costs and the federal government must provide the necessary assistance so every person in this country " regardless of income " can get a college education." He proposed on his official website that "[the government should] provide $47 billion in federal funding to incentivize states to increase investments in their public higher education systems and eliminate tuition for undergraduate students." American tuition rates are rising, and so is the national student debt. Free college for undergraduates could be just what this country needs. Definitions: College: an institution of higher learning, especially one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. Students: a person formally engaged in learning, especially one enrolled in a school or college. received: to have (something) bestowed upon or conferred. free: clear of obstructions or obstacles. education: a degree, level, or kind of schooling. American College students should receive free education because it would 1). help to relieve the terrible student debts in the country, giving young graduates the ability to persue a graduate degree and attain financial security, and 2). would encourage more Americans to attend college and better not only themselves, but society as well by doing so.
Pancakes are better than Waffles

I believe that waffles are better than pancakes. Waffles are my quicker to make so convenience is a huge factor. Plus I prefer the taste of waffles to pancakes because a warm, golden brown waffle with the perfect mixture of butter and warm syrup tickles my fancy. In order to prove that pancakes are better you would need my consent and I don't give you consent because waffles are the epitome - the pinnacle - the crux - of my morning and of my life.
Pancakes are better than Waffles

I believe that pancakes are better than waffles because you can alter the thickness of the pancake, you can put fruit or chocolate chips into the mix easier than waffles, they soak up less syrup than waffles so are less fattening and can be either savoury or sweet. Waffles however are hard to make so are usually mass produced rather than freshly made like pancakes and the lattice traps the syrup in it so that it becomes sickly sweet. I love pancakes because they are so much tastier than waffles. But thats just my opinion!
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

"nowhere in your does it state, scientifically speaking" It doesn't need to. A sound is created, whether or not the sound is heard is beyond the point. The point is, a sound is created. Scienficially speaking doesn't need to be included, because a sound is created no matter what. .. "Therefore it is all a matter of human perspective. Due to the fact that there is no one around to hear it, it does not exist. " No it's not. Detection is a matter of human perspective. Detection is when a person or something hears or senses the sound. Just because that does not happen, does not mean that the sound was not created. WHen people try to say that just because someone wasn't there, a sound wasn't created, it is completely beside the point! What difference would it make if someone was there? It would be detected. Either way, a sound is produced. Also, now this may defy my thesis, but of course in a forest, there are small bugs and insects and animals. The small insects don't make an impact on the sound being created. They are there to detect it. In any forest (refer to definiton) there are little bugs and animals. I am sorry if this maybe wasn't fully clear in my first few rounds, and I apoligize. It shouldn't make a difference in the long run though! The US law system is not science. It's a form of logic. Detection and creation of sound is scientifical, and is not logic. Those two points do not really even relate to eachother! "However, if there is nobody around to feel the vibrations, they never occured as stated by the Smithsonian INstitute on December 12,2008. " Okay, while this may be true, in a forest, things are there. The vibrations will occur and will be felt by the ground, other plants, and little creatures that reside in the forest. As to my sources, my sources are pure science. Ask any science professor or teacher. They will fully support my case. I haven't presented any facts that require a source other than just science. :)