BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Circumsicion is necessary and ethical.

Good day Mr. Buletman, Before starting my issues and arguments on this debate. Being the pro, I would like to clarify few things. You are in the "con" side, meaning you will reject that circumcision is necessary and ethical. Why did you give me some points like having proper hygiene and prevent diseases (correct me if I'm wrong. I just got confused about your issues…having some issues with you saying that I must leave it out. You, having your arguments answered by yourself, how can I clash anyway?) I believe that circumcision is a must and moral because: 1.)If you are circumcised, you will feel more confident because being uncircumcised is a "no no" for girls because if you will pass adolescent without being circumcised, you will be surely teased because it is our tradition that every person must be circumcised. Girls are more attracted to circumcised persons rather than the others because girls feel more secure and less embarrassment knowing that your spouse is circumcised. (Why do you think that your parents circumcised you? it is because they know that circumcision is not only a tradition, it is a requirement) 2.)It can prevent major diseases because scientifically, circumcised ones are 30% more protected than the ones that aren't circumcised. 3.)Having higher percent of proper hygiene because when you urinate, some of the urine get stuck in the foreskin and will give a urine smell in your pants and it gives better circulation because urine comes out without any obstruction. 4.)you said that hot women said that it is not gross being uncircumcised, circumcision is not about pleasure and sex, it is about the scientific reasons, traditions, and all the points that I have given. 5.)It is a tradition since 3000 BC and it became one of the major requirements for a male because females are feeling more progressive having a circumcised husband. It a ceremony to be accepted by Christ. 6.)I believe that it is not genital mutilation because doctors have found a way of circumcising children without pain. Getting circumcised since birth is another reason because you can't feel the pain because you're still a baby. Doctors put anesthesia to their patients so that they will not feel pain during the operation. 7.)Circumcision for short gives you higher self esteem. Since you haven't placed any parameter, I would gladly put some. This proposition will only be covering all the places where circumcision is implemented. …and with that I end my speech. That is all for now. (Sorry for any errors/wrong spelled words)
Circumsicion is necessary and ethical.

I believe that circumcision is genital mutilation. It has been shown that it is an effective way to prevent certain diseases, but proper hygiene is just as effective. So this then leads me to ask why take away a male's foreskin before he is even allowed to make the decision himself? He will never know what it was like to have those nerve endings, never know what it's like to have a non-mutilated penis. Circumcision on males does not create impotence, so what is the matter with having a few less nerve endings. My point is this: a woman can still get pregnant without having to feel pleasure. Should we take off every woman's clitoris when she is born? Obviously, a much different debate is being generated in that statement, but it should be compared to this, because as I started off my argument, I believe this is genital mutilation, and a complete disregard for an individual's opinion when it comes to their own body. I didn't ask for my foreskin to be taken off, it was just stripped away from me at birth. It is not necessary, as long as proper hygiene habits are established at an early age, and very unethical, because we don't ask the boy, we just take it. I have spoken to many friends and family, and many disagree with me, especially sexually active women who call an uncircumcised penis "gross." It has even been theorized that the foreskin plays a role in creating a better intimate connection between a man and a woman, with the foreskin latching onto the labia majora and minora, and this creates a more "pleasurable experience." Of course, this is theory, and I have no personal experience, as I am one of the mutilated. Is this some Freudian scream for attention; do I feel as though I am not having the most pleasurable sex I could have had, and is life all about sex? These are other debates. So please leave this out of any further argument.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R2: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal.

"LWOP allows for a life to continue, but not be as final and cruel." We need a reversible finality, in case evidence in favor of the criminal is shown. I did not say that banning the child didn't make sense, I said the comparison didn't make sense. You tried to compare it to the DP earlier, and it seems we've both agreed it is more like LWOP, showing how LWOP and DP are of equal finality, as they both fit the comparison. LWOP would also deter would-be criminals, and provides a equally safe environment. Keeping the criminal confined is useful, removing a murderer from society and stopping repeat murderers. "If they fully understood the life they were losing with LWOP, it could deter them equally." Yet those who view life lightly and don't value it as much are the less rational ones, and would most likely find LWOP a greater punishment. I didn't contradict myself, I never said anything about fanatics. I contradicted your statement, but none of my own. It is best to imprison those fanatics for life before crime if there is enough evidence to support the crime will occur. This is another advantage of LWOP: You can stop horrible crimes from happening without killing someone for merely planning something. "1.2% is a small number, and why not give the 98.8% a second chance instead of killing them" Point conceded. "this money could be better spent on persecuting other murderers that are free due to lack of evidence" I have effectively shown why these points are invalid, and restating them would be redundant. I will just say that since thes points aren't true, the money certainly can be spent better more useful causes. "one innocent life would be the cost 12 guilty and likely repeat offender lives, as opposed to 10 years of a life for 12 life sentences" Most of your arguments were centered around murder, ad sounded as if all murderers should receive the DP. You have not made your stance clear, and directly contradicted this statement in R2 of the debate. "If the majority of citizens believe the DP is either unnecessarily cruel or not punishment at all, than the DP should not be legal in that state." Your source from Gallup also shows a decrease in support of the DP, which will most likely drop further in the coming years. This article was not meant to show support for the DP, but Americans losing support. The DP may be in America's interest, but, as your source says, that is quickly changing.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R2: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal.

I. CP restores an overall sense of justice. You compare the situation to removing a naughty kid from a candy store. This comparison does not make any sense. It would be like banning the kid from that candy store and every other candy store, never allowed in any ever again. As you said, a permanent punishment is best, but a less expensive permanent punishment that's reversible if necessary is even better. We do take away money from people that steal money but we don't take all of it. LWOP allows for a life to continue, but not be as final and cruel. There can be exceptions for particularly evil crimes, such as 9/11, as I'm sure all would agree, but it seems too cruel for one murder. II. CP deters would-be criminals. If they fully understood the life they were losing with LWOP, it could deter them equally, if not more. The majority of prisoners are religious, and are more likely to accept death but find LWOP as a real punishment. III. DP grants bargaining power to prosecuting attorneys. 1.2% is a small number, and why not give the 98.8% a second chance instead of killing them for what 1.2% may do? Again, DP may give a heavier incentive now, but LWOP could easily have that effect as well. "It costs too much time and money" Yes, the penalty is serious and requires a lot of money, but this money could be better spent on persecuting other murderers that are free due to lack of evidence, and all it would take would be reducing the penalty to LWOP. Your second argument is a slippery slope fallacy. It might not have been had you provided evidence that the situation would happen, but you did not in any way. "Cost of potentially innocent lives" Would you be willing to die so that 1000 criminals could also die, while only twelve of them are likely to commit a crime again? Well, if there's any chance a criminal would repeat the crime, sentence them to LWOP. If a criminal has learned what he/she did was wrong, 10-20 years should work. Again, one innocent life would be the cost 12 guilty and likely repeat offender lives, as opposed to 10 years of a life for 12 life sentences. Surely the latter is much more reasonable. "The government is ending the person" But the government is not taking away the right to talk, or think, or feel. That's what they're doing with the DP, and is far much worse than anything else they could do. "Christian with hell/heaven" While I agree that they don't exist, the majority of the US thinks they do, and the resolution is "The Death Penalty Should Be Legal". If the majority of citizens believe the DP is either unnecessarily cruel or not punishment at all, than the DP should not be legal in that state. "[LS] Allows for corrected mistakes" You can still be released from prison, and mistakes can much more easily be corrected than DP, as there is no continuing life freely at all.
Intemediate's Debate Competition R2: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal.

This round will consist of me thanking my opponent for his time and me giving rebuttals. I thank my opponent for his time. ========== “It costs too much time and money” That is the nature of how the U.S. government and court system works. A criminal is required to be given an at least competent lawyer, there needs to be a prosecutor, and lawyers cost money. The DP requires more money to pay lawyers and time in the court because it’s a serious sentence prefaced by a serious crime. Dropping a serious punishment for a serious crime because it costs too much is nothing but laziness. The very reason we’re devoting so much money into the justice system is to create an environment where law-abiding citizens can contribute to society in peace. Imagine a world where there are no prosecutors; sure, there’s no more cost, but with no deterrence, crime will be rampant. Reducing the punishment has the same affect. Not only that, but dropping the highest level of punishment will not have a proportional impact on court costs. If the DP were dropped, the “controversy” would be over LWOP; if LWOP were dropped again because of few criminal sympathizers, regular LS will become the new “controversy.” It’s a real slippery slope. Also, as I mentioned before, harsher punishments give prosecutors bargaining power. Guilty criminals will be more likely to confess if they know that they are going to be prosecuted for a harsher sentence. “Cost of potentially innocent lives” The DP requires a very high level of certainty; gripping over unattainable nirvana is useless and only wastes time; the lives of the innocent victims are worth far more than the criminals’. And nothing says LWOP doesn’t have innocent lives either. Valuing life over life sentence is arbitrary. It is a lazy way that people use to calm their irrational emotional appeal to being alive as opposed to being alive without freedom. “The government is ending the person” With due process, yes. When a person put in jail, he is also deprived of his right to liberty. Nothing makes one deprivation unallowable but the other allowable. They are both allowable when due process is done. “Christian with hell” Hell doesn’t exist. “[LS] Allows for corrected mistakes” This is assuming that there was a mistake, which isn’t likely at all. Also, Jail time does not allow for correction of mistakes. If you went to jail, you went to jail. There is no earning back that time. In fact, many die in jail before they can be cleared. “Christian without hell” Heaven doesn’t exist either. The only reason punishment is necessary is for deference of future offenders. It is only the perception that matters, not the delivery. I can tell you that even the many Christians who “know” they’re going to heaven don’t want to die, because dying is an instinct that we inherently fear above all else. ========== NS
Intemediate's Debate Competition R2: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal.

I. It costs too much time and money The death penalty, on average, takes six times longer in court than LWOP cases [1]. so the DP is already six times more expensive than LWOP in court costs alone, let alone the cost of potentially innocent lives. Instead of six times longer and costing much, much more, why not make the sentence LWOP? This way, the same costs are being spent as usual in the prison, but instead of spending six times longer to see if the person is innocent, you get an entire lifetime to ensure they are actually guilty. II. Religion Te U.S. is a secular nation, with a Christian majority. Some Christians believe in hell, while some just believe in heaven. I will show why the DP is wrong from these three viewpoints. a. Secular- The government is ending the person. Taking away their right to think, breathe, and destroying the lives of their families, who will never see them again. Clearly LWOP isn't as unnecessarily cruel, and allows for corrected mistakes, unlike the DP. b. Christian with hell- Hell is, and most likely, always will be, unjust punishment to ever exist. Infinite amount of pain or suffering because of anywhere from cheating on your wife to committing the Holocaust. Eternal punishment is way too far, and that is what you are sentencing someone to if you believe in hell and they get the DP. You, essentially, are torturing that person for all of eternity. c. Christian without hell- This group, for the most part, believes everyone goes to heaven. If they truly believe this, then they are sending a criminal awful enough for the DP to eternal happiness. Again, no justice whatsoever. The thought that this awful human should not only be free, but rewarded for his crimes, is nothing short f shocking. The DP dertainly does not make any sense from this viewpoint. 1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Intemediate's Debate Competition R2: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal.

This debate is part of the Second Official DDO Tournament, hosted by TUF. http://www.debate.org... And part of Round 2 of the Intermediate Tier of the tournament. http://www.debate.org... Please not that I, as Pro, am playing devil's advocate. I believe that that there are always better alternatives to a death penalty. GL; HF. ========== Topic: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal. Definitions: Death Penalty – A sentence of punishment by execution [1]. Legal – Sanctioned by the law. Putting up a reasonable amount of regulation still counts as legal. Context: This debate is about captial punishment in the United States. The reason for this is that in other countries, the legal and prison systems can vary widely, and captial punishment is heavy contingent on legal and prison systems. U.S. law is based on maxium punishment, so no judge is forced to give the death penalty. U.S. federal law also only permits the death sentence in cases of murders for the mentally competent [2]. I am arguing that capital punishment should not be banned by the U.S. Federal Government (states can ban it freely if they wish), and only be legal under some circumstances, not all. BoP shared. Rules: R1: Acceptance. R2: Arguments. R3: Rebuttals. R4: Rebuttals. ========== [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nuclear bombs don't deter wars

Whilst I agree that having no nuclear weapons at all is the only safe potential of having no nuclear warfare, you have missed the subtly of my points... I said that nuclear weapons are situated within their social contexts, through which a plethora of reasons for having them can emerge beyond just blowing things up. For example, one of these was the notion that by producing weaponry, by having high defence budgets, governments can make it look as though they are proactively dealing with their foreign policy. For those Americans who maintain the pre-Vietnam ideations in regards to weaponry, the construction and maintenance of missiles can be perceived as a good thing. "Oh, look, the defence budget is up. The government must be dealing with those damn terrorists." The aim for the government here would be, acting in consonance with the expectations of some of their voters. And, this is only one amongst many reasons why nuclear warheads are made, from a social/economic/political viewpoint rather than just the practical one as you are presenting. These factors, you must take into account. Given I have more space, I will give a quick adumbration of some of these other reasons: by spending millions on maintaining and building nuclear weaponry all companies and cooperation involved gain profit, it produces jobs and economic growth, disarmament makes government administration look weak in terms of foreign policy (erroneously but evidently, given the recent campaign of Corbyn in the UK), disarmament can be used as a bargaining chip in international treaties and relations, they can even be traded for money or to cement good relations with allies, domestically some disarmament can be used to please left-wing voters and earn their vote (thereby creating more previously makes this conceit meaningless), extreme force gives the image of extreme strength, stockpiling armaments can lead to military envy in other countries, it satiates the hawks and right-wingers who want to see more nukes created... This should be enough the address proposition 1. And regardless of which, since Oppenheimer, the world has been capable of nuclear weaponry: even if there was complete multilateral nuclear disarmament, as soon as international tensions rose or one nation wanted to gain a military advantage over another, the knowledge and means to create this weaponry are at the feet of empires. In response to your bringing up the Cuban Missile Crisis, not forgetting that JFK was taking 'an extraordinary variety of medications' (1) at the time, I ask you one simple question: why did neither the USA nor USSR fire upon each other then? To which I remind you of the definition of 'deterrence': doing/having X 'for the purpose of discouraging attack'. Your response in R3 does not address the one I made to proposition 2 in R2. (1) https://www.theatlantic.com... (2) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Nuclear bombs don't deter wars

1. “It’s not as though they are like bargaining tools…which individual states seek to exploit one another.” The very bargaining that nuclear weapons allow for can constitute in war. States “seek to exploit one another” through the threat of nuclear destruction. If there were no nuclear bombs, then states couldn’t use them as additional leverage against other states. They would be more moderate in their negotiations What would this result in? More empathy and less war. With the existence of nuclear weapons, however, states could use their newfound weapons to be less moderate and force other states. What would happen if there is a disagreement? Nuclear war. “creating measures against North Korea, Russia and ISIS and so forth” The US has enough bombs to destroy the entire world. A 2014 study published in the journal Earth’s Future found that only 100 nuclear detonations, each with 15 kt of energy, could “[produce] a sudden drop in surface temperatures and intense heating of the stratosphere…the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years…widespread damage to human health, agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems…put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine” [1]. That would the result of 1500 kt of energy(100 * 15 kt). The total yield of US and Russian on high-alert launch-on-warning status is 960,000 kt. If 1500 kt of energy could “trigger a global nuclear famine,” then what would something 640 times more powerful be? Thus, “the very fact that the US government is making more nukes” will not create measures against adversarial countries, as our nuclear arsenal has the capability to destroy the world hundreds of times over, and creating more nukes will not result in anything worthwhile. “make its population believe it is resolving problems within its international policy” Clearly, investing in a classified program in which Americans don’t know anything will make “solidify state popularity.” When both political parties are in disarray, healthcare system on the brink of collapse, and a media intent on mongering fear, spending on something clearly classified and which will affect little Americans will make the government more popular? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy and the US government was all too ready to fire its vast array of nuclear missiles. They knew very well the Soviet Union could fire back and annihilate the entire country if they were indeed to press that button, but they were ready to do it. Kennedy ordered B-52 bombers ready to take off to Soviet Union on 15 minutes notice and nuclear missiles on launch alert, some aimed directly towards Moscow. They were quite aware of MAD at the time, but did that awareness stop them from aiming missiles towards Cuba and Moscow? No. [2] [1]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org...