BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should abolish the death penalty in California.

Thank you for this debate. The idea of a death penalty in my opinion has been a scare tactic, a lot of people don't kill other people because they would fear death itself. If we were to abolish the death penalty in ANY state, whether it be California (possibly) or Texas (Not a chance) the crime rate for crimes that would normally put you on death row would increase dramatically. $308 million is not that much in comparison to our current debt (sadly). You say improving prison conditions? We need to lower the comfortableness in jails, we don't need air conditioning and TV in a place meant for punishment [1]. Now of course we need to make sure nobody dies in jail, but it don't need to be extremely comfy. The fact that innocent people are convicted of felonies is sad, but abolishing the death penalty is not the answer, we need more investigations into crimes that involve death so that doesn't happen. We already use inmates as workers when they don't kill people, the pro argument says inmates on death row should work instead of die, the problem is that, like I said, will rise the crime rate. Because people are afraid of death, so they won't kill people knowing that they could die.
We should abolish the death penalty in California.

Too high of cost: California has spent over $4 billion dollars on the death penalty since the 1978 reinstatement, or rather $308 million spent on each of the 13 inmates executed since that time. If we were to imprison these 13 people since they were born and lived to be 100, that would still be cheaper than if we were to execute one person in California. If we negate this bill, we are not only putting ourselves in more debt, but wasting funds that could be put into improving prison industrial complex"s. Death of Innocents: Did you know every 25th person who are sentenced to the death penalty in the U. S. are innocent? The possibilities are endless when it comes to the death penalty. It is fairly common that incidents are put to death. Voting Neg, would support the killing of innocent people. Usage of Inmates: Instead of killing people who can be somewhat useful, we could put them to work inside the prison, almost as if we were giving them a sense of living, and being human. If we negate this bill, you are choosing death over letting inmates on death row serve life in prison for their crimes and spending money on more people to hire.
Bahaullah's astounding claim as Origin of all religions

Based on your response, we already agree to this, (some of which for the sake of argument): P1 there is no proof for the existence of a supernatural god. P2 is that Bahuaullah claims ALL references to god were references to him. P3 is that Bahualullah exists and there is evidence he does. These three initial premises are enough to conclude that reference to Baha'u'llah is really the purpose of the reference to god. But then you into unecessary argumentation. I address these below: "But by being a man, we've already negated that he is, say, immaterial (a common theist conception of god), or any of a dozen other criteria for god" I never said the person of Bahaullah is immaterial. I already stated in the comments that proof of P3 is that we have photographs, grave site, hair samples, his shoes, pens, robes, mirror, pocket watch, stamps, marriage certificate, passport, etc. "Odin was missing an eye--Bahuallah is not." There is no evidence that Odin actually existed. The story of this imaginary guy named Odin having one eye is a mere mythological story. All sorts of characters were always made up by people to tell stories around camp fires. This tradition continues today in DC Comics and Marvel Comics, for instance. "P4 is that people "believe in" Bahauallah. To "believe in" something is a slippery concept--is Pro saying that they believe his claims are true, or that they believe he exists?" You are unnecessarily over-complicating my P4. It simply states that people exist on earth (I am an example) who accept premises 1-3. In other words I accept that god doesn't exist and therefore all reference to a god in religions is obviously not a reference to someone that doesn't exist (god), but rather a reference to someone that did exist (Baha'u'llah). "The conclusion that Pro gives... is a complete nonsequitur. It doesn't follow from the premises whatsoever." How so? I just demonstrated it. "there's [no] different "truth" for believers than the "truth" for nonbelievers, which is nonsensical--the truth is the truth." You are wrong. Truth is not absolute. Truth is relative. "Further, references to god are diverse and contradictory and, while Bahuallah may be agreed upon to exist, there is absolutely nothing within THIS argument that supports him being, for example, the son of Odin." Again, we already agreed in P1 that god doesnt actually exist and everything said about god in religions is just made-up. My conclusion stands. If I lose this debate, it is proof that this voting system is rigged.
Bahaullah's astounding claim as Origin of all religions

P1. There is no proof that god exists. P2. Bahaullah claims that reference to god was always a reference to him, not to some imaginary being. P3. Proof exists that Baha'u'llah existed, including photographs and hair samples and his grave site is apparent and obvious. P4. Many people believe in Bahaullah. C. Baha'u'llah's claims is true (at least for those who believe him) in so far as there is evidence that he existed, while there is a lack of evidence that god exists.
A mandated minimum wage does more damage than good.

This debate will consist of four rounds. Round One catalogs the pertinent definitions and rules, wherein my opponent may address any concerns. Rounds Two and Three shall comprise the claims, counter-claims, and evidence in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Round Four will be reserved for closing arguments and shall not be used to directly counter any previous claims. DEFINITIONS: Mandated: Requirement directed by an act of legislature. Minimum Wage: The least allowable monetary compensation in exchange for one hour of labor. Damage: Loss, detriment, or injury, whether to a person, his property, or his rights. Good: Benefit; advantage; profit; gain. RULES: - Do not use external links as evidence. - Wikipedia is not a valid reference.
A mandated minimum wage does more damage than good.

Good day to those who will be observing this debate. I would first like to ask how a mandated minimum wage does more harm than a minimum wage without being mandated? Secondly Without a mandated minimum wage wouldn't an unfair form of favoritism become present in the workplace? Ladies and gentleman if there is no mandated minimum wage the opressive work leaders will take advantage of those who are their employees then diminishing those workers yearly income. which in turn put more honest hardworking americans below the federal poverty line.
youth in asia

Ok, so you might be into taking chances and hoping to live. I don't think you would though. Every day that passes will be worse. Nobody can withstand the pain from the disease since it's eating you away insode. Anyhoo, just because you take chances, it doesn't mean that other people would. Ok, so you learn about complaining [which you do a lot especially in English class. Name a one person you know that does not complain. Sure everyone has a chance to live, but there is a certain time of life span. As a person gets older they are more prone to disease and injury. they know that they don't have that much time left. If they want to leave the world, that's their choice and we can't stop it. Now my grandmother has Altzheimer's disease. That is not something that you should kill a person over. They can still live their life. They just forget a couple things. I would not kill my grandmother over that. You can't use Eithanasia for that purpose. if someone is in a coma, that is a different story. They can't speak for themselves, but a family member can. What would you do if you had to pay for their hospital bill, their room, mediation, and equipment. That is a lot of money to spend for someone who is non-responsive. If it has taken a long time, and there is no hope of them coming to, you can terminate their life. It's better than just coughing up money for them. Now the person paralyzed is a different situation. He can still respond to people. If he wants to be put down, we should respect his decision. If he wants to live, then let him live. It's not right to let him suffer the remainder of his life in a whellchair unless he wants to. Yes, if Euthanasia starts now, it will grow, but so will the opinions. It will become accepted if it grows. Then there won't be any problems. Doctors are to save their patients, yes. But do all their patients survive..no. Doctors are suppose to HELP their patients. they can't guarantee that they WILL be saved. There is always a high risk in performing surgeries. Docotrs do their best. Are you saying that no doctor has ever had a patient die? Basically, I say that if a person wants to be put out of their misery, then let them. I'm not saying that we should kill everyone who looks like they want to be put down. The person has to give you their permission, and if they can't do it, a family member has to. GET THAT STRAIGHT.
youth in asia

You say Euthanasia is bad. It is not bad at all. It is putting a person out of their pain and misery. This should be done ONLY if the person consents to it. You can't go around killing people because YOU feel that they should be put down. That is how how it works. It should only be done by a doctor and only if their patient requests for it. Many people think that Euthanasia is a homicide, such as Lethal Injection. That kind of killing is considered to be legal. You talk about morals. Keep in mind that not everyone has the same moral status like you. Many people have different ways of thinking. What you and your religion believe is none of my business and you can feel however way you want to feel about this subject. How can you feel guilty if you are not the person that is taking the life? I would understand if you feel guilty if one of your family members had to go through this. Since we are on the subject of family, I have to ask you this. What if one of your family members is suffering from a lethal disease/virus that's eating him/her alive[such as Ebola which has no cure yet]? Do you have the stomach to visit them each day and watch them die a little everyday and knowing that you could have ended their suffering sooner[as they requested(just saying)]? That would make me feel guilty if I had to watch a family member die in front of me and I can do something about it. It doesn't have to be your family member. What if it was YOU?! Do you want to endure the pain everyday and end up dead anyways? Or would you just want to get it over fast. The death rate of the Ebola virus is 50-90%. Do you want to take a chance and hope that you won't die from it?
youth in asia

why is euthanasia bad? Euthanasia is bad for many reasons. for my first argument I'm going to talk about 3 of my least convinces points, but hopefully they will still be able to convince people that euthanasia is wrong. First I want to talk about the argument of belief. Euthanasia teaches people to give up when times get tuff. If everyone thought with this point of view where would we all be in life? I believe tribulations make people stronger. I know in some cases the pain for some of these patients may hurt real bad, but it's not like there are no anesthetics to treat these people. What if scientist find a cure, but you just put your best friend to sleep because you are his doctor and he asked you to. How would you feel? If we give up on them, chances are they will give up on themselves. People with these astonishing diseases need words of encouragement. They don't need use to give up on them. Euthanasia morally wrong when. Religion plays a huge part of this, but I'm not to talk a lot about it because I know your atheist and it won't affect you in anyway. I know what is moral to me may not be a moral to another person, so I just want to talk about guilt. People feel guilty when they do something wrong (if they have a conscious). How do you think you would after letting a doctor kill someone you love, whether if it's based on your decision or theirs? I know I would feel guilty. If your answer is (yes i would feel guilty) does that not convince you that euthanasia is wrong right away? Last but not least, for this argument I want to show an example why decisions should not me made off of pain in the first place. When people are in pain they can say many things and not truly mean it. I know in the middle of a cross country race I'm thinking "somebody shoot me", but do I really want them to put a gun up to my head and shoot me? The answer is no. I still want to live, it's just my state makes me think otherwise. would you take someone out of their misery who is as indecisive as I am? I may think that but to tell you the truth I rather finish my run then give up. In a patients case he should continue fighting then give up. I just wanted to say I'm not suicidal if some of you are thinking that. I just wanted to use an example.
youth in asia

If you knew you didn't have much time left would you let every moment count or quickly end your death? patients of doctors sometimes die, but do they kill them? Those are some questions that maybe if you ask yourself you will begin to turn more to my side of the argument. By the way I know I complain and that is my downfall. I never say thanks when things turn out good, but when things go wrong I'm angry and upset. I remember hearing in a rap song by Lacrea called I did it for you. "Every funeral, cats get upset and cry Turn their heads towards the sky trying to ask God why But they never looked up till then Every other day they concerned with the world and consumed in sin" I feel like it speaks to me because I know when something turns bad I sometimes tend to blame god, when it's not his fault, But Why do people turn to him when they don't believe in him( sorry for getting off topic). What about everything that was good that happened to me. I tend to not say a word and thank no one. Also remember you might have a ruff life, but there's always those other people who would change their life with yours in an instant. It's a cycle you want what he has, when he wants what another person has. You might be living under a bridge, but that person over their is living in the wide open with no shelter to cover himself from the ran with. By the way A person could come back from a coma at anytime. It is unpredictable and a lot of times not even the doctor knows when the patient will be able to get back to their normal life. You make it seem like Alzheimer's disease isn't that bad. When a person first gets it they might just forget the little things, but as time goes on they start to forget almost everything. The eventually become like babies. You would consider putting to sleep someone with a coma, but not someone with Alzheimer's disease. You said it yourself, it can get pretty expensive, especially for an unresponsive person. Euthanasia is against what I believe because I believe suicide is wrong. People try to describe Euthanasia as mercy killing, when it's not. It is suicide because the person wants to die. The definition of suicide is The action of killing oneself intentionally, so should this not be considered suicide? They are killing themselves because they want to, not because they have to. By the way if you ask someone an opinion, you can't just disagree with them. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. So if I say I will take that chance, who are you to tell me that I won't? Sorry for how sloppy this post was, but its running late and im getting pretty tired so im just gonna leave it like that.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

It has been awhile since I finished a whole debate, not saying that this is entirely intellectual given the fact that my foe does not fit that description, but I thank the old guy for going the distance with such short and feeble legs. I believe I have won the debate for the reasons that I have completely presented a comprehensive and constructive case negating the notion that God and Bible should not be around in modern times. My opponent has cherrypicked their arguments to inflate their side, never putting in a balance the good versus bad verses of the bible. I have given strong examples as to why Christianity is a good thing because of the existence and impact of humanitarian aid, I presented the core values of Christianity which tells us to be good and be the best we can be, and all of these summed up would direct us to a life of unity, brotherhood, and peace. Vote Con. And, may the Lord invite Pro to His kingdom. Now.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

"Not even once did he tackle any of my points or offered a rebuttal." That's because not one point you made (and as stated you made no points to begin with sir scrotum soda super anti hero in all ways) had anything to do with ---ANYTHING--- stated in RD1 you jackofffata$$unholiness. This is MY debate. Its NOT YOUR debate. YOU do NOT go into prostitute ana* la la land, change the subject ENTIRELY, which had NOTHING/ AKA 0%to do with ANYTHING I previously started out to say in MY debate for something in which you clearly know absolutely NOTHING about. And since you knew NOTHING about the subject/ verses, you sneakingly and desperately tried to change the subject. NEWSFLASH: IT DIDN'T WORK!!!!! Now should you decide to pay attention to the RULES and mount a square peg in your round hole pigeon brain splatter splintered mind, in which I who has a far superior intelligence and edumacation to yours, then your thunder under the wing of a bird pile of fried beggs and scram, you might have a chance at your you know where areas tinkling on a bridge of muddled waters for a debate, then you put together “anything to counter” as stated in RD1 and nothing else. Got it poor boy sandbitch?
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

My opponent resorts to ad hominem and straw man fallacies the entire debate. Not even once did he tackle any of my points or offered a rebuttal. I call him to extend his arguments. My contentions have never been criticized, his arguments were effectively debunked. By this premise, I must have won the debate. I am a born winner and this had been the easiest debate to win. A big thanks.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

"Thank you for proving my point..." Wow a super beefy studly manifesto hunk of steak thrown to the lions den splintered off at a nun's nursery couldn't ---ever--- make a point if he wanted to. You see toxic boy chow, this is my debate. Its not yours. You totally ignored MY rules. You did not counter ANY of the verses in RD1 AT ALL as the RULES clearly specifies you to do. And THEN you can go off maundering on whatever sidearm nuclear fantasy you wish to in which is so easy to defeat, just as anything any christian brings to the table is simply because NO christian, or anybody for that matter, can prove that the christian god exists. Oh gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, does that hurt your wittle wost wosey fweewings that you can never win and that you are truly a born loser? To bad cowstud. Deal with it. Btw, those 6 words of yours are the only 6 words of your most recent debate I've read. You don't deserve anything more.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

Thank you for proving my point on how ineffective you address ad hominems. No matter how you mindlessly type words to form nonsense, the only way to beat me is winning the debate. Good luck! Rebuttals:My opponent incessantly asserts strawman contentions and maintains an immature dialogue towards God in their first round. They mischaracterize scriptures from the Bible, exaggerate metaphors, and misrepresent the tenets of Christianity.Pro claims: "And YES the bible really means what it says."Clearly, the belief that the Bible is literal serves as the basis for Pro's arguments. However, the holy book contains thousands of poetic verses which should be learned with patience and depth. The "Lamb of God" is not a lamb, the holy bread not His real body, the wine not His true blood. Psalm 18:2 proclaims:"The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."Adhering to Pro's logic, when we read this verse, is God a rock fortress with horns that looks like a shield that for some reason delivers something? This is a clear fallacy of logic. When God says a sinner will be stoned to death, it would simply mean the culprit is punished by a divine, societal, or human force (e.g consequences, ostracism, chastise). The Sabbath can be interpreted as time for the Lord, hence, always have time for Him. In addition, Pro has cherry-picked their examples to project a negative image of the Bible. How about the rest of the verses and chapters in the book? If Pro could show us how the scriptures should be taken literally in the most comprehensive explanatory manner he is capable of, and show us how all these immoral verses outweigh the good ones, then we will have the real debate. I, however, doubt its inception. Reiteration:This segment is not the reconstruction of my original arguments since nothing was attacked. My contentions stand as strong as ever. The resolution seeks to know if the Christian God and Bible should have a place in modern society. I maintain that it does for it addresses poverty due greatly to the Christian acts it created, the messages of goodness promotes mental and spiritual health, and bolsters unity and brotherhood as a result of absorbing the lessons of Christianity. Conclusion:I have proved how illogical and out of context my opponent asserts their claim. The mere fact of cherry-picking is in itself a fallacy and, therefore, holds negative merit in the debate. Pro mindlessly calls the Christian God and Bible names to which no provided argument could validate. I, on the other hand, proved why the Christian God and Bible, because of what they create, should have a place in modern society. Your turn, love.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

Ah yes, the imbecile “con” sent me an email first “Better not forfeit, kid.” When I happen to be 56, and the noosed sow snot meat “kid” is only 17. So he ab-so-lu-te-ly deserved to be deflated like the little tiny potato corn snob tot manure spread on ash toast that he clearly is. Oh gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, my opponent did not pay any attention to the rules. So I will be generous. Instead of him forfeiting the entire debate, he will forfeit the round. Now let’s see if he can actually pay attention to the rules and go from there? Gee. I doubt it.