BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
dogs are better companions than cats

Now while you make those kind of points your missing the main point which is that dogs are capable of unconditional love. Dogs make it their job to be aware of everything that happens in your home. Dogs make it their number one priority to protect and make sure that their family is okay and safe. When have we ever seen a cat do any of those things? Dogs main goal is to make sure that any unwanted events will not harm their owner. Dogs always sleep with one ear towards the door to make sure that they can hear anything that goes on in the house. While cats are more zoned out at nigh and aren't as aware of their owners situations. you can't even deny that cats are just selfish creatures because years of studies and years of human's interacting with them have proved it
Execution

You make a very bold statement in you introduction, However, It is extremely flawed. First lets begin with the scenario that you presented. I would not agree with either of the solutions that you have presented. The correct line of action would be to prosecute the individual on the crimes that they committed. Also, According to your statement, You would be fine with the re-institution of slavery if it was determined that slavery was the best economical choice and the majority of people supported it. I completely agree with your point that revenge is not justice, However, I would also add that, Justice is not revenge. This point is best presented by Frederick A. Romano, Whose sister and two other individuals: Patricia Antoinette Hirt and Lori Elizabeth Ward, Were murdered. When asked his opinion of the death penalty for the murderer he stated "It's justice. . . It's not revenge, " he went further to explain that "Revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderer's] family members. " Justice is administered when the perpetrator is held fully accountable for his crimes, Life imprisonment is not in anyway similar to execution, While in prison you can be visited by family members, Have contact with the outside world and you are treated well. The only type of imprisonment that would be similar to execution would be solitary confinement, However, I think we can both agree, That would fall under the category of cruel and unusual punishment. As far as the amount of money that is spent on prisoners on death row. First, I would agree that there are many inefficiencies our current execution system, However, This does not mean that we should completely abolish the system. All that this goes to show is we need to reform the largely bureaucratized system that we currently have in place. Also, That 57. 5 billion dollars is a very small number when you look at Californian's annual spending of 209. 1 billion dollars, Which equates to a meager. 027% of the annual budget. Also, The amount of money spent by the government is a largely irrelevant topic when discussing something of such a moral principle as execution. Concerning the individual involved in a death penalty trial. The problem of innocent individuals being wrongly convicted and losing astronomical amounts of money for it extends far past the death penalty. Also, Let us not forget that an equal sum is also paid by the accusers, And unlike many other lawsuits, When the death penalty is involved, One would not be taken to court unless there was overwhelming evidence in the affirmative. Lastly, Yes we should be concerned about both families in this case, However, Let us not pretend that the trauma faced by both are equal. While the level may be the same, The type is quite different.
Execution

I will also reply to your arguments in order. We should be basing our economy, World, And politics on what benefits the majority the most. Let me give you an example. Say, Somehow, There is a world where everybody has access to guns. Then, There's a shooting, Killing 3/4 of the population(this is not very logical). Would you take away the guns, Or leave everybody with a weapon? Of course you would choose the former. You claim that the families and friends will be affected in tremendous ways, That I agree. But not all of them will be solved by Capital Punishment. According to Lorrain Taylor, Whose sons were tragically murdered "Revenge is not justice, ". Also, She stated that "Taking another person"s life does not stop violence, ". Another example of this would be the murdering of Derrell Myers and Naomi White's son name JoJo White. "We do not think that the execution of Jojo"s killer will make the world a better place, " says Jojo"s parents. "We honor Jojo"s life by working for peace and social justice " goals that were important to him. " This proves that even though the families of the victim might be affected, It doesn't mean they want to get revenge or kill the perpetrator. You also say that there are countless stories of family members waiting for the perpetrator to get justice. This statement does not prove anything about your topic. Justice can mean that the perpetrator can get a life sentence. I see your point about my quotes, And that I am sorry about. But, I have some more research to show to you. According to the Los Angeles Times, California spent 57. 5 million USD more annually to house prisoners and criminals on the death row instead of a life sentence without a possibility of parole. You say that you would like to increase the number of prisoners on death row. This will cause not just California, But probably the United States to lose millions of dollars. Also, The cost of a federal death penalty case that goes to trial is increasing. "The Judicial Conference of the United States found that between 1989 and 1997 the median cost of a federal death penalty case that went to trial was $269, 139; between 1998 and 2004 it had grown to $620, 932. " (The Marshall Project). This means that even if a criminal wins a case, He will lose thousands of dollars because someone gave him the death penalty. Finally, We should be equally concerned about both the family of the victim and the family of the perpetrator. They will both suffer equal trauma. Thank you, And I hope you reply soon -cyborghacker (disclaimer: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE CRIMINAL! I JUST DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY! )
Execution

Let me reply to your arguments in the order that you have presented them. First, You claim that executing will not solve any problems, The reason for this, You argue, Is because it "won't make the world better. " However, In should we really be basing our laws off of whatever is best for the world as a whole? If this were true then we would be obligated to sacrifice the rights of the minorities for the advantage of the majority. You are correct in assuming that execution will not make the person who has died feel better, However, Let us not forget that the family members and friends of the person who has died are often affected in tremendous ways, Especially if the person killed is supporting a family. According to a 2015 FBI reports that in the event of a homicide 6 to 10 family members are individually victimized. There are countless stories of these family members waiting for the perpetrator to receive justice. The quote that you provide also does not necessarily prove you point, If anything it shows that we should increase the frequency of capital punishment in order to increase effectiveness, A point that I would agree with. Your quote from the Washington Post also proves nothing, In fact is considered a logical fallacy called proof by failure to find a counter example. Finally, Should we not be more concerned with the family of the victim rather than that of the perpetrator. In your argument you seem to be very concerned about the later, However fail to realize the effect on the family of the victim.
Execution

I think execution can't be justified. How will executing someone solve any problems? Even if it does end a criminal(s) life, It won't make the world better. Give the criminal a life time sentence, So he can actually reflect on himself, And feel bad. Killing the criminal, Will not make the victim feel better. The criminal has already done the crime. According to a February 2015 study by the Brennan Center for Justicce: "Empirically, Capital punishment is too infrequent to have a measureable effect on the crime drop. Criminologically, The existence and use of the death penalty may not even create the deterrent effect on potential offenders that lawmakers hoped when enacting such laws. " Which basically means that the death sentence is too infrequent to impact the world. If it's not helping, Why should we use it? Also, According to the world renowned Washington Post, There"s still no evidence that executions deter criminals. So, Execution does not deter criminals, And does not make the criminal rate decline. It's useless, And damaging to the person who's being executed's family.
In the U.S current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

So I'm going to use the round to attack my opponents case and start rebuilding my own. in my opponents first contention he said that many poverty stricken family's don't go to college because they can't afford it, but if they focused and did well in school they could get student loans and scholarships. Especially being in poverty there are Evan more scholarships out there for low income families. As for the food problems yes it is true that 7 of 18 food assistance programs are associated with healthy food, but that is the choice of the people who get it. If someone get food stamps and the choose to waste it on all chips and soda. Well then we cant control that. That decision is in the hands of those people. I'm not exactly clear on what he means by influence, but I'm going to assume he means political influence because he mentioned campaing. but Evan if you are of low income they have fund-raisers, and endorsements, and there parties will help them with cost Now to rebuild my own case. First America is the land of opportunity, you have a choice. You can better yourself if you truly want to. it doesn't matter if your poor, or rich, that is the great thing about America you can be a nothing and have a very successful life. The government will help you and assist you, but again it is the choice of the people who receive that money to choose what they want to do with it. Finally it will hinder job growth. we need the rich to run businesses and we need the poor and middle class to work those jobs. So just remember income disparities don't threaten economic ideals. the people do
In the U.S current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

I negate the resolution that in the untied states current income disparities threaten democratic ideals for three reasons, the american dream, government assistance, without income disparities job growth would decline. First the american dream. america was made to were anyone could come from nothing to become everything, i will use bill clinton as an example, he didnt have much growing up his dad died before he was born and his mom was a student so he live with his grandparents most of the time. He was poor as a child, but he became president of the untied states Second there are government programs created to help and assist people who dont make enough money to make sure that they have enough money to feed and cloth them, and there children. Third it will hinder job growth. simple if everyone is at the same finacil level. then then noone can run or open a business.but if everyone is rich then there is no reason for anybody to work.
Abortion is bad and should never be done.

1. Having a baby is not a consequence. It's an expansion of family. Just because you don't want to feel pain doesn't mean you should hurt a baby instead. Also, in many cases, the female brings rape onto herself. So because there is a small chance the baby will grow up to be bad, he should be killed? And you said if the mother dies, not if the baby will also die. You're adding stipulations now that were not part of your argument. Support your argument, please. You shouldn't have to change it in the middle of the debate. 3. This is a place for debates, not for jokes. The resolution has been reaffirmed. Con has been refuted.
Abortion is bad and should never be done.

1. Having a baby should be a consequence one should accept upon consenting to sexual intercourse. If someone does not consent to sexual intercourse, then neither are they consenting to pain of bearing a child. This furthers the victim's trauma.2. Let's weigh this out. Infinite potential spans from the microscopic chance of solving world hunger to the equally as likely outcome of becoming a genocidal dictator. The mother is a safe bet.Also, in some conditions, the child will die with the mother. It is much more desirable to spare at least one life in these instances.3. Oh, lighten up, you, it was a joke, not an argument.The resolution has been negated.
Abortion is bad and should never be done.

The character limit has nothing to do with the aptitude of the argument. Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. This kills the baby. Murder is illegal. Abortion breaks laws. 1. Why should rape victims kill the baby? You get raped so you pay someone to commit murder? Two wrong don't make a right. 2. You would rather kill a baby with infinite potential than kill an adult who has most likely already carried out the purpose of her life? I would prefer to keep the baby. He still has the opportunity to do great things. 3. Irrelevant to the argument. Please make sure your points have to do with the argument.
Abortion is bad and should never be done.

1. Once again. When someone has consentual sex, they acknowledge that there are stressful consequences that can occur. A rape victim does not acknowledge the possible family extension, nor the nine-month funfest."in many cases, the female brings rape onto herself."My opponent is SO lucky he's not a politician.2. "And you said if the mother dies, not if the baby will also die."Nonetheless, it's a possibility, and Pro had a chance to refute it, but didn't. Thus he concedes that that is a moral reason to have an abortion."Support your argument, please. You shouldn't have to change it in the middle of the debate."Calling out on my tone rather than refuting. Tisk, tisk.3. Bull, I'm MassiveDump.
why should we give money to countries that have suffered natural disasters

Ok. Well where to start from. Well there are a lot of people that waste money in America I am assuming that you are in America or a rich country like it now since someone makes a lot of money and wants to by something fancy/nice does that count as wasting? Or are we talking about governments spending to much money on there military? Either way I don't think it matters I think that when a natural disaster hits you should let it run its course with how donation organizations and aid foundations give help. With the current way people help which is oh I see someone is starving let me send some money actually most of that does not get to the other person and more of it goes to the organization. Now concerning the organizations use of donations they are not helpful at all I will point to two examples with a donation group project in Kenya there was a wasp that was able to spread disease sounds bad right? So the foundation goes and makes the wasp extinct and that animals that fed off that wasp then got fed off by the animals the Kenyans would eat affectively creating hunger by getting rid of a disease. Now on to my second example if all you do is give and give and give some food might get through to the person in need yes, but if you can educate and teach them they will eat and learn how to fend from them selves. Now the reason I am using poverty as an example is because it is a bigger issue then that of a natural disaster that might kill a thousand or even a hundred thousand. Poverty is the real disaster that I think we should not donate to nor should we donate to countries that have suffered a natural disaster because if someone can expect relief all the time then they will not be able to fix something on there own ever.
why should we give money to countries that have suffered natural disasters

Sometimes disasters happen close to home but there are also many disasters in faraway countries. In my opinion, we should always do what we can to help countries affected by natural disasters. It makes no difference if the countries are our neighbours or on the other side of the world. The first point to make is that I consider that my country is lucky because generally we have enough money to survive. However, not all countries are so lucky. When natural disaster happens in one of these countries, basic human survival becomes impossible. What is more, it is not the people"s fault that they are in this situation. Another thing to bear in mind is that in countries like ours, people waste too much money. Isn't it better to help people than buy things that we don't need? Although they may be on the other side of the world, that does no make the suffering and need less important. Furthermore, one day we might need help ourselves. If we never help other countries, they won"t help us when we need it. In conclusion, I think that we should do everything we can to help save human lives in any part of the world. The help we send may save thousands of human lives. I believe that it is a small world. We must help any country even though it is on the other side of the planet.
Cultural Appropriation Should be Based on Intention Rather Than Race

I will be arguing that adopting aspects of another culture is not inherently wrong based on the race of the individual in question, but rather of their intention in doing so.I have seen people argue that, for example, a white person wearing a bindi or performing certain traditional religious customs are forms of cultural appropriation and are therefore inherently wrong.I disagree. I believe it is not wrong for a white person to wear a bindi if they have studied and truly believe in the religious and spiritual traditions of the culture they are adopting it from, but it is wrong to wear a bindi simply because it is fashionable and for no other reason.My argument is simply that we should not restrict the sharing of cultural traditions and practices based on race, but instead maintain an attitude of respect in cultural exchange. It is this respect that marks the distinction between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange.For example,A white person getting a Maori tattoo because they think it looks cool = cultural appropriation = wrong.A white person getting a Maori tattoo because they have studied and contributed to Maori culture and society in some way and have been given permission to do so by an authority within said community = cultural exchange = perfectly acceptable.Definitions:Cultural appropriation - adopting and using aspects of another culture in an incorrect or out of context manner, especially if said culture considers doing so offensive or otherwise immoral.Cultural exchange - different cultures sharing their traditions and practices with each other in a respectful and fulfilling manner.
Religion Should be able to be practiced on public school property

No problem. Do you want to restart the debate so that we can actually have one now that we both know what we are supposed to be discussing? I think it would be pointless to continue to post in this debate, so we should just agree to tie it and have another one. Would you like to instigate it, or would you like me to instigate it? Keep in mind that you can challenge specific members to debates, and I would definitely like to debate this with you.
Religion Should be able to be practiced on public school property

My apologizes this is my first debate. I was not specific. So to answer your questions. I am for prayer lead programs that are sponsored by schools to teach students toleration at a higher level that was is currently being taught. With the supervision of trained staff such programs of understanding and education may be much more effective. The federal government need to implement programs to change current social issues. It needs to start some where. I am hoping that such programs would educe students to help by encouraging the change with in their homes and families.
Religion Should be able to be practiced on public school property

With in recent years, since 911 there have been talks about allowing the practice of religion on public schools for the purpose of teaching the youth of America toleration. Since the 911 attacks, Muslim children have been attack in their classrooms being called "terrorist." The psychological damage being done to these children due to the fact that religious toleration is not taught in our school is great. Since it is up to the parents of young children to teach them acceptance, but let's face the truth most parents do not teach their young children toleration of any kind. Thus the hate crimes that we see in the news everyday. As a future teacher my hope is that if children are taught toleration and do not learn from society or through their peers toleration, that we can create a more accepting society as our youth grow.
Miracles are Possible

I apologize. It's not easy getting time for your arguments when you're a high school student with homework, sports, and other activities. However, I will counter a little. First of all, Con never gave the definition of Natural Law. It was just brought up and assumed something without really telling what it was. Since we've been talking about scientific laws and come to the conclusion that scientific laws don't can't be fully verified, then there really is no way to discover Natural Law. It is merely an assumption, and cannot be proven. Also, here's a theistic argument to chew on. Everything in this universe has a cause and an effect. If A was caused by B, then B was caused by C, and so on. It is therefore perfectly rational to assume that the matter and energy in our universe came from something, which we call God. But was caused Him? Since the cause-effect law came with the creation of the universe, then it doesn't logically apply to the supernatural. This was fun, good luck in the final round.