BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty should be abolished in the US

To start off, I will discuss the history of the death penalty. The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, boiling, beheading, burning alive, and impalement, etc. In the 10th century A.D., hanging became the peculiar method of execution in Britain. In the following century, William the Conqueror would not allow persons to be hanged or otherwise executed for any crime, except in times of war. This trend would not last, for in the Sixteenth Century, under the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. Today, the death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy, but the number of people that are for the death penalty continues to grow. An example of this is the law that passed in 1994. As part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses. Among the federal crimes for which people in any state or territory of the U.S. can receive a death sentence are murder of certain government officials, kidnapping resulting in death, murder for hire, fatal drive-by shootings, sexual abuse crimes resulting in death, car jacking resulting in death, and certain crimes not resulting in death, including the running of a large-scale drug enterprise. This is not cruel nor unusual.
If you havn't been censored......

I don't seem to have that on hand. I will continue debating the revised Pro argument. I disagree that censorship alone will lead to elimination of ideologies. Nor would it allow more traction on the juxtaposition of those ideologies to be held more closely i.e. brainwashing. For instance let us reference anarchism, time and time again that has plagued the massive bodies of government that would otherwise be censoring the idea of anarchism. Yet it is alive and very well today. If we look at a few more geographic instances of censorship being revoked we can reference a number of books to fill. [1] [1] http://dclibrary.org...
If you havn't been censored......

Both, my mothers side is Merriam and father's is Webster. Let's get down to brass tax now that definitions have been established. I think there is a disconnect between being brainwashed and being censored as being brainwashed, per definition, is to have your ideologies rejected and replaced with ones you do not agree with- done through force all be it. Where being censored is simply having a publication hidden, you can still hold those ideologies and still tout them all you like. Perhaps you should rephrase your argument stance to: The censorship of ideologies over a prolonged period will lead to elimination of those ideologies and pseudo brainwashing through suppression of ideas. There now let us debate. Please begin with your stance.
If you havn't been censored......

You are not subject to censorship, as is defined by Merriam Webster (1), if you are not voicing your opinions through a published medium. You cannot legally be censored in the United States so long as you are voicing your opinions through the medium of speech. (2) The term brainwashed is misused here also as being brainwashed means that you are giving up your political, social, religious beliefs and accept contrasting regimented ideas. To my knowledge censorship may be suppressing your ideologies however censorship is not forcing to accept the ideologies contrary to those you hold. Again this would be illegal to perform in the US. (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Animal Testing Is Unethical

Thank you so much, Pro. This has been an enjoyable debate!Let us evaluate this debate. Did Pro establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be tested? Did Con show otherwise?Pro's arguments were built on an absolutist position in which animals are considered very nearly human, and his standards for inhumane, needless, pointless, animal rights were essentially equivalent to human standards. He gave no justification for this. Pro claimed criminal activities of labs, but did not produce evidence to substantiate. In his final argument he advanced animal testing as pointless, however, Con established many ways in which animal testing has proved beneficial and abolition of it harmful. Additionally, Pro briefly argued for Con while advocating micro-dosing. Furthermore, he cited no specific articles. A repository of articles covering many various topics - some of which might argue against Pro, does not substantiation make. On the other hand, Con provided justification for human rights not being extended to animals. Pro's rebuttal (they are completely at our mercy) would essentially give rights to all forms of life (and maybe even inanimate objects!). Rights become meaningless and what is known to be special and rare (rationality) is valued equally with that which is much more common. Con argued animal testing is ethical from a utilitarian perspective. Pro tossed out a red herring by arguing insulin and ovarian function were falsely attributed to animal testing. Con's utilitarian view stands unchallenged. In round 1, Con explained inviability, lack of technology (microfluidic chips), limited use, and non systemic in general prevented other tests from truly being a replacement for animal testing. Pro suggests this has been addressed, but it has not.I hope the readers will find this summary useful. That being said, I thank PinkSheep123 for instigating this debate, and I hope we might meet again. Until then, adieu.
Animal Testing Is Unethical

Con attempts to refute my first point by saying that I just list bad actions. However, these actions are the current animal test and is what Con is arguing for. Con says that my second assertion is bald. However, in respectance to the topics, if the lab workers thought what they were doing was ethical, then they would not threaten the inspectors. That proves that even the workers know it is unethical. Con attempts to refute my "pointless" point by saying that we need animal testing to fight of mutations. However, Con has failed to provide examples for this claim and stated a hypothetical when he talked about a "black plague" Con used a Slippery Slope Fallacy to close off that refutation, therefore, we cannot take it into account. Con said that we need to test animals for micro-dosing, however Con does not address my other alternatives which include microfluidic chips, artificial skin, and cell culture testing. In defense of Moral Community, Con has set up a strawman fallacy when he misrepresented my argument. My argument was not that animals should have equal rights, by argument was that animals should be treated with a decent expected towards another sentient/sapient being. While animal testing has brought forward various medical treatments, differences in genetic structure render animal testing inefficient 99% of the time (Statista) Con attempts o refute that point by saying I did not say enough examples, but I would have run out of characters if I did. Con talks about how Banting and Best experimenting on animals brought realization of Insulin, however, medical benefits should be credited to those who discovered it, not those who verify it. Con again commits a strawman fallacy when he stated that a relationship between grain and maggots cause the creation of life. Again, this is misrepresenting my argument because Insulin was discovered in that autopsy. Con sourcelessly claims that one of my arguments is false, therefore, that refutation cannot be taken into account. In refutation to the systematic alternatives point, microfludic chips are more accurate then animal testing because they share 100% of the same genetic structure as humans. therefore, that is more accurate then animal testing. Actually, when I addressed the wound labs used in the military, i cited a 2016 NYtimes article that showed the test actually happening. That therefore counter-refutes Con's refutation.
The Bible should not be used as proof in a God is real/fake debate.

I wholeheartedly agree that the bible cannot be used to prove a god. Rather, I say that you can use the bible as testament against a god. We can exploit the bibles obvious fallacies, redundancies, and scientifically disproven sections to disprove the validity of the bible, and with it, the claims of a god's existance. For example, if the bible is the product of an omniscient, wise god, you can counter this statement with the fact that the bible is extremely flawed, promotes slavery, lust, genocide E.T.C., and pushes absurd notions forward about the history of mankind, from evolution to the creation of the universe. You can use the bible AGAINST someone arguing for a god. I agree that using the bible as someone promoting god is indeed begging the question.
The Bible should not be used as proof in a God is real/fake debate.

My argument will be based on the fact that, in the Bible, there is no solid testable ways to prove the existence of a Christian god. For example "God is real because the Bible says so". Using this logic, the same thing could go for someone trying to prove the existence of the Muslim god, or any other being for that matter. "Allah is real because the Koran says so" "Legolas is real because the Two Towers says so". So unless someone (sheldor) could find a testable theory or already known facts that point to the existence of God, then it is essentially useless.
Charity is bad for human society

First of all, the claim that charity causes dependence is already quite disproved. World Vision, for example, provides charity to villages that have nothing, and uses that charity to create wells and schools, schools which of course mean education, and education means work, i.e independence. They seek to allow these people to survive independently. More importantly, greed is indisputably far more detrimental to society than compassion and humanity. Greed brings out the worst in society. But charity - charity is one of the few ways that humans show compassion for each other. If we are to believe that there is any faith left to be had in the human race, we must believe that it is only right of us to help the less fortunate, some of whom were placed in their dire straits by other humans. If we have even a modicum of caring or mercy in ourselves, we must help those who deserve it. Who have been treated unjustly or have been suffering needlessly their entire lives. As people, it is our duty to help someone else, simply because we can.
Financial Reform

"Fact: If a big financial firms fails, it will place the firm into receivership. Its sharholders will be wiped out and it management will fired. Most importantly the Taxpayers will be protected." Okay, if you say this is a fact, then where is the proof? You did not cite any sources. "Fact: Only the failed financial firms who poses a big threat to the U.S. Economy would be subject to bankcrupt process." If this is also a fact, then where are the sources backing up your claims? I have no idea what kind of financial reform you are talking about. You didn't specify, therefore I have nothing to argue since I don't know what I'm arguing. At least if you provided sources I could know what I'm supposed to debate.
Financial Reform

Fiction: To date the american people have been viewing the bill as a "bailout" bill. . Fact: If a big financial firms fails, it will place the firm into receivership. Its sharholders will be wiped out and it management will fired. Most importantly the Taxpayers will be protected Fiction: the Bill will allow the financial stability council to deem any firm without regarding the bankcrupt law. Fact: Only the failed financial firms who poses a big threat to the U.S. Economy would be subject to bankcrupt process.
Tobacco products should be banned.

Cigarettes kill; 400,000 people die prematurely every year from smoking. When we analyze the harm from drugs, there is no doubt that cigarettes are the worst. They kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined. More than 800,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana, the vast majority for possession, yet all the data from studies that compare the two substances show that cigarettes are more harmful to an individual's health. If we make these other drugs illegal, shouldn't we outlaw the leading killer? Considering how we deal with less harmful drugs, making cigarettes illegal seems logical. Over the past decade, we have seen, in states from California to New York, increasing restrictions on when and where people can smoke -- and even momentum toward tobacco prohibition.
Favourite music challenge

I was inspired to do this by this battle, http://www.debate.org...They only did songs so I wanted to try other forms of music and focus on only one video every round.1) We will post only one musical piece in each round. Then we will explain why we chose that music and why it's so deliciously good.2) Any music is accepted. Songs, remixes, soundtracks (movies) or just beats.3) Voters will have to decide each round who won and total up the wins. Round one is for acceptance.
Favourite music challenge

For my final piece, I have chosen Adagio in G Minor as composed by Tomaso Albinoni.http://www.youtube.com...I chose this song for it's beautiful, mellow, and calm melody. The tone is dark, and inky. The way the strings crescendo and decrescendo feels like the orchestra is breathing. It is a piece I can always listen to, and enjoy. It's great to lull yourself to sleep with.
Favourite music challenge

Here is my final post.Lights - Ellie Goulding.I love the rythm and pace of the song and I always get in a happy mood listening to this song. I find her voice very sweet, sometimes it makes me drift to a different place. The lyrics seem deep and meaningful even though I don't really understand them (lol).http://www.youtube.com...I look forward to your next song and thank you for participating.
Favourite music challenge

I'm gonna start with a classic.http://www.youtube.com...There's some Jimi right in your face.I picked "Purple Haze" because it's just f*cking awesome. Hendrix jams on the guitar are just so nice and easy, and his singing is soulful.Hendrix is a guitar virtuoso. He's one of the greatest guitarists who has ever lived. His music is just plain awesome, and that's likely why just about anyone who likes rock loves Hendrix.
Favourite music challenge

Thank you.I will start off with this really catchy dubstep song that my friend's friend made. He's really good at this stuff and this is my favourite video from his channel. His channel may not be that popular but I love his songs!I chose this song because when I listen to it, I can't help tapping my foot and moving to the rythm. Catchy and addicting. I found this when a video that my friend made incoportated this song. Afterwards, I was hooked.[Glitch] - Minoru - 187
Because there are Nonbelievers, God does not exist.

"First of all you are trying to box in a debate on Theology based on ONE religion, yet you don't address the theology of that religion factually. I am not a Christian, but I am a "believer", and I will argue my points based on my belief in science, logic, and God as the author and/or judge of both- even if this may diminish my belief in God to a definition equalling that of nature itself. I will address your points, but I will also try to bring up my own as comprehensive as possible. " It seems my opponent has completely skipped the first part of my opening argument. I specifically stated that when I bring up the word "God", I am referring to the Christian god. I never asserted that this argument applies to every religion, as I am well aware that many other religions believe in a deity that is not all-loving or some of the other "omni's". I have listed common characteristics attributed to God, and shown through passage that he wishes for all of mankind to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4). As such, the rest of my opponent's argument turns into a big pile of moot. And in fact, I have presented Christianity factually. If my opponent can show how the Christian god is not purported to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then I would be glad to hear so. Despite this, I will follow through the 5 points my opponent has rebutted. 1. I have already stated the attribute, omnibenevolence. Benevolence being altruism or kindness. 2. Exactly what does my opponent mean by "perfect science"? Does he mean to say that there are infallible laws of science? Any rational person would know that despite how compelling some theories/laws are, there is always a remote possibility that they may be proven wrong. So in fact no, science is not perfect, though it does have the fabulous built-in-mechanism to be able to correct such errors in due time. 4. Based on Christian doctrines and passages, God is presented to be all-loving. If you have any disputes with this, you should be arguing with the Christian theologians, not me. 5. The laws of science are human inventions, made by us humans to account for universal facts in the universe. This does not mean they can not be broken, but only that if one were to figure out a way to disprove a law, then our understandings in the fields of which that law was relevant will change. Laws of science are analytical statements of the natural world as observed by humans; they are not 100% infallible. My opponent has missed the entire point of this debate, that it was a debate targeted towards the Christian god and not theology in whole.
Because there are Nonbelievers, God does not exist.

*Clarification purposes* By "God", I am referring to the Christian god. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibelevolent entity. He also loves everyone and wishes for all of us to go to heaven (1 Timothy 2:4). He has other attributes, but these are all that is needed to form this compelling argument. After starting this debate awhile ago, and seemingly to have lost it, I realized that I was quite unclear in my arguments, and am trying to try my hand at it again. Having done research, I found out that there already is an argument based on the same premise as mine, the argument from nonbelief. I believe this to be on of the strongest argument for atheism. As such, I will cite the argument and continue from there on. 1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. 2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur. 3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs. 4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3). 5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).
Jesus is the only way to be saved, if you don't believe in him you will burn for eternity

Thank for accepting the challenge. Although this is not the position I was expecting to argue against, I will happily oblige. I will assume for the sake of the argument, that your position is that of an explicit atheist and you believe that we as humans, are the highest intellectual beings that have any cause or effect on our lives. This being your position, if you were correct in you're reasoning and could prove that this is the case and we have no consequences after this life and only undesirable outcomes for commission of sin in this life, I would have no counter argument. Since your theory cannot be proven just as I cannot prove mine, I will refer you to the argument of Pascal's wager, in which he states "humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."[1] Given this theory and that you have absolute zero proof that God does or does not exist, i argue that God existing is actually a lot better possibility than not and your position is one that, if God does exist, puts your soul in jeapordy of being destroyed, therefore your position is not reasonable and the most likely to have an undesirable outcome. Therefore even the position that perhaps may worship an idol is actually a better position to have than the one you hold because the outcomes if both of you are wrong are the same, if the ones worshipping Jesus are right and you are wrong you will burn for eternity and they will have eternal happiness and finally if you are right and they are wrong they will still have just as a desirable outcome as you do and have less undesirable situations because of their attempts to abstain from Sin. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager
Jesus is the only way to be saved, if you don't believe in him you will burn for eternity

I accept the argument and will argue that there's no need to be saved, and if we are saved, the. saved from what? Jesus is a great thing to worship to for people who need Jesus, but there's no need to be saved from anything. Sins have consequences, you may feel guilt or be pursicuted, either way, the action isn't forbidden, it simply has undesirable consequences.
Jesus is the only way to be saved, if you don't believe in him you will burn for eternity

I argue that it is very possible that Jesus is the golden calf warned about in exodus 32 and the worship of our father through him is actually a form of idolatry thereby condemning your soul, ironically while you believe it is saved. 1st round to accept and state your position, 2nd and 3rd rounds open, 4th is closing statements, please, no new arguments in closing.
IVF Debate

There are legal issues that come along with IVF that could be troubling for the mother of couple. The Uniform Parentage Act has been passed by most states which declares that the women who as given birth to a child is the rightful mother. This act, however, does not hold any legal ground on children born by IVF with donated eggs. Donor Egg IVF - IVF Moral Issues, IVF Legal Issues, IVF Ethical Issues. (2009). Retrieved May 02, 2016, from http://haveababy.com...
IVF Debate

With everything that's done comes advantages and disadvantages. A person must see whether there are more advantages to something before deciding on whether or not to go through with it. In this case, if IVF is done, the couple (or woman) undergoing the procedure know the risks that come with undergoing the procedure. Since it IVF is known to be a rather expensive procedure, people partaking in it are told the risks. Sher Facility's founder, Dr. Geoffrey Sher, also gives treatments to women who are undergoing the procedure and having difficulties with it (Sher). Sher, Geoffrey. "IVF Case Study: Recurrent IVF Failure - Embryo Banking | IVF Authority." Sher Fertility Clinics. 2011. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://haveababy.com....
IVF Debate

An IVF treatment could be completed successfully, and sure it completes its purpose, but it is too hard to ignore the health risks that come along with it. First, going back the process of preparing for IVF, the mother is required to go through significant changes in hormone levels artificially which increases the risk and amount of health problems (The U.K.'s Pioneering Fertility Treatments). For example, the hormone estrogen is needed to boost the strength of the uterus wall, but when a female receives to much for their body to handle, they can experience memory loss,, depression, infections, and irregular periods (The U.K.'s Pioneering Fertility Treatments). Secondly, IVF has a chance of resulting in an ectopic pregnancy of Ovarian Hyper stimulation Syndrome. "What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There to in Vitro Fertilization?" - Quora. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.