BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty

in 1971 the LosAngeles Police Department reported that half of a group of suspects under arrest for robbery stated that they had decided not to carry or not use weapons in their "work" to avoid any risk of a killing which could lead totheir own execution. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Moreover, Even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, That is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. Finally, The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, This is a form of incapacitation, Similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, Either in prison, Or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, The death penalty helps to prevent future crime. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder. It should be the strongest punishment for deterring. For Religion I simply said that you can ignore the argument, But no you had to laugh. Great conduct
The Death Penalty

So the link you gave took me to an article that said one execution in the United states prevents 14 deaths per year. However, The article did not cite any details from any study to show why there was correlation. Tell me, How exactly does a scientist measure the way an execution prevents more murders? Do people just walk into the police station and say "I was going to kill someone, But then I heard about this guy getting executed, So I didn't". I'm guessing not. Furthermore, The very methodology of the article you gave is wrong. Most people don't even hear about most executions. So how can we know that it is impacting people if we don't know which murders are prevented or if the right people are even hearing about it? If you really thought the argument didn't matter, You wouldn't have posited it with so much confidence. It was half your argument since you only made two points total. You have not proven that and as even if you did, It wouldn't matter. That's why I gave you the doctor example. You're not allowed to violate a person's right to life even if it could potentially save some people. Otherwise, People could justify all kinds of murders. I could kill someone for being a drunk driver because he might cause a pile up and kill dozens of people. Also, You never told me what you meant by "good". I guess you're using the biblical version then. So it's good because sky daddy said so. Your floor.
The Death Penalty

Im Sorry but I generally hate smug-@ss people who act smart like they don't know what my argument is1)https://www. Heritage. Org/crime-and-justice/commentary/studies-confirm-death-penalties-deter-many-murders-far-less-cost2)Again I said this argument won't matter to you so why are you laughing at it, The joke is on you nowHow? I gave proof that The Death Penbalty deters crime.
The Death Penalty

I asked for a definition of the word "good" not death penalty. Also, Why are you so triggered? Also, What's wrong with striving to be smart? Also, What does this have to do with the topic? The reason I asked is because the word "good" is used in many ways, And if you're not defining it then there is no way to debate the topic. I suggest you chill out a bit and stay on topic. Case1: Deterring Crime? I want you to link that study to me in the comments, Because I don't think you're representing it properly. There is no way for them to directly correlate "not murders" with executions. Furthermore, Even if you data was true, It wouldn't change the fact that the right to life supersedes utility. If you can execute one person to save X amount of lives, Then a doctor is allowed to kill X patients to save X patients, So your logic doesn't follow. I think your study is dubious because any data I've ever seen shows that crime deterrent only works on people who already follow the rules. Criminals don't care about punishment and murderers are aware of the death penalty and still murder people while thinking they can get away with it. How many times have you seen someone on tv for killing their wife for insurance money thinking they will never get caught? I'm willing to be that guy wasn't thinking about the death penalty when he murdered his wife. Case 2: The Death Penalty Honors God. lol, Do you really think this is an argument? Come on, If you want people to take you seriously, You need to add some meat to the bones of your arguments. Even an apologist wouldn't present this argument without at least some supporting data. I'll accept this "claim" if you can prove the following. 1. That god exist (good luck) 2. That god wrote the bible. 3. That god needs us to honor him. 4. That we should do what gods needs 5. That god is not lying. That was my shallow attempt at taking your claim seriously. I'm gonna call this one early and say that you have not met your burden of proof and judging by how you usually handle debates, I'm going to say that you'll just makes the same claims with no elaboration and will not meet the burden of proof later either. Your floor.
The Death Penalty

Jesus Christ. What do you think I mean by The Death Penalty, Why do you need a definition you know EXACTLY what it is if you are taking up the debate. Stop twisting everything and trying to be smart. I hate that so much and I see it all the time on this website. the death penalty, Is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. Is that good? Case 1:Detering CrimeNumerous studies published over the past few years, Using panel data sets and sophisticated social science techniques, Are demonstrating that the death penalty saves lives. Using a panel data set of over 3, 000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, And Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, On average, Results in 18 fewer murders. Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings. 1. each execution, On average, Is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates. 2. executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1. 5 African-Americans, And 0. 5 persons of other races. 3. shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2. 75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, One murder is deterred. Case 2: The Death Penalty Honors GodYou are probaly an Atheist but here goes:Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, By man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
The Death Penalty

I won't insult either of our intelligences by asking you to define the death penalty. However, I'll need a better definition of good. Do you mean moral? Pragmatic? Necessary? Makes you feel good? At any rate. I'll highlight the problems with the death penalty. 1) It's not necessary. There is no real world situation where the death penalty is necessary. As long as society has the resources to keep people on life sentences, The death penalty will have no functional use, Except to save money. As I've stated in previous debates, Money is never a good reason to take human lives, Even immoral ones. 2) It's not pragmatic. There is no major practical benefit to the death penalty. The very small financial gains would be outweighed by the potential for a miscarriage of justice. There have been cases of people being executed who were later found out to be innocent. This is already horrific when you consider this happening to someone who is in jail for 20 years. It's exponentially worse when the person dies in jail before the truth is revealed. Pragmatically speaking, If we can never be 100% sure of a person's guilt (which we can't) then the pragmatic thing to do is to let them live and keep them away from society just in case. Even in cases where a person is witnessed committing a crime, There is always a question of sanity. Even if one could justify the death penalty by a pragmatic standard, It would be an extremely rare occurrence to ever execute anybody. They would almost exclusively be spree killers. 3) It's not moral. I believe in moral particularism, So I'm not going to be obtuse and say that all killing is immoral. However, In order to take a human life in a moral manner, It must be necessary to protect a greater morality. Even then, The right to life has historically been placed as one of the highest morals. This is why doctors are not allowed to chop up one person to save 4 people. We can keep prisoners on a life sentence and keep people safe at the same time. There is no reason to impede on their right to life. On a personal note. I find it disturbing that people are so quick to treat criminals as sub human. Especially since we don't always know if they were actually guilty of their crimes. Your floor.
Speculation about earth

Well this is going nowhere fast. I am STILL unclear as to what we are debating. My opponent has done nothing thus far to support his answer to "Is it a likely scenario that there will be a massive genocide in order to restore stability and advancement of the human population due to the afformentioned reasons? I think so (hence Pro)." As of now there is nothing for me to negate! I can say I don't think there will be a massive genocide simply because my opponent has not brought forth any evidence in favor of a genocide.
Speculation about earth

The problem with the dominating economy today is that it's driven by consumerism. This wont work because of current emerging economies. Through science we have created a wonderful world for ourselves in the last centuries. Some of those wonders have been a blessing and some have been a curse, never the less we've adopted them. The price of resources and labour has risen due to the fact that the more people that competes in the same arena the larger the costs. And as a result third world countries has acclimatized themselves to the dominating economic system. This relatively new development will ensure the collapse of resource control (power) and science (controlled evolution). The human race is now faced with an important decision, are the lives of more than half the human population worth the succession of the human race? Or should/can we abandon our current progress and revert to a "lesser" way of living and use what we've learned to sustain the current population, and if so what happens if it grows even further? With an impending climate crisis a big population might be favourable, and without it is most definitely not.
Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

Since I highly respect this particular opponent and would enjoy hearing his argument in the first, I move to allow Korezaan the first debate. Also, I'd like to define a few things, as to clear anything up. (As always, I'll be using Merriam-Webster) relieve as: " to free from a burden : give aid or help to" argumentative as: "given to argument : disputatious " and nature as: "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b: disposition, temperament" To my opponent, I hope you accept this debate and good luck!
Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

Again, good luck in the votes. "What I can say is that excellent equals best when we're looking at the resolution..." No, there is no concievable way that you can take a word and logically change its definition. The word "excellent" is there to prove that it has an higher being. Don't run semantics, it's annoying. "Since you provided no indication as to what Debate.org is excellent/superior in comparison to, then we must assume that Debate.org is excellent/superior to anything in its field, which, in this case, is "relieving an argumentative nature"." Would you like some examples? "Many students, as seen in my own high school, tend to lean towards arguing with authority figures if they cannot express an argumentative nature." Obviously, insinuating that debating on this site is preferable to arguing with high school authority figures. and "These debators would most likely not waste their time on anything BUT a site specifically designed for debating." Giving that sites used in forum specifications are not as satisfactory for one who has an argumentative nature as a whole. This is another thing I have said debate.org is better than, though that is not the resolution, you called it and I negated. My opponent also forgets my ladder example. I believe that, without a shadow of a doubt, excellent can never be used as best unless given a prerequisite or proper connotation as to why it is. Until my opponent can prove that "excellent = best" There is no way his defense can make sense. "Okay. Well, I think it'd be ineffective and if somethings neither effective nor fun, I don't do it." We all have our ideosyncracies and I think that is beside the point. "On the flow, this argument of his was originally for attacking schools that don't have a debate team..." Formal debate would still exist in this scenario it would just be a very boring and repetitive function. Which is another thing debate.org is preferable to: Schools with no debate team/no debate team funds. The resolution, "Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature." in no way represents the connotation my opponent attempts to procure. Seeng as his entire logic depends on "excellent" meaning best, you cannot count the arguments valid. For these reasons and the one's procured in each of my previous rounds in conjunction with my refutations, be it resolved that debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature. Thank you to the noble judges, my opponent, and the spectators. May the one with the best case win, -EG
Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

I negate, that "Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature." I accept all his definitions. I would like to add one: , also defined by Merriam Webster, means "Superior". (link: http://www.merriam-webster.com...) , defined by general usage, means "Best at (whatever it describes.)" observations 1) It does not matter that the resolution says "Debate.org is [AN] excellent way"; since excellent is defined as "best", grammar rules do not apply. Therefore the resolution asks whether or not Debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature. 2) My opponent therefore has the burden of proof to show that Debate.org is the best possible way to relieve an argumentative nature in order to win this debate. This is true because my opponent has put forth a statement and has taken the "supportive side", which means he has to show why we should believe in him before we actually do: If he, for example, put forth a resolution that said "You should climb Mount Everest", he needs to go and give reasons as to why that is true. If he doesn't give any, then we essentially have no reason to climb Mount Everest and therefore we default CON, which basically says we don't have to do anything. case Debate.org is not the best way to relieve an argumentative nature. Formal debate (e.g. LD, Policy, Public Forum, Parlimentary Debate, etc.) is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature. When I first came onto this site, I was expecting a site full of circuit-level people and I'd get totally pwnt. Not trying to insult the intelligence of the people that use this site, but many users of debate.org simply do not know the claim/warrant/impact structure of a solid argument, along with several other basic things that debaters of the NFL league know about. The best way to relieve an argumentative nature then, is to join the NFL and do one of the debates listed previously. Most people doing debate in NFL are there to win debates and to find holes in their opponents arguments, rather than a more lax nature, as is here in debate.org. For example, in formal debate, there's a much shorter prep time limit; in the debate I do, LD, the total prep time available is 4 minutes, whereas on debate.org, you have THREE DAYS to do the same amount of work. In CX, or Policy debate, many speak at 400 words per minute and think even faster than that in order to strategically crack down on their opponent's position. If there is one thing that can best relieve an argumentative nature, it is NFL formal debate, which forces you to think faster and more creatively. And even if it's not the best, it's at least better than debate.org. Which is all I need to win the round. I await reasons as to why Debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature.
Should teachers be able to take things from you

In a way, teachers should have the right to take things away from the students if they cause distractions or can lead to potential harm. Typical teachers will always ask for the student to take off, or put away, their items before taking it. In my opponents case where the teacher took his or her hoodie, it was my opponents fault technically. First off, my opponent even admiteed to what the teacher could have thought, with the following quote: "I know that they think you have a gun and all that". If you knew what they thought, why did you put on the hood in the first place? Secondly, did you look at the school's policy? In most schools, my school for an example, they have a no hood policy where you can't where a hood within the building; but only when outside with bad weather. Kids have gotten in trouble for doing it, and thats their fault and not the teachers.To conclude, teachers should have a right to take away certain things within school. If the item seems harmful, they will most likely ask for the person to put it, or take it, away; otherwise its the students responsibility. The moral, think before you do.
Should teachers be able to take things from you

Just this past week I was in art class and I had my hood on, I know that they think you have a gun and all that crap but she took my hoodie and put it in the office I went to go get it I had a talk with her and I can't get it until the weekend is over on monday. i even remember in other grades the teacher didn't care if you bought it and it's $10000 they will still take it.
Pro Legal Abortion

Abortion is not only about only terminating an unborn child, it is the decision of the woman to decide what she wants to do with her pregnancy, accidental or not. Abortion is not a cruel, brutal, or senseless decision either. Due to the fact that unborn fetuses are unable to feel pain until much later in the pregnancy because of the underdeveloped sensory region in the brain (1), there should be no moral issue here. Abortion is a personal decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor, not the judicial branch. A fetus is part of a woman's body until the umbilical chord is cut. Prior to birth, a fetus is completely dependent and reliable on the mother's nutrients (2) , technically an extension of the women's body, giving her the right to terminate the pregnancy or not. (1) http://www.spiked-online.com... (2) http://www.nutritioninthewomb.org...
Pro Legal Abortion

Abortion in the United States is not just a few deaths here and there when someone no longer wants a child, it all adds up. And although many people like to use the idea that abortion should be allowed for extreme circumstances, often times, babies are aborted for convenience. There is no nice way to think about abortion because it is a cruel and brutal decision. It allows women to senselessly make decisions to get rid of mistakes they made, and teaches them nothing about what they have done. Having abortion a doctors visit always allows women and men to learn no consequences from the decisions which they chose which led them to an unwanted pregnancy. There are many shocking facts about abortion as well which clearly makes it an undesirable and inhumane decision. #1 There have been more than 53 million abortions performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973. (1) #2 When you total up all forms of abortion, including those caused by the abortion drug RU 486, the grand total comes to more than a million abortions performed in the United States every single year. (1) #3 The number of American babies killed by abortion each year is roughly equal to the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has ever been involved in combined. (1) #4 The unborn baby's heart starts beating at 20 days and the brain gives off brainwaves at 40 days. (2) #5 Babies can survive outside the womb at 21 weeks. By 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except the back and top of the head, are sensitive to pain. (2) (1)http://endoftheamericandream.com... (2)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Pro Legal Abortion

Women who are victims of rape should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. 1 in 3 women are likely to be victims of sexual violence in their lifetime (1) . If abortion was made illegal, 33% of women would be forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will. This can interfere with a woman's life to the highest extent. Most of the women who face rape and sexual violence which result in pregnancy are not physically, mentally, or financially prepared to raise a child. The option for abortion should be readily available for these women because it is their right as a human being to decide what they would like to do with their own body. Not only does making abortion illegal disrupt and violate the rights of women across America, it also increases the amount of unwanted and accidental children in the country. While adoption seems like an easy solution to an unintended pregnancy and a convenient substitution for abortion, millions of unwanted children are awaiting adoption and will remain orphan or be sent to foster care (2). 400,540 children are living without permanent families in the United States. 115,000 of those children are eligible for adoption, however 40% of these children will wait an agonizing 3 years until someone adopts them (3) . To bring a child into this world only to send them to an orphanage or foster care without guarantee of a permanent home until adulthood, and to increase the growing number of children waiting to be adopted in America is a cruel and heartless punishment to those who were a result of rape and accident. (1) http://www.oneinfourusa.org... (2) http://amplifyyourvoice.org... (3) http://www.ccainstitute.org...