BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should bring back gladiators for the death penalty

I will come to a compromise: The gladiators could consist of voluntary competitors, which could include prisoners, but no one is forced to fight. Winner gets half the profit generated by the games, and if it is a prisoner the prisoner could give the money to his family. If we live in a free society, that at least should be allowed. You made great points this debate, and it was excellent fun. Thank you for your time.
We should bring back gladiators for the death penalty

Once someone breaks the law, why should they be protected by it? I mean, they don't think that the laws should be there, or maybe just that they shouldn't apply to them, but nevertheless, they cannot expect a one sided law system. Rehabilitation might be a solution, but the games would produce far more money for programs to make rehab a choice for offenders of nonviolent crimes. Consensus proves nothing. If you asked the scientists and philosophers of Ancient Greece what the elements are, they would tell you fire was among them. Surely a consensus would agree. Yet it was not true, by our standards. Evidence what is needed to show that it is not a deterrent, perhaps showing how crime rates differ under countries. That would not be helpful for me, but after taking it into account, I have also looked into the lowest homicide rates of countries, and found that Japan, Bahrain, Singapore are in the top 6 lowest crime rates, yet they still use the death penalty. It seems it is likely that the death penalty does not deter crime, as you have said, yet I still retain that it could reduce crime by killing violent criminals. In any system, innocent people will be found guilty. However, how is it worse to kill them rather than let them live on in a prison full of real criminals? It would be an awful life for most. Forced is the wrong word. Pressured is a much more accurate term. However, under no circumstances should crime be tolerated. If you give in to one person, you create a grey area, and then it is impossible to have laws that matter. The gladiator pits would doubtfully cause violence on the streets. If we allow an outlet to use the violence, the death pits, they could go there instead. Sorry about the Rome thing, you are right, but I don't see how it has a correlation with gladiators, most ancient cities have crime. I will concede , the win should probably not be too good, but perhaps the winner could get some other reward, such as he gets to live on in prison. Sorry about my brief points, I am in a hurry right now.
We should bring back gladiators for the death penalty

You say we live in a civilized society. What is crime if not the very definition of dissidence toward civilization? When a man commits a violent act, he is using uncivilized tactics. Unfortunately, many still employ this tactic, and we must quell it somehow. Now, we have a few ways of doing this: keeping them in prison for life, executing them, or re-educating them. Prison simply is too expensive , costing taxpayers billions for no good reason. Why should an inmate get over $30,000 spent on him/her when people who have never committed a crime must work for that? At the very least, we should bring back prisoner labor (not them picking up trash, I mean actual labor, like chain gangs.) Re-education is also a terrible idea because anyone could fake their way through, and it happens all the time, even today. When people get out of jail, they are more likely than not to commit another crime. Also, the whole point of the death penalty is so people avoid committing crimes in the first place. My opponent claims one cannot be 100% sure of guilt, but does not explain why. If the jury is not 100% sure, the man will be exempt from going to the arena unless he chooses to. Poor people are not forced into lifes of crime. They look at the benefits and the consequences of the crime, and decide it would be worth doing because the consequences are not substantial enough. With a gladiator arena, people would not want to do the same crime that before would only send them to prison. Of course violence may become more prevalent in society, but we wouldn't restrict gladiators to only prisoners. Voluntary competitors would be allowed in as well. Being a criminal as a prerequisite might not work out well. Here is something to think about: Did the gladiator arenas make Romans a less civil? As far as I can tell, they were the most civilized society around. Certainly not the surrounding societies. Perhaps China, or India may be considered civilized in that time, yet not to the perspective you refer to which is the West. Crime rates in Rome do not seem like something that was too important, especially not violent crime. From this example in history, we can infer that gladiator games do not increase violent crime, or at least see it was not as significant as you make it out to be. I understand your concern about the winner, and it is true, it might not be the best solution. However, serving overseas in a unit with other prisoners wouldn't be some utopia, and I doubt many winners would come out unscathed. It would simply be a reason to actually fight. http://www.bjs.gov... http://www.nytimes.com...
We should bring back gladiators for the death penalty

In ancient Roman times, the gladiatorial arena was an amazing spectacle to watch. and yet, we can no longer are allowed to make such games. However, I propose that we send people that commit violent crimes to a great gladiator pit every year to fight each other. The last man standing would be allowed to go to the military. The arena would help in many ways, including, but not limited to: Lower taxes. With all violent offenders going to fight in the death pits, prisons will not cost as much. Plus, the revenue it produces can pay for anything that the fights will require (armor, weapons, arena repairs, etc.). That way, it will stay private, and government cannot corrupt it. Which brings me to the next benefit. Entertainment. People from all of the country if not the world would travel hundreds of miles to watch the games. People would become happier in general. Justice. Basically, you get to watch a child rapist get gang-shanked. Good luck
Liquid soap is of higher quality than solid soap

I forgot to say that BoP is shared. With that out the way, here are my arguments. 1. Wet soap is quicker to use than dry soap. Dry soap requires you to scratch at it, which takes longer to do. Wet soap only requires you to squeeze it out of the bottle, which is must faster. 2. Scratching at dry soap can damage your fingernails, or get soap under them, and this is very unpleasant.
Parents should be responsible for their obese child's condition.

Because my opponent has forfeited this round I am going to assume m arguments were stronger. Fact is kids after the age of 7 are responsible for any extra food they consume. They are also responsible for not playing outside. Even if parents urge kids to eat healthy and play outside the child still chooses to sit on their phones or throw sticks instead of riding their bikes or play tag. The also choose to sneak food or go to the store with money they get to buy candy. Obese children are responsible for their obesity.
Parents should be responsible for their obese child's condition.

I'm glad to be taking part in this debate. This seems like an intriguing topic and I hope to persuade the mind of voters and my opponent. Though parents should take some responsiblity in the early part of the child's life after the age if 7 they are choosing what to put in their bodies. When a child gets allowance they usually go buy candy and a child by that age though not knowing the official term should know to eat in moderation to eat sometimes but not all the time. I'd the child was brought up correctly then they would know not to spend all their money in one place it is the parents job to tell them not to spend it all at the sane time but after that it us up to the child to decide whether or not to blow all their money on candy. Then comes in the component if exercise. The child chooses not to go play with friends and stay inside. The child chooses not to actively participate in gym class. The parent may try to get there kids out sometimes. But they cannot make sure they do AND do something physical everyday. The parent cannot make sure the child is not sneaking food in the middle if the night. The child dies all these things the parent doesn't force this on to the child.
Leafyishere is a cyberbully

~ LeafyIsHere is considered by some to be a cyberbully, considered by some others to be the victim, and not considered by people who legitimately don't care. What matters to me, is that most of the videos LeafyIsHere rants about get disliked by a sizeable portion of his fanbase. I honestly watch LeafyIsHere on a regular basis, and many of his feminist-related videos, however satire, reek of anti-feminism, logical fallacies, and non-politically correct filler, not to mention the titles. I often hear that LeafyIsHere isn't a cyberbully because he says in his description that he doesn't support "witch-hunting." I do agree with the obvious fact that LeafyIsHere doesn't support the "witch-hunting" many people participate in, but LeafyIsHere does provide a target, rant about the target, and, ultimately, infrahumanize said target. This may motivate some of Leafy's viewers to not feel at all bad about participating in "witch-hunting." It's similar to pasting a "Kick Me" sign to someone, or doodling on them while they are asleep. Leafy makes satire content, but his comedic content has a not-so-comedic effect. ~
Leafyishere is a cyberbully

I don't get why people call him a cyberbully. All he has done is to show the messed up side of YouTube, and quite possibly, the Internet. Let's be honest, there are people far worse than Leafy. People who scam, faux channels, and all around crazy stuff that just isn't right. Sure, it's the Internet, it happens everyday, but Leafy always gets the hate when something far worse is going on. Most of our culture is screwed anyways, so might as well respect the smart before we are all screw over by the next president of 2017. He only made one mistake, which was the whole autistic YouTuber rant, to which he took down and apologized, then later added his note to not "witch hunt" the people who are presented.
Legalization of Illicit Drugs

The main point of my opponent is that if heroin was legalized, more people would use it. This absolutely could happen, which is why harm reduction programs are so important. Most people would rather use a softer drug if presented with facts about heroin use, so I would counter by saying better education on drug abuse would decrease use. If someone knew all the harmful things associated with heroin use, they most likely will not use it. Most hard drug use is due to bad social environments, such as growing up around gangs. To counter this, we need to address the root problems such as social inequalities. "The War on Drugs" is mostly a blanket term for a war on cannabis. If I would like to consume a harmful molecule, I do not think I should be prosecuted for that. I think I should be encouraged by the government to join a treatment program and to not use used needles.
Legalization of Illicit Drugs

By forfeiting, Pro implicitly agrees with me on everything. This is what Pro agrees with: Pro's position is to legalize every illicit drug. This includes making it possible for people to bring heroin into the US or to produce it here, without any limits. There is no reason whatsoever to do this. Restricting production and importation causes no problems, and allowing it would have no advantages. However, allowing it would cause problems. In time, there would be more heroin addicts in the US than there are alcoholics. (Multiply the current amount of heroin addicts by 40.) As a result of Pro's proposal, entire communities would collapse into a cycle of poverty where children are born into a world without opportunity, and their only escape would be drugs. Everyone would be miserable and people would turn to violent crime to support their habits. The government morally must prevent this problem. Pro and I both agree that it is important for the government to control the damage done by drugs. We both agree that preventing the damage in the first place is better than cleaning it up afterward. The simplest solution is to reduce the amount of heroin in the country -- by restricting it from being imported or from being produced here. The less heroin there is, the fewer people will use it. The simplest solution is to reject Pro's proposal.
Homosexuality is not bad

Hello Pro, I imagine you are and you really do not have to keep explaining. I understand your perspective quite well but it is just a mistaken perspective. I do in fact have proof, You simply reject it because it is not scientific. Just out of curiosity though, What scientific data would you accept as proof (I guess you can post in the comments, Or have another debate if you're interested)? Also thank you for the good definition, But what you think I presented as the dichotomy is incorrect. Also, You did not ask for "proof", You asked for "scientific proof " initially. It is not about whether or not God exists, It is about whether or not there is scientific evidence (That was clear from the context). You seem to be suggesting that I can only prove that God exists if there is scientific evidence, The dichotomy then being, 'if there is scientific evidence then He exists, If there is not scientific evidence then He does not exist'. There is the third option which you precluded in your request for scientific proof, The historical reportage of the Biblical authors, The reliable and collaborative testimony of over 40 authors who witnessed His supernatural works, Recorded all His prophecies (which were all fulfilled) and walked with Christ who rose from the dead. These writings spanned a period of 1500 years meaning they did not all sit down and get their story straight first. I presume you did not realize that as you stated the Bible was a "document". It is actually a compilation of over a few dozen documents. Lastly, Proving the Bible to claim God is real is using the means which God provided for us to come to know Him personally. I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible is "unproven", Though if I were to guess, I imagine you mean scientifically (joking). As to why you should believe in God (I assume you mean simply His existence versus His specific commands etc. ), It most fundamentally is because His existence is self-evident to every human being. Respectfully, dbox Apology accepted.
Homosexuality is not bad

Hello, Con For the last time. You have no proof of god being real and their for the Bible being real. I am getting really sick of having to explain that to you. Prove god is real, Until you do that any argument depending on the existence of god is expecting me to take something on faith. Prove you base argument that god is real them you can use him in this debate. Asking you if you have proof of god isn't a false dichotomy. You do know what that means right? False dichotomy, "A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), Or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), Or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, Since the test and the program could both be wrong. " google search. God is real or he isn't. That is mutual exclusive. PS using the Bible to claim that god is real is like proving a conspiracy theory about aliens with one about chem trails. As in Nether of them has any proof. You can't use an unproven document like the Bible to prove an unproven being like god. Start from square on and tell me why I should believe in god. From pro Sorry if I sound on edge
Homosexuality is not bad

Hello con, Thank you so responding in a civil manner, I would respond to your second point by saying that the Bible passage that says homosexuality is bad also forbids wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish. Have you ever eaten shellfish or worn mixed fabrics? If you have then you are no better than the homosexual you say are fighting against the natural order. Https://testeverythingblog. Com/shellfish-and-straw-men-90bbe7c1d8ad. The second thing is that you said they are just trying to stick it to the man? They don't choose to be gay, It is a part of you not something they do to be difficult. My last point is that god has no right to define morality (This being of supposedly infinite power didn't stop the holocaust. According to the Bible god gave us free will. Does this not give them the right to be gay? Please, Do you have any other arguments that don't take the existence of god for granted. Why should I trust in a god that I have no proof of. Your argument is founded on a book that people CLAIM to be written by a god who they CLAIM is real. Until we have proof of the existence of a god all arguments basing themselves on him are unfounded. Sin, Natural order, And god are all human constructs. Sin is meaningless if you don't believe in the religion. I can't defy a being that I don't think is real. God and sin is not a good enough argument to justify discriminating against real people. Sin is just something people made up to justify their own sense of morality. God doesn't justify things people do.
Homosexuality is not bad

Pro, Thank you, But I would argue that your requiring a scientific qualitative or quantitative measurement of a Being who is unquantifiable and qualitatively separate from the universe is unreasonable and a moot point. That is like asking me, "Did you stop beating your dog? Answer yes or no". Likewise, You ask, "Have you found some scientific evidence to prove God exists? Yes or no". You have asked an irrelevant question due to false assumptions and essentially presented me with a false dichotomy of "yes or no". You also assume that no one can prove that they have ever seen the power of this God on display, But the Bible is replete with examples. Of course, You reject that as a source due to unrealistic requirements regarding how you think it should have been transmitted, But that is another topic altogether. As regards your idea that "it doesn't hurt anybody else", You are misrepresenting the relationship between human sexuality and human duty to God. First, God ordered male-female relationships as the only proper form of sexual relationship, And for that aspect to be solely a part of marriage. That is how we are to function in the way we were made. If we function as He designed, It is only good for us. However, Disobedience has death as the natural consequence. Do you ever get mad that we are made to breathe air and not water? To sin is like rebelling against this natural law and as a final act of defiance, Diving underwater to take a deep breath of water, Just to stick it to the man. God is not afraid of homosexuals, He is commanding them as their creator to stop rebelling and submit to His authority. He is life, He does not tolerate rebellion, So to rebel is to choose death over life. As to the focus of the debate, Homosexuality flows from a heart that is in rebellion against God. To continue this act is to spit in God's face and embrace death with a kiss. Respectfully, dbox
Homosexuality is not bad

Hello dbox, Thank you for responding. I would say that because there is no scientific proof of god that any argument that requires his existence depends completely on faith. For example I personally am an atheist and think that god is unnecessary and ask what gives a being that supposedly omnipotent abilities but that no one can prove that they have ever seen the right to declare morality. Even if a god existed, If he stopped loving people for their sexual orientation I wouldn't want to worship him. If it doesn't hurt anybody else, Why is it bad. If saying that sends me to hell then thats okay with me because a homophobic god (if he exists) is not someone I would want to spend eternity with. Thank you Alitar
Homosexuality is not bad

Good day Pro, I will concede that personal liberty protects an individual's right to their own sexuality, But I will argue that homosexuality does hurt every single practitioner. As a sin, It destroys the person's relationship with their Creator, God, And is evidence of a heart that hates God. People who hate God are separated from His love, And as a result, Will be subjected to His wrath for eternity. Respectfully, dbox
Teachers sharing political opinions

A teacher is there to teach. If they bring up the topic of politics I assume it would be open to discussion. I see no reason why a teacher would just stand in front of a class and just start lecturing on about their personal political preference and not letting anyone oppose them or their views. A teacher would have a certain amount of influence over their students of course. But if it's not the teacher it will be their parents, friends, neighbours, the party with a large advertising budget or the news etc. So throughout life they are always going to be hearing other people's political views and they're going to have influence on them. So surely it must be better for them to be encouraged in a school to look into politics and decide for themselves. It's the perfect place and time for them to start hearing other people views and expressing their own. A teacher should be leading by example by sharing their views too and why they have them. There isn't as much as a connection if they just show both sides especially when there could be multiple parties and people involved. They may as well not bring it up and just tell them to go look at each parties own website and see what they stand for. Would be rather boring. If a teacher can't openly discuss their political views because it may influence their students choices what's next? People have opinions on everything in life so why try shield them away from reality? They're at school to learn real life skills too not just to be able to sit tests well. If they can't handle someone else's option and be able to form one of their own then they have already been failed. As long as it's a fair debate and both sides get a fair say there can be no negatives from it. It's exactly like we and everyone else on this website are doing, having free and open debates that are fair and allow people in the end to come to their own conclusion. If we stop the teacher from speaking because he has influence then who else? Should the most intelligent, the most popular or the most knowledgeable student on the subject being discussed all be stopped from speaking out and expressing their views too? Because surely they will also have a higher than average influence over their fellow students.
Teachers sharing political opinions

Teachers should be sharing their political opinions, especially if their reason for doing so is to cause a debate and have a student express their opinions too. Whether that will be for or against the teachers political preference. Teachers are there for the sole purpose of making students use their own heads as express their thoughts. How can a teacher do this if they can not do it themselves because it is not allowed? Politics needs to take larger roles in schools, it's what every civalized society is based on. I for one would be more than happy if my children came home and began to talk politics and begin sharing their views and explaining why they have them. If that then made them follow politics on their own in future then great! The majority of teenagers for example will say they support the political party their parents do or friends have mentioned without any real though of their own. Then most would not be able to explain in detail why it is and what policies the other parties have they chose to oppose. There are also many people who will not express their own political views through fear of what others may say. A teacher standing up in front of a class and saying what he supports will only encourage more to do the same.