BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

You know we do, Steve! We'll find steady opponents in one another, I think. To be honest, I support the death penalty. Although, I see why you think I do not. It's marked wrong on my profile! There's no reason I can't be con, though. Thank you for taking the time to look at my profile to see what we could argue about, I'm flattered! So, down to business... Not only is the death penalty easily opposed morally, it's functionality in accordance with our National economy is proving to be financial damaging. Not only do we pay millions of dollars in public defense attorney's and prison fee's each year, we need to process many MANY people through the court system. Extra time in court caused by these death sentence cases (death sentence trials take longer)are making other's right to a speedy trial less expeditious. Most usually, those sentenced to death appeal, slowing down and causing MORE court fee's, and public defense attorney fee's. Why slow down our justice system, and cost our Nation more money that it otherwise be using for other things such as our school systems, funding our policeman, and fireman, or ANYTHING that would actually help our society. All this wasted, simply for the gratification that this person will die for they're crimes. Everyone will die in the end, why trouble our economy about it?
Death penalty

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty because it is almost exclusively for the offense of murder.Except when it turns out that the person executed was innocent. That has happened multiple times bringing me to my first point.POINT 1Death is a very final thing and sometimes people are executed and then later, evidence is found of their innocence. You can't bring a dead person back to life. So there are innocent people who are executed; if it was life in prison than when that evidence of their innocence is found they can be let out. Some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org...POINT 2There are things way worse than the death penalty; namely life in prison. People who are sent to prison for life will experience large amounts of psychological trauma; if you subscribe to the Eye for an Eye philosophy or believe that they should be tortured, then life in prison would be much better than the death penalty.POINT 3The death penalty costs a lot more than any other form of punishment; even more than keeping them alive in prison. That's because of all the appeals they have to go through in addition to keeping them alive in prison on the death row.POINT 4There is evidence that states without the death penalty have consistently lower rates of murder: Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Murder Rate in Death Penalty States* 9.94 9.51 9.69 9.23 8.59 7.72 7.09 6.51 5.86 5.70 5.82 5.82 5.91 5.71 5.87 5.90 5.83 5.72 5.26 5.00 4.89 Murder Rate in Non-death Penalty States 9.27 8.63 8.81 7.88 6.78 5.37 5.00 4.61 4.59 4.25 4.25 4.27 4.10 4.02 4.03 4.22 4.10 4.05 3.90 4.01 4.13 Percent Difference 7% 10% 10% 17% 27% 44% 42% 41% 28% 35% 37% 36% 44% 42% 46% 40% 42% 41% 35% 25% 18% If death penalties were to be abolished people would go violently bizarre.The above graph and chart seems to disagree with this claim.SOURCES:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Death penalty

Obviously, you are trying to prove me wrong, only to get more votes. Well, that's not how it works over here. You prove your own perspective right, and then penetrate my perspective. Roaming around this website, you should worry more about understanding different aspects then receiving a higher amount of votes. Furthermore, i recommend you alter your system of debating, in behalf of how offensive and bleak you sound. MY CONCLUSION- "I have successfully refuted all of pro's arguments and proved the death penalty should be abolished." Please, the only element that refuted my argument was you data. The rest of your elements were absurd and futile. I didn't find any data to support my argument because my side of this debate is hardly ever taken. However, i proved enough points that my argument is viably logical.
Death penalty

So lets recap:pro argument 1: the threat of being punished by death, stops people from committing violent crimes. They fear from being executed, so they rethink their actions before they make them. The death penalty decreases the amount of crimes.My Rebuttal: I used a chart and a graph to show that the crime rates are the opposite of what pro is saying.pro argument 2: A death penalty also helps murder victims' families find peace. They no longer fear that threats are to continue.My rebuttal: Not peace; revenge, and there are other ways to make sure the threats don't continue.Pro's argument 3: Besides that, revenges are taken and the victims' families themselves don't have to take any violent actions.My rebuttal: They wouldn't have to take any violent action even if revenge isn't taken. Pro's argument 4: Crimes like kidnapping for ransom, parricide, murder, rape, human trafficking, terrorism and other major offenses have been rapidly committed by those heartless and cold-blooded criminals. People who commit this kind of felony continue to broaden their evil activities. If this cannot be controlled the society will be filled with chaos and evil.My rebuttal: There are other ways to control those "cold-blooded criminals."Pro's argument 5: One of a direct solution for those individual susceptible to commit a heinous criminal act is capital punishment, and if it abolished many victims would not get a true justice. Death sentence is just appropriate and reasonable for those people whose behavior is perilous to other person, so that we can prevent the loss of another innocent life. It is in this notion that death sentencing should not be abolished and here is a few of the many reasons that it should continue to exist.My rebuttal: So what you want is to make them suffer; well life in prison would make them suffer far worse.Pro's argument 6: Death penalty must stay as one of the major penalty for those hardcore offenders and whose behavior is incurable. A person who commits a barbaric felony must be incarcerated at once so that other offenders would reflect the consequences of their actions.My rebuttal: Again life in prison would remove their threat and make them suffer way worse.Pro's argument 7: Death sentence is fitting for people who commit grave evil doing so that the life of other individual will not be placed in imminent danger. Every human deserves respect in the highest and no one is authorized to violate it. Life is admired and valued life more than ever, but for those people who mercilessly kill an innocent man has no reason to exist or live. My rebuttal: Death is the easy way out; life in prison causes massive psychological trauma and the prisoner still dies.Pro's argument 8: Murderers deserve dying for murderingMy rebuttal: Life in prison ends in death; you just don't die as fast.Pro's argument 9: Besides, i don't need any sources or data, because i have a very clear point.My rebuttal: You may have a clear point but you need sources and data to support it.CONCLUSIONI have successfully refuted all of pro's arguments and proved the death penalty should be abolished.
Death penalty

Crimes like kidnapping for ransom, parricide, murder, rape, human trafficking, terrorism and other major offenses have been rapidly committed by those heartless and cold-blooded criminals. People who commit this kind of felony continue to broaden their evil activities. If this cannot be controlled the society will be filled with chaos and evil. One of a direct solution for those individual susceptible to commit a heinous criminal act is capital punishment, and if it abolished many victims would not get a true justice. Death sentence is just appropriate and reasonable for those people whose behavior is perilous to other person, so that we can prevent the loss of another innocent life. It is in this notion that death sentencing should not be abolished and here is a few of the many reasons that it should continue to exist. Death penalty must stay as one of the major penalty for those hardcore offenders and whose behavior is incurable. A person who commits a barbaric felony must be incarcerated at once so that other offenders would reflect the consequences of their actions. Death sentence is fitting for people who commit grave evil doing so that the life of other individual will not be placed in imminent danger. Every human deserves respect in the highest and no one is authorized to violate it. Life is admired and valued life more than ever, but for those people who mercilessly kill an innocent man has no reason to exist or live. Murderers deserve dying for murdering Besides, i don't need any sources or data, because i have a very clear point.
Death penalty

No offense, but you've copied everything from online.And how is this relevant? Also I did not copy everything; the only thing I copied was the graph and chart.But, the threat of being punished by death, stops people from committing violent crimes. They fear from being executed, so they rethink their actions before they make them. The death penalty decreases the amount of crimes.The numbers don't seem to agree with you.A death penalty also helps murder victims' families find peace. They no longer fear that threats are to continue. Besides that, revenges are taken and the victims' families themselves don't have to take any violent actions. Revenge is never a good reason.Prohibiting the death penalty would disqualify all those fears and oblique revenges.Again the numbers don't agree with you.CONCLUSIONPro needs sources and data.
Death penalty

No offense, but you've copied everything from online. However, you're right that many people who are executed, end up being innocent. But, the threat of being punished by death, stops people from committing violent crimes. They fear from being executed, so they rethink their actions before they make them. The death penalty decreases the amount of crimes. A death penalty also helps murder victims' families find peace. They no longer fear that threats are to continue. Besides that, revenges are taken and the victims' families themselves don't have to take any violent actions. Prohibiting the death penalty would disqualify all those fears and oblique revenges.
Unemployment is a bigger problem to be dealt with than inflation.

Good luck to you. To begin, if you wish please look at this study on public opinion on unemplyment versus inflation. It's just some food for thought. http://www.businessweek.com... I argue that with high unemplyment, more families are financially strapped. This is the logical conclusion. With families running low on money, they will spend or inject less money into the market through consumer spending. This can lead to surplus value which inevitably leads to inflation. Now it is true that inflation affects everybody, usually mildly, however unemployment may affect less people but at a much higher cost. In families where members are unemployed all cash flow has ceised. When money becomes less valuable, at least you are still receiving an income. Unemployed families must rely on savings or the government. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is around 9.8%. That is over 30million people.These people have no income. It is a much bigger problem than your income not being worth as much(I am not saying that inflation is not an important issue and something not to be combated). I live in Florida where the unemployment rate is almost 12%. That is approximately 1 and 1/2 million people. My main point is that rather then they're money being worth less(they still have money) they're entire mode of income is cut off. While inflation affects more in a mild way, unemployment affects less in a severe way. And it is only less in cmparison to the whole country. These are several million people we're talking about. http://www.census.gov... http://www.google.com...
Unemployment is a bigger problem to be dealt with than inflation.

My argument will be in favor of valuing solutions to unemployment over those to combat inflation. In a mixed economy like that of the U.S., it is impossible to erradicate either inflation or unemployment completely without causing the other to grow exponentially. Politicians regularly have to choose which is more important. Obviosly nothing is solved if inflation completely stops but unemployment soars through the roof and the same for the converse. I argue that unemployment affects a larger segment of the population so while it is also important to curb inflation, unemployment must at least take a slight precedent. Unemployment is the state of an individual looking for a paying job but not having one. This is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It refers to a person who has been actively seeking employment and has applied at least once in the last four weeks. This definition does not include people who are retired or those who are not actively seeking employment. I would also like to only use cyclic unemployment as seasonal and frictional unemployment are generally seen as impossible to curb. Inflation: a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency ( opposed to deflation). In introductory economics one learns that there is a tradeoff to trying to stop either inflation or unemployment. The general way to curb inflation is to limit spending which creates less demand and consequentially less jobs. This leads unemployment to grow. One also learns that the general way to curb unemployment is the exact opposite. Consumer and government spending. This is because more spending creates more demand which in turn creates more jobs. However this usually creates a surplus of products which makes supply large which reduces the value of the dollar. I will argue that unemployment is worse for society then inflation while I will not deny that they are both issues to be dealt with. I welcome any responder. http://useconomy.about.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Existence of god cannot be approved nor disapproved.

This is a casual debate. No evidence needed. For me and the challenger. This is because this is who I am. Once one of the greatest debater in this website told me that I needed evidence and long examples and explanation to compliment it. I just realised that I do not want to research things, I want to just talk my mind out. Putting that aside. The first and only rule is no stupid corrections. I absolutely hate it when debaters ask for a definition of a word of subject. It is a stupid and time wasting. Lastly the person who accepts please just use the round to validate your participation on the debate. Round 2,3 and 4 will be used to debate
The Existence of god cannot be approved nor disapproved.

"This is a casual debate. No evidence needed."Fantastic, I look forward to a spontaneous exchange of ideas."For me and the challenger. This is because this is who I am. Once one of the greatest debater in this website told me that I needed evidence and long examples and explanation to compliment it. I just realised that I do not want to research things, I want to just talk my mind out. Putting that aside."Indeed, let us just talk our minds out. We can afford to indulge in this."The first and only rule is no stupid corrections. I absolutely hate it when debaters ask for a definition of a word of subject. It is a stupid and time wasting."I will not ask for a definition of a word, but I look forward to exploring together what the word may imply in all relevant contexts. "Lastly the person who accepts please just use the round to validate your participation on the debate. Round 2,3 and 4 will be used to debate"Very well, then. I look forward to your arguments.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

The kalam cosmological argument goes as follows: whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause, the obvious cause is God. Is the first premise true? Logic tells us that it is impossible for something to come into being uncaused. Have you ever seen a horse come into being uncaused? No. Why? Because things don"t come into being uncaused. Believing something can come into existence uncaused is worse than believing in magic. Thus, the first premise is true. Is the second premise true? Did the universe begin to exist? Atheists have said for a long time that the universe is just eternal, and uncaused. But there are good scientific reasons to think that the universe began to exist. For example, the universe is expanding. This means that something had to start the expansion. The universe must have come into existence from a point. This means that the universe had a beginning. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. This follows that the universe had a cause. Let"s examine what that cause was. Since the universe can"t bring itself into existence, the cause must be outside of time and space. The cause must be: timeless, space less, immaterial, and powerful. Something like God.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Kalam 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. Therefore 3. The universe has a cause4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.Therefore, 5. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.R1: Opening information and Pro's opening arguments R2: My rebuttal and Pro's response R3: My response and Pro's last response R4: My closing response.Since Pro is arguing in round 1, in round 4 Pro will put"For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed."Rules No forfeits No insults No semantics 72 Hours to Post Argument 8000 Characters Max 10 day Voting Period Start your arguments in Round 1
"It Is Probable That There Is Life After Death".

1. See "2" round 1. Already answered. People deceive and can be deceived. 2. Sleep paralysis visions share the same commonality but science has revealed they have nothing to do with demons. Also, this is not as true as pro says but we have such little space neither of us can elaborate. OBE's can be replicated in a lab.3. People wondering what their purpose is only proves they believe they have a purpose not that there actually is one. Death being final does not mean life is meaningless.
"It Is Probable That There Is Life After Death".

1. supernatural phenomena has been experienced by many witnesses regardless of their religious background 2.people who have near death experiences almost always have the same experiences (examples: going through a tunnel with a white light at the end, feelings of happiness, seeing their lifeless bodies when their soul rises out of it.) 3. The fact that most of us wonder what our purpose in life is shows that their has to be some meaning to life and death is temporary.
"It Is Probable That There Is Life After Death".

Hard with only 500 characters. The resolution says "probable", not "possible".1. There's a far stretch between intangible and immortal. Also "seems" is not an argument.2. The mind (and people) often deceives. People have made many mistaken fanciful claims. When their brains are in a near dead state, that makes them all the more fallible. 3. The Bible's credibility has yet to be established.4. The world does not owe your life meaning. Life without meaning bares no contradiction.
"It Is Probable That There Is Life After Death".

I would say that life after death is definitely possible and there are many reasons to believe why this is the case: 1. our mind seems to be an intangible part of us and yet it exist. 2. many people have reported out of body experiences when near death or clinically dead. 3.The bible says there is life after death 4.If death is all there is, than life would have no meaning
Men with long hair are more mentally unstable then men with short hair

First, I acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, of my opponents argument. I do not wish during my rebuttal to, either intentionally or unintentionally, insult my opponent. "Men with long hair are re mentally unstable because they do not have self respect." This first comment is blatantly erroneous. It is based in the same ideas that support "African American men are better at basketball" or "Asian people always work hard." These are known as generalizations or stereotypes, and in extreme cases racism and prejudice. Just because a man has longer hair, does not mean that he does not have self respect. In fact, on the other hand, does it point to more self respect because he does not care what the other men think of the hair style he chose? Throughout my opponents claim, the same idea kept coming up. "They do not bother taking care of their appearance." Once again, the idea is possible that they WANT to look the way they do. Assuming that they are only in that way because they do not care about their appearance is prejudice. To continue the thread, stereotyping men with long hair into the "unsuccessful" (undefined?) brand is a fallacy. There have been many successful men with ridiculous hair, including Albert Einstein, Joe Elliot, Bob Marley, David Beckham, and many others besides. To conclude, assuming men with long hair are unsuccessful and more depressed etc. is STEREOTYPING. This is one of the reasons for the 1960s civil rights movement. Why did it happen? White men thought black men were less "successful" because of the color of their skin. So, are we assuming men with long hair are less "successful" because of the length of their hair? Thank you.
Men with long hair are more mentally unstable then men with short hair

Men with long hair are more mentally unstable because they do not have self respect. They do not bother taking care of their appearance, which explains the long greasy, and unkempt hair. Men with long hair are more depressed because they don't care about their appearance. Which means they are less successful, which can lead to depression. On the other hand, men with short hair are more successful because they care about their appearance and they have a lot of self respect to them selves (which explains the frequent hair cuts and shaving).
Men with long hair are more mentally unstable then men with short hair

Are men with long hair mentally unstable? Based on my observations in life. I've found that men with long hair tend to be less attractive, less healthy, and be into the arts and music more then men with short hair styles. I was wondering if their is a correlation with hair style/length with mental health/stability, career success, etc. Anyone here have any personal experiences with long haired men/boys. Based on my observations, boys with long hair tend to have no direction in life and are deemed less attractive compared to if they had short hair. I have observed that men with short clean hair tend to have ALL the professional jobs in our society such as, Doctor, Accountant, Teacher, etc. I don't have any research to back any of this up And I'm hoping that you guys show me some research. Debate guys