BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The social contract theory is absolutely ludicrous

Let us begin by defining a few key terms that my opponent neglected to define. Absolutely " with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally. Ludicrous - so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous. Let us be clear as to the burden to be placed upon my opponent. Con in this round has must show that Social Contract is in fact absolutely ludicrous. In other words Social Contract can have no legitimacy whatsoever. Rather it must be regarded in the mind of the judge at the end of this round as totally ridiculous, and unworthy of another thought. If this is not your state of mind after reading this debate, a Pro ballot is warranted. Turning now to the one argument presented by my opponent. Contract was defined as "a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law." My opponent then made the leap that any such agreement must be signed, in order for it to be binding. This is not true, and I will be showing you why Social Contract theory is legitimate in a few moments. Before doing so however, let us define Social Contract. Many books have been written attempting to explain Social Contract. I would refer you to John Locke as my personal favorite authority on the subject, but for this round a simple definition will have to suffice. Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Compare this to the definition of contract that was offered by Con. A contract is a written or spoken agreement. When individuals join together and create society, both verbal dialogue and written legislation are employed in the creation of the government of that society. Thus we can see that the requirement for a contract has been met, because in the very act of establishing a government for themselves, individuals create a contract. Now think again about the burden of Con. In order to vote against Social Contract, you must believe that it is absolutely ludicrous. For the sake of this discussion, I offer the following quote from John Locke. "Men being by nature free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join together into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living." From this quote we can understand the natural state of man. In his natural state, man is absolutely free to do whatever he wants. This means that without a Social Contract that forces me to give up some of that freedom, I am free to conduct a mass shooting, or carry out some other act of terror, without government intervention or reaction. Any society that places limits on this state of absolute individual freedom can be said to be functioning under a Social Contract. Far from being absolutely ludicrous, I submit to you that the Social Contract is absolutely essential to any just society.
Death Penalty

My opponent says that people who are innocent on death row have all been released prior to the executions and that nobody innocent has been actually killed. As of March 2005, 119 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973 (Northwestern University, DP Information Center). Researchers Radelet and Bedau found 23 cases where innocent people were executed since 1900 (In Spite of Innocence, Northeastern University Press, 1992). Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, Inc. In this way, no matter if it was one person innocent our 200 innocents killed, I can not support a system in which innocent people are killed. You might say that it is the people on the jury who decide this, yes but if there was no capital punishment system then they would not have the choice of it, right? My opponent differs between the states that do have the death penalty are different in ways such as urban population. Michigan, a state that does not have the death penalty and major cities such as Detroit and Lansing that has a population of 10,003,422 as oppose to New Mexico which has the death penalty, no major cities, and a population of 1,984,356, nearly 10 times less then of Michigan. New Mexico has a higher homicide rate. The facts still remain, states with the death penalty of all different populations and sizes have lower homicide rates then those of states that do. Are you telling me that if any state with the death penalty outlaws it, then homicide rates will not decrease? You say that spending life in prison for 23 hours a day is not worse then dyeing then and there. Each choice you pick eventually has the same outcome, death. If you will eventually die then would you not want to die then and there or live for how many years you have left spending all your time in a box with no luxuries and just time on your hand to slowly eat you away and kill you inside? If someone gave you an option to have your head chopped off or to have lethal cuts to your body for an amount of time, but they would still chop your head off later, which would you pick? "Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms . .. ($232.7 million per year) . .. and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million). " --California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008 Yes I agree with my opponent that if a state with the death penalty had it suddenly banned that there would be an increase in the amount of spending for investigators etc. .. But it still would not be even close to how much it costs to have the death penalty with all the appeals etc. .. .death penalty takes a long time and people are on death row for 10-20 years at times. There is no statistics that show that the increase in prosecution of homicides or homicide investigators would cost more then if they had the death penalty.
Death Penalty

First of all I would like to make my "map points" as to why I am oppose to the death penalty. 1. The cost One my argue by logic that the cost is much higher for life imprisonment because you would have to feed him everyday etc.... for the rest of their lives right. # A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000). (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit) # In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment. (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research) # In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case. (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008) # In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty. Innocence I will start off with a quote from Governor George Ryan of Illinois "I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." Since 1973, 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row. 3. Death Penalty does not help anything There are no proven records that say that states that have the death penalty have lower crimes rates of any sort. People do not think right before they shot a guy in the face. "Oh wait, this state has the death penalty". Actually, states that do not have the death penalty have lower crime rates http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4. Would you agree that spending 23 hours in the day for the rest of your life in a 6 ft" by 6 ft" box thinking about what you have done, letting the misery eat you away for the rest of your life is worse then dyeing 5. And shouldn't the state be considered a murderer for killing someone as well
Gay Marriage should be legal

A. Contention 1+: Family My opponent contends that some people don't have time to write their "living will," and wouldn't bother with the paperwork. However, if people are willing to go through the extremely formal legal process of marriage, then most certainly they'd be willing to write out who they'd want to visit them. It's just a simple matter of writing some names on a piece of paper and sending it to the hospital. B. Contention 2+: Change from Status Quo My opponent claims that if all people could get married, then nobody is being denied the right to marry. However, what's really the point of reserving rights to the married? Why should somebody have to get married to receive these rights? What if a person's too ugly to get anybody to marry him? Everybody has the opportunity to be rich, but that doesn't justify the law favoring the rich over the poor in issues where it should be neutral. Contention 3+: Counterproductiveness My opponent says that gays are exploited. However, under my proposal, gays would not be exploited, and neither would the non-married. My opponent contradicts himself, saying that polygamy should be legalized while saying that marriage promotes polygamy. "No, I said that non-religious people would not have a way to get married. " They can be married in their heads. Why should they need government to tell them if they're married? D. Contention 1-: Discrimination My opponent claims that because the EPC is repeatedly violated, it becomes okay. Discrimination does not justify discrimination. "[A]s long as all adults are allowed to marry, everyone has equal opportunity to take advantage of the benefits that come with it. " Nope. The handsome have advantage over the ugly. The rich have advantage over the poor. The kind have an advantage over the rude. E. Conclusion: I would like to thank my opponent for his commendations. He calls my argument indirect. However, if there is no reason for marriage in general to be legal, then gay marriage would most definitely not be legal. In conclusion, there would be less government, more liberty, and less discrimination if marriage were not legal.
Gay Marriage should be legal

You raise a very interesting point. I have actually considered that at some point, but there are a few problems. 1. Family? : So, you get married in a religious ceremony. You soon find out that your wife needs brain surgery. So she's recovering, and you ask if you can visit her. The hospital says no. You have no legal protection to see her. Don't like it? Okay, so you are sterile, but you and your "wife" decide that she will go to a sperm bank so you can have children. Under your proposition, you are not legally the father of that child, and that comes with a whole plethora of problems. You could not sign as a legal guardian. You could not visit them in the hospital. If you decide to get a religious divorce, yu can forget about joint custody, because the baby is all hers. Even if you are clearly the better parent, because in the law's eyes, you're just a guy who lives in the same house as the child/mother. So, in a way, your proposition could actually be considered sexist against men. Incidentally, it's the exact same problems with gay marriage. They can't make hospital visits. If they decide to adopt a child, or if a lesbian woman goes to a sperm bank, sorry to the other mother. 2. Change from the status quo: Even if your plan could be made to work somehow, it is far too radical of a change. What would you do with those already married? I'm not one to use the argument that nobody supports it, because that argument is lame, but I will say that it would be extremely inconvenient for most of the population. We've been legally marrying people for as long as we've been civilized, and it's just not a change we're ready to take. It would be much easier to make marriage equal, because nobody will be affected for the worse. I would not necessarily oppose making some of the tax breaks smaller, but being married is much more than just tax breaks. 3. Counterproductiveness: Our current marriage laws are not hurting anybody, and are mostly for the better. They are very discriminatory because they are sexist, but it would be so much better to equalize marriage than to get rid of it altogether. Not to mention, marriage promotes monogamy, and therefore hinders the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's. So it seems a good idea to promote such a practice than to let it die. Especially as the nation is beginning to become less religious, marriage will die in the U. S. if we don't keep it as a legal thing. I am atheist, but I am a member of a synagogue. However, many people are completely nonreligious, and so they would have nothing other than their own morals to promote monogamy. And I am not bashing nonreligious people, I'm saying that they would have no marriage to speak of. And, as I said, I don't really feel one way or the other on the morality of monogamous relationships, but they do prevent the spread of STD's. In fact, I think that that is one of the main reasons that AIDS is so prevalent among the homosexual community. They can't get married legally, so they aren't obligated by marriage to keep a monogamous relationship. I don't want to bore you all to death, so I'll stop there for now.
Gay Marriage should be legal

Legal - deriving authority from or founded on law http://www.merriam-webster.com... My argument is that no marriage should be legal, because all that government does with the legalization of marriage is discriminate between those who are married and those who are not. Tax cuts for the married [1] are really tax hikes for the non-married, or reverse, in some bizzare scenarios. Bonus rights to the married can easily be afforded to everybody. 1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever. Thank you, and good luck, abard.
Gay Marriage should be legal

I know I debated this recently (like, yesterday), but it was really light and barely touched on the complexity and depth of the issue, so I decided that I wanted to do it again. I am extremely disappointed with this week's results in Maine. Voters have said yes to hate, intolerance, fear and discrimination. A vote is a vote, and I'll respect that, but they voted the wrong way. I will alow my opponent to begin.
Religion has become a force of hatred

1/8 does not account for 8/8 of the Muslim or prison population. Plus, no sources for your point. The Quran is the book written by a drunken man (according to me). The language structures and contradictions at every point suggest that the author or the source of information was massively drunk. Plus, not every Muslim has read the ENTIRE QURAN, and not every muslim follows their ENTIRE LIFE PRINCIPLES by the Quran. People say some of the Muslim states are have a low education rate, then how would they read the Quran? Whatever religion you follow, if your religious head orders to kill without logic, will you follow? I think not. Even if the religious head justifies killing, not EVERY civilian is mad enough to go into a frenzy for it. Furthermore, Muslims just had bad luck. Suppose instead of ISIS, some Christian-based terrorist organization was formed. Then what? I see myself imagining a CSJS (Christian state of Jesus Christ) and they killing people saying that they were the people who executed Christ and they were giving holy retribution. Plus Hitler's army doesn't account for the entire human race, but in your logic it should. In this logic, 1/7 billion speak English. If all the terrorists speak English, kill them all, even the normal people! Con has provided no evidence that religion propagates peace. All he has done is justified hatred against Muslims, but frankly speaking that has just strengthened my point. Everyone makes an attack on each other's religion, and every believer thinks their idea of God is superior or true. The Holy wars waged in the name of Christianity in the past are far too many, and there have always been many riots and fights upon religion. As an atheist, I personally know how much we have to suffer just because the majority are believers, although I managed to convert a few to agnostics or to their personal opinion being atheist but they being forced by their parents to adhere to their religion. If there be a world without religion, without race, without nationalities, then perhaps we would have an end to this force of hatred. But we know that is not true. We humans are too creative in this aspect, and will find another point to insult people upon. I don't know much about Hitler and the wars, all I know a lot of people died and Hitler lost. Yet the wars shouldn't be considered the defining trait of the human race. Suppose if the aliens declare the human race guilty of perpetuating chaos, and not give us their tech, would you feel it is a fair decision? P.S. what is an infadel? I take it as an alternate spelling to infidel. The British used to say that Hindu Gods were not real and Hindus were infidels. Even today some Englishmen have the audacity to call Hindus infidels.
Religion has become a force of hatred

1 out of every 8 Muslims are in prison, Muslims account for 1% of the population but 10% of the prison population. And their Quran orders murder, so yes it is written. If they don't kill imfadels, they aren't Muslims! And no, its more like when Hitler was committing the gaulocaust so we put Nazis on trial. No one said Hindus were infadels.
Religion has become a force of hatred

Nazi discrimination is also bad. Race, religion, caste, nationality, they have become perpetrators of hatred as well. Plus, not all Muslims are murderers, otherwise they would all be in jail and would have been apprehended. Religion is dividing us. We must find a solution to it. People everyday fight over their imaginary Gods and kill in their name, even though nowhere it is written that their Gods desire so. It's like saying since Hitler and his army were terrible people, aliens can judge humans and declare us guilty. And hindus are not infidels.
Divorce is not a sin

I will now refute my opponent's claims "1. Because it is breaking marriage vows..."'til death do us part!" When someone says their wedding vows, they are making a lifetime commitment, a promise." No Scripture supports that as a biblical commandment, in fact Deut. 24 conflicts with that 2. Because God said not to divorce! "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Matthew 19:6 I explained why this is talking about the ideal concept of marriage, but not that divorce is completely forbidden. 3." Because divorce is basically quitting." If your not compatible, sometimes you have to quit. 4. Because divorce is unwillingness to forgive. "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times'." The biblical laws regarding divorce do not imply that. You are supposed to forgive, but sometimes relationships are irreconcilable (Matt. 18:15-17 God hates divorce! It is only because of sinful pride and selfishness that people end up divorced in the first place." We just saw from the original Hebrew that God does not hate divorce in the same way that he hates sin. He allows it to happen. 1 Cor. 7:12-16 "12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" This is speaking in the context of a married person who converted to Christ and now lives with a unbeliever. It does not completely forbid all divorce. My opponent has failed to show how divorce is a sin in the Bible, thus i rest my conclusion: Divorce is not an abomination and should only be a last resort.
Divorce is not a sin

The Bible gives two clear grounds for divorce: One, sexual immorality, Matthew 5:32; 19:9, and Two, abandonment by an unbeliever, 1 Corinthians 7:15. Even in these two situations, divorce is not required or even encouraged. The most that can be said is that sexual immorality and abandonment are grounds, an allowance, for divorce. Confession, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration are always the first steps. Divorce is rooted in self-righteousness and an unwillingness to forgive. Jesus addresses whether remarriage is adultery or not; but He never addresses the issue of divorce itself, because divorce is a sin. Divorce is a sin for numerous reasons: 1. Because it is breaking marriage vows..."'til death do us part!" When someone says their wedding vows, they are making a lifetime commitment, a promise. 2. Because God said not to divorce! "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Matthew 19:6 3. Because divorce is basically quitting. 4. Because divorce is unwillingness to forgive. "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times'." Matthew 18:21-22 God hates divorce! It is only because of sinful pride and selfishness that people end up divorced in the first place. The woman is not to divorce because their spouse is an unbeliever. 1. "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her." 1 Corinthians 7:12 2. "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him." 1 Corinthians 7:13