BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death penalty and its legalisation.

"The U.S execution database has shown the most prominent methods of so called 'extermination' as the Gas Chamber, Lethal Injection, Electrocution, etc. of which none are looking like swift and peaceful deaths." The vast majority of death sentences today are carried out via lethal injection, which is the primary execution method of every state that has the death penalty. With the exception of cases where serious mistakes are made in the administration of the drugs, lethal injections are quick and accompanied by an anaesthetic immediately rendering the person receiving the injection unconscious, preventing them from feeling much pain. "Texas has had the death penalty as a punishment since 1976, but has still had a steady number of death penalties per year, which shouldn't happen according to the statement above. while Connecticut which abolished death penalty in 2005 has witnessed a considerable decrease in the crime rate. the same can be said of New Mexico." The fact that many prisoners on death row are not executed until many years after their sentencing makes executions per year an unreliable statistic for assessing crime. Additionally, the number of executions in Texas per year has in fact fallen, to less than half of what it was in the year 2000. https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us... Connecticut executed its last person in 2005, but the death penalty there was not banned until 2012. In New Mexico, it was not banned until 2009. The crime rate for both of these states had already decreased to near their current levels before the death penalty was revoked. http://www.disastercenter.com... http://www.disastercenter.com... "Most people who have committed criminal activities and have received death penalty for it are those who have troubled past, mental problems, etc." People with legitimate mental problems are not liable to the death penalty on grounds of legal insanity. "The Judicial system is unreliable in almost every country in which the criminal has an equal chance of winning if they have a good lawyer, so in many cases the wrong person is sentenced. In the U.S death penalty database Texas which has an average of 521 death sentences per year, the number of people who are found to be innocent after the execution takes place are 81, which is a pretty high number for innocent people being killed." Texas does not carry out anywhere near this number of death sentences per year. In 2014, only 11 were sentenced to death, and only 10 prisoners on death row were executed. https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us... There have been cases of potential and supposed wrongful execution, but these number closer to 10 than 81. There have been a greater number of prisoners found to be innocent while on death row, but this is exactly why the death sentence is not carried out immediately.
Death penalty and its legalisation.

Looking at the list of states in the U.S.A that do not have the death penalty it is observed that the states that have not legalized death penalty are those which have a higher peace and prosperity rating and lower crime levels every year compared to those states which have justified death penalty as a fitting form of punishments "The death penalty is not necessarily torture nor cruel treatment." The U.S execution database has shown the most prominent methods of so called 'extermination' as the Gas Chamber, Lethal Injection, Electrocution, etc. of which none are looking like swift and peaceful deaths. "Fear of the death penalty is what makes it effective in preventing crime." Texas has had the death penalty as a punishment since 1976, but has still had a steady number of death penalties per year, which shouldn't happen according to the statement above. while Connecticut which abolished death penalty in 2005 has witnessed a considerable decrease in the crime rate. the same can be said of New Mexico. "If a human being in sane mind kills another with premeditation, then they are a threat to society and are beyond reasonable rehabilitation." Most people who have committed criminal activities and have received death penalty for it are those who have troubled past, mental problems, etc. " Only executes criminals who are deserving of the death " The Judicial system is unreliable in almost every country in which the criminal has an equal chance of winning if they have a good lawyer, so in many cases the wrong person is sentenced. In the U.S death penalty database Texas which has an average of 521 death sentences per year, the number of people who are found to be innocent after the execution takes place are 81, which is a pretty high number for innocent people being killed."
Death penalty and its legalisation.

The death penalty should be legalized in the case of first degree murder. If a human being in sane mind kills another with premeditation, then they are a threat to society and are beyond reasonable rehabilitation. If a murderer is sent to wait in prison for twenty years, there is little to guarantee that they will not kill again. The recidivism rate of 60% in the U.S. shows that prison is an ineffective method of turning inmates away from crime. "There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment." The death penalty is not necessarily torture nor cruel treatment. A swift end to a person's life could be considered more merciful than a lifetime of prison. "It is a dead end that does nothing but instill fear in the mind of the citizens." Fear of the death penalty is what makes it effective in preventing crime. "If the death penalty is legalized then what is the difference between countries like North Korea and the rest of the world." Many, many things, such as how the rest of the modern world (for the most part) provides adequate food and resources for its citizens, allows them to leave their home country, and only executes criminals who are deserving of the death penalty for crimes much worse than expressing freedom of speech or press. "If the goal of any punishment, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it." Justice does teach us what not to do, but it also teaches that some things are justified. If the justice system cannot enact what it attempts to prevent, then prison is unjustified because it is also illegal for me to kidnap someone and keep them in my home. "What is justice if the punishment for murder is murder?" The punishment for murder is not murder, in the same way that self-defense is not murder. By enacting the death penalty upon murderers, we prevent what will likely be more murder in the future.
Death penalty and its legalisation.

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment. Death penalty should not be legalized as it is a sentence that doesn't give a chance for the person to change his or her ways. It is a dead end that does nothing but instill fear in the minds of the citizens. If death penalty is legalized then what is the difference between countries like North Korea and the rest of the world. If the goal of any punishment, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her. What is justice if the punishment for murder is murder?
lacrosse is better then soccer

Many people around the world would agree that Soccer is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times better than lacrosse.
Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

In a previous post I asked for an intelligent debate on weather 9/11 was an inside job. I think I may have been asking too much. I decided to change my subject line to adapt to the evolved message the 9/11 truth movement continues to spread today.RulesIf you do not believe we should reopen the investigation or if you do not plan on making an intelligent case against my point then please do not accept this challenge.This challenge is in response to the 9/11 truth movement who to this day, continue to advocate for reopening this investigation generally based on evidence which implies that forces within the US government may have been involved in the planning of these attacks. In the spirit of this fact my opponent should stay consistent with the general message given by the majority of this movement, rather then finding some obscure reason to argue for the simple purpose of winning a debate.My CaseTo investigate something one must have a logical reason to assume that that investigation will reveal something of significance. In the past decade no one has made this case on 9/11, although many have tried. And although many claims have been made, they have all proven to be just that: claims. Supported by circumstantial evidence in which the implications contradict empirical evidence, logical fallacies, or in some cases flat out incorrect information. I look forward to hearing my challenger’s case so that I can prove my point.
Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist

Extend all 3 of my contentions concerning how the president is not an anti-colonialist. All of them go unchallenged. Whether he is Kenyan or not at this point doesn't matter because the operative clause for the debate holds two descriptive terms and if he clearly isn't one than the other one doesn't matter. I've proved that there is substantial evidence that suggests that the president far from being an anti-colonialist actually perpetrates colonialism and imperialism against much of the global south. That was the actual part of the debate that I wanted to have, the Kenyan thing was just because that was how the wonderful Dinesh D'Souza had described his ideology.
Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist

" According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens of the United States are authorized to hold the office of the President. Given that reality the president cannot be a Kenyan." I am afraid that this is no proof against the notion that Obama might be secretly Kenyan. If its a secret then he can be the president of USA though according to the law he shouldn't. I have no other arguments other. Wherefore please provide evidence which suggest the he cannot be secretly a Kenyan.
Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist

"Yes I just dropped 2500 words to your post of approximately 50. That's not overkill it just symbolizes my frustration that you took this and didn't actually attempt to debate the proposition." I am afraid that my opponent hoped that I'll take this debate head on (I won't search for an easy way), why would he think this is beyond me but I do have an explanation though improbable: http://www.youtube.com... "This sentence functions much the same way as many arguments over the existence/nonexistence of god." Completely irrelevant ad since I took many religious debates I must say that this is also incorrect. May I remind you what you said in round 1: "I am totally willing to back up con." "1.( tr ) to support or assist 2.( intr ) cricket (of a nonstriking batsman) to move down the wicket in readiness for a run as a ball is bowled 3.(of water) to accumulate 4.(of traffic) to become jammed behind an accident or other obstruction 5.computing to make a copy of (a data file), esp for storage in another place as a security copy 6.printing to print the second side of (a sheet) 7.( Austral ) to repeat an action immediately — n 8.a support or reinforcement 9.a. a reserve or substitute b. ( as modifier ): backup troops 10.( US ), ( Canadian ) a. musical accompaniment, esp for a pop singer b. ( as modifier ): backup singer 11.the overflow from a blocked drain or pipe 12.computing a file or set of files copied for security purposes" This is from Dictionary.com, I also looked this up in the oxford dictionary but couldn't find anything relevant. As you can see: "back up 1 (of vehicles) form into a queue due to congestion 2 (of running water) accumulate behind an obstruction" oxforddictionaries.com I ask my opponent to support his claim. If you can't support the negative, I win because he can indeed be a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist. It should be hard because of the word "secret" so good luck.
Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist

It's very unfortunate that my opponent chose to attack the proposition at issue in the way that s/he did. My goal was to illuminate the absolute lunacy that characterizes much of the far right in the American political landscape. Unfortunately my opponent chose to take a stance that while attempting to be clever has misunderstood both conventional rules of debate as well as rules of logic. I will now get to specifics. First of all I will cover the basic presumption within debate and that is that the affirmative holds the burden of proof. If this framework is accepted which it universally is then we can proceed. Next, comes the absurd proposition from my opponent that constitutes her/his proof. My opponent states "My proof is that if he wasn't secretly a Kenyan anti-colonialist we all would know about it but we don't." This looks at the debate as if the only operative word in the proposition at issue is the word "secret." This is not the case. The entire proposition is in question that phrase being that the current president is both a Kenyan anti-colonialist as well as it being a secret. To illustrate the absurdity of my opponent's position here is an effective analogy. I believe that the president secretly enjoys eating toe fungus. My proof is that if he wasn't secretly (enjoying the eating of toe fungus) we all would know about it but we don't. Unless my opponent can reveal this secret and expose it to the world, I don't see how he cannot secretly be something. More importantly the third paragraph/sentence in my opponent's argument is meaningless. The two clauses actually operate as separate sentences, but the comma seems to tie independently operating statements together to cover for the use of a subordinate conjunction. Given the presence of the subordinate conjunction in the first clause of the sentence it renders that totally meaningless. That said I will respond to the part of the sentence after the comma. "I don't see how he cannot secretly be something." This sentence functions much the same way as many arguments over the existence/nonexistence of god. This comes back to the affirmative burden. Just because something cannot be disproved, does not constitute proof for the affirmative. The affirmative is burdened with demonstrating that their proposition is more likely than not. Just because the affirmative has established that their proposition is possible it is no more possible yet than the fact that my opponent secretly believes that the negative is correct, or that my opponent secretly has no idea how to debate. For that matter the converse proposition that President Barack Obama is NOT a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist is equally likely at this point in the debate and therefore I urge all those reading to negate the proposition. Yes I just dropped 2500 words to your post of approximately 50. That's not overkill it just symbolizes my frustration that you took this and didn't actually attempt to debate the proposition.
Arranged marriage should be outlawed.

Here are the Pro's response to why Arranged Marriage should be legalized 1) Im making it look bad (which is my job) 2) There are worse things done to women besides arranged marriage (how this is a legit argument confounds me) 3) Arranged marriages work by introducing couples and then making them marry after about a week whether they like the other person or not (May i take this argument for my side?) 4) Arranged marriages have lower divorce rates than normal ones.... (But doesnt care to explain why this should make it legal) - 1 - "Extreme cases of Arranged Marriage" Pro concedes that in arranged marriages that young girls can be wedded to men 20 years older then they are, when the girls are not even 20 years old, and that these arranged marriages can be used as paying off debts. The first two he completely ignores, the third one i will respond to with a comparison. A man owes a man money, but he doesnt have any actual money to pay off the debt, so in a fair deal the man in debt gives his own slave to be the other mans property to pay off the debt..... In another scenario a man also owes a man money, and he too doesnt have actual money to pay the other man back, so in a fair deal the man in debt sells him his own daughter to be the mans wife to pay off the debt. The First one happened in America in the 1800's and involves "Slavery" and is illegal, The Second happened in Saudi Arabia a month ago and is called "Arranged marriage" and according to the Pro should NOT be illegal..... "Arranged marriages must be doing something right, because the divorce rate (American) for normal marriages is currently at somewhere around 50%, but for arranged marriages it's about 4%. This is a testament to the process of arranged marriage and the fundamentals behind it." two things 1) Just because arrnaged marriages divorce less doesnt necessarily mean it should be legalized 2) Arranged marriage has lower divorce rates probably since DIVORCE IS ILLEGAL IN CULTURES THAT HAVE ARRANGED MARRIAGE "because divorce is not accepted among most Indians" http://www.pardesiservices.com... "For one thing, we are a traditional society and therefore divorce is frowned upon. Secondly, most people think of marriage as permanent" http://nitawriter.wordpress.com... "Similarly divorce is decidedly more difficult in these countries compared to those in the west." http://www.everythingengagement.com... "the pressure a married couple encounters from both society as a whole, and from the respective families, suggests that divorce is often not an option." http://EzineArticles.com...; So no duh arranged marriages have lower divorce rates than normal ones, thats because divorce is often illegal or not an option to begin with! Apart from not giving a single reason to support arranged marriage, here are my reasons - Impedes on a womans basic right to choose her spouse - Almost completely forbids women from being able to divorce her spouse - You cant force love - Its not natural - There are numerous cases of these "marriages" just being debt settlements - Girls who are too young get sucked into marriage to men twice their age
Arranged marriage should be outlawed.

Firstly, as my opponent has not taken the opportunity to define the moot, I will do so. Then, I will attempt to rebut his argument. Finally, I will try to explain why arranged marriage is a misrepresented tradition that doesn't deserve the stigma it carries. I would define ‘arranged marriage' as ‘a marriage arranged by someone other than the couple being wedded' and ‘outlawed' as ‘to be made illegal, banned'. --------------------------------------------- My opponent, as is only natural, jumped to the worst examples of arranged marriages to try to vilify the practice. The sources he cited are extreme cases, involving massive debts and sky-high dowries changing hands. Arranged marriage does not ‘cause' this problem, the process is simply being abused in the cases put forward- the internet does not ‘cause' hackers, it is simply a tool being used by many and abused by few. It's also a ridiculous statement to say that arranged marriages are ‘perhaps the greatest intrusion on women's rights ever'. I watched a documentary just the other day about women in Africa who were systematically raped every day for years before they were saved and then interviewed- and that was current- meaning that saying ‘the greatest intrusion ever' becomes all the more ridiculous'. --------------------------------------------- It is at this juncture that I think I need to clear up some things around arranged marriages. From his argument, my opponent seems to think that arranged marriage is actually sex slavery, but that isn't the case. Arranged marriages vary greatly in both nature and time of meeting to time of engagement. The most common style of arranged marriage is an ‘introduction-only' where parents introduce their child to their potential spouse and then it is up to them to manage the relationship and most importantly, make a choice. However, although Western morals may dictate that this is the best way to go about an arranged marriage, the ‘introduction-only' arranged marriages are considered in most places to be the most difficult and traumatic to the son or daughter. Both men and women fear the stigma and emotional burden of going through a courtship and being rejected, especially as they may be introduced to five or more potential spouses in the process. A better way, some say, to go about an arranged marriage, is a ‘fixed-time arranged marriage'. The parents will choose a partner and the couple will get married soon after their introduction. There is little to no time for courtship, and the couple will have a choice to make. This is considered less stressful and better for the couple than ‘introduction-only' arranged marriages. So does arranged marriage work? Yes! The practice is alive and well in many countries throughout the world- even in mine. * Arranged marriages must be doing something right, because the divorce rate (American) for normal marriages is currently at somewhere around 50%, but for arranged marriages it's about 4%. This is a testament to the process of arranged marriage and the fundamentals behind it. I await my opponent's reply. *. http://www.stuff.co.nz...
Arranged marriage should be outlawed.

Arranged Marriages are a disgust to women since cultures that do allow arranged marriages cause girls as young as 8 to be auctioned off almost as brides to husbands who range anywhere from 40 to 90 . http://www.newser.com... ^ 8 year old girl DENIED a divorce from her 58 year old husband . http://isiria.wordpress.com... ^ DIFFERENT 8 year old girl sold to be a wife of a 47 year old man to pay off a debt . http://www.nypost.com... ^ 12 year old girl forced to stay married to 80 year old man . http://www.masscops.com... ^ 29 year old girl refused marriage to a 38 year old man had her face burned by her mother Arranged marriage should be illegal mostly because it impedes on numerous basic human rights for women