BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Short jail sentences, rehabilitation sentences and capital punishment instead of todays system

Hello fellow debaters, I am excited to be debating this topic for the next few days. So as I am a policy debater by nature I will consider this first speech as more of an acceptance speech and a way to ask question about the the plan text before my 1 NC. To the Aff feel free to spend round two as a constructive. I'm assuming the plan to be "Prisoners serving shorter prison sentences, rehabilitation programs and capital punishment." So here are my questions: 1. Who implements the plan? 2. Where is the plan implemented? 3. How is the rehabilitation center funded? 4. Your plan is not limited to drug crimes, but for other forms of crimes that are not considered as death penalty, what rehab do they do? 5. How is this funded? 4. Why isn't your plan implemented? 5. Through your plan do crime rates go down? 6. Why is limiting government to choose the extent to which to punish an individual good? 7. Can the government assign longer time periods of jail time to worse crimes that to a petty one? 8. What is the decision calculus of someone getting capital punishment? 9. Does manslaughter give the capital punishment? 10. Does indirectly killing someone result in capital punishment? 11. Does telling someone they may be killed and then killing them result in capital punishment? 12. Is it possible for 1 innocent person to die as a result of your plan? 13. What does relatively mean? Does it mean 1 year shorter, 50% shorter, 1 year jail time? Can you give me a little bit more of an insight? 14. What is the decision calculus of how bad a crime is in the world of the Aff? Note: The Aff has the burden of proof to prove why his/her plan is better than the status quo. Good luck, and let the games begin!
Short jail sentences, rehabilitation sentences and capital punishment instead of todays system

I am for prisoners serving shorter prison sentences, rehabilitation programs and capital punishment. The context of the argument will be US prison system. US prisons are somewhat privatized today. They are run to be cheap, which results in bad living conditions, including the food, privacy and amount of guards there are to deal with the prisoners. The sentences in US are long, especially for non-violent drug offences and recidivism is high (around 70%). Also, US has the largest number of incarcerated people in the world. My solution is to combine rehabilitation programs with shorter sentences. The sentence length would reduce to save the costs of holding each per prisoner, while the rehabilitation programs would insure that the prisoner wont re-offend. Capital punishment would also play the role of cost saving and recidivism, and make sure individuals who are too dangerous (such as some murderers and child molesters/rapists) arent back into the society. There is also an ethical solution to the problem that the criminal justice faces. Since I am not a moral authority like some God... I dont know exactly how many years each prisoner should serve, so I adapt the minimalistic approach, which is to give a relatively short sentence instead of a long one. Basically, I reduce the government power in choosing the extent to which to punish the individual. I want the other side to argue against my proposition of a good or may be ideal solution to the problems the dilemmas jails face.
Ban islam

I am sorry to say that I have absolutely no understanding of what my opponent is trying to convey with his response. He says something about food for some reason? And if you would please direct your attention to the comments, he rambles on about how all crimes are religions and they are banned so It's fine to ban Islam, for some reason. So yeah I don't really know what to say in this part, since he did not give me much to discuss, and I am not about to get in a debate about weather vandalism is a religion or not. All evidence points to the assumption that this guy is a troll. I am sure of this, not only because of the things that he said and didn't say, but because I know that if anyone truly believed the things my opponent is preaching than they would be illiterate, and therefore unable to put their ideas into written word.
Ban islam

My opponent says that Islam should be banned. While I think that this would benefit society in the long run, as banning most religions would, that benefit would come at the high price of freedom. Banning the ability to be a Muslim is, in the USA, a DIRECT violation of the first amendment. And in other places without laws protecting freedom of speech, than it's just a matter of basic human decency. I, for one, can say with relative confidence that anybody with even a slight sense of morality would not be in favor of removing another human being's right to choose their own religion. As an added note, judging from my competitors opening statement he seems to think that followers of Islam are forced into their belief. This is simply not true. Followers of Islam are born into their religion, and are raised by a culture based around that religion, but the same is true for followers of any other religion. And, yes, some Muslims do the heinous acts of violence that the many are indebted with. But you must understand that those people are a minority. I am sure that you wouldn't like it if someone told you that all Christians want to stone homosexuals just because a tiny minority of them do.
pick a debate

I thank moonshine for challenging me to this debate, I hope it turns out well. I will list 3 topics of different topics and declare my positions on them. For convenience, I will frame them all to be in the context of CON, so our actual positions in this debate will seem reflective. Furthermore, I will ignore the obvious opportunity to start debates with ridiculously obviously propositions, such as if A is A. So here are my 3 topics - they are all diverse. The topics deals with religion, philosophy, and science, respectively. To make it even more clear, I will include the category the topic is in in parenthesis. ============================================================================ 1. CON - The Christian God's existence can be accounted for. (religion) 2. CON - Qualia is a irreducible, non-physical entity. (philosophy) 3. CON - Either Evolution or the Big Bang are flawed theories of what they mean to explain. (science) ============================================================================ Those should be diverse enough. For the science category, I even allowed the opportunity for you to choose either evolution or the Big Bang to debate about (the only other commonly controversial science topic I can think of is global warming, and that isn't a favorite of mine exactly :P). I await my opponent's response.
the 21st century is the future

I'm not sure what you are really arguing for. If you could clear it up next round that would be great. Anyway, I think that futuristic vision is definately possible. We already have tehonologies like hovercrafts and harrier jets. Also, buildings and architecture are advancing rapidly. No one would have thought that buildings like the Sears Tower were possible one hundred years ago. Our vision is likewise skewed. I don't know why global warming would deter us from making these things. There is nothing to suggest we couldn't produce energy efficient flying cars and taller buildings wouldn't really pollute much more than current buildings do. There isn't any logical reason to think that our imaginations and creations won't extend to that degree, as they have been surpassing our expectations since man's inception.
On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

18Karl and I tried doing this debate before, but I accidentally forfeited, so here we are again....== Rules ==1. First round for acceptance2. No new arguments in the final round3. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions...Collectivism- the philosophy that the interests of society as a whole should be considered ethically paramount.Individualism- the philosophy that the interests of the individual should be considered ethically paramount.4. The definition of "preferable" is up for debate, but Con may not make the argument that there is no objective framework for deciding which philosophy is preferable.5. Burden of Proof is shared. I must show the Collectivism is preferable to Individualism, and Con must show that Individualism is preferable to Collectivism.Good luck, 18Karl !!!
On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

FINAL REMARKS1. The opposition says that "Collectivism is essentially just an objective version of Individualism," which ultimately means even if he has affirmed his BoP, individualism will still stand sound in the face of collectivism.2. The opposition makes many "correlation-causation" errors, especially in dealing with the French Revolution, urban crime, and the Neolithic Revolution.3. The opposition has presented an engaging case for collectivism and benefits to society, but fails to defend the case properly in an empirical and theoretical manner. CONCLUSIONplz vote for me am poor dude kthnxbai
On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

Lamentably, I did not manage my time well, and, as a result, do not have enough time to write an argument this round... I request that my opponent allow the debate continue anyhow, in the following format:Con R3: RebuttalsPro R4: Rebuttals & Counter-RebuttalsCon R4: CrystallizeI apologize for the inconvenience...
Motorway fast lanes should be reserved for the sole use of advanced drivers

My opponent's argument seems like a good anaology, but it is not. Which poses a more severe risk to the safety of drivers? a) able bodied people parking in spaces reserved for the handicapped b) Bad drivers going 105mph down our interstate highways This is a toughy. The answer is obviously "B". The point made about feasbility still stands without a tarnish. === Conculsion === The program described by my opponent is not feasible and will lead to unqualified drivers wrecking havoc on the wellbeing of law-abiding drivers. It is horrible and just will not work. Please vot PRO.
Motorway fast lanes should be reserved for the sole use of advanced drivers

With many thanks to my opponent for his considered response, I should like to address the issue of feasibility as follows: I accept that there is likely to be abuse of the system, rather like there is abuse of the blue badge system, whereby able-bodied people "borrow" their handicapped relatives' blue badges so that they can park for free or use disabled parking bays. However, despite this abuse few people would argue that blue badges should be abolished altogether in order to put a stop to their misuse. That would be a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The answer instead is to crack down hard on those people who misuse blue badges and similarly harsh penalties should be applied to those drivers who misappropriate Advanced Driver permits. Thank you.
Motorway fast lanes should be reserved for the sole use of advanced drivers

I wil begin by definiding my arguments. 1. Feasibility My Opponent: "Instead, I suggest that advanced drivers should be issued with badges that would be placed inside the windscreen (windshield) that could be read automatically from machines fitted to overhead gantries and bridges, similar to those systems that already exist and are well proven. Florida's Sun Pass scheme (1) is a good example but similar systems are widely used around the world. " But this would once again fail. The badge is being put on one's car, not on a driver's liscense or anything. What if it wasn't your car. What if it was your girlfriend's, or your mom's? So you see, the problem still remains. Unqualified drivers could still drive in the fast land and this would lead to unsafer thoroughfares. The plan is downright unfeasible. 2. Safety I will abandon my safety argument and go soley on my feasibility argument. Thank you.
Motorway fast lanes should be reserved for the sole use of advanced drivers

I would like to extend my thanks to Republican95 for his contribution an should like to respond as follows: Feasibility. My opponent is right to point out that it would be impossible for the police to check that every car in the fast lane was being driven by a suitably qualified driver and, in any case, this process would cause delays, thus defeating one of the main purposes of the scheme. Instead, I suggest that advanced drivers should be issued with badges that would be placed inside the windscreen (windshield) that could be read automatically from machines fitted to overhead gantries and bridges, similar to those systems that already exist and are well proven. Florida's Sun Pass scheme (1) is a good example but similar systems are widely used around the world. Safety. My opponent is right to point out that many people are killed on the roads every day but my scheme is intended to make progress on motorways safer as well as faster. I notice, by the way, that my opponent comes from America. Have you ever been to America? If not and you like cars you should go there because America is the most car-friendly country in the world. Bar none. Americans love their cars so much they can hardly bring themselves to get out of them. For example, when they are hungry they get hamburgers from drive-thru McDonald's, when they need money they get cash from drive-thru ATM's and when they fancy a beer served by a busty bikini-clad dolly-bird, they drive to a roadside branch of Hooters (okay, then they have to walk from the car to the bar stool, but everybody has to get some exercise sometimes). Yes, I love the American way of life and there's nothing I like more than drop the roof on my American cousin's sports car and head for the interstate to give that big V8 some proper welly. Ah, but there is a fly in the ointment. The speed limits in America are as low, or in some places even lower, than they are in Britain and what's worse is that most people actually obey them. Furthermore, there is little or no lane discipline there and most drivers just pick a lane seemingly at random, hit the cruise control button and sit in that lane for mile after mile regardless of whether they are overtaking anything or not. Obviously this is extremely frustrating for the enthusiastic motorist who wishes to explore their vehicle's full potential or a busy businessman who is late for his next meeting and accidents will and do occur when they try and weave their way through the traffic. However, if the slower drivers were confined to the slow lanes, advanced drivers could make safe and swift progress in their dedicated fast lane. Of course, accidents will still happen but speed doesn't kill, bad driving does and you cannot legislate against idiots getting behind the wheel of a car unless you ban driving altogether. In conclusion, by encouraging people to improve their driving by taking the Advanced Driver course, overall road safety will be enhanced and, furthermore, the dedicated fast lanes will reduce congestion and also benefit the economy in the process. Thank you. (1) http://www.sunpass.com...
Motorway fast lanes should be reserved for the sole use of advanced drivers

I would like to challenge my opponent's idea on the grounds of two arguments. Argument 1: Feasability Even though my opponent's idea might be good in theory, actually trying to apply it would be a logistical nightmare. So, if my opponent's proposal becomes law, anybody who has passed the IAM Advanced Driving Test would be able to drive in the fast lane. However, there is one major flaw in this proposal. Do you sincerly believe that the police are going to pull-over everybody driving in the fast lane and make sure they have passed their IAM Advanced Driving Test? I believe not. And this can only lead to one thing. Since it is just down-right unfeasable for such a thing to happen, that means that it would be quite easy for someone who hasn't passed the IAM Advanced Driving Test to just pull into the fast lane and drive. Except, now they could travel at up to 105 mph. Which brings me to my next point: Argument 2: Safety Every year how many people die beacause of preventable automobile accidents in the UK? The answer: too many. The sad reality is that speed, most of the time, plays a crucial part in the survivability of an accident. By increasing the speed limit on British roads, more accidents could, and probably would, happen. This would lead to more deaths. And it is simply not worth it. Another point, increasing the speed limit in ONE land increases the liklehood of an accident in ALL lanes. Unfortunatley, black ice, swerving, and other bad driving habits/conditions will happen regardless of what lane you're in. If a driver can drive 105 in an outer lane, but others can only go 70, that is a difference of 35 miles per hour. A car in the outer lane (fast lane), for instance, could see a deer on the road one night and have to swerve into another lane, but the speed limit in that lane is only 70mph. This would be highly dangerous, because people driving in the slower lanes wouldn't exactly a vehicle entering their lane at 105 mph. Conculsion: Deaths due to driving accidents will happen regardless of what your score was on the IAM advanced driving test. Traffic laws should be the same on the same streach of road, this only makes sense. Thank you.
Motorway fast lanes should be reserved for the sole use of advanced drivers

Preamble: This opening argument is based on the British experience but the same principles would no doubt apply in other Western countries so I would welcome any counter arguments using other countries' data, laws, etc. Resolution in Full: Firstly that the fast lane on British motorways should be reserved for car drivers who have passed the I.A.M. Advanced Driving Test (1,2) and, secondly, that the speed limit in this lane should be increased by 50% to 105mph. Definitions: The fast lane: the outside-most overtaking lane on British motorways Motorway: British equivalent to the German Autobahn or American interstate highway. I.A.M.: Institute of Advanced Motorists Contention: The speed limit on British motorways hasn't changed since the first ones were built way back in the 1950's and is still set at a ridiculously low 70mph. To put this in perspective, back then, the best selling car in Britain was the Morris Minor (3) which had a top speed of 64mph. Fifty years on in 2009, Britain's best selling car is the Ford Focus (4) and even the least powerful version of this model will easily crack a ton while the sporty RS variant will keep on accelerating until it finally runs out of puff at 163mph (5). And with ABS brakes standard on all models there's no problem bringing the Focus to a standstill either. How times have changed in fifty years! Even the most pathetic car on sale in Britain today, the asthmatic 3-cylinder Malaysian-built invalid carriage-impersonating Perodua Kenari (6) is easily capable of breaking the current speed limit and also comes equipped with such safety features as a passenger crumple zone and dual airbags – features that were completely unheard of when the 70mph limit was introduced. In short, the average modern car is a far safer mode of transport at motorway speeds than the equivalent vehicle was when the speed limits were first introduced. Now, with traffic congestion costing the British economy ï¿½20 billion a year (7) a solution to get motorists from A to B faster without the huge expense and environmental destruction of building new roads has never been more urgent. Fortunately, a simple solution is to hand. If those drivers who were professionally qualified to drive vehicles safely at speed had the outside lane on motorways reserved for their sole use it would be safe to increase the speed limit in this lane to 105mph, thus reducing their journey times by up to 50% and significantly alleviating overall congestion in the process. Thank you. (1) http://www.iam.org.uk... (2) http://www.iam.org.uk... (3) http://www.minormania.com... (4) http://www.topgear.com... (5) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... (6) http://www.perodua-uk.com... (7) http://www.htma.co.uk...
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

Being new to this website, I have not participated in a debate before and am grateful for this debate. Furthermore, I apologize in advance for any mistakes or inconvenience that may result from my lack of knowledge regarding Debate. org. I would first like to define the word "species" to prevent confusion. Species - any of the taxonomic groups into which a genus is divided, the members of which are capable of interbreeding: often containing subspecies, varieties, or races (Citation: "Species. " The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n. d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. ) Please feel free to disagree with this definition if necessary. In the method you have previously presented, the best 500 of 5,000 is to be picked - the best being genetically superior in terms of intelligence, physical attributes, and lack of genetic diseases. However, none of these traits is necessary for survival or reproduction in a way that differs from the rest of the world. While it's true the process will lead to smarter, stronger, and healthier human beings, they are still human beings nonetheless; the group in question is merely made to have the better traits already existent in homo sapiens. Why would this prevent the isolated group from being able to breed with us? Even today, despite the variance in the degree of perfection, we humans are still humans. Perhaps aggregating 500 elites with a criteria differing from the natural environment will lead to a separate species. But with this method, speciation is impossible.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation. and the populations are small and large enough to not cause problems from inbreeding, or too large as to stall evolution. a new society is created. it consists of new born to 30 year olds. only the best and the brightest 500 people from society are picked. intelligence and physical attributes. they do genetic testing on the people to ensure diseases and problems indicated by genes and family history are rooted out. eighteen to thirty year olds are permitted to breed. then the population of five hundred would be permitted to expand to five thousand. then by the time it got to five thousand, five hundred of the best are picked out to breed. this method of expansion and retraction would be put on repeat. when a parent shows that it later develops a disease, that can disqualify the offspring as well. eventually, this would lead to speciation.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

Sorry for the late response. As I have stated before, the selection of the 500 people does not differ from how people who are more likely to pass on their genes is chosen in the rest of the world. I said the criteria of the 500 people being chosen from 5,000 would have to be DIFFERENT from the natural environment for speciation to occur. Your method will not lead to the isolated people evolving in a way different from the others. I have been as clear as possible and will end the debate with no further arguments. Again, thank you for this opportunity to apply and improve my debating ability.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

the outside environment in that subset of humans would be things that cause intelligence and lack of disease. the 'environment' is artificial, but there. when we cut out a bunch of humans based on genes like intelligence, it only is going to cause them to be smarter etc. perhaps con thinks it has to be more drastic? i don't see why it would be, with better genes comes side effects like bigger heads. it might be necessary to get bigger heads to have more intelligence