BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capital Punishment (death penalty) should be legal in all states

Pro has burden of proof, so I just have to rebut his points. I can raise three objections to his case. 1. He never warrants the claim that the "ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment". Justice does not necessarily have to be focused on retribution; it can also be focused on rehabilitation, deterrence, or incarceration-- none of those require the severity of the punishment to match the severity of the crime. Pro's argument relies on a completely baseless assumption. 2. The death penalty, as it is practiced in the US, is not necessarily the "ultimate punishment". Being tortured to death or being sentenced to solitary confinement for life could both easily fit that bill; there is really no upper limit to what can be interpreted as being the "ultimate punishment". So if Pro's assumption about retributive justice was warranted, it still wouldn't really lead to the conclusion that the death penalty should be legalized. 3. Pro says that keeping someone in prison for life wastes resources, but that makes no sense because the DP wastes even MORE resources. The average cost of keeping someone in prison for life is $740,000, while the cost of sentencing someone to death (due to the lengthy and expensive appeals process in court) costs $1.26 million [1]. This argument is easily turned against Pro. All of Pro's arguments have been rebutted. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Capital Punishment (death penalty) should be legal in all states

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, should be legal in all states. Currently, it is only legal in 32 states. Sometimes, the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment. An eye for an eye. Crimes such as, premeditated murder, murder of children, rape of children, etc. These crimes are terrible, and the perpetrator deserves no mercy, as the perpetrator was showing no mercy to his/her victims. Keeping a convicted murder in prison for life can use various resources. For example, food, money, health care materials. All for what? Keeping someone alive who is going to die in a cell anyway. It would be best to do away with these monsters, rather than keep them alive. For these reason, it's obvious that the death penalty should be legalized in all of 50 states.
The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation.

The ACLU's purpose is to defend the American people's Constituational rights. In the cases that you presented ACLU is simply trying to ensure that your and my Bill of Rights is kept secure. Of course there are people that have different views from each other and will condemn the side ACLU has taken for the sake of our rights. Of course they are biased to the Liberal side, but that does not mean they are "defending the wrong people." Nobody has the right to say who is right or wrong in many of the touchy subjects the ACLU takes on despite the criticism it knows it will be hit with. Furthermore it doesn't make sense to say that the ACLU "defends the rights of some,but attacks the rights of others." HOW can they not offend some people?? no matter what you do in life there will always be someone that disagrees with you. You may want to buy a blue car but your girlfriend wants a red one, so clearly one of you will feel like your "rights were violated" in the end. Also, what do you expect? a Conservative organization would never defend the rights of gays and lesbians. That is something a Liberal would do, so it isn't an argument to say they are dangerous because they have a "strong liberal agenda." Now,on your arguments dealing with NAMBLA, I agree with you. How grown men can form a romantic relationship with some teenager is a sickening thought to me. Despite this, you and I have no right to bar these people from having a relationship if they truly like each other. The ACLU came to NAMBLA's defense because they wanted to stand-up for the Constituational rights of the members of NAMBLA. I dont know about this rape case you are talking about, but it was definitely NOT encouraged by NAMBLA. On their website it states: "We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons." They simply want to not be discriminated for their choice of relationships. It is not our call to say who they ahve to love, it is the U.S. Constitution's call. This is where the ACLU comes in to defend the underdogs for the sake of honoring our Constitution. The Boy scouts case is similar, the ACLU is only trying to defend the rights of homosexuals. If the Boy Scouts forces gays to hide their sexuality, then the ACLU should definitely step in.
The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation.

Part of what is dangerous about the ACLU is that they hide behind the title of the "American Civil Liberties Union: Keep America Safe and Free". This does not properly reflect their true agenda. They not only ignore the rights of those with whom they disagree, they fight them. I will give two examples: A young boy named Jeffrey Curley was kidnapped, raped, and killed by 3 grown men. These men were members of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) This is a group which teaches men how to have sexual relations with little boys and get away with it (dont believe me, look it up-they have a website). Pretty sick huh? Well when the parents of the dead child found out about this they were outraged, as Im sure any parent would be. They sought a law suit against NAMBLA for teaching and encouraging these men to commit the heinous act they did. Guess who came swiftly to the defense of NAMBLA? The ACLU. And they won! NAMBLA continues to teach the techniques of child rape in "THE Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships" In another case, the ACLU came not to defend but to attack. The BSA (Boy Scouts of America) have a policy where a scoutmaster can not be "openly" gay. Wether you agree with this or not, the Supreme Court has decided that private institutions (Which BSA is) have the right to come up with their own charters and rules. However, the ACLU has launched a battle to make sure that the BSA are not allowed to do anything on public property. So why can there be gay rights parades on public property but no Boy Scouts Jamborees? Clearly the ACLU is defending the wrong people here. Why does a person have the right to encourage child rape but not to teach JudeoChristian values? I believe that this organization is dishonest about their motives, and while defending the rights of some, they attack the rights of others. And another problem is that they have way too much power. Remember, an organization with too much power and a hidden agenda is always dangerous, it doesn't have to be the government to be corrupt and dangerous.
The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation.

When I said "It is true that the ACLU is biased toward the Liberal side, but really who isn't?" I meant to say who really isn'y biased toward any part of the political spectrum. Sorry for the hasty wording. It would be a Utopia if absolutely everybody's rights were looked after in the U.S., but unfortunately that would be impossible because every organization is biased and will favor one group of people over the other. ACLU is only one of the lookouts for American rights and I'm sure other similar groups will cater toward different types of people. Most organizations looking out for our rights are mainly liberal so of course conservatives will feel neglected sometimes. Since when did conservatives care about the equality and wellfare of all races or sexual orientations? Everybody is biased and it is impossible to make everybody happy in government. I am just arguing that organizations such as the ACLU are important to have around. This does not mean that I agree with everything they do, but I am happy to know that if the government gets a little too power-hungry, groups like ACLU exist to say something about it.
The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation.

It is important to have orginazations who keep an eye out for Americans' rights, that is true, but when an orginazation is biased (which, by your own admission the ACLU is) then it is just another danger. When you say keeping an eye out for "our" rights, then that should represent and include ALL Americans. When parents were outraged that an elementary school in California was making a course on Islaam mandatory, the ACLU came to the defense of the school, and saw to it that the school could keep the course. However, when a teacher was fired from a high school in the very same country for wearing a Christian Cross around her neck, and contacted the ACLU for help, she was ignored. They are selectively defending the rights of those with whom they agree. That is great for Liberals, but extremely dangerous for conservatives. And there are plenty of people who are not biased towards the Liberal side. I will admit, the mainstream media is extremely biased, and they do their best to paint this entire nation in a "liberal" color, but MSNBC does not represent the American people. The ACLU abusing its power to further their political agenda and defend the rights of other liberals and ignore the rights of conservatives makes them a danger to our society. Even if you were right that most people are biased towards liberals, (which I dont think you are-there is a reason Fox News doubles the ratings of CNN and MSNBC every night) it does not matter, if only one in every ten people were traditionalists, they should still have every right to equal representation.
The ACLU is Damaging the our Nation.

I believe that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a cancer on our society, and is most certainly damaging our Nation. The reason for this is that while hiding behind the pretense of an organization that defends the civil liberties of ALL Americans, they have shown that they are actually a far left group with a strong liberal agenda, that seeks to use its power to lead a battle against the liberties of those with whom they disagree, (typically conservatives and traditionalists). In my arguments I will use cases that the ACLU has taken an cases that they have ignored as examples of their not so hidden agenda.
The Elton John AIDS Foundation should be forced to close

EVEN IF IT WEREAssuming the Elton John Foundation was discriminatory in its practices, it still positively affects the world than it would if it were forced to close. Under what my opponent asserts, the Elton John Foundation helps only gay HIV/AIDS victims. To understand why this isn't a problem, consider the following:Let's put this down into simplified numbers. Let's say the Elton John Foundation can only help 10 people with AIDS. They will only help gay men. Another foundation will help anyone, but they too can only service 10. Then we've got 20 people seeking help. 10 are gay men, 10 are not. Thanks to the presence of the Elton John Foundation, there are more slots available for people in the other foundation who will help anyone. Every AIDS assistance program that is closed directly results in less people having care. Charities and programs can only assist so many. FACTSMy opponent has reasserted his claim of Elton John's foundation practicing discrimination. He has provided no evidence to support his claim. If you are not convinced by my above argument, then I encourage you to follow the link I posted in my previous round, and investigate the Elton John Foundation yourself. Thanks for reading.
The Elton John AIDS Foundation should be forced to close

I would remind him, however, that it is quality, not quantity, that counts! In response to my opponent's rebuttals I should like to point out that there are plenty of decent, non-discriminatory charities that help people with AIDS regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. When Elton John's outfit gets closed down for being discriminatory people will simply give their money to other AIDS charities instead. And it is true that Elton John's charity discriminates against women and heterosexual men, it just is blatantly obvious, that's all. Put it this way, if you were a racist homophobe who wanted to operate a charity that did not benefit black people or homosexual men you wouldn't declare: "we are dedicated to helping all those in need except nig-nogs and queers" would you? No, you'd state: "we are dedicated to helping all white heterosexuals in need". Still, not ideal, but better. Similarly, Elton John's charity could have written: "(we support) innovative work for everybody's health except bitches and straight guys" but that would look like blatant discrimination, so instead they wrote "(we support) innovative work for gay men's health". Obviously, just as some aid intended for the starving in Africa ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians, some money Elton John's charity intended for gay men actually ended up helping women and heterosexual men with AIDS instead. But that doesn't mean the Elton John AIDS Foundation isn't discriminatory and shouldn't be closed down. Thank you.
The Elton John AIDS Foundation should be forced to close

First off, I'd like to convey my admiration of my opponent's track record. Over 400 debates. That's just awesome. That shows some serious commitment to the site.COLLEGE DONATION COMPARISONI'd like to open my arguments with a quick comparison. Often, colleges receive donations from people or organizations. One stipulation that comes with that donation is something must be built or named in their honor, or something to that effect. So if I give a million dollars to a college, but tell them they must build a half million dollar statue of me in the center of their campus, I've effectively given only 500 million to the university. This practice irritates some people, but they can still accept that it is still preferable in terms of assisting the campus in providing students a good education.Now if we look at the Elton John Foundation, we can understand that some people may not like that they limit their assistance to a specific group of people, but we should still be able to see that it's preferable to them not providing any service at all. NOT FACTUALLY CORRECTI didn't realize this until after typing the argument above, but the Elton John Foundation does not exclusively service gay men, rather they provide grants to various groups fighting AIDS[1]. My opponent's main argument is thus not factually correct."EJAF is one of the world’s largest HIV grant-makers. With offices in New York and London, EJAF has raised more than $300 million for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS since its inception in 1992. In the Americas, we invest approximately $7 million in more than 120 organizations every year, with half of this focused on the Southern U.S. and the Caribbean."[1]Source:[1] http://newyork.ejaf.org...
The Elton John AIDS Foundation should be forced to close

It wasn't Mary's fault she was plain looking and lacked the feminine curves that most other young women have. It was also unfortunate that she was flat-chested, but she didn't help herself by keeping her hair short, by dressing in trousers rather than skirts and by not wearing any make-up. Even so, that does not in any way excuse the actions of the homosexual man who saw her walking past the window of the gay bar he was in and, mistaking her for a teenage boy, went out and dragged her into a shop doorway where he anally raped her, infecting her with the HIV/AIDS virus in the process. When they found out Mary had HIV/AIDS all her friends and family disowned her and her colleagues refused to work with her so her boss had no choice but to give her the sack. Unable to pay her rent and with nobody to turn to for help, Mary soon found herself living on the streets of New York City in America. One day Mary was walking down New York High Street when she passed the Elton John AIDS Foundation office, so she knocked at the door and asked the man who answered it if Sir Elton could possibly spare enough money to buy a cup of tea for a poor, destitute AIDS victim. "Are you a gay man?" screeched the man who answered the door, "Are you a gay man, you scrounging bitch? No, I don't think you are, are you? So fvck off and never darken our doorway again you filthy crackwhore". And with that he slammed the door in Mary's face. It was then she noticed the sign which read: "The Elton John AIDS Foundation - enabling dozens of community organizations throughout the U.S., Caribbean, and Latin America to take on innovative work for gay men's health." [1] So, dejected, Mary returned to the street to search for half-eaten hamburgers and discarded chicken bones. However, if she was a gay man with AIDS, rather than a heterosexual woman with AIDS, she would be living on Easy Street courtesy of the largesse of Sir Elton John. This doesn't seem right to me. It's no longer the case that only gay men get AIDS - they have now spread this incurable disease to the rest of the population, with sex workers and intravenous drug users being most at risk. Nobody would allow a charity that refused to help AIDS victims if they were black to continue operating so why allow the Elton John AIDS Foundation to continue discriminating against women and heterosexual men? It should be closed forthwith, along with any other misogynist, heterophobic charities. Thank you. [1] http://newyork.ejaf.org... Disclaimer: Since Sir Elton John's financial resources are such that he can afford much better lawyers than me, please be advised that this debate is just for fun and none of the events described hereinabove actually took place.
Conservative values have no place in a progressing world.

I will now state why indeed I think that conservative elements are not productive in modern society and therefore will state how it has now place in the modern world. Conservatism could well be said to be the domination of society but the wealthy and classic the aristocracy. Pharaohs, medieval warlords to the rich and powerful to the world today these people and their allies are conservatives. These people are considered immoral and elitist of course this is not a generalization of conservatism but more so a judgement on the ruling elite within the ranks of conservatism. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. Now the tactics of conservatism vary from nation to nation or society to society but the common ground all conservatives share is a superiority complex against the common man an internalized attitude. They mask economic objectives through social issues. Bbut this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Conservatism claims to be very much pro-freedom this is of course a falsity because everyone wants freedom so why not continue the massive lie and promise it to the common man and mask the evident superiority. The conservative interpretation of freedom is distorted and warped. The real situation with conservatism and freedom is best understood in historical context. Conservatism constantly changes, always adapting itself to provide the minimum amount of freedom that is required to hold together a dominant coalition in the society. In Burke's day, for example, this meant an alliance between traditional social authorities and the rising business class. Although the business class has always defined its agenda in terms of something it calls "freedom", in reality conservatism from the 18th century onward has simply implied a shift from one kind of government intervention in the economy to another, quite different kind, together with a continuation of medieval models of cultural domination.The only way the conservative way of freedom becomes the truest meaning of freedom is if the common people internalize that view. It is impossible and this is why it has no real place in modern society. Conservative aims in modern society:- Destroy conscience- The destruction of democracy- The destruction of reason- The destruction of languageNow, I must tell the viewers of this debate - the facts are there in front of your very eyes and therefore I must ask you; do you want to live in such a society? I might be bending the rules of engagement here but I am certain that my opponent in his 'conservative-liberal' mindset will find it in his heart to forgive me. Sources:http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu...
Conservative values have no place in a progressing world.

It should be fun and engaging. I shall be arguing that conservative values do have a place in a progressing world. However, i refuse to accept the false-dichotomy of conservatism-liberalism. What i mean is that i shall be arguing that it is a combination of liberal and conservative values that is the only way forward. (I use "only" to try to keep BoP as shared as possible. If my opponent would like me to change this, please address this within the comment section. ) My overall position is that Libertarianism and the values therein are the best way to progress. There are liberal and conservative values within Libertarian philosophy, so i will likely agree with my opponent up until a point. This will likely be a debate on what best leads to progress, and how that is necessarily the case given a particular set of values. My opponent's Round Rules are confusing, and unacceptable, given the Five round count. I shall present an ediited version. R1: AcceptanceR2: Introductory Arguments Both sidesR3: Counter Argument (Rebuttals; Con may not defend)R4: Counter-Counter Argument (Defense)R5: Ending arguments. I would like to request of my opponent that neither of us use the last round to present new arguments. This will ensure that we attack all possible arguments within an agreeable time frame. I look forward to my opponent's Opening Arguments.
Conservative values have no place in a progressing world.

The argument I am going to attempt to present here is that the only way the world can move on and progress is by liberalness and I will also prove that conservative values have no place in the modern world. Round one: Acceptance.Round two: Introductory argument. (pro)Round three: Introductory argument (con)Round four: Counter argument (pro)Round five: Counter argument (con)Rules:- Sources should be given if used.- Plagiarism is highly unacceptable.
The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind"

you say "I do not believe that the main problem with Pro is his destroying of our mind gods. I think in a debate setting, the more serious problem is a lack of proper grammar, a lack of proper conduct, and his demonstrated narcissistic tendencies." you have presented your views well I must concede the debate to con but I will say truth has nothing to do with grammar conduct narcissistic tendencies if Einstein had all three of these characteristics his views would still have merit truth is not gauged by English teachers or psychologists or moralists true is truth even if presented in in inappropriate ways if Eistein wrote on his first paper "The theory of relativaty" if you criticize him for bad spelling -fine but to say his theory is not true based on bad spelling and further not even to go on reading his paper makes that person nothing but a fool but as I say con has proven his point so con wins