BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism is disagreeable and offensive.

Without a symbol it is much harder to spread the word. Though we all are to spread it, with a symbol we are recognized by others and this gets the word out. Popes, Bishops, Cardinals, Priests, all of these help us talk to God and share in our faith. I read a comment about this debate this person said "How does my being a Catholic hurt you. It is people like you that ridicule and attack people because of their beliefs when they in no way are harming you that lead to intolerance." Never did I say you hate religion. I said it's unfair to me and the other devout Catholics who are good people by hating Catholicism when few have hurt you or anyone you know. The Ten commandments were not selfish rules made by God(it's disrespectful to me if you say my "oh-so "awesome" Jehovah"). One rule says to respect God. Is that so bad? He was a savior who saved them from slavery from the Egyptians, not someone who banished them to a desert. Also when the Bible says 40 years it doesn't mean 40 years just many years. But besides the one rule you said there are many like, Honour thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery(to lie), Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Do those seem selfish to you. To me, they sound like good ways to treat others. When I say "Jesus forgave and asked for forgiveness," I meant to, as you called them, mere mortals. You once again generalized a people. You said " Not only are the Catholics responsible for modern day criticism but also partially the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the start of many witch hunts, which all ended up in blood-shed." Was it just the Catholics? Or was it the Jews, the Baptist, the Mormon, and the Catholic who did this? Or was it just the Catholics? Generalizations and stereotypes do nothing but assume that there is one like it, it must be them all.
Catholicism is disagreeable and offensive.

First off, I find it offensive that you hate the religion because of some messed up people. Second the Pope is a person who is a symbol to spread the word of the Lord. They talk through the Lord. They help channel the prayers of others, this helps others repent and know that their prayers have been heard. The Pope-organization is against gambling, prostitution, and stealing from the poor, and in fact we beleive in helping the poor, and treating everyone as your neighbor. We beleive in loving in all,helping all, and to do them no wrong. This is why God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, so you would treat others with kindness and respect. It does say ask the Lord for forgivness of your sins, but this is so they may clean their soul. It also says do as Jesus did. He forgave, he asked for forgiveness, this is all symbolic as well as literal, to ask for forgiveness from all, so you may have another chance. I also have more, but decided to just fend for myself this round.
Catholicism is disagreeable and offensive.

I believe that Catholicism is disagreeable and offensive. Catholicism is an embarrassment to the Abrahamic religions mostly because of the way they glorify the Pope. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention a Pope figure that can talk to God and create earthly rules and human equations for the Lord. Catholicism rests on the idea that the heads of the Church are the rulers of the religion. It was back in medieval times that the heads of the Catholic Church were the only ones who could read the Bible mostly because of their connection with God. It was this corruption of the Bible that helped create the Pope-organization of gambling, prostitution, and stealing from the poor. I also know of many people who have been raped or harassed sexually by a Catholic priest. It is these people that tend to turn out bad in society. It also says in the Bible to pray to the Lord your God for forgiveness. Never did it say repent to a mere mortal so he can tell God to forgive you. It was the Catholics and the Christians whom blamed Marilyn Manson, and geeky kids for the school shootings at Columbine. It is this blasphemy that helps make Catholicism disagreeable and offensive for suppressing speech, being hypocritical, and directly misinterpreting the Bible. I have more arguments after I rebuttal my opponents opening arguments.
Food Irradiation

Many advantages towards our health had been shown, there are slight health disadvantages, but can be easily cured, such as using vitamin supplements, but as stated before, irradiated food will last longer, which sounds great, but does have a huge issue. Farmers rely on two things to continue selling their foodstuffs outside of nature (weather, water, etc.) and that is on their products being consumed or going bad. If products can be kept for a lot longer, for example, many households will eventually have to throw food out,ions, apples, bananas, and much other fruits and vegetables and end up having to go buy more. It may be thought of as a waste of money, but this way farmers can sell more of there products and earn money to continue in financing in producing foodstuffs. If the food lasts longer then the farmers will have less income because people will not have to throw out food that has gone bad. The reducing of aging is significant, it can be much more efficient to slow down the aging, and save foods, but the food industry is huge, especially in the U.S. and they will all lose money, some companies can afford, but the smaller businesses will take a bigger toll on selling less food.
Food Irradiation

As the debate comes to a close, it's important to know facts, as well as know what you're dealing with. As such, some of these points I will state may not be proven completely factual until more research is conducted. That said, the argument of my opponent states that food irradiation could be expensive, due to being a long, complicated process. This is potentially the case, but it may not be. The reason for stating the latter is because as http://mightylib.mit.edu... states, irradiated food and products have potential medical uses such as sterilizing medicines and bandages, which could help to receive government funding, depending on how beneficial it is. Speaking of government, the government seldom allows for any hazardous products to be mass-produced, so when you have agencies such as the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture,) FDA (Food and Drug Administration,) and CFSAN (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,) closely monitoring irradiation and still giving it the OK, I'd say we're doing something right. Irradiated food also receives the same type of processing and shipping as standard food, so if contamination and could occur, the only ones who are to blame are those who fail at their jobs to ensure all foodstuffs are shipped safely. As this debate closes, it's important to reassert the facts that as far as anyone is concerned, food irradiation is not only safe, but also extremely beneficial. With this closing, I thank my opponent for his professionalism and challenges, and those whom have taken their time to see this debate through and assert a stance on the topic. Always have an open mind, but don't be afraid to stand by your opinions, either.
Food Irradiation

There are many advantages to having irradiated food, but there all health related, but one other thing is that that the cost will be increased, and some people would be willing to pay more, but others will not. Since the process of irradiating food will be harder, and more expensive, then the food product will cost more. Of course, paying more for the food could possibly prevent doctor trips, and medication, but in the scenario that some mistake is made, most likely in transporting the foods, then extra money spent on the food will not help you too much. Of course the price change will be little, http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu... estimates to to be 2 to 3 cents per pound, which is not much, but when here bought in bulk, such as like grocery stores, then it would be a lot more expensive and if a mistake does occur, then lots of people will be affected because of the contamination, if not packed or transported properly.
Food Irradiation

Vitamins are crucial, as they are what make fruits and vegetables as healthy as they typically are. However, vitamins aren't necessarily destroyed. In fact, they're well-preserved. Take into consideration the components it takes to keep food viable before it spoils. At least one of those components is vitamin content, in which case, those are still consistently present, considering how irradiated foods take longer periods of time to spoil. (http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu...) Also, their nutritional value is still preserved, as my source states. Even if vitamins were depleted during irradiation, it would not be very many.
Food Irradiation

Irradiating food does leave the macromolecules unaffected, like protein, carbohydrates, fats, and even minerals, but it is not the same for vitamins. http://www.livestrong.com... has stated that through the process of irradiation several vitamins either are reduced or just eliminated from the food overall. Vitamins such as thiamin, or vitamin E and C are affected, and all three of the vitamins are incredibly important, and by getting less of theses vitamins can be lethal for someone's health. Of course, its always possible to take vitamin supplements, some people won't do their research and they will be getting insufficient amounts of the vitamins without them even knowing. The macromolecules are not affected luckily which are incredibly important to have the correct amounts of, but so are vitamins and its important to have plenty of them.
Food Irradiation

It's my belief that smell isn't the only factor when considering if food is spoiled or not, so it would not be a huge loss if it didn't allow food to give that particular odor. And while true that it can't stop aging, it can slow down the process, and also preserve nearly all of its nutrients. (http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu...) Another point to address is the claim that irradiated food could cause harm if processed and shipped improperly. While true, this applies to all foods, not just irradiated foods. And since food irradiation is more up in the air, making it monitored more closely, than if anything, shipped irradiated foods are more sanitary than standard foods.
Food Irradiation

Even though it may kill off dangerous bacteria doesn't mean it's still healthy, for example, food irradiation also kills the bacteria that creates a smell for when the food is rotting and doesn't prevent the aging of food according to (http://www.epa.gov...) By irradiating food, there are many hazards that could be brought upon the food and can harm someone very seriously. Food irradiation is not a healthy or safe way for crops to grow or other food products, like meat or dairy, and is not a not a safe process to use. Irradiation does not eliminate pesticides or any other chemicals, so fruits such as apples if pesticides or other chemicals are used on them, they will still be on the food product. Contamination can occur if the food is packed and transported in unsanitary conditions, so bacteria can still be on the food if it is not handled correctly and if it hasn"t, then you run the risk of several hazards, and could still have the possibility of getting ill form the bacteria as long as it is packed and transported wrongly.
Food Irradiation

Though my opponent claims that food irradiation could cause more infection problems, the truth is far from it. the website (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...) states that food irradiation kills infectious bacteria that often collects on the crops. And while the dangers of irradiation are proven, the dangers of pesticides are. Food irradiation reduces the need for pesticides, as it kills insects and bacteria that gather on the subjected foodstuffs. It also is capable of killing pests, such as worms and caterpillars, and making the food incapable of housing any pests that might come again. Even if the overall safety of food irradiation might be questionable, the portion regarding bacteria and parasites is indisputable.
Food Irradiation

Though food irradiation may aid in your health, there are still many downfalls to using, because it doesn't only help your health, but it indirectly make it worse for your health because of bacteria and other stuff.According to Joseph McAllister, radiation could cause resistant strains among the bacteria and cause more issues than even before the food was irradiated. The radiation used to irradiate the food could possibly mutate the bacteria which can become more lethal and be more dangerous against a person before irradiated food had taken place. Possibly in the future, the bacteria could eventually become resistant to the radiation, as many organisms will adapt and evolve, even though it will take time, it could eventually happen, and become resistant to the radiation, making the bacteria harder to kill. Because of this, the bacteria may become immune to many antibiotics used to get rid of the bacteria and then can infect through a person with very little resistance because of its increased protection. So through time it is possible the bacteria will be harder to kill and can be more dangerous to a person and can become a larger issue.
Food Irradiation

Food Irradiation: exposure of food to electron-stripping energy sources. Due to exposure to irradiation, this issue raises health concerns. One concern that is overlooked, but deserves to be addressed, is the health and safety of workers. Workers in tons of fields do dangerous work, including military, police, fire department, nuclear plant workers, and so on. Irradiating food might raise concerns regarding the health for people who do such a thing for a living. However, while valid concerns, they are not serious. For one thing, what makes working dangerous is if there were to be any accidents or disasters. For irradiation facilities, severe accidents aren't possible. (http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu...) Also, unlike uranium at a nuclear power plant, irradiation facilities give off gamma rays, which can be recycled or regenerated, and they have no radioactive waste, which minimizes exposure to radiation from both workers and the public. So if the facilities are safe, then how could anyone justify an argument claiming irradiated food to be dangerous?
Death Penalty

1) My graph showed that the death penalty does not in fact, lower homicide rates.2) In fact the de3aht oenalty does cost more http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...3) Appeal to authority, just because the constitution says so does not seal your argument https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com....4) Another appeal to authority, the bible is not proven to be true and even if god did it first, does that make it okay?
Death Penalty

Thank you for that Coding and I hope we have an excellent debate. 1) My first contention is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, as shown in the graph of (1) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Murder Rate in Death Penalty States* 9.94 9.51 9.69 9.23 8.59 7.72 7.09 6.51 5.86 5.70 5.82 5.82 5.91 5.71 5.87 5.90 5.83 5.72 5.26 5.00 4.89 4.95 4.72 Murder Rate inNon-death Penalty States 9.27 8.63 8.81 7.88 6.78 5.37 5.00 4.61 4.59 4.25 4.25 4.27 4.10 4.02 4.03 4.22 4.10 4.05 3.90 4.01 4.13 4.09 3.88 PercentDifference 7% 10% 10% 17% 27% 44% 42% 41% 28% 35% 37% 36% 44% 42% 46% 40% 42% 41% 35% 25% 18% 21% 22% Sorry it may not be complete as this is on word but through the power of excel I have found that the average murder rate over this time span was 5.14087 in states without the death penalty and that of the ones with it had an average of 6.575652. These statistics are per 100,000 people. I believe I have sufficiently shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder. 2) It is Hypocritical How does punishing a murder with the death penalty make us any better than the murderer? 3) The Death penalty is more costly than a life sentence As you can see the death penalty simply costs more than life in prison (2) as seen in many states such as Kansas where it costs 70% more, in Tennessee where it costs 48% more, Maryland where it costs 3 times more and California where it costs roughly 12 times more. 4) Innocent people get convicted and they can’t be let out once it is found that they are innocent. 4% of people convicted of the death penalty are innocent which contradicts Pro's claim of 99% accuracy, and I'll ask you, is it worth it if anybody wrongly dies. (4) Now on to the rebuttals Sources (1) "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......;. (2) "Death Penalty Cost." Amnesty International USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.amnestyusa.org......;. (3) N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://researchnews.osu.edu......;.(4) http://www.forbes.com...;Reasonable security would prevent prisoners from killing guards. Is a compromise in morality really worth preventing overpopulation?If we had a system focusing on rehabilitation rather than brute punishment, the prison overpopulation problem wouldn't be, well, a problem. "DNA testing is over 99% efficient." It is not and you don't have a source for this.My opponent has not properly cited his sources.
Death Penalty

Death penalty is often advocated with the debate that by killing felons, the government would prevent future killers from killing or other people committing heinous crimes. It can also prevent re-attempting to do a crime. It is obvious that those who are executed cannot carry out future crimes. Humankind has consistently used punishment to unnerve future offenders from illegal activity. Since humankind has the topmost significance in deterring murder or other heinous crimes, it should practice the most robust punishment possible to avert wrongdoings, and that is death penalty. Unfortunately, our judicial system shows more empathy to criminals than it does to victims. It is the right time to put priority of our justice system back on safeguarding the victims rather than the offenders. One of the biggest debates against the death penalty is the chances of error. Of course we can never absolutely wipe out skepticism, but nowadays, DNA testing and other approaches of modern crime scene science can now productively eradicate almost all ambivalence as to a person"s guilt or innocence. DNA testing is over 99% efficient. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich utilized a new manner of study that shows that 7 lives are spared from murder for every inmate who was executed. Identical outcomes have been presented by zealots of Ehrlich in follow-up researches. Capital punishment subsidizes to the dilemma of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across many countries are now facing the issue of too many prisoners and not ample slots or capital. Each new prisoner needs an allocation of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so forth. Penalties which are rapid and assured are the best deterrent because there are some studies where the death penalty is subtly used and that takes some years before death penalty is finally performed. Death penalty gives prosecutors another dealing chip in the plea bargain proceedings, which is crucial in reduction of costs in an squeezed court system. According to Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, said: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.." Particularly, this is a style of elimination, related to the idea how a thief put in jail is inhibited from stealing on the streets. (BBC.co.uk, DeathPenaltyCurriculum.org, BalancedPolitics.org, List)
Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law.

In summation, I acknowledge that the increase in the number of teens committing violent crimes is an issue that begs attention. The resolutions that work best for situations like this are usually those that incorporate the motivating factors of the individual into the interest of society at large. Without speculating on ultimate causes or solutions, it is clear that our current strategy for dealing with these offenses leaves much to be desired in the way of prevention and recurrence. But i do believe that rehabilitation and reintegration is central to any long term solution. So I will conclude that trying teens as adults is tantamount to attempting to wash dishes in a basin of contaminated water, and that this is what makes the proposal fundamentally unacceptable even if we set aside the fact that the proof that teens are morally mature, remains to be seen. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate!!! It has been a sincere pleasure to engage Until next time!!!
Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law.

In conclusion I believe that the current system we use is ineffective. Until the juvenile system is altered, the teens guilty of innocent crimes should be tried as adults. These teens definately need attention, but this type of attention we should give them is while they are not a danger to anyone else. In the average life today teens have opportunities to hurt people everyday. For example teens can drive, and could hurt people on the road. I do not think they would purposely do that. Where I am going is we trust them to reason enough to not put other lives in danger. So we should trust that they know the potential ways they could be punished. This will always be a debatable issue, and should always be talked about. But we can not put others in danger, to protect just one teenager. I really enjoyed have this intelligent argument with you. Until next time. Thank you!
Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law.

Thank you, Your point is very well made.Teenagers are going through stages of searching for their true inner selves, but as they seek a path of self-mindfulness allowing them to get away with crimes teaches them the crimes are acceptable. Though the children would be put through the Juvenile System, I believe the system is inadequate and easily manipulate. My reason being is many teens, who have committed unthinkable crimes, have gotten out of being properly punished. The path to find your true inner self requires you to work and function with society. However when you prove a threat to society, not receiving harsh punishment teaches these young adults early on that breaking the law is acceptable. Though they would be put through the JV system, the system show more special treatment than it does discipline. Gangs are all over the world, but as it turns out gang are able to easily manipulate this system. All they do is have the gang member who are 18 commit the murders, so if they get caught they will get out of the JV system at 18. This method in fact is quite effective, and gang related homicide has raised by 23% over the past few years. I propose strict punishment when it is needed. Regardless of age they deserve to be reprimanded. It is unfair to ignore one's such crimes, because the reason behind their murders/felonies is their path to finding them-self. Thank You, it is a privilege to debate with you.