BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be abolished.

Id like to apologize for not swiftly addressing this debate, I was slightly preoccupied. I can also say I am slightly annoyed by the whole cut and paste scenario, I had an opponent do the exact same thing In my other debate. In your argument you stated, "The death penalty does not deter crime effectively". I almost laughed when you said this, one, because I believe it can, and two... well, I'll elaborate. This year alone we have had 16 death penalty executions out of 2943 people sentenced to death. The problem with the death penalty not being effective is the fact that it has been effectively neutralized already. When only 0.5% of all convicted death row inmates are executed, and these sentences are often delayed by years, It's understandable why its not a deterrent. So the death penalty, as it stands now, is not a deterrent to crime, as it has been warped beyond recognition. I believe it would be if the sentences were not delayed by congressmen and other politicians, as in the case of Hickenlooper and Nathan Dunlap, who killed four people in Aurora Colorado. His sentence was delayed. I also find it funny how the current Justice system wants to deter crime, but makes prisons often more comfortable than the lives many of these felons are coming from. Libraries and some other amenities are paid for by Federal and State tax dollars. That was a bit of a side note, but I also fail here to see how this is supposed to deter crime. Sentences are supposed to be corrective as a punishment, not a living full of creature comforts. Also, crime rates are rising in US cities. In 2015 alone murder rates skyrocketed in major cities, such as Chicago and other population centers. In 2016, other crime rates were supposed to decline by 2.5%, and murder rates to rise by 11.3%. So in a brief conclusion, I fail to see how the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent when its effects are negated by left politicians and judges. So in turn, I believe the death penalty would be crime deterrent and should be upheld, specifically because it is not in full effect. As soon as the death penalty is used as it was passed into US law to be, then I believe it will be a deterrent. In my next argument I will include more data and numbers to support this, as well as address more of your points.
The death penalty should be abolished.

The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system There have been and always will be cases of executions of innocent people. No matter how developed a justice system is, it will always remain susceptible to human failure. Unlike prison sentences, the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable. The arbitrary application of the death penalty can never be ruled out The death penalty is often used in a disproportional manner against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups. The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity The death penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the most basic of all human rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being. The death penalty does not deter crime effectively The death penalty lacks the deterrent effect which is commonly referred to by its advocates. As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty” (UNGA Resolution 65/206). It is noteworthy that in many retentionist states, the effectiveness of the death penalty in order to prevent crime is being seriously questioned by a continuously increasing number of lawenforcement professionals. Public opinion is not a major stumbling block for abolition Public support for the death penalty does not necessarily mean that taking away the life of a human being by the state is right. There are undisputed historical precedences where gross human rights violations had had the support of a majority of the people, but which were condemned vigorously later on. It is the job of leading figures and politicians to underline the incompatibility of capital punishment with human rights and human dignity. It needs to be pointed out that public support for the death penalty is inextricably linked to the desire of the people to be free from crime. However, there exist more effective ways to prevent crime. -icomdp.org As you can see by those articles, the death penalty can be very bad, I look forward to your arguments, and sorry I answered late XD I have been buisy. And no, I will not be quoting the rest of the debate XD
Same sex marriage

The only thing you are doing with your proposal is allienating them from their families and societies, as you said this debate is of legalizing same sex marriage worldwide or not, i think we dont loose anything by letting them have the recognizement they have wanted all their life. Homosexual marriage should be legal and if not you are taking their rights and you can have a jury trial in the International Court of Justice for inhumannity. To conclude i will like to adress every single person who opposes: We are doing the same error Nazis did in the WW2, we are doing the same error we did with "afroamericans"and we are doing the same error as we discriminated women in the past. Please dont fall in another error.
Same sex marriage

Society has had Homosexuals since ancient times, however since people just like you privatize this humans their basic right they are forced to live without one of the basic rights made by the constitution. You said marriage is to have kids, that is totally wrong, there are people who dont marry and have kids, there are people who marry and still dont have kids, this community of homosexuals want a recognizement for their love, and if there is people who make illegal a natural process by which they became homosexuals, who will give this people the basic rights of a human, because it doesnt matter if they are homosexuals or not, they are still people and their Human Rights need to be covered.
Kleptin should be the winner in the following debates.

I saw Britwaller doing this and I heard that it was being done by other people too, so I figured I should give it a shot :) I have taken on a habit of arguing for positions I disagree with just for the sake of arguing. I find that this hones debate and critical thinking skills much better than just arguing for what you believe in. However, on the old site, it was much more habitual to vote instinctively on what position is most popular rather than quality of the debate. In the following debates, I believe that this is what led to my losses, and that if debate quality were taken into account, I should be the winner hands down. 1. http://www.debate.org... Debate on Walmart. This was one of my first debates and one in which I realized how the voting system could be manipulated. I not only offered strong counterpoints to each and every one of my opponent's issues, forcing him to come up with new ones each round, but also gave plenty of points that were not responded to. In addition, the comments section is filled with spam, showing that whoever voted probably did not care enough to read the debate. 2. http://www.debate.org... Debate on Age of Earth. I believe i did a much better job presenting my case and debating, especialy since my opponent FORFEITED a round x.x 3. http://www.debate.org... Debate on Affirmative Action. I believe that in trying to fight for a position I disagreed with, I found a very good counterargument to my opponent. Since this is a single round debate, just one strong counterpoint should ensure the win. 4. http://www.debate.org... Here is another debate semi-off to the side. In my opinion, this is just ludicrous. 2 round debate, my opponent made an opening statement and forfeited his last round, yet I still lost.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"So conscience for the sinner distorts the truth of the upright, but (his) soul is in agony at the judgment of the Chinvat Bridge, having strayed by his own deeds and tongue from the Path of Righteousness." My opponent hasn't rebutted any of my cases from reason, but instead pleads ignorance in the form of his false god. This is specifically pointed out in Zoroastrianism: firstly that those brought up in falsehood cannot develop into reason easily, and secondly that those who do not aim towards reason will go down false paths.My opponent in short has done nothing to prove he is right but post false scripture. I have provided strong reason to believe in zoroastrianism, and as such strong reason to vote against the resolution. Thank you.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(1) "The gods that ye worship live not, they understand not, they see not. They are the works of your hands. They can help neither you nor themselves. Wherefore, the only true and good God, having pity on you, has sent me unto you to warn you of the trouble which shall come upon you unless ye put away your false gods."(2) "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole."This is the "stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.""Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."(3) 1 Mathew 16:23 2 Story of Roland 3 Acts 4 If you are genuinely seeking God you will recognize Him in Jesus Christ otherwise you are disingenuously looking for answers. May the Lord God have mercy on your soul and lead you to himself through Jesus Christ amen.
Boxer Carl Froch should be considered the lineal super middleweight champion

I believe that this debate is more or less over, since Pro didn't really try to dispute the facts related to the actual topic.However I'd like to point out the crucial facts once again.Certain boxer (Rodriguez in this case) being or not being "worthy" of his rating is completely irrelevant to Andre Ward being the lineal champion.Once again, as we already know, the lineal champion can't lose his title unless he is defeated in the ring, retires from the sport, or permanently leaves the weight class. Andre Ward did neither of those things. He is still undefeated, still fighting in the super middleweight division and hasn't retired yet, therefore there can't be made any dispute about his lineal title.I've already explained that Carl Froch, who was previously defeated by Andre Ward, wouldn't have any claim to the lineal championship even if we imagined that Ward didn't exist.Pro's claim was based on George Groves being an attractive opponent for Carl Froch, therefore making the fight highly anticipated and popular, but since Groves was never rated as one of the top 2 boxers in the division, and also because the lineal title is already taken by Andre Ward, Carl Froch has absolutely zero claim to the lineal title and shouldn't be considered the lineal champion.Pro once again compares the popularity of Froch and Ward, despite those facts having no relevance to the topic. As far as the lineal championship is concerned, Andre Ward could be fighting for free and without any audience, and still be legitimately considered the lineal champion.I'd finish the statement by pointing on the two of the most prestigious boxing ratings, the Ring ratings and Transnational Boxing Rankings. Both consider Andre Ward the legitimate lineal champion, while Carl Froch is rated as the number one contender. George Groves is rated #5 in both cases. [1][2]1. http://ringtv.craveonline.com...2. http://www.tbrb.org...
Boxer Carl Froch should be considered the lineal super middleweight champion

My opponent posted some good points.Legitimate challenger is a challenger that is widely considered as worthy for the championship title fight.Rodriguez was rated in top 10 by the Ring, but most of the boxing media disagreed with that rating. Either way, he was just a fringe contender and not exactly worthy of the title fight.If you look at the current Ring ratings, you will see that Rodriguez isn't inside top 10 anymore. That just shows how much of a bad challenger he was. [1]Dawson was the LHW champion, but the fight took place in super middleweight weight class, where Dawson hadn't fought for several years. In his next fight after the defeat to Ward, Dawson was knocked out in the first round by Stevenson and lost his LHW title.The rematch between Carl Froch and George Groves was one of the biggest fights in the history of super middleweight division. The Wembley stadium was sold out, while Ward's last fight was in front of mere 4,000 people. [2] [3][1] http://ringtv.craveonline.com...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...[3] http://bloguin.com...
Boxer Carl Froch should be considered the lineal super middleweight champion

I see that Pro is basing a good part of his case trying to discredit Andre Ward as the legitimate super middleweight champion.Andre Ward is the current lineal championI'd start by saying that it's not "some people" who consider Andre Ward the legit lineal champion. It's a fact and it won't be any hard to prove it.The lineal title can only be won by defeating the current lineal champion in the ring. If the lineal title is vacant (which was the case here), it is determined when two of the best boxers fight each other.Andre Ward won the lineal super middleweight championship by defeating Carl Froch in 2011, in the final match of Showtime's tournament which gathered 6 of the top rated super middleweight boxers in order to determine the new lineal champion. [1]The Ring title, which represents the lineal title, has Andre Ward as the champion as well. [2]The champion cannot be stripped of his lineal titleIt is interesting to see Pro arguing that Andre Ward being "inactive" is the reason he should lose his claim to the lineal championship. As we already know, the lineal title can only be lost if the boxer is defeated in the ring, or if he retires (or permanently leaves his weight class), therefore there is no legitimate argument against Ward being the lineal champ.According to the Ring rules, if the champion does not schedule a fight for 18 months, his title may be vacated. [3]Ward's last fight was against Edwin Rodriguez on 16 Nov 2013, which was about 7 months from today, which means that he still has about 11 months left to schedule his next fight, therefore any argument about Ward being "inactive" falls apart.Also, the lineal champion is not obligated to fight "legitimate" opponents like Pro claims for some reason. I'm also not sure which boxers does Pro consider the "legitimate" opponents, although it obviously doesn't hold any weight in this case. Edwin Rodriguez was rated inside top 10 by the Ring at time Ward fought him, and Chad Dawson was the light heavyweight champion.Carl Froch's claim to the lineal championship is absolutely baselessEven if we assumed that Andre Ward wasn't the lineal champion, there is still no legitimate claim for Froch being the lineal champion. Obviously, the lineal title is determined when 2 of the top rated boxers fight each other. Since George Groves was never rated even in the top 3 at any point in time, Carl Froch wasn't included in a fight that could possibly determine the lineal champion.Fame and money doesn't have anything to do with being considered the lineal championIt's quite funny to see Pro comparing the money earned by Carl Froch and Andre Ward, since it doesn't have anything to do with the actual topic.I look forward to Pro's response, although this debate pretty much over.1. http://espn.go.com...2. http://ringtv.craveonline.com...3. http://ringtv.craveonline.com... (bottom of the page)
Boxer Carl Froch should be considered the lineal super middleweight champion

As it's already mentioned, it requires a fighter to become universally acclaimed as the best in a weight class to become the lineal champion.Since the previous lineal super middleweight champion Joe Calzaghe retired in 2008, the lineal title was left vacant. Since then, some people argue that Andre Ward is the legitimate lineal champion based on his victories over Mikkel Kessler in 2009 and Carl Froch in 2011.Since 2011, Andre Ward has fought only 2 times, and those weren't high profile fights. His purses were $1,367,500 for the Dawson fight in 2012 and $1,900,000 for the Rodriguez fight in 2013. [3] [4]Ward's fight against Dawson was staged in Oracle Arena, while his fight against Rodriguez was staged in Citizens Business Bank Arena.Since November 16th 2013, Andre Ward hasn't fought, and since his victory over Froch in 2011, Ward didn't fight against a legitimate super middleweight opponent. The champion has an obligation to always fight the best available challengers, and his championship claim is lost if he doesn't defend his title for a year. The last time Andre Ward fought a legitimate opponent was almost 3 years ago. He was also stripped of his WBC super middleweight title in 2013 due to inactivity. [5]Since 2011, Carl Froch has fought and defeated the IBF champion Lucian Bute (who was considered as one of the two best boxers in super middleweight division together with Andre Ward at the time), Yusaf Mack, WBA champion Mikkel Kessler, and 2 victories over George Groves. [6]Froch's notable purses were £2,000,000 for the Kessler fight and £10,000,000 for the rematch against Groves. [7] [8]The first between Froch and Groves ended in a controversial victory for Froch, therefore the rematch was the most anticipated fight of the year and took place at the Wembley stadium.Since Andre Ward has been inactive since 2013, and hasn't fought a legitimate opponent since 2011, I believe that the rematch between Froch and Groves has brought us the new lineal super middleweight champion, which is Carl Froch.[1] http://boxrec.com...[2] http://boxrec.com...[3] http://espn.go.com...[4] http://espn.go.com...[5] http://www.eastsideboxing.com...[6] http://boxrec.com...[7] http://www.express.co.uk...[8] http://www.tsmplug.com...
Boxer Carl Froch should be considered the lineal super middleweight champion

This is the first debate of the "Super Six" tournament. Good luck to my opponent. Round 1 is used for the acceptance. Round 4 is used as the closing statement. I will argue that British boxer Carl Froch should be considered the lineal champion in super middleweight division. [1] Lineal champion: A fighter can only truly become the lineal champ by beating the previous lineal champ, or being "the man that beat the man". In the event the prior lineal champ has permanently retired (or, for non-heavyweights, permanently left the weight class), there is no definitive process to recognize a new lineal champ, but it generally requires a fighter to become universally acclaimed as the best in that class. [2] [1] http://boxrec.com... [2] http://boxing.about.com...
All human life should be protected

All human life? Including those in a persisting vegetative state? Even those so barely developed that their size and cognitive function more comparable to a piece of dentine gum than an adult human being? What about the many twins that are absorbed in utero, how do you propose we protect them. Some Neolithic peoples even believe that a baby is just an animal with no more rights than an animal until it can speak. I may even go so far as to say that any human with no quality of life might consciously choose the void.
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

Instead of responding to my opponent, I will repost my previous argument (seeing how there was an error) and then we can move on from there. ::Definitions:: Juvenile: 1.1."Not fully grown or developed; young." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1.2."Generally this refers to people between the ages of 14 and 17. They lose their juvenile status on their 18th birthday." http://www.fair-debt-collection.com... Felony: "an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year." http://dictionary.reference.com... ::Observation:: We are talking about USA and not Europe or Asia or the world. Now the USA has very violent juveniles: "There are currently about seventy million Americans under the age of 18, or a quarter of the total US population. Juvenile crime statistics report that 2.3 million juveniles were arrested in 2002. This accounts for 17 percent of all arrests and 15 to 25 percent of all violent crimes. According to juvenile crime statistics, murder accounted for five percent of violent crimes committed by juveniles, 12 percent for rape, 14 percent for robbery, and 12 percent for aggravated assault." http://www.onlinelawyersource.com... This may come in handy but at the moment I won't elaborate. ::Argument 1 :: Cause and effect. Every action has a consequence and while a 5 year old may not know that, a 14 year old will. Yes, I am aware that a 14 year old isn't as mature as an adult but we're talking about a very serious violent crime ! Surely, you can't say that a 14 year old wouldn't know that its wrong or that he thought it was no different from stealing a candy from the local shop. ::Argument 2:: Is a violent attack especially a felonious violent act the doing of a juvenile ? No. Obviously the child isn't pretending to be under 18, however, he is acting like an adult. To steal candy, to insult someone, even to bully someone is encompassed by the mind of a child but to commit such crime one must start to think like an adult. That is to say ones innocence disappears with the act. Cheerio
Resolved: It is morally justifiable to take one person's life in order to save that of more lives.

Before I begin my argument I would like to request that the argument be strictly philosophical and formatted in accordance with Lincoln Douglas Debate. Value: Utilitarianism Criterion: Societal Welfare (definitions if needed provided on request) Contention One: The Value of human life is immeasurable. I understand that this sounds like a negative contention but allow me to elaborate. Because the value of human life is immeasurable there is no way to determine that a person of sacrifice would even but a neccessity to society therefore it may not neccessarily be a hinderance to societal progress to kill them but very well may be the contrary. If this sacrifice is intended to save multiple lives in exchange for one it is acting in benefit of society and upholding my value of Utilitarianism. Contention Two: Any action prolonguing the human race is morally justifiable being that morals are the product of society and are to only be decided by mankind. If multiple lives are saved in exchange for the loss of one life then we have conformed not only to moral but to ethical obligations and allow ourselves the opportunity to make social progress as opposed to the alternative being that the alternative is for a lesser amount of lives to continue. That being said the negation is counterprogressive to society and inherently morally and ethically flawed.
THBT dialect language classes should be taught in all schools in dialect provinces.

Given that Proposition opened this debate it would be inappropriate for me to use this last speech in any way that could be judged to have swayed the debate. For this reason, I would simply like to thank my opponent for suggesting this stimulating motion and wish him the best of luck in future debates. He's certainly given me a good first debate on DDO. And now, I hand the debate over to you, the people. Who will win? Who will lose? Who will never want to do any form of debating ever again? YOU DECIDE!