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

I thank you once more for an engaging debate. I am up rather early so if I am rambling sorry. Taking a look at your arguments for this round I appreciate your research and enthuasism :). Murder rates for states without the death penalty are decreasing, I found that in the source below http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... at the same time, I notice that murder rates are going up in the south, where the death penalty remains on the books. To put it as kindly as I am a kind person, very good job here my friend :). Now on to my case... Pakistan and Bangladesh are hanging criminals on a regular basis. Despite violence in their nations, they seem to deter crime realtivley well. The death penalty brings closure to the victim's families. If you think about it, someone they love has been murdered, and in some cases raped before hand. I don't want to be graphic or anything but suppose you had a loved one kidnapped, raped, stabbed to death and thrown into a ditch. What would you want done? Me, I want the perpatrator to pay the price. Being a firm Christian I acknowledge the 6th commandment: thou shalt not kill. However, it also says: whoever sheddeth a man's blood, their blood shall be shed. Now this is not to force religion into this, but I believe firmly you would want the killer to die for their actions. My case is rested thank you for an engaging debate
Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished.

Thank you for your response! :)Definition: No dispute here.What Crimes Result in the Death Penalty?: This is mutual as well.Moral Argument: 1. My opponent admits that the argument is valid, and concedes this point.2. Justice can be found via other methods, such as life in prison. Manuel Vasquez explains these ethics well, "Given the value we place on life and our obligation to minimize suffering and pain whenever possible, if a less severe alternative to the death penalty exists which would accomplish the same goal, we are duty-bound to reject the death penalty in favor of the less severe alternative." [1]Inhumanity Argument: 1. My opponent concedes that there is inhumane action taken when executing capital punishment.2. We shouldn't necessarily be inhumane to someone just becuase they are inhumane to someone else. For example, just becuase you've been robbed doesn't justify that you can rob someone else.Worthy Crime Argument:1. My opponent also admits this argument has "very valid" points.2. He mentions loopholes, but doesn't explain them.3. Though every country may not be corrupt, we must consider the ones that are corrupt. Moreover, there is common flaws with the corrupt death penalty, as well as many other similar systems. [2]4. My opponent concedes that young people have had capital punishment, and that it is not morally permissable.Innocence Argument:1. My opponent completely drops this argument with no rebuttal.Deterrence Argument:1. My opponent makes a bold claim that Pakistand and Bangledesh see deterrence, but doesn't explain how, or provide evidence to back his claim.2. He doesn't refute my examples and cited studies of how there isn't deterrence because of the death penalty.3. For a specific example, the death penalty doesn't deter drug traffickers. [3]4. The United Nations has also discussed the issue and found no correlation between capital punishment and crime deterrence. [4]5. The Malaysian Bar (professional body of lawyers in peninsular Malaysia) president also presented a public statement that they have found that the death penalty doesn't deter crime. [5]Conclusion: My opponent has dropped or conceded the majority of my arguments and has not presented a case. Hopefully this case will be provided in the following round.Sources:[1] http://www.scu.edu...[2] http://www.thedailybell.com...[3] http://www.thejakartapost.com...[4] http://www.un.org...[5] http://www.therakyatpost.com...Thank you for the debate as well! :)
Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished.

Thank you for the debate, now the task falls to me to refute, friend :). First of all, excellent definition of the death penalty/capital punishment. Spot on there :). Let's look at this...crimes resulting in the death penalty to start. Again, spot on here, good job. The morality argument is a valid one, I admit. However, you need to take into account the family of the victim. They most likley would want justice for the death of their family member...that is to be expected. Inhumanity argument refutal Yes there is a certain degree of the death penalty (crucifixion, stoning) that can be torture. But keep this in mind, my friend, that the killer probably did some very cruel things to their victim/s to end up on death row. Not to say I condone any crucifixion or stoning, or otherwise brutal modes of death but think about it a little bit more :). Worthy Crime argument refutal There are a lot of very valid points in this argument. However, there are sometimes major loopholes. I respectfully say that not every country is as coruptt as it seems with their use of the death penalty. Now, I do agree, we should not sentence minors to death however. Innocence refutal Yes, there have been a lot of exonerations, that is true. No need to refute this. Deterrence refutal Pakistan, and Bangladesh seem to have a good deterrence mechanism in their death penalty. Cost refutal no need to refute it, it is expensive thank you for the debate :)
Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished.

Greetings! This is a debate about the death penalty. I hope Kylar will accept my direct challenge. Please accept as soon as possible.Additional Rules:No vulgarityBoP is sharedNo k's of the topicNo semanticsTrolling results in an automatic lossForfeiture results in an automatic lossThe debate atmosphere should remain courteous and respectfulRound Schedule:Round 1: Rules and AcceptanceRound 2: Presentation of Arguments (Pro) and Arguments and Rebuttals (Con)Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals (Pro) and Arguments and Rebuttals (Con)Round 4: Closing Arguments/Rebuttals (Pro & Con)
Free will is not an illusion

In theory, Sure you can move thought from coffee to cars or vice verse. But you definitely can"t consciously decide to change thoughts or what to change your thoughts to. Any logical examination that traces your thoughts to their genesis will land in one of two places: physical events outside of your control or a combination of nature/nurture. You most certainly have 0 control over physical events outside yourself. You also did not choose which parents to be born to or how they raised you.
Free will is not an illusion

Yes my brain is thinking thoughts, But I am not the chooser of those thoughts. I may stop thinking via meditation, But I cannot be the one who decides to stop thinking. You might say you wanted to stop thinking because you're sad. I would ask why you're stressed and why stopping thinking is your solution as opposed to e. G. Taking drugs. "I choose to live. " Do you? Why? Aversion to mortality is built in. Do you want to live so you can see your family? Why? You didn't choose to value family.
Free will is not an illusion

Ok so what your saying is no one is in control of you? Because that's what your implying. It is your brain that is thinking your thoughts and you can stop thinking. You can control your needs and wants. Say do I need to do pushups or drink water for the rest of my life. I can choose the important need. I learned I need water that does not mean I want it. I choose to drink water because I choose to live.
Fallacious Arguments

I have a genius IQ, therefore my opponent's arguments should be null. Nudity let's you feel the air; therefore passengers should be nude. People will be more attracted to each other on the plane than anywhere else; therefore passengers should be nude. My opponent is a Christian and opposes nudity; therefore passengers should be nude. Most people don't care about this subject; therefore passengers should be nude. Decency laws are bureaucratic f*ckups; therefore passengers should be nude. Anonymous supports public nudity; therefore passengers should be nude. There is a lot of nude art; therefore passengers should be nude. My opponent has a debate.org percentile of 48.17; therefore passengers should be nude. Frat-boys enjoy streaking; therefore passengers should be nude. Indecency is patriotic; therefore passengers should be nude. Strippers could strip inside the aircraft without anyone knowing; therefore passengers should be nude. I win; therefore passengers should be nude.
Fallacious Arguments

To prevent hijacking and lower costs, all airline passengers should not be nude while on an aircraft . My opponent is a Libertarian, therefore his arguments should be null. Nude beaches are not globally accepted; therefore passengers should not be nude. Most people wear clothes; therefore passengers should not be nude. If people were nude, someone might die from shock; therefore passengers should not be nude. C-Mach, that is a nice picture you have; by the way, passengers should not be nude. Nudity is a thing of the past; therefore passengers should not be nude. My opponent wants passengers to be nude, but that is just ridiculous; therefore passengers should not be nude. C-Mach is from California, and we all know they all get every issue wrong; therefore passengers should not be nude. I polled 2 people and they agree with my view; therefore passengers should not be nude. I am older than my opponent; seniority system exists in the world; therefore all passengers should not be nude.
Fallacious Arguments

Thank you, animpossiblepossibility. As we well know, passengers should be required to be nude on all flights, which I will prove to you in one-thousand characters or less. Argument One: If you are nude, you cannot take various concealed weapons onto an aircraft. For example, Johnny has a switchblade made out of plastic. If he went through a normal metal detector, he would be able to take the weapon on board and possibly stab numerous innocent passenger. If he did not have his clothing, however, this would not be possible, as it would be very difficult to sneak it in various other ways. Hijackings would be much less likely if this policy were put into effect. Argument Two: If you are nude, you weigh less than if you wear clothing. It normally does not make any difference, but when you have three hundred people on board an aircraft, that's a lot of extra weight. It takes more fuel to haul that many passengers. So, it is cheaper for the airlines to implement this nudity policy.
Fallacious Arguments

I challenge anyone to a debate to see who can provide the best viewpoint on a given topic using only fallacies/fallacious arguments. The topic is: To prevent aircraft hijacking and lower costs for airlines, all passengers are required to be nude while on the aircraft, and carry-on baggage is prohibited. Judging will be so: Whoever provides the most fallacies/fallacious arguments that a.make sense, b.contribute to their overall argument, c.are diversified (not the same), and d.can be fitted within the 1,000 character limit wins the debate. The rounds will be so: Round 1:opponent provides arguments, Round 2:I provide arguments, opponent forfeits. Let the games begin :)
Exemption of Women from the Selectice Service System

Resolved: Women should be exempt from the Selective Service System of the United States. Clarifications: By women, I mean persons of the female sex. I do not consider personal conceptions of gender relevant to this debate. I am referring to the entire Selective Service System (SSS from here on), not just the registration, lottery, drafting, or any other particular aspect of it. I will leave the exact meaning of the word "should" up to discussion. I would prefer that my opponent not simply argue that the word "should" is meaningless because that would render the discussion irrelevant and generally be a waste of time. Important Rules: The debate will consistent of three rounds, and Round 1 will be used by my opponent to indicate his or her acceptance of the debate and not any relevant agreement or disagreement of terms. This round shall not be used to debate. Also, my opponent may not argue that the SSS should be done away with entirely or that men should be exempt from it as well. The purpose of this debate is to discuss gender roles and equality, and to argue that no one should be subjuct to the SSS would be counterintuitive to my goal. I realize I could side-step the need for this rule simply by phrasing the resolution differently so as say that men and women be subject to the same requirements, but I prefer a simple resolution and cumbersome rules to the reverse. I also wanted to make it explicit that this is not allowed. Finally, the forfeiture of any one round will constitute the forfeiture of the debate. In accepting the debate my opponent agrees to this rule. If you do not know about the SSS, I suggest that Wikipedia is a go place to start for gaining a general understanding of something you are not familar with. . http://en.wikipedia.org...... Additional Comments: This debate is part of a series that I intend to do on gender roles and gender equality. If my opponent sees a good reason to move the topic of the debate away from this in a way other than what I have specifically prohibited above (arguing for the complete abolition of the SSS) than I see no problem with that, although it will probably result in my reposting of the debate afterwards until I get the discussion I am looking for. I will do another debate about the SSS in general later (arguing for its complete abolition) but that is not what this debate is about.
in the case of 1st 2nd and fourth if found guilty Have the death sentence or life in jail

To win this debate I need to prove that not all those who are found guilty to first,second, or fourth degree murder should either suffer life imprisonment or the death penalty. Or that these sentences are not just, I also need to prove that these actions cannot produce the results they desire to achieve.Is it fair that people who committed these crimes under duress should be sentenced to life in prison or suffer capital punishment?I think not. My case will stand on the grounds that it isn't just to imprison for life all people who commit these crimes due to the fact that in some crimes criminals who pose a imminent threat of danger and or death to a random victim as a captive, slave, etc... will force the people they threaten to commit crimes for various reasons. It is not just to sentence those who are coerced due to threat of bodily harm or death to have the same punishment as the criminal who coerced the person to kill. Even if the person who suffered duress is found guilty to any combination of first, second, or fourth degree murder because these crimes where done under duress. I think we must offer some type of penance to the one who suffered duress however it should not be on the same magnitude of the duressor. Therefore the victim forced to kill should not have a sentence of death or life in prison.The purposes of prisons and/or the legal is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. http://www.stoptheaca.org... Not all of these objectives can be accomplished for a victim of duress. They can meet retribution and incapacitation however one cannot cause detterence of the crime they committed and one cannot rehabilitize them for their actions. How do we deter a person or people for that matter to be threatened by criminals and not commit the crimes these criminals command if their lives are being threatened? It cannot be done therefore one purpose of the prison system cannot accomplish their goals. Secondly We cannot rehabilitate a person forced to commit a crime from not doing it again. Almost any human being when their lives are being threatened will do whatever it takes to stay alive. Just about anything alive in respond to a threat and cannot run will kill if it is the only way to survive. So their is no way to rehabilitize a person from doing this again. We cannot prevent cohersion from happening nor can we prevent their responses. So why should we waste taxpayer money on a lost cause? Again the prison system cannot meet the goal of rehabilitizing victims of duress no matter how much they try. So why forever imprison these people if the prisons systems full goals cannot be met? These goals can neither be met with the death penalty. We cannot be certain that criminals regret their crimes or care at all when they suffer a death sentence. If we want someone to suffer imprison them for life. But since both of these punishments are not justified for the circumstances of the crime neither should be method of punishment used for those under duress.
in the case of 1st 2nd and fourth if found guilty Have the death sentence or life in jail

First degree: killing with the intent to kill. Usually requires premeditation. Also includes felony murder - an unplanned murder that occurs during the commission of a felony Second degree: killing with the intent to do harm but not the intent to kill. Example - shooting someone in the leg with the intent to wound but not kill, and the victim bleeds to death. Fourth degree: felony murder committed by an accomplice. Same as felony murder, but instead of one burglar there are two. Burglar A kills the homeowner and that is first degree murder. Burglar B did not take part in the killing but did take part in the burglary and that is fourth degree. 1st 2nd and fourth if found guilty, any under these surcumstances will be given the death sentence or life in jail Depending on the Judges decideing
Anime sucks

Pro forfeited. Pro has another chance to respond to my Round 3. If Pro gives argument in the next round in response to my Round 3, I will respond to their points + giving my closing arguments. If Pro forfeits again in Round 5, I will still submit my closing arguments because I have a lot of things I need to say to get my point across. If Pro needs to reply to my Round 5, You can make your response in a Part 2 debate or reply in the comments.
Anime sucks

"Another thing, Your profile says you're 32 years old. Are you telling me that sexual things in that form of entertainment (anime) offends you or something? Honestly, Everything is over sexualized. It's everywhere you look. Music, Magazines, Ads, Celebrities, Movies, Social media, Etc. Sex sells. So are you telling me it should be an exception for anime? I'm honestly a fan of ecchi, What guy isn't? I just see it as comedy, It's hilarious as hell to me. Plus it's a lot of fan service, People enjoy it. If you don't agree with it, That's fine it is your opinion. In the case of rape I can see how it's offensive. Example, Sword Art Online season 3 episode 10, There's a scene where these girls are getting raped by two guys. The beginning of the episode even says "The following program contains scenes of violence and sexual assault, And it is intended only for mature audiences. Viewer discretion is advised. "" Yes, Sexual things in that form of entertainment (anime) offends me, Anything that is overly sexualized is not to good, But a 'cartoon' that many kids watch isn't exactly a good thing. "Everything is over sexualized. It's everywhere you look. Music, Magazines, Ads, Celebrities, Movies, Social media, Etc. " but in these things you know that there are going to be very sexualized things, And kids avoid these things, Anime is normally targeted to kids "I'm honestly a fan of ecchi, What guy isn't? " Me "There's a scene where these girls are getting raped by two guys. The beginning of the episode even says "The following program contains scenes of violence and sexual assault, And it is intended only for mature audiences. Viewer discretion is advised. "" Do you think these kids that watch it acknowledge this 'warning' "Anime is great because: Art style/animation, Characters you can relate to + backstories, Teaches you lessons in real life, Great fight scenes, Entertaining" I hate the art style and western animation is by far much better What characters can you relate to (don't answer that), Did you know that you can get something called a friend to relate to yourself, Why do you want a fake, Badly drawn cartoon as something that you relate to? Really, Backstory? There are plenty of of live action, Or better drawn western animation movie/videos that have a far more enriching backstory than anything anime can come up with. And I haven't seen a single "Great fight scene" in Anime And it is not entertaining
Anime sucks

All those weird weeaboos, What is there to like? I had experienced anime before, My first time made me hate it right off the bat, I walked into my friends brother watching that certain kind of anime that starts with a H, It was unpleasant, Next I was going on Netflix looking for something to watch, I came across "Sword Art Online" cause I like video games I thought it would be a good show, I was wrong, I watched up to the sex scene, Before the sex scene it was just boring and unsavory, I was ready to turn it off and play some video games, Until I reached the sex scene were I turned it all off and I haven't watched any anime since.
Anime sucks

Can you perhaps explain why you think anime sucks? Have you at least watched anime before? If you have I would respect your opinion more. If you haven't seen anime before and you think it sucks just give it a try. You never know. Plus, Why say something sucks when you haven't experienced it yet? Round 1 - Acceptance. I'll hand over the floor to you so you can make a well thought out argument on why anime sucks and I'll oppose it.
Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

So my oppenents case is all about attacking me, he has not included any evidence to suppot his attacks, not only this but he also has failed to rebut his own case. therefore you can go ahead and drop his contentions, now onto my own case. for my contention one his only attack on it was that i was ignoring the uncontrollable changes, yet i have mentioned before that cooling the ocean floor would actually solve those "uncontrollable changes" that he has no evidence to support. for his second attack he said that places like norway are in debt alot, but in my conclusion i state that we would actually gain money from this therefore that arguement is no longer valid. for his last and final attack says that climate change is a moral right, yet his definition of it was invalid. he also said that my definition was wrong and didn't offer a counter solution.