BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wisconsin NEEDS a wolf hunting season

First of all, since my opponent has not made a case, no benefits have been laid out.One commonly claimed benefit is better deer hunting. This claim is often made, but seldom substantiated, and the evidence shows that despite a healthy wolf population deer populations have still been increasing. (http://www.news.wisc.edu...)A possible detriment is an out of control deer population. In my state, deer have no prevalent natural predators, and their burgeoning population cannot be controlled by hunters, to the point that professional snipers are sometimes hired to cull the heard at taxpayer expenses. (http://mtlebanon.org...)Deer overpopulation also causes severe damage to undergrowth and nesting habitat (http://www.independent.co.uk...) and large amounts of demage via car accidents. In Wisconsin alone, a deer population controlled by wolves already causes nearly19,000 car crashes a year (http://www.jsonline.com...), making Wisconsin the 7th highest state for dear-car collisions. (http://www.jsonline.com...) An increase of the population would naturally increase these costs.Overall, the costs far outweigh the benefits.
capital punishment is better alternative to life imprisonment

No new points shall be brought in by me, and replies shall be short(ish).1. Good job catching the quote one funny-man, and responding with one from (arguably) another.3. Regarding the 2008 Mumbai attacks; it is a rather complex issue due to Pakistan's connection (1, a small sample of how complex it is). Ajmal Kasab had no defense lawyer, was a foreign national, and was hired to do it making him an enemy combatant. He stated "I was promised that once they knew that I was successful in my operation, they would give 150,000 rupees (around $3,352), to my family" (2). How enemy combatants are dealt with, has little relevance to the regular criminal who may either be executed or receive life in prison.4. "a feeling of happiness" would be a terrible reason to execute even the worst criminal, doubly so if there is a chance of them being falsely accused (my point four dealt directly with convicts who were framed).Thank you for the debate. I will not claim there is never a time to execute a convict, but in most cases I cannot trust the current powers that be with it.Sources:(1) http://www.nytimes.com...;(2) http://abcnews.go.com...
capital punishment is better alternative to life imprisonment

Thank you for finding out my mistake and i would never repeat it.As my opponent has posted his argument with problems related to death penalty i will rephrase them with advantages or answers.ANSWERS:1. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives.-george bush 2.Thought o j simpson had massive amount of he was awarded a penalty of 33 years injail.3.You have given the eg of amanda knox trial just take the eg of 26/11 attacks in mumbai,india the supreme court of india upheld the death sentence of the convicted ajmal amir kasab and he was hanged which was a relief to the people of the families due to which their loved ones were killed.4.Death penalty not only gives relief to families of the victims but also gives justice and a feeling of happiness.
capital punishment is better alternative to life imprisonment

Thank you for the PM reply, in future please respond to questions from the argument in the argument to decrease voter confusion. Also please write your own argument for round 3, instead of copy/pasting a section of one found at buzzle.com as you did for round 2 (1).Key problems with the death penalty: "It's too lenient. There's always the possibility of reincarnation." -comedian David Rasche (2). It is applied with inequity. When O.J. Simpson was accused of a double murder, he fled with a powerful hand gun, a large sum of cash, and a ready disguise. Having massive amounts of money to put into the legal system saved his life. It is far too often the innocent convicted. Take the recent Amanda Knox trial (3). A woman accused of murder and presented to the jury with many Ad Hominem attacks, two years later acquitted, and now Italy wants her back for a third trial. This proves a lack of reliability in the system, which has deadly results if the death penalty is used. Further inequality via politics. Take The Guildford Four (likely best known for the movie In The Name Of The Father), where police literally labeled evidence not to be shown to the defence. After his release eventual, one survivor stated "they gave me £546,000 - for taking me, torturing me and framing me; taking my father, torturing him and having him die in prison; then leaving me sinking in the quicksand of my own nightmares" (4). Expanding #4 above: If the defense in any trial is denied access to key details, those who know of this denial are involved in the fate of the accused. If any of the accused are falsely convicted and die early (for the sake of fairness, we can lower this standard to "are executed"), those involved in the framing are now guilty of knowing involvement in a murder (I shall not accuse the executioner). A prosecutor who finds a key fact for the defense, but withholds it is also guilty of murder should the innocent accused die as a result of their manipulation of the system to secure a win.We know this abuse of the system is regular, even if usually less public. How often is someone found to have framed someone else of a third-party crime, sentenced even equal to the punishment of their victim(s)?Sources:(1) http://www.buzzle.com...(2) http://youtu.be...(3) http://www.nytimes.com...(4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
capital punishment is better alternative to life imprisonment

Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Death penalty has been a way of punishing people since ages. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Death penalty is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections.People have different opinions on the issue of death penalty given to a convict. While some think that death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity.Advantages:1.A person who has committed a crime like killing or raping another person should be given death penalty, which is as severe punishment as the act. It is said that when a criminal is given a death penalty, it dissuades others in the society from committing such serious crimes. They would refrain from such crimes due to fear of losing their lives. This would definitely help in reducing crime rate in society.2.If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him death penalty would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals. It seems to be an appropriate punishment for serial killers and for those who continue to commit crimes even after serving imprisonment.3.Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for the convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death.4.Death penalty is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Some people strongly believe that a person who has taken the life of another person does not have a right to live. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice.5.It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment. These reasons emphasize the importance of death penalty for the safety and betterment of human society.
capital punishment is better alternative to life imprisonment

I shall be arguing the benefits of life imprisonment, over the current implementation of capital punishment. Shall this argument be assumed to be U.S. death penalty, or did you have another nation in mind? Also may we agree to define death penalty as "The legally authorized killing of [the convicted] as punishment for a crime," as opposed to someone committing suicide by cop, or otherwise dying in such a way that was not officially assigned by the court?
The "No Lunch Left behind" is a good Idea

The no lunch left behind program sounds like a good idea but flawed since we will need 27$ Billion dollars a year for this program and we do not have enough money for this. The program was made to help stop childhood obesity, but as if school lunches are the blame for childhood obesity. We have school lunches since 19th century, but the Childhood obesity sky rocketed in the 1970's when the women went to the workforce and no longer had time to make the home cock meals so the microwave dinners, fast food restaurants, and other convenient foods to subsidize home -cooked meals. But as time went on obesity kept climbing so concerned parents took action, and did the American thing to do we sued the bastards. And the court settled the matter, and the schools were forced to provided "healthier" choices for the students, but a vast majority of these students will just throw them away compiling about the taste. So how would a 29$ Billion dollars fund will help end obesity? That is why the whole thing was created and advocated for. We have such a push for a healthier diet at schools but really it starts at home. Instead of spending money on a pointless and hopeless venture lets spend it on more important matters. Due to the lack of time I have at the moment I will site all of my resources at the end of this debate.
The "No Lunch Left behind" is a good Idea

I cannot argue with you much since you have not posted your arguments for third and fourth round. So here i am forced to conclude the true fact that "The no lunch left behind" is a good idea since it has much more advantages than that of disadvantages. This program can make students practice to control food waste in their educational institutions. Thus it can indirectly help to make our world better. So this program is indeed a good one. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . So i enjoyed this debate with you. Once again sorry for not posting my arguments in second round. But i have posted it in the third round. So i thing the voters would check it out and vote accordingly. So i think that i have provided enough arguments that marks the benefits of this act. So hope that everyone would be in the pro side in this debate. .. .. .. .. .. ..
The "No Lunch Left behind" is a good Idea

Sorry,for not posting the arguments for the second round.Some problems with my computer and connecting to net.So here i will say what i wished to say in the second round.Hope you will understand it..... SECOND ROUND As you have said let me open up my arguments.So we all know what is food waste and many of its greater impacts.The food waste can lead to many problems in our world such as that of global warming because these food waste gets converted into a new type of gas called methane gas. http://ecowatch.com... So this is just one of the many problems of food waste to our economy.So it is clear that food waste should be removed from our world.So how can this be done?This cannot be done very simply.So this is where the programs and the other acts come in.These would tell the students not to waste food and would make it a strict order among the children.It would at least make one children understand about defects and practice by not wasting food.As this is promoted it is a fact that the number of children who follow this would increase day by day.So why not they make a try.Why if this is successful?If we do this some money is wasted but the world is saved.But if we does not do it some money is saved but it is the world we are wasting.So it is better to go for the first option and save the world................................ THIRD ROUND So as you have said i am using this round for crosschecking and i am going against your arguments.In your first round you have said that it is a hopeless job and there is only wastage of money.But as i have said above if these money is wasted it would be helpful for the world.Please read a portion of the link you have displayed in the first round....................... { It could be done for about $5 per child, or roughly $27 billion a year, plus a one-time investment in real kitchens. Yes, that sounds expensive. But a healthy school lunch program would bring long-term savings and benefits in the areas of hunger, children"s health and dietary habits, food safety (contaminated peanuts have recently found their way into school lunches), environmental preservation and energy conservation. } So this also says the same thing.So you cannot say that it is a hopeless job.Also the children should be only given what they need.This program does not say that children should eat a lot of things.It only says that students should eat their full lunch and does not make any left overs.If a student has obesity problems then he or she can control the food.The act does not say anything about it.And so we can say that it is not the fault of this program.So why are you going against this? I hope that you would hope that you understood my arguments both in second round and third round.I think that the people must be on the pro side and i am hoping that my con would be back with arguments for third and fourth round.Wish you good luck............................................
Bernie Sanders is not a real socialist

My opponent hasn't made any arguments up to this point so there's not much for me to go off of at this point. I'll just wrap things up by concluding my debate. Bernie Sanders may claim to be a socialist, but when looking at the facts, it's clear to see that this is far from the truth. A real socialist would desire abolition of the current state of affairs - the end of private property, the collective seizure of control of the means of production - and Bernie doesn't want any of this. The changes Sanders desires to enact are a step in the right direction, but ultimately do not constitute what socialism really is. Thank you for considering my argument.
Bernie Sanders is not a real socialist

Well, I gave a fair bit of proof in my first argument, but if you insist I can give some more. Bernie Sanders seems to have either a lack of understanding of what Democratic Socialism is or a willful ignorance for the sake of political gain. This is particularly evident when he notes the social equity successes of Scandinavian countries who have adopted reforms to make people more equal and calls this socialism. These countries are objectively not socialistic; they may implement reforms to level the playing field, but their economies are still capitalistic in that the means of production are still privately held. If Bernie Sanders wants the US to emulate these Scandinavian nations, he should call their political and economic systems what they are: social democracy. I can't say I blame people for assuming Sanders is a socialist. The media loves to hype up this talking point because it's exciting. The idea of a socialist having such political success is something people want to hear about, considering how "socialist" is considered a dirty word by many in American politics. The media knows this, and they drive this point into the ground for the sake of enticing viewers and getting ratings. It wouldn't be quite as exciting if they told the truth: that Bernie is a capitalist in a socialist costume, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Bernie Sanders is not a real socialist

The American political system sees itself flirting with socialism this election cycle more than it has in nearly a century. The dazzling Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has energized masses of voters (particularly young ones) to call for socialist reforms in a fashion few could have predicted. Bernie encourages this by describing himself as a "Democratic Socialist", espousing a brand of economic reforms that promote social equity within the current capitalistic system such as a $15 minimum wage, a single-payer universal healthcare system, and free college. Unfortunately for the scores of voters he has hoodwinked, Bernie is not a real socialist - not even a Democratic Socialist as he claims to be. Socialism is defined as a system where the workers collectively control the means of production with the abolition of private property (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Bernie Sanders does not advocate for either of these things; he wants to keep capitalism and implement reforms to make the current system more benevolent. Under Sanders' economic philosophy, the means of production are still privately held for the purpose of profit. This doesn't count as socialism - not even Democratic Socialism. At best, Bernie is a Social Democrat, but not any kind of socialist, no matter what he and his supporters claim.
Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted

I thank Fires for instigating this debate. The debate I instigated has an HTML 400 error on all my devices save one while this one has no HTML errors. I also thank bsh for directing this tournament and I apologize for taking so long with starting the debate. I accept the debate challenge. My job as con is to negate the resolution, and we will discuss hate speech being permitted in general.
Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted

The BoP is shared, as both sides need to make arguments, and Pro has to affirm that hate speech should be permitted, when Con needs to say that hate speech should not be permitted. DefinitionsHate speech: "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women [1]. "Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [2]. Permit: to consent to expressly or formally [3]. Rules1. No forfeiting2. No trolling3. No kritiks4. No semantics5. No source focusing, main focus should be arguments.6. Have good conduct7. All arguments have to be posted in the debate text8. Sources can be posted in an external link9. No new arguments in the last round (defense and rebuttals of defense do not count as arguments, but rebuttals of normal arguments are counted as arugments, therefore not allowed)10. Punishment for not following these rules will be up to the voters.11. My opponent accepts these definitions as presented. 12. You cannot argue with the definitions 13. Not following the rules gives a loss to that sideDebate structure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Defense/ Conclusion/ SummaryNow new arguments in the first round, and in the last round. (Defense does not count as new arguments) I look forward to the debate! !! Thanks for User to do this with me. Sources[1] . http://definitions.uslegal.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Thank you I would request that you would treat this as more of a formal debate. 1) Zombies don't die after 10 years because they are unintelligent. They die because of decay. 2) In a previous argument I stated that these human farms could take ore than a month to construct. First you would have to cleat an area of zombies or find one of the few spots that have none. You must then construct the shelter and equip it with the necessary gear. You would then search for the remaining humans over millions of square miles and safely transport them back to the farm. You must then wait 9 months for the fist batch of children to come while defending the fort. And finally you must maintain sufficient ammunition over 10 years. No matter how much you can carry, finding ammo can take more time and energy than some can afford. During all this time Most vampires would starve if not be killed by zombies. 3) If you propose to also create Laboratories for the vampires to experiment in then they will surely not survive. First if they where to create the labs in separate buildings than the farms than the vampire would have to divide their forces to defend more locations. If the labs where built into the farms then the farms would take extra time to complete. You also failed to answer my question about dispersing the chemical weapon. 4) I Understand you reference to doctor who. But the flaw in the reference is that first of all The Doctor has the power of resurrection which means that he can become reincarnated. A vampire has only one life and they also lack a Sonic Screwdriver so I think that it is a poor comparison. And if the situation where to follow the guidelines that I posted in round one, then The Doctor would need to fight 7000 Daleks with just one life. 5) If they where cover up completely to shied them selves from the sun they they couldn't use their teeth or claws. Aiming down sight would also be difficult. 6) You said that the vampires could use sniper rifles but many sniper rifles shoot bullets that travel a super sonic speeds and even if fired from a distance the zombies would hear it and follow the sound to its source. http://science.howstuffworks.com... Must I repeat myself? Please construct rebuttals for my other arguments. Thank you
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Simple logic: Can't be smart? You can't make plans. Can't make plans? You die out in 10 years as a zombie. Can be smart? You can make plans. Can make plans? You get cattle farms and feed a small population of humans beef farming them with the cows etc et era. You never die out because you're sexy, awesome and sparkle in the sun... Wait... No that's just fire... Oops.... :) You can plan night attacks, so no worries. Vampires can carry 100 pounds worth of guns ammo etc and have hyper-sensitive hearing and eyes and would even kill zombies with snipers to the head as opposed to shotguns because they could hear them from afar. They would develop head gear with UV protective sun-visors (as opposed to sunglasses) over their balaclava to fight by day. They are super fast, sexy and strong. Just because both vampires and zombies are undead doesn't mean any chemical which corrodes the zombies to a pulp will have any effect on vampires whatsoever, they are biochemically different to a huge degree, the only similarity is their common ancestor; Homosapien. Vampires - 3Zombies - 1As the Daleks, who were severely outnumbered by the Cybermen in Doctor who said to them, "You are superior to us in only one respect" you are better at dying."CM "What is that?""You are better at dying."Also, observe this fine piece of literature from the clip:If we take the near-immortal doctor as what you would see as a vampire and the daleks as zombies in relation to the cybermen as humans there is another relevant quote:Sexy Rose "5 million Cyberman...Easy... One doctor... Now you're scared!"http://www.youtube.com... vampires are AMAZING!!!!!!!!