BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should abolish the penny

The problem with pennies as stated in my first argument is that pennies are no longer convenient. Even after that penny in the $0.99 transaction is returned, the penny will most likely end up in a jar dead to the economy not fulfilling its role as currency. The fact that machines such as Coin Star exist that take advantage of the inconvenience and uselessness of pennies to make money off of people just proves my point. Many businesses and organizations recognize the cost of transporting and counting the pennies isn"t worth it. One of these organizations includes a little organization known as the United States Military, where in overseas bases have banned the use of pennies. They also contradict your definition of consumerism as because those who use exact change to pay for items waste the time of those waiting and overall, the rate at which things are sold decreases. There is a simple answer as to what happens after the penny is abolished. There are many countries around the world including New Zealand, Canada, etc. that have gotten rid of their lowest unit of currency and ended up fine. None of these countries have saw high degrees of inflation or drop in charitable donation. The US could easily take after those countries. Also this sort of process isn"t anything new to the US as we went through the same process when ditching the half-cent coin in the 1800"s for the same reasons we should ditch the penny. Abolishing the penny would actually do it good. As the amount of pennies decrease as they are melted, lost, etc. their value begins to increase again. Take a look at the half-cent coin now and they have more buying power than the US dime. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://factually.gizmodo.com...
The US should abolish the penny

I would like to thank Forthelulz for accepting this debate On to my arguments: Argument 1: Pennies are a waste of money As of now it takes 1.7 cents to make a penny when a penny is only worth 1 cent. Because the US makes billions of these per year the costs add up. In 2014, around 8,146,400,000 new pennies were made that year. Take the cost and multiply it by the amount of new pennies circulated in 2014 and you get 57 million dollars wasted every year to keep alive this dead currency. That is money that could be used for better things. Even if the cost of pennies were reduced if they were made of something that represents their true nature like plastic, this does not solve the fundamental problem with pennies. Argument 2: Pennies fail as currency Let me build a scenario, you want stuff from a shop keeper. Rather than bartering like savages, you use money as a means of exchange. That is what money is meant to do. Money is used as means to facilitate the transaction of goods. Pennies fail to meet this function that because they are very inconvenient to use. For example, try to pay for $10 worth of groceries with 1000 pennies in your pocket. Even if you just pay in exact change pennies still prove an inconvenience. When you get to the counter and fumble with getting the right amount of pennies, you waste other people"s time. Pennies not only make transaction of goods more frustrating and inconvenient but in many cases, they also fail as a mean of transacting goods. Say you rather not waste people"s time and go to a machine to take your pennies and return a good or service. However such machines are virtually nonexistent. Toll booths don"t accept them, vending machines don"t accept them, parking meters, laundry machines, or anything else because they aren"t worth the time and effort to count, transport, and store them. The only machine that exists today that accepts pennies is Coin Star. It is but a leech on the economy that takes 10% of your hard earned cash and returns 90% of money that you should already be able to use. Back then, pennies could actually buy things, but the rising cost of pennies and inflation ultimately makes pennies a useless currency and the reason why most pennies end up in jars. Conclusion: Because of the cost of the US penny and the fact that it fails to facilitate the transaction of goods, we should move on and abandon the penny. Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Whether or not Troy Davis should have been executed

Hello, This is my very first debate, I do not know much about the topic but I am aware of the media uproar that ensued to know the basics of what happened. Troy Davis was convicted of killing a cop, the evidence was circumstantial and DNA evidence was NOT used in the case... He sat on death row for quite some time and despite numerous appeals from his lawyers he was executed for the killing... You may state your case
Whether or not Troy Davis should have been executed

Not all cases need DNA evidence to suggest or prove that a particular person committed a particular crime. The Crime he was executed for occurred in Savannah Georgia where Davis assaulted a man with a pistol and officer Mark MacPhil tried to intervene. 7 witnesses claim to have watched Davis shoot officer MacPhil in the heart and face while he was unarmed, and two other witnesses later came forth claiming that Davis had confessed committing the crime. Apart from witnesses, Ballistic evidence was recovered from the crime scene that also implicated Davis. The evidence linked bullet casings found at the scene matched other casings that were involved in another shooting in which Davis was ALSO a suspect. In fact Davis was later found guilty for BOTH shootings. The Defense claimed that since the murder weapon was never found and that DNA evidence was never found were why he should be freed. But Only the Supreme Court can authorize the use of DNA evidence in cases that happened before it became commonly practiced. The Court denied the petition, along with many others, and Davis was then executed....
in our current society, there is no such thing as a non-conformist

Greetings. I will attempt to prove that there are, in fact, such things as non-conformers in our society. First, a definition of the term non-conformist must be established. I ask that my opponent accept: non-conformist - a person who does not conform to generally accepted patterns of behaviour or thought (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) This definition is entirely relevant to the debate, as it is the actual topic of discussion. My opponent would like you to believe that anyone who conforms to anything is a conformist. This is not true, as a definition of conformist reads: conformist - behaving or thinking like most other people rather than in an original or unconventional way (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) If you accept that not everybody thinks or behaves like most other people in society, i.e. criminals, then you accept that not everybody is a conformist and therefore is a non-conformist. Also, so far my opponent's tactic has been a cheap attempt at a semantical argument. Of course according to his parameters, anyone who conformed to anything would be a conformist, therefore making his side of the argument impossible to lose. However, the fact is that there is an actual definition for the term, which seeks to define those in society who do not adhere to social norms. These people do in fact exist. Moreover, if my opponent truly wishes to argue this debate from a semantics point of view, I'd like to introduce another definition of the term which is both highly recognized and of course acceptable: "Nowadays, churches independent of the Anglican Church of England or the Presbyterian Church of Scotland are often called Free Churches. In Scotland, the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church is considered nonconformist." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because of this, it would be impossible to argue that non-conformists don't exist in contemporary society. In conclusion of Round 1, I have proven why my opponent's semantical argument does not hold water. I have also proven why it would be impossible to argue that non-conformists don't exist. Back to ye.
It is the best interests of Muslim refugees in Europe to convert to Christianity

Summary: - Pro made essentially the following arguments: 1. By converting to Christianity, Muslim refugees to European nations may not be expelled, for fear of being persecuted in their original country. 2. By converting to Christianity, Muslim refugees benefit from being prioritarily admitted into European nations. 3. While being converts to Christianity, Muslim refugees may still secretly hold on to their Islamic faith. 4. The rest of Pro’s arguments or rebuttals either rest on these above three or are bare assertions or are empty claims of my concession. - Pro’s evidence for these statements: 1. An article citing this “in Afghanistan and Iran, for example, conversion to Christianity by a Muslim could be punished by death or imprisonment” without any reference, & thereafter noting: “Congregation member Vesam Heydari [‘s] case was rejected because the Norwegian authorities did not believe he would be persecuted as a Christian in Iran”. The article provides two contradictory citations, thus non-supportive as a source. 2. Two articles about Australia’s & Cyprus’ willingness to prioritise Christians over Muslims. One: Australia is not in Europe, thus irrelevant to the current resolution. Two: while Cyprus is technically part of Europe, the 300 Orthodox Christian it is taking do not concern the Muslims (millions of them). Either way, the articles are non-supportive sources. 3. No source. - I made the following rebuttals: 1. One: bare assertion (non-supportive evidence). Two: refugees, by definition, are fleeing from persecution & war. Adding new pretexts of persecution don’t change the status of the refugee one bit. Pro’s argument here may make sense if the resolution is about non-refugees who want to be admitted as refugees. Therefore, evidence, premise & reasoning, Pro’s entire argument is erroneous. 2. One: bare assertion (non-supportive evidence). Two: prioritising Christians over Muslims do not entail prioritising new converts to Christianity over ethnic Christians. Therefore, this argument is a non-sequitur. 3. One: bare assertion (no evidence). Two: the verse I mentioned: “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, […] they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” Clearly states that those who change their religion, even in pretense, unless forced to do so against their will, are disbelievers (i.e. not Muslim). Contrary to what Pro imagines, being a Muslim strictly means believing in the entire Qur’an, according to the Qur’an itself [4]. Conclusion: - By failing the above arguments, Pro’s rebuttals against mine, for which he relies on these argument, fail as well. Thus, Pro’s entire case (arguments & rebuttals) is void. => Vote Con. Sources: [2] Google dictionary. [3] http://quran.com... [4] http://quran.com...
It is the best interests of Muslim refugees in Europe to convert to Christianity

1) Conversion vs Non conversion"Being a slave to the EU’s regulations is evidently harmful of the individual’s Liberty & basic human rights. "Slave? Con is now appealing to emotion rather than ground his arguments in fact and reason. The plain truth is that there ARE benefits of converting to Christianity rather than sticking to Islam, as evidenced by more willingness by countries to take in Christian refugees, and laws banning deportation of people who could be persecuted. Converting to Christianity doesnt make one a 'slave', they are simply exploiting EU laws to better gain entry into Europe. Con has forfeited this point. 2) "Sacrifice""Pro is basically suggesting renouncing one’s identity & beliefs is a trivial matter"Compared to gaining safety, education, economic opportunity, etc. In Europe, than it IS a trivial matter. .. Trading one unprovable religious orientation (Islam) in exchange for another unprovable religious orientation (Christianity) in order to gain access to an infinitely better lifestyle in Europe than you'd get in the Middle East does indeed make one's beliefs trivial. The fact that they can convert right back to being Muslim at any time reinforces this. 3) Safety form deportation "there is absolutely no benefice to changing his religion"Con has dropped this argument outright by failing to see time and time again that converting to Christianity prevents EU nations from deporting converters back to countries where they would be persecuted for converting. "conversion to Christianity would nullify the probability of the refugees ever being able to visit their home or their people"Their homes are GONE and their people are fleeing the countries with them. Is con unaware of just how many people are fleeing the Middle East to Europe?4) They could fake it"Unless a muslim is coerced by force under mortal danger, he is not permitted to renounce his religion"You're allowed to pick and choose which parts of scripture you live your life by. Christians and Jews do it all the time and so do Muslims. If con knew anything about religion he might have remembered that, but he chooses to ignore it simply to reinforce his weak arguments. Con concedes that people could simply fake converting to Christianity to better gain entry into Europe, and still secretly practice Islam like before5) "Mental Integrity""Preserving mental integrity is higher than preserving bodily integrity"Just like literally everything else con has said in this debate, this is an unsubstantiated opinion, not fact. ==============================================================================================There are benefits to converting to Christianity over Islam in gaining entry into Europe that Con has ignored or failed to acknowledge. He has essentially forfeited every argument that was made across the board and has resorted to pandering to emotion rather than use a shred of reason or fact to back up his case.
It is the best interests of Muslim refugees in Europe to convert to Christianity

Case/Rebuttals: 1) I. - Pro offered no counter-argument to my argument. He basically denied the value of Liberty & self determination, which he has yet to prove. Being a slave to the EU’s regulations is evidently harmful of the individual’s Liberty & basic human rights. Pro is suggesting something analogous to black people changing their colour to have better opportunities! 2) II. - Last time I checked, Freedom of Conscience is a basic human right, which Pro sees as valueless! Pro is basically suggesting renouncing one’s identity & beliefs is a trivial matter. This is of course an erroneous assumption, for we can clearly see the self-determination of Man to protect, in the firmest way, what Man stands for. Particularly, the refugees mostly originate from regions of civil wars (Syria) triggered by the people’s desire for Liberty (Arab Spring) by standing for what they believe in. 3) - The term Refugee refers to “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” [2]. A refugee is already fleeing from persecution (or war…), there is absolutely no benefice to changing his religion to fit the status of a refugee, for he is already there. Pro is saying something analogous to a sick patient attempting to wound himself to be admitted into the hospital. Well, he is already sick, there is absolutely no benefice to that injury! But those that ARE from Afghanistan and Iran have an incentive to convert, - One: they are already refugees, they have zero incentive to convert to reach that status. Two: Pro hasn’t demonstrated how a convert to Christianity may be actually persecuted if returned to his country. So converting to Christianity does increase the probability of being accepted - One: the initiative to prioritise Christians here applies, a priori, to ethnic Christians. It doesn’t necessarily apply to converts. There is no guarantee the ethnic Christians will not be prioritised over them anyways. Two: assuming Pro’s alleged religious persecution at home, conversion to Christianity would thus nullify the probability of the refugees ever being able to visit their home or their people. This seems like a cruel option. 4) - Clearly, Pro is clueless of the subject he is entertaining. Unless a muslim is coerced by force under mortal danger, he is not permitted to renounce his religion, even in pretending: * “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief, except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah…” (16:106) [3] 5) - Well, Pro offered no argument & no counter-argument here. Preserving mental integrity is higher than preserving bodily integrity. The whole reason most of these refugees are refugees in the first place is because they & their people chose to stand for what they hold dear (their beliefs) despite the ‘wretched lifestyle’ their choice might bring about.
It is the best interests of Muslim refugees in Europe to convert to Christianity

1) Conversion vs Non-conversion"It is evident that refugees preserving their faith is a superior outcome to them abandoning it"Except it isnt..... Muslims gain no benefit from keeping to their faith, but converting to Christianity does, in that it could prevent the EU from being able to send them back to their home country. Therefore it is NOT evidenct that preserving their faith is the 'superior' option, it is in fact quite the opposite. 2) Sacrifice"People sacrifice their lifestyle, flee from affliction, leave their homes, & then be welcomed by another people only then to feel the need to sacrifice more"Except they would not be sacrificing MORE, they would be sacrificing their religious affiliation to regain that which they lost, namely housing, jobs, safety, stable government, a safe region, etc... They would not be sacrificing more just to join the EU, they would essentially be trading their faith to better be granted safety into the EU, rather than be sent back home where they would have literally nothing BUT their religion. 3) Safety from deportation"converting to Christianity does literally nothing to change that, for better or worse."Except it does, because by converting, it would be that much less legal to deport the refugees back to where they came from since they would be persecuted for their actions. Pro is simply IGNORING the evidence presented so far that clearly indicates that converting to Christianity DOES benefit refugees."most refugees are not from Afghanistan or Iran... Therefore, this argument here doesn’t even apply to most refugees."But those that ARE from Afghanistan and Iran have an incentive to convert, as mentioned by the evidence you continue to ignore. Furthermore, other countries have moved to prioritize christian refugees regardless of which country they come fromhttp://www.buzzfeed.com...http://www.express.co.uk...So converting to Christianity does increase the probability of being accepted no matter which country the refugees may hail from, so Muslims should convert4) No one would really know if they faked it"Professing the Christian faith while secretly holding to the Islamic faith is only permissible under mortal danger"No its not, thats a complete opinion. To claim to be Christian while secretly being a Muslim can be permissible for a number of reasons. Doing so to avoid being deported back to nothing in the Middle East is certainly a good enough reason to fake converting.5) "Persecution""persecution by the majority against the minority, the refugees in this case, probably worse than the one they fled from"LOL. If you truly believe that converting to Christianity from Islam to get into Europe is 'probably worse' than the wretched lifestyle the refugees fled from in the Middle East, than you are incredibly ignorant of what is happening over there.
It is the best interests of Muslim refugees in Europe to convert to Christianity

This is my first debate with the legendary heisabench, I feel exited. Let’s have some fun. :) Case: I. Submission vs. Liberty - It is evident that Liberty (from others) is a superior value to Submission (to others). Given that, in the case of refugees, preserving one’s own faith is but an extension of one’s Liberty, & abandoning one’s faith under pressure is but a form of Submission, It is thus evident that refugees preserving their faith is a superior outcome to them abandoning it. => Therefore, it is in the best interest of Muslims to stand tall & preserve their faith. II. From persecution to persecution! - It is rather gruesome to have a people sacrifice their lifestyle, flee from affliction, leave their homes, & then be welcomed by another people only then to feel the need to sacrifice more of what they hold dear (their own faith) just to be accepted! Rebuttals: 1) Deporting the refugees after converting could technically be a criminal act and illegal - One, deporting refugees is in itself, technically, a criminal act. Refugees are, by definition, seekers of asylum from persecution. In that respect, converting to Christianity does literally nothing to change that, for better or worse. => Therefore, Con’s argument here is completely unwarranted, & its premise pointless. - Two, most refugees are not from Afghanistan or Iran. For instance, between 2014 & 2015, refugees from Afghanistan & Iran constituted less than 10% of the total of asylum applicants in the EU. Syrian refugees alone made up over 20% of these applicants [1]. => Therefore, this argument here doesn’t even apply to most refugees. - Three, regardless of wether these alleged punishments take place or not, if refugees flee with their beliefs from persecution just to renounce their religion thereafter, then there is no point in holding on to it in the first place! 2) No one would 'really' know if they converted or not. - Professing the Christian faith while secretly holding to the Islamic faith is only permissible under mortal danger. Since in EU nations, refugees are permitted, by law, to adhere to their own religion without fear of mortal danger, then any attempt at a fake conversion would be, in Islam, unjustifiable. Particularly, any muslim who knowingly & publicly renounces his religion is an apostate. => Therefore, we can indeed know if these refugees are muslims or otherwise, depending on their adherence to the established basis of the religion. 3) One less argument for bigots to use against the immigrants. - This is, in fact, persecution by the majority against the minority, the refugees in this case, probably worse than the one they fled from. Converting to another religion to avoid displeasing the majority is a blatant form of persecution & religious discrimination, which go against the professed values of EU nations. Sources [1] . http://goo.gl...