BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty

I do acknowledge that mistakes are rarely made, and -as you said- most people on death row 'deserve' to be there. However, I must disagree with your argument about prison. Prisoners are not just subjected to uncomfortably, as was suggested, but attempts are made to 'correct' them are made (despite the fact that they rarely work) and, most importantly, are kept away from society which is the intended cause of the death penalty anyway. While I understand it is not am ideal system, and many governments refuse to give out actual life sentences, it is still a better system in terms of cost (especially court costs), the severity of mistakes and possibly less people would be willing to commit murder; to some, a quick death may not be that much a daunting prospect, but spending long years locked up is a much more severe punishment. The links in my previous arguments show that, in many cases, the death penalty is not a deterrent, and people don't care or worry about it. If you look at the USA's crime rate for murders by state, states with the death penalty, generally speaking, have a higher murder rate than states without it (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Obviously then, the death penalty rarely acts as a deterrent. If it does not act as a deterrent, is more expensive, has the possibility of murdering innocent people and is a more inhumane way of dealing with people, why is it still applied? Killing someone who murders in the name of justice, surely contradicts the entire point of it? While I understand that the murderer is guilty of a crime that deserves to be punished, is killing them really justice, or is it just revenge? The small amount of benefits of the death penalty compared to the prison sentence, that is better in most factors, would suggest that it is. If someone is wrongly killed, and later found to be innocent, should the court and everybody else who was responsible for the death of this person be killed as well? Even if it is different to killing somebody in first degree murder, surely directly killing an innocent person should not be tolerated. To summarise, I am against the death penalty because: It does not work as a deterrent (generally speaking), there is a risk of murdering an innocent person, there are other ways of dealing with criminals that offer larger benefits, it is expensive and it is not necessary in the modern world. I would like to end by thanking Kkyhtthebaconking for providing me with an interesting first debate.
The Death Penalty

I find that in your arguments you only presented INDIVIDUAL CASES, why I fully acknowledge that mistakes can be made, I do however not think they happen often enough to fully illegals the practice of the death sentence altogether. As I said before, First degree murder (the main crime penalizable by death) is ONly when the killer thought the crime out and there are large amounts of evidence pointing to this fact. You may see that while there are many cases where the prosecuted appears to be guilty, having a reason or being in the room while it happened, they don't have a visible premeditation of the murder, they did it in the spur of the moment, crimes of passion (second degree, I believe). These people (the supposed "Un-guilty" ones) are prosecuted because they are convenient suspects that "Could have" done it, however someone on death-row is there because there was evidence of him planning a murder, I find that hard to replicate and say he "Could have" planned to kill someone then done so. I know you see the inmates as the cute cuddly teddy bears that may or may not have killed a man but death-row is implicated for a reason, a perfectly sane individual killed a man, and before so thought a bout it and held it in his mind that he was going to kill, this is a man that obviously does not fear or regret murder, even with a life sentence, what keeps him from posing as a threat to the people in jail, that, as you earlier said, aren't completely comfortable there but thats it?
The Death Penalty

I would ask you to look at the links I posted, I think you will find that they prove your point to be, if only partially, invalid. Mistakes are made, and the problem with having the death penalty is that, once you have killed them, they are gone forever. A prison sentence, while still by no means enjoyable, at least means that the person can be pardoned if they are at a later date found to be innocent. It is also a simple and barbaric way of dealing with criminals. It was something that was practiced in the middle ages, has humanity still not moved on? Surely we can find other ways of administrating justice, that do not involve simply ending another persons life, which only achieves one thing; the person is no longer a danger to society. This however, is also easily resolved by a prison sentence, so surely if a prison sentence can achieve the same as what a death penalty can, for a lower cost, why is it not more effective to simply use that method. Many people would find that being locked in a small room, with limited contact with the outside world, more repulsing than a relatively quick and painless death. If someone has done something wrong (in the case of the death penalty, murder) it is right in the eyes of most people that justice should be applied. However, is the death penalty justice, or revenge? Justice has two definitions, according the the Oxford English dictionary, (http://oxforddictionaries.com...), and neither involves anything about killing people. The first definition, which is actually where the second definition originates, says, if you have not already read it, "Just behaviour or treatment". In my opinion, doing something to somebody that is what they have done to somebody else is not acceptable behaviour, especially in modern society. If somebody is accused of burglary, they are not burgled themselves. The same goes for (in the majority of HEDCs) sexual assault, trespassing or assault, amongst every other crime recognised by the law. While I understand that murder is much more serious, surely the same rule applies? Another thing that should be taken into consideration is the message that is given off; most HEDCs around the world do not use the death penalty, such as in Europe -where only Belarus maintains the death penalty- has less murders per 100,000 inhabitants than areas in Africa that maintain it. The comparison can be made using the graph on this page: (http://fullfact.org...). The article reveals a lot as well. While the murder rates would be higher in some countries due to culture or poor application of law, countries that have the death penalty also often have a high murder rate, so it obviously does not act as a deterrent.
The Death Penalty

I acknowledge your stance on the cost effectiveness of the death-penalty, however to be quite frank the argument towards the quilt of the individual person is silly. The death penalty is only used for first degree murder which, by definition means that it was pre-meditated, there couldn't be an argument on wether or not the killer meant to do it when in reality the death penalty is only used on the GUILTY. The death penalty CANNOT apply to the mentally retarded, or generally anyone who didn't plan out the murder before hand so it is set up so that only the people who are dangers to society will be penalized with something so heavy.
The Death Penalty

As a head note, this is my first debate, so please forgive me if I do something wrong. The death penalty, in my opinion, is wrong, and my reasoning for this is simple; it is just not logical. For example, it is very expensive. Although keeping people in jail for life sentances is also expensive, killing people costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. The amnesty international site shows that a legislative audit shows that the median cost of killing somebody is much more expensive than giving them a life sentance in many states of the United States of America (http://www.amnestyusa.org...). A search on google will give many results showing the greater cost as well, if the evidence provided is not sufficient. If it is more cost effective to put them in a prison cell, surely it is more efficient all together. It could be argued that not killing a criminal means they are still a threat to society, and while this is true, there is always the risk of executing the wrong person, or executing someone who either: 1) Was not aware what they were doing or 2) Did not purposefully commit a crime worthy of the death penalty A controversial case is the case of Kesley Patterson, who was executed in 2004, on the 18th of may, aged 50 years old. This report (http://www.txexecutions.org...) shows that Kesley had a severe mental condition. Kesley had, as the report shows, killed before and both times been sent to a mental hospital after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Another similar case is that of Dereck Bentley (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Dereck Bentley was only 19 when he was executed by hanging in the UK in 1953. However, Bentley had not directly killed anyone. He and his accomplice Chris Craig attempted burglary, in which Craig was armed with a gun and Bentley with a knife and spiked knuckle dusters, both given to him by Craig. A resident of a nearby house reported suspicious activity to the police, after sighting Bentley and Craig on the roof of the Barlow and Parker Company warehouse, and the police were subsequently called. To shorten the story, Craig killed Constable Sidney Miles, and recieved imprisonment (he was too young for the death penalty) while Bentley, who had supposedly said 'Let him have it' was hanged. Bentley had a very low mental age, as he suffered from concussion and brain damage, and many people did not believe he should be killed. Bentley was hanged, however, but more than 40 years later, his case was quashed by the Court of appeal. He would have been 65 years old, and likely still alive. This proves that, occasionally, somebody is killed when they have done nothing or little to be punished for.
Are there contradictions in the Bible

1. Originally, when God created Adam and Eve, he created them to live forever. When he said the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die, it is talking about how it is the beginning of a death. Adam lived 930 years because he ate of the fruit. If he didn't, then he would have lived forever. 2. God is all knowing and already knew the answer to the question. He knew that Cain had killed Able. The reason he asked it was for the benefit of Cain, not himself. He wanted to give Cain a chance to repent. 3. God can still be a God of love and at the same time be a God of anger. In other words, he can have righteous anger. He is mad at sin because it goes against his holiness. He get's angry at us and punishes us for our own good. It's like when a father discipline's his son. He does it for a reason. If he didn't discipline us, then well, we would never learn from our sin. We would continue to make the same mistakes time after time. But when God punishes us, it teaches us that what we did was wrong. The fruit of the spirit is love joy peace patience etc. He can be all those things and at the same time be a God of anger. It would actually be a contradiction the other way around. If he wasn't a God of anger than he would not be a God of love because sometimes what is loving is discipline. 4. When it says Cain went out of the presence of the Lord it means that he was not with communion with him any more. It means he turned his back on God. He didn't physically hide himself from God as no man can. 5. The confusion in each of those verses is a different kind of confusion. It is kind of hard to go into, so here is a link to a website that I believe answers this objection the best. https://carm.org... If you take any of the verses out of context, the seem to be contradictory. That is why you need to look at the context in which these verses were written in.
Are there contradictions in the Bible

There are a good 1,000 super massive hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies in your bible to truly make it unreadable. It is one of the main reasons why the christian god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication. 1. GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit. GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years. 2. GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is. (that's really pathetic. If god is god, he should know EVERYTHING and not ask stupid questions like that one DUH) PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. 3. GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god. EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire. EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god. LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing. NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce. 2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it." EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him." 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love. GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. 4. GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord. JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth. 5. GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world. 1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.
Nasa able to accomplish Mars mission

It is true that food developed on Earth, but this took millions of years. Waiting around for plant life to grow isn't feasible, unless Pro is suggesting we plant Earth plants on Mars. Although, this wouldn't work either, as plant life is adapted to grow to Earth's temperature [http://www.ext.colostate.edu...]. Even if this works, Pro needs some way for enough food to grow for many people within 68 days. Pro states there are ways to produce oxygen in a cheaper way. He doesn't go into any detail, nor has he ever mentioned what's wrong with the MIT study. Even though life may have developed on Mars, Earthlings aren't adapted to Mars, making his point irrelevant to any Earthling mission to Mars.
Nasa able to accomplish Mars mission

Ya there is no food agreed initially earth was also was like this but as due to development it grows suitable for living similar things can be done on Mars too even there is thin atmosphere cold but can be suitable for living in a particular conditions more over oxygen is there but not plenty we can even produce that in a possibly cheaper way, origin of the planet was same like earth and it's climate as compared to earth is better for living as shown in recent studies visit links https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Nasa able to accomplish Mars mission

The possibility of life living there doesn't entail that the mission will be successful. It says nothing about procuring food, oxygen, ect. Mars' atmosphere is way thinner than Earth's [http://www.space.com...], that and its distance from the sun makes it way colder than Earth too. The ammonia isn't the only difference. I never claimed it was impossible for life to exist there, I'm claiming it's unlikely for this to happen due to the problems listed in the MIT study, of which Pro has yet to refute.
I am more bad-azz than my opponent

~I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK SO WE CAN ALL GET TO VOTING.~YOU CAN EAT PLANETS?!OHMYGODTHATISSOFUCKINGCUTEICOULDJUSTPOSTAPICTUREOFAPUPPYAGAINBETCH!!!MY CHINCHILLA JUST ATE THE UNIVERSE. AGAIN!!! "My mom is nagging so I need to leave so BYYYYYYY!"....................... ................. ......................................... ........Okay that's a concession.VOTE...(wait for it...)....KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHN!
I am more bad-azz than my opponent

(forfeting the round was on purpose, its part of my argument.)Forgive me sir, but I was on yet another conquest, however this conquest was soooooo fvcking huge, that I was unable to post an argument. I got kina sick of being a viking, so I tried something a bit different.Have you ever been hungry? Like really fVcking hungry? Like holy sh!t I could eat an entire full-sized horse stuffed with a family of refugees and then sautéed in chicken broth over the burning ruins of an animal shelter drizzled with hollandaise sauce and sprinkled with a pinch of paprika? So has I. Only when I get hungry, I make your stupid idiotic bullsh!t hunger look like an anorexic supermodel starvation diet being snack attacked by the offensive line of the 1982 Washington Redskins after they've been turned into undying vampires whose ultra-unquenchable thirst can only be slaked by feasting on the blood of humans.Well, the last couple days I ate fvcking PLANETS!LEAVE!YOUR APETITE SUCKS!Oh ya, and I was unaware you could steal arguments from yourself......http://www.debate.org...BUT OK..... .........................................................................................................................................................................................MY MOM IS NAGGING SO I NEED to leave so BYYYYYY! B!TCH!
I am more bad-azz than my opponent

First things first:. http://www.debate.org...Round 4 there --> Round 2 here. Don't copy-paste arguments with me, young man. Go to your room. ----------OH, BEAUTIFUL! YOU'VE BEEN ALIVE FOR FOUR-THOUSAND YEARS? THAT'S JUST CUTE. NO, REALLY THAT'S CUTER THAN THIS AND THIS IS PRETTY FACKING CUTE. I'VE BEEN ALIVE LONGER THAN THE MOTHERFACKING FACE OF BOE! COME AT ME, BOE! . . .. .. YOU DRANK FROM THE TREE OF LIFE? !WELL THAT'S JUST- "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" I DRANK FROM THIS: THIS TREE GIVES ZERO SH! TS ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS. "I attacked cities! "I ATTACKED SHUT THE FAK UP! !! NOBODY READING THIS CAME HERE TO READ A NOVEL SO DON'T FAKKING WRITE ONE! !! ONCE UPON A TIME I KICKED YOUR AASS! !! THE END. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHT! I BET YOU HAVEN'T HEARD OF THE TIME I TELEPORTED TO THE PLANET SHUT THE FAK UP AND CONQUERED ALL THE KNIGHTS OF NOBODY GIVES A SHET AND EXECUTED ALL THE NE'ER-DO-WELLS WITH MY FINGERNAILS TO THE POINT WHERE IF THEY TRIED TO ESCAPE DEATH THEY'D END UP WITH A FINGER GOING ALL THE WAY THROUGH THEIR BODIES SO AFTER CONQUERING THAT PLANET I DECIDED TO CONQUER THE ENTIRE LYLAT SYSTEM SO I TEAMED UP WITH THE MOST AMAZING INTERSTELLAR MERCENARY TEAM IN THE UNIVERSE STAR FOX TO TAKE OUT THE EVIL EMPEROR ANDROSS ONLY USING A SPOON AND A FEW BAGS OF DOG FOOD UNTIL EVERY RESISTING FORCE FROM CORNERIA TO VENOM BECAME SILENCED BY ALL THE AWESOMENESS EXPLODING FROM MY VERY SKIN CELLS TO THE POINT WHERE THE ONLY PLANET LEFT TO TAKE OVER WAS THE MIGHTY GAS GIANT PLANET OFYOU. SUCK. .. .. .. .. .. .. . AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! !! HAVE YOU EVER SPOKEN GERMAN IN JAPANEESE? ! NO! .HAVE YOOOU EVER AROUSED A WOMAN WITH YOUR BIG TOE? ! NO! . HAVE YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU EVER STOPPED AN ARMY OF DALEKS BY SAYING, "HEY STOP IT"? NOOOO! I DIDN'T FACKING THINK SO! !! AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I DON'T STEAL IDEAS FROM OTHER USERS! !! no offense tho.
I am more bad-azz than my opponent

First things first: My opponent's entire argument is that because his ancestors were badass, so is he.........FALLACY ALL UP IN YO FACE.Now back to the good part.----------AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH YOU'RE ALL ABOUT TO SEE HOW MASSIVE THIS DUMP CAN GET, BEYYYYYYIITCH!!!IT GETSTHIS MASSIVE:. DUMBASS CAR PICKED A FIGHT WITH THE WRONG GINGER!!!............... "But it's just a car.".YOU'RE JUST A CAR!!! I GET MORE ACTION THAN ALL SEVENTEEN JAMES BONDS INCLUDING THE ONES THAT WILL AT SOME POINT EXIST IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. BETCH!!!I'M THE ONLY GINGER ON THIS SITE AND THAT MAKES ME KICKAAAAAAASS."Airmax?"NOT A GINGER."imabench?"STILL NOT A GINGER."Ragnar?"MOST-.LIKELY-.NOT-.A GINGER...."Lannan13?"GET THE SHET OUT OF HERE!!! I AM THE HIGHEST LEVEL GINGER. "But my daddy killed the Romans!"FAK THE ROMANS!!! YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY:WHEN IN ROME, GET THE FAK OUT OF ROME!!!MY PARENTS WERE ALIENS!!! ALIEN PONIES!!! ALIEN PONIES WHO COULD TRAVEL THROUGH THE FABRIC OF TIME AND SPACE!!! YOUR ANCESTRY SUCKS!!! but chariots. .BUT FAK YOU. MY AAAAAASS IS BAD AND YOURS IS NOT.NUFF.SAID.
I am more bad-azz than my opponent

TROLL DEBATE. Resolved: I am more of a bad azz than you. -5 rounds -8000 ch. -profanity allowed -telling the truth not required -'sources' is changed to 'hillarity points' when voting Round 1 for acceptance. This should be fun! ...................__ ............./""/'...'/"""`"" ........../'/.../..../......./""\ ........('(..."...".... "~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _."" ............\..............( Bro Fist :D
Anything is possible

P1 → Humans cannot sense everythingP2 → “A” <-[fallacy] situation is possible without a human sensing itC → “Any” <-[fallacy] situation is possible Your 2nd premise does not really follow the conclusion. Premise 2 is talking about “a” situation, but the conclusion differs about “any” situation, which includes situations that are not possible. For example, “a” situation might mean someone might have locked the car keys in the car on accident, that is “a” possible situation that could be happening right now. However, there is no situation where you’re going to self-terminate before round 3 because of the things said in this round. What man would forfeit his soul over to prove my argument wrong? You wouldn’t. As such, we only know what we see and feel. I know numbers, and you can’t see nor feel them. I know that 2 + 2 = 4, I also know 4x5=20.
Anything is possible

My main point being that our knowledge of this reality is limited. As such, we only know what we see and feel. We only know what our senses will allow us to know. So it is possible for a situation to happen that our senses cannot sense. Simply because there are laws we observed with our senses, does not mean it is impossible the laws do not apply to situations that are unable to be sensed. P1. Humans cannot sense everything P2. A situation is possible without a human sensing it C. Any situation is possible Were my conclusion to stand, it would be impossible to provide a situation that is impossible. Therefore, every situation is possible.