BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

C1: The right to life “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” As quoted above, The general consensus in the U.S. is that the primary function of government is to secure people’s rights. Some of which are unalienable. In the United States, life is considered an unalienable right. This is evident by the quote above taken from the Declaration of Independence. How is it that the State can function as a securer of the individual right to life while simultaneously taking a person’s life? Simply put, it cannot. The State does have the right to remove those who violate other’s rights from society. However, the State has no legitimate cause to take away one’s unalienable right to life. This is true even for the worst individuals imaginable. For the State to take one’s life via capital punishment is for the State to function contrary to its primary purpose. Life as a right should remain unalienable. C2: Innocents At least 18 people have been wrongly executed. 18 people have had their unalienable right to life taken from them unjustly. (1) What cost is my opponent willing to pay for so called justice that she is willing to endorse the unjust action of the state taking people’s lives. C3: Cost Trying a death penalty case and the process of carrying it out cost significantly more than life in prison. (2) “the enhanced cost of trying a death penalty case is at least $1.25 million more than trying a comparable murder case resulting in a sentence of life in prison without parole.” (3) C4: A reasonable alternative “In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected.” (4) Overview: The Death Penalty is more expensive than the alternative. Innocent people have been and likely will be executed. The States involvement in the death penalty is contrary to the purpose of government and infringes on unalienable rights. Life in prison without parole is a reasonable, cost effective alternative to the death penalty that gives the desired result without the potential harm the Death Penalty does. Due to the inherent harm of the death penalty and reasonable alternatives, the Death penalty should be abolished. Sources(1) http://www.deathpenalty.org...(2) http://www.forbes.com...(3) http://deathpenalty.org...(4) http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Lyrical Games #2 (16 Bars of Fire)

Thank you fool, you & me, we cool, but please remain in prep schoolYou lack logic unlike George Boole[1], you mule, you broke the 3rd RuleNow ya competency goes under scrutiny--your mental ability to read clearlyDo you really need bifocals or trifocals to correct ya vision imparity? I cannot take you serious, surrendering even before the coin tossDid my furious Shadow make you delirious to forfeit another loss?My mere presence & icy leer infects my opponents with trembling fearYou came near as a marked deer upon acceptance to be pierced by my spearDo you realize you threw yourself into a no-win scenario pile of poo-poo?Hello, Scooby Doo! Not even Capt. Kirk can save you from this Kobayashi MaruMaybe you can use the Force & mind manipulate a few of the older votersBut DDO is like Big Brother, and we motherfhuckers don't like floaters!So heed this wise advice, boy for some Conduct points, but no moreAdhere to Round Four, idiotically tryin' to gain a higher scoreWill likely cause the Judges to declare on you intellectual warAnd scorch you ablaze like a dirty Salem witch whore1-English mathematician; creator of Boolean algebra (pronounced "bool")
Lyrical Games #2 (16 Bars of Fire)

This is a rap competition series hosted by me. I ask that everyone respect the name and do not reuse it under your own profiles. Anyone who wants to participate, just message me and I’ll initiate a personal 1-on-1 debate.Qualifications:An opponent will be chosen by me after the eligible debater is vetted.Must have 10 or more debates.Must have a reasonable amount of your profile completed.Prefer 18 years or older unless your win percentile is 80%+Use comment section to apply or PM me. Rules:1. Battle Lyricsa. insults, put downs, censored profanity* *(limit 5 per verse as to not offend most readers)b. braggadocio, superiority vs. inferiorityc. original compositions2. 16 bars ONE ROUND ONLY 3. Con begins R1 with his First Verse AND MUST PASS R24. Judges select the Opponent of your choice.This is a test of lyrical proficiency & superiority. 1 verse, 16 bars. If you cannot establish yourself as lyrically dominant with an industry standard of 16 bars, then this debate is too complexed for you. Lyrical Masters don't need 3, 4, & 5 rounds to "prove" they are dominant wordsmiths, akin to a skilled sniper doesn't need 3, 4, or 5 shots to annihilate his enemy. 1 bullet should do the job. 1 verse will decide who is the inferior lyricist, who is the superior lyricist.Now enter with 16 Bars of Fire.
Government health and immigration policies should be linked

I respect my opponent's intentions to help women's welfare by encouraging living a healthy lifestyle, however, this does not level with discriminating against people with excess weight, as this is not the proper way of solving the world's health crisis. Also, my opponent's case did indeed have to do with personal preferences, as he states in his first argument that attractive women "would please those British men who are currently obliged to accept overweight girls or remain single," and even in his second argument he states it would be "good for men out on the pull." If the issue wasn't about personal preferences, this would not have been argued, and so, my opponent is flat-out contradicting himself in his two arguments. As I have argued before, barring overweight women from entering Britain's borders would be unfair and unjust. Pretty looks and personal preferences should not come before equality. While it is essential that we do all that we can to encourage exercise and losing weight, we should not force people to do so in order to enter a country's borders. I thank my opponent for this debate. I humbly urge the readers of this debate to vote Con. Thank you.
Government health and immigration policies should be linked

In response to he reasoned argument. I would say this has nothing to do with personal preferences - there are some very pretty plump women out there and some pug-ugly thin girls out there as well (although, that said, you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're stoking the fire, do you? ) Overall though, our prime concern should be women's welfare and by encouraging them to lose weight, by whatever means, the net results will be beneficial to their health - and good for men out on the pull as well. In short, everyone's a winner – please vote Pro. Thank you.
Government health and immigration policies should be linked

In order to win this debate, I must prove that intentions to bar overweight people from entering a country would be unfair and unjust. My opponent has not provided definitions, and so, I will apply my own, and then begin refuting. Should: used to express obligation, duty, etc. [1] Link: associate: make a logical or causal connection [2] My opponent seems to base his argument off of three essential points. He seems to believe we should link these two: 1. So as to lower the number of overweight people in Britain 2. So as to lower the population in Britain 3. So as to ensure more attractive woman in Britain The problem with these ideas is that Britain would be achieving these goals through unfairness. While I agree with my opponent that there is a worldwide weight problem, it would be unfair for the government to require that people enter the country only if they meet a maximum weight limit. People should not be judged for their appearance or weight, and should advocate for themselves if they feel they need to lose the weight. Simply closing the border to those of a certain weight just so as to maintain the number of good-looking people would not be right, and potentially prevent good, intelligent people from entering the county. The same logic applies to the number of immigrants they have in total. Using looks and weight to limit immigration would not be a reasonable act of the government to pursue, and if the population is truly an issue, banning immigration altogether in Britain would be a more fair approach. For men who seek women at a certain weight, it would be very simple to just continue looking. If there aren't any girls in a pub that suit a man's interest, then he should simply keep looking. However, linking health with immigration policies is too discriminatory, the way my opponent is putting it. Women should not be barred from entering a country simply because they wouldn't be attractive in the eyes of men. For these reasons, I urge a Con vote. ==SOURCES== [1] Webster's New World Dictionary [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Government health and immigration policies should be linked

Today, British women are bigger than ever before (1) and, after American and Mexican girls, are now the fattest in the world (2). This is bad news in terms of British women's health and even worse news for British men looking for replacement or supplementary girlfriends. At the same time, the number immigrants arriving in Britain every year is widely seen as being far too high (3). So why not link health and immigration policies and restrict residency visas to fit young women? That way British women would have to lose weight in order to compete with the influx of slim girls from abroad, which would be good for their health. Furthermore, there would be far more sexy women in British pubs and clubs available for selection, which would please those British men who are currently obliged to accept overweight girls or remain single. This type of initiative is called "joined-up government" and has been proven to work well in other areas of the public sector (4) so I urge you to support this important proposal by voting Pro. Thank you. (1) http://www.infomat.com... (2) http://www.nationmaster.com... (3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (4) http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk...
Hitler wasn't that bad

Hitler wasn't that bad of a person. I do not, and I repeat I do not CONDONE all of Hitlers actions, only half of them. I will do my best to justify most of the bad things he did The good, the bad, the HitlerYes, Hitler did invade countries to steal their resources and wealth, what country hasn't? Yes, Hitler did treat Jews,Gypsies and folks alike as second rate citzens. Other countries like to think they are about equality. For example Amercia allowed free black people, but at the same time, the general populace felt that they were lower than them. Hitler didn't do anything new, as it was already established.Yes, I admit Hitler did do intdimiation tactics on the German people, but what country hasn't? Yes, I admit, Hitler did imprison Jewish populace and others into Concentration camp. However look at things such as Gulag, North Korea prison camps, all are very bad in their own ways. Yes, Hitler did attempted to do the complete Genocide of Jews, but he only did when Britain refused to accept Germany complete control of Europe, and they were indeed delberaiting on that. Britain were willing to risk the lives of the Jews, rather than surrender peacefully to Germany.Hitler did great things to Germany. He brought back the Economy and dropped unempolyment from 6 million to 1 million through 1933-1937Hitler did great things in the name of Animals. He banned vivisection, animal conservation, reich hunting law coservation, and Hitler was vegan. He also loved Dogs, if Hitler was really evil, is he capable to love.Hitler also imposed the first Smoking ban
Hitler wasn't that bad

First off, you can"t compare Hitler to other countries or people. Hitler did bad things, and you can"t justify that by saying "Other people have done it!" That"s like murdering someone and defending yourself in court with the argument "What about Ted Bundy?!" It"s not a legitimate argument. Hitler destroyed innocent lives and separated families, and the fact that other people have done the same doesn"t make it any better. Moving on, the fact that Hitler would attempt to wipe out an entire ethnoreligious group is terrible. No sane person would call for the mass genocide of millions of people. These people were neighbors, families, and friends. These were real people who felt pain and cried. They were starved in camps and suffered. Young and old, their lives met a dismal demise. And survivors face mental scars and battles. Some go through nightmares each night. These are true stories and true events that came true due to one man: Adolf Hitler. To deliberately cause these events is downright evil. While Hitler thrived in economy, he also was an incompetent leader in the art of war, despite his charisma. Hitler declared war on the U.S., which was a very big mistake. During the time, the U.S. was an industrial authority and was incredibly more powerful in military strength than Nazi Germany. Of course, 1939-1940 Germany might"ve stood a chance. Most notably, Operation Barbarossa also proved to be one of Hitler"s worst mistakes. The attempted invasion of USSR cost Hitler over 700,000 men, and it ended in failure. Soldiers were not equipped to handle the brutal Russian weather and terrain, and Hitler misread USSR forces. Not to mention, there was Hitler"s failure to see through Patton"s phantom army and also failure to finish off crushing the British. Okay, I do admire Hitler"s love for animals, but it"s worth noting evil people do have the capability to love. Humans are complex, and we hold many identities. We cannot assume that evil people cannot love. And Hitler"s love and passion for animals is great and possibly inspiring, but that does not excuse his actions. How does a smoking ban make you a better person? Also, did Adolf Hitler ban smoking in general, or did he ban smoking in certain places? Please clarify this, as your statement was a bit too vague. After the war ended, Hitler left a divided country nothing but utter shame and a terrible economy for the Germans. Although, Germany quickly recovered through an economic miracle. He might"ve brought Germany great things for a brief amount of time, but when you dig into it, Adolf Hitler was a cruel disappointment to the German people. Hitler was a bad person, and he killed millions, ruined the lives of millions, and very negatively affected our world.
Creation

That's not true. Since we live in a Secular State, and School Systems are State ran institutions then the Government must teach Secular Science. Secular Science is Evolution, why? Well, on naturalism Evolution is a process that is not guided by any Deity. Not saying that Creationism isn't viable, but there's a reason why it's only thought in Private School Systems. Also, it also lacks a lot of credibility in the Science Field due to the people that argue for it. (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc). It also comes down to this, Creationism is clearly implying the God of Christianity. It's implied, and it's never directly stated yet everybody knows it. Teaching that God created mankind in his present form is something that isn't secular science. Therefore it can't be taught in a state ran institution.
Creation

Why not have it taught at a private institution rather than at a state ran school. Doesn't the Bible state that God alone created the earth and every thing in it? If so, why do people openly deny that he doesn't exist? Also, didn't Darwin admit on his death bed that he was wrong about evolution? What does Darwin say about the eye? To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. It is here, that Darwin contradicts himself on natural selection.
Best books ever

Ever since I got my tablet and discovered the joy of reading electronic books from it, I pretty much doubled my reading time. Now I spend hours reading every day. Real books are expensive, But electronic books are free provided that you have a device to read them on and internet to download them. And this brings me to the list of my favorite books: Number 1: Harry Potter series Number 2: Joe Abercrombie First law series Number 3: Jack London books. Favorite one is White Fang Number 4: J. R. Ward Jessica Bird - Books "Fallen Angels series" and "Black dagger brotherhood" series, Favorite book: Rapture Number 5: Dante Alighieri -The Divine Comedy Number 6: Sophocles - Antigone Number 7: Andrzej Sapkowski - The witcher series Number 8: Ursula K. Le Guin - The Earthsea Cycle Number 9: J. R. R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings Number 10: Homer - The Odyssey, The Iliad Number 11: Clive Staples Lewis - Chronicles of Narnia Number 12: Translation by Seamus Heaney - Beowulf Number 13: George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire Number 14: Aeschylus - Prometheus Bound Number 15: Euripides - Electra and maybe other Euripides works I still didn't get to read So basically, All you have to do is to name a few books which you think are better or equal to these 15 I listed.
Best books ever

Number 1- Alex Rider series Number 2- Ender's Game Number 3- On the Come Up Number 4- Copper Sun Number 5- Okay For Now Number 6- Diary of a Young Girl- Anne Frank Number 7- Dead End in Norvelt Number 8- Out of the Silent Planet Number 9- Things Fall Apart Number 10- The Perfect Storm Number 11- Simon Vs. The Homosapien Agenda Number 12- Dear Evan Hansen (book form) Number 13- Born to Run Number 14- Hunger Games series Number 15- The Art of Racing in the Rain Also I really like some of the books you put down on your list- so disclaimer- I am not saying I don't like the books you put down.
Medical Marijuana

My condolences to my opponent for whatever has rendered him unable to post an argument. However, thus far, my opponent has provided absolutely no evidence, has failed to validly defend my attacks upon his case, and has made no attacks on my case. He has failed to prove that the pros of legalizing marijuana outweigh the benefits of the status quo, which works to solve virtually all problems posed by my opponent while additionally keeping society free from the dangers of increased distribution of marijuana for recreational purposes. Taking this into account, the only logical vote is a vote for Con. Thank you.
Medical Marijuana

Scientists and mentally-ill victims of bipolar disorder have independently made the discovery that cannabis can improve this medical condition, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote). Moreover, 30-40% of patients with bipolar disorder are not consistently helped by or CANNOT tolerate standard medications. Marijuana helps terminally ill people to have a better life because smoked marijuana can give rapid relief from great suffering to some patients, quickly improving such patients' comfort and mental outlook. The terminally ill can still maintain their human dignity and suffer less. Legalized marijuana would provide patients with a quality drug to help their pain. This would make the usage of drug controllable, ingredients would be well known and experts would determine the appropriate healing quantity. Legalization for medical purposes is also necessary to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to invest in further research of marijuana's healing properties.
Medical Marijuana

Per the Advanced English Dictionary: Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as (but not necessarily limited to) those mentioned by my opponent. The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make 'medical marijuana" contain only three percent THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of in taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. But wait: the (few) good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. If the harms can be lessened, why legalize a destructive alternative that is in all cases inferior and will be abused? Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Of course not, because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? The affirmative plan holds no greater utility, and accordingly, it is your duty to vote Con. Criteria: For Pro to win, he must prove that "medical marijuana" has some sort of benefit that is not matched by currently-approved THC-utilizing drugs, and must further prove that these said benefits outweigh the benefits that the FDA-approved drugs hold over marijuana. Sources: http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.usdoj.gov...
Affirmative Action is immoral and should be against the law because it is a form of discrimination

you may want to post this debate again, because i'm not completely for affirmative action as you may have wished. i'm of the opinion of the supreme court, o'conner writing: generally, affirmative action should be illegal. for all the reverse discrimination reasons you cite. if possible, most of the time when there's racial profiling going on, instead of reverse discrimination, simply using anti-discrimination laws would work more effectively. what must be shown is a substantial discrimination occuring in your area etc. granted, this is often difficult to show... but that at least allows less reverse discrimination and only allows it when it's blatant. i dissent from scalia's dissent. he says that being oppressed racially is simply life. it's not the government's job to fix this stuff. my problem with this is that it when there's blatant discrimination, the pros of advancing the minority probably outweight the cons of a few reverse discriminations.
Affirmative Action is immoral and should be against the law because it is a form of discrimination

Whenever a college or university chooses an ethnic, foreign, or minority student to receive one of the limited number of acceptances for that academic year, that school is simultaneously and necessarily creating less opportunity for a student from a majority cultural group (ex. a Caucasian) to get into that school. The choice is made, admittedly so when speaking of Affirmative Action, on the basis of race or ethnicity or gender. Therefore, you are depriving the Caucasian in that example the same advantage the institution is handing to the other student. That, clearly, is discrimination. The definition of "discriminate" makes this obvious and undeniable. Attempting to rectify the discrimination of the past by counter-discriminating is hypocritical, and does not serve the notion of equality. Affirmative action should illegal.