BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
capital punishment

I will provide counter-arguments to my opponent's one argument from Round 1, and will save my own arguments for Round 2. COUNTER-ARGUMENTS: ---------------------------- My opponent discusses the death penalty throughout his argument, but only really provides one argument to support it: - It is a consolation to the victims' family that their loss has been noticed by the Government, who has taken steps to "inflict almost the same horrors upon the criminal. " I will provide 2 counter-arguments for this assertion: 1. Your argument rests upon the assumption that it is horrific to the criminal to be put to death. This is not the case. As long as it is done painlessly, the death penalty is over before it begins. Sure, it must be psychologically punishing to know, to the day, when you will die, but this is the only punishment the death penalised prisoner will receive. Once the injection has been made, the criminal slowly fades to an unending sleep. The prisoner will now Rest In Peace, so to speak. There will be no further pain or suffering, no further thought put to the perhaps unspeakable crimes the prisoner has committed. My opponent may argue that the deceased can no longer enjoy a nice sunset or watch their kids grow old, or enjoy life in general. The point I am making is that dead people are unable to reflect on the past and realise what they are missing out on, while someone doing life imprisonment can certainly dwell on these things. Hence they are being punished far more harshly. Now consider someone given life imprisonment. There is every possibility and indeed likelihood that this person will be punished, mentally and physically in prison. They will be forced every day to think about the crimes that landed them in the situation they are in, and a guilty conscience can often be akin to torture. They will be forced to eat food they don't particularly enjoy, as opposed to the deceased who will never again be forced to do anything they don't want to, and will not be able to consider what he/she is missing out on. The prisoners will be forced into laborious jobs they don't enjoy, and again this obviously can't be said of the deceased. I could go on but I feel I'm rambling. My point is that someone put painlessly into an eternal sleep has hardly been punished at all, and certainly much less than someone put into prison for life. 2. The frame of mind my opponent has presented always reminds me of Nietzsche's quote that (very loosely translated) when one is arguing monsters, one must make certain not to become one in the process. If murder is wrong, murder is wrong, no matter who's doing it. My opponent must prove that murder is not necessarily wrong, or at least not in the case of revenge. I'll leave it here for Round 1, thanks to my opponent.
capital punishment

i am totally in favour of the capital punishment that is meted out to those that are guilty of heinous crimes. people those who are against capital punishment might say that the government does not have the right to take something that it can not give back. but i say that who has given this right to the criminals?? i am not saying that the government should go about declaring death sentences to every second criminal. but instead it can look into what were the ccircumstances that forced the perpetrator to resort to such a lowly act. and most imporatntly if not for any crme but a person guilty of rape should be given death sentence without any delay. this is the worst crime a person can commit and makes the survival of the victim and the immediate family miserable. for an adrenaline rush of 5minutes its too exorbitant a price to pay. all said and done its known that no punishment can help in cleansing the crime and bringing the deceased back but still its at least a consolation to the victims' kins that their loss has not gone unnoticed and steps have been taken to inflict almost the same horrors upon the criminal.
Belief is not a choice, but only a result

Christianity's biggest weak point for me lays in the fact that it assumes we can make a choice to believe in and have faith in God. But I contend that belief is not a choice: it is a result. We can only take action to reach such a result, but that result is not guaranteed. Perhaps I can clarify what I mean by pointing out another example of a result we see in our experiences. Happiness, is a good example. Despite what we might think, we cannot just decide to be happy. We can only take some action to achieve it as a result. One such action might be working hard in school to get a good job we love, etc. By doing this action, we may achieve happiness, but it"s not until we take action that we get it as a result. It"s important to note that doing this action doesn"t guarantee the desired result. We might work hard in school, get a good degree, and find a terrible economy that prevents us from getting that job and thus fail to be fulfilled with happiness. Belief works in the same way. We cannot simply decide to believe in something, we can only take action with the intent on reaching belief. The result is not a choice. The result is also not a guarantee. Therein lies the problem. In order for Christianity to have any possible basis, we must all have the ability to believe in it. And quite frankly not everyone has this ability. The only way to actually attain belief is to look at the evidence (take action) and hope that there"s enough to convince you enough to at least have faith. Remember, we're only talking about faith so PROOF is not required, but evidence is. For the most part, this consists of the Bible, scholarly research and interpretations from religious leaders. But this evidence must also be weighed with evidence from the null that goes against the credibility of Christianity (other religion lineages, contrary scientific evidence, etc.). For me, I've tried intellectually finding enough evidence to force my mind to cross into belief but have been convinced of the null in the process. I cannot accept the evidence as convincing enough to facilitate the desired result of obtaining belief. If God were real, he would not set this up as a possibility because everyone is said to have the opportunity to follow God. This poses a problem that is fundamentally damning to Christianity"s veracity. This is why belief/faith as a concept, poses a fatal flaw to veracity of Christianity.
Belief is not a choice, but only a result

It"s interesting that you take greater interest in premise two 2. Christianity requires everyone to be able to believe in it to be valid, whereas I take greater interest in premise 1. Belief is not a choice, but only a result of evidence. I suppose my interest in premise 1 comes from the fact that every Church I have ever attended believes that Jesus is the only path to God (premise 2). As far as premise 2, I did not imagine debating this premise when I crafted this debate because I believe those that view Christianity as abstract as you do are in a great minority. I suppose I"m not equipped to match your historical knowledge so I"ll take a more logically based approach. If you claim to be Christian and not require belief in Christ as the savior, what differentiates you from the Jewish faith? Also, by what standard are we to interpret the many versions of the Bible? Who is to know which one is accurate? I don"t really want to go down the road and discuss the veracity of the religion per se, I"m really more interested in steering this debate to address if belief is a choice or a result. So, since you still say you disagree with me, let"s argue this with the point of view of those Christians who do believe Christ is the only way to God. I realize this is not your position but until I further research your stance on premise 2 I don"t think I can provide a valuable discussion for you. Side note, I"m gone for the weekend so if you be so kind as to delay posting your response until close to when it ends I"d appreciate it.
Sith In The Sith era and Old Republic were much stronger then the new sith, and jedi in StarWars.

Although the Old Sith were amazingly powerful, they were not better. Here are my contentions. 1. Power can corrupt people, especially Sith. Such an example is Darth Nihilus. He could suck the force out of a whole entire planet, and that is one of the most extravagant ways to display power. But although his power was massed, he NEEDED the force to survive. It was his food. If he didn't have the force feeding him, then he would die. Now you could say the same with Palpatine and his misfortune of looking into the future. But his power was more intellect. He had a back up plan. He had clones. He had his ongoing spirit. He trained secret apprentices. What did Darth Nihilus do? "Let's wander around the galaxy and eat some things. And if something goes wrong? Well, things won't go wrong." The Sith of the Old were more force powered. The Sith of New was more intellectual and wise. They usually had a back up plan. They usually had a more stable base, and a plan B. The Jedi were not a people of power, but they always came back to their normal selves again. 2. The lineage of power proves me (CON) to be correct. Bane was an old Sith. He ruled by the Rule of Two. It eventually led up to Palpatine training Maul, then Dooku, then Vader. The Jedi are involved in this. Palpatine was stronger than Bane according till the Rule of Two. Mace Windu could beat Palpatine. Yoda could not. But Yoda could beat Vader, and Obi-Wan could beat Vader. And Vader could beat Mace Windu. Obi-Wan could beat Maul, but Maul could beat Qui-Gon. But Qui-Gon could defeat many federation droids. Aegen Kolar, Saesee Tiin, and Kit Fisto could not beat Palpatine, but they survived the Arena Battle on Geonosis. So did Ki-Adi Mundi. Yoda could beat Dooku, Anakin and Obi-Wan could not. Luke could beat Vader and vader could beat Palpatine, and Obi-Wan could beat Vader and Vader could beat Obi-Wan. Now, if we look at this from one general view, we see something that is very clear. Everyone is REALLY, REALLY powerful. And since it all leads back to Palpatine being more powerful than Bane, it is perfectly logical. The Old Sith NEVER had a connection like this. The Old Sith were stagnant. They were not organized. They had never taken over the Republic. They had many opportunities and they came really close many times, but it never happened. Then the New Sith come along and one plan of one dude took over the Republic. Next round I will rebuttal all my opponents' arguments and make my other claims.
Sith In The Sith era and Old Republic were much stronger then the new sith, and jedi in StarWars.

Oaky, If youve played KOTOR I or II and/or have read the Starwars books from the old republic or the sith era, then you should know that the anchiant sith lords such as Darth Reaven, Niulus, Bane, Zannah, and Kopecz were eaisly ten times as powerful as the new sith such as Darth Vader, Sidious, and Count Duku. Weather it was a matter of lightsaber mastery, or command over the force, any one of the old sith lords could easily do away with Vader, but dont get me wrong, I'm no Vader hater, he's one of my favorite charecters, I just know the truth and I aint afraid to teach it. I look foreward to hearing your response. :)
Texting and Relationships

Con: "i believe texting cause a whole lot of negativity in relationships." It doesn't have to. I use the little glowing bastard to my advantage. Did you know that what and when you text back will determine where your relationship will go? The book "Flirtexting" cleverly navigates the acts of flirting and dating in these modern times. It's a handbook that coaches you on the subtle art of sending short and sweet texts, with slight innuendos, to have your crush dying for more. Sexting while in a relationship can make you fall in love all over again. https://www.amazon.com... ----- Phone Sex- It can start with a simple question like: "What are you wearing?" Other times it starts with a focus on breathing or a loving, but stern, command. And sometimes it starts with a simple "hello" and an ordinary conversation. No matter how it begins, once it's underway you'd better have unlimited minutes. If you're having phone sex, there's no telling how long the call will last or how hot and bothered you'll get. If you're feeling even the least bit weird about spicing up your airwaves, know that a"survey by Cosmopolitan"said that 85 percent of guys would like their girl to give it to them good over the phone.
Colleges and universities are justified in considering race in admissions decisions.

A bit disappointed that Pro decided to forfeit, seeing as how the debate was going rather well. In any case, I don't have any new rebuttals to bring up. I've rebutted Pro's entire case in Round 3. Personally, I believe that pursuing equality has two different end goals. One is equality in opportunity, the other is equality in outcome. We often strive towards equality in opportunity, because it is more fair. After all, if people make better use of their opportunities, and reap better rewards, they do deserve to enjoy these rewards compared to those who didn't and chose to slack off instead. This relates to this topic because implementing racial quotas for colleges is effectively guaranteeing equality in outcome, which isn't fair to those who have worked hard and tried to get into colleges. What we can do, that is much fairer, is to guarantee equality in opportunity. By enabling even the poorest of families to have their child study in a decent school with enough resources, we ensure that nobody who is willing to work hard is disadvantaged. Helping the poor should be racially blind, and that, I think, is the best solution to naturally achieving equality in outcome.
Colleges and universities are justified in considering race in admissions decisions.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
It would better if women had 3 breasts as opposed to 2!

You're saying this woman, http://www.latexmaskcentral.com... is about as attractive as this creature? http://membres.lycos.fr... My statement enhances upon the evolution of women's breasts. 3 is greater than 2. A woman having 3 breasts is something that certainly seems feasible for a woman. When one thinks about it, there is room for a 3rd breast anyway. 3 breasted women would give men more then they would normally expect from women, so much so that going back to 2 would be a letdown. There are all sorts of abnormalities in this world, and to think them freakish would be discriminating. For instance, I once knew a girl with 6 fingers and she was as great as any other girl that I knew. People often shy away from what they don't know or understand. This would be the main reason why someone wouldn't go for a 3 breasted woman. It would take a little time perhaps, but eventually it would catch on. What's wrong with having more woman to love?
It would better if women had 3 breasts as opposed to 2!

Women should have 2 breasts. There is a good evolutionary reason for this number of breasts as opposed to others. Primarily the breasts and the larger breasts than other apes in humans serve as a sexual cue hitting of the buttocks (something men are already attuned to be attracted to) from the front while bipedal. Hence the proverbial titman and assman for the general subtle difference in the attractive qualities thereof. Do you have some glamorized version of that movie in your head? Were you like twelve and saw some breasts and were so excited you didn't realize how freaky that was? That three breasted women was about as attractive as that weird blob of a guy in that other guy.
It would better if women had 3 breasts as opposed to 2!

Let's quickly recap the bare bones of the argument as presented thus far. So in the end what arguments do we have in favor of three breasts: -- Attractive three breasted prostitute in Total Recall. * She was not attractive. * She was a mutant. -- There is room for an additional breast. * This actually depends on the placement of the Breast. Women (and men) with polymastia typically do not have an additional breast in the center of the chest. Also, not all women have enough room to allow for such a breast in that location. -- Men would get more than they expect. * Men could get the same result by engaging the services of that big handed prostitute with the notable Adam's apple rather than the one with three breasts. I am perfectly in favor of the system we have now. If a woman actually wanted a third breast she could have one implanted. However, largely there's no need for additional breast(s). Breast numbers are typically determined by the number of children the mammal in question has. For example, dogs have larger litters and thusly have more breasts (almost always an even number). Humans typically have one child at a time, with the occasional set of twins. The size and shape of the breasts serve secondary evolutionary reasons. Hinting of sexual cues, enabling the feeding of offspring, and due to standard developmental reasons. One of the comments on this thread is that three breasts would be useful for triplets. I contend that three breasts would be fairly excessive for the *typical* one child. Further, the simultaneous feeding of three infants is nearly impossible with only two arms. Further, during breast feeding it is common for the other breast(s) to lactate as well. One additional breast doing this is rather odd. Having two additional breasts do this would be annoying. Two is the optimal number of breasts for humans to possess.
It would better if women had 3 breasts as opposed to 2!

I'll tell you what Tartarize. I will do some research by conducting an informal survey by asking random women that if they had the chance to have 3 breasts, would they do it? At some point, I will post my results in the add comment section in case anyone cares. In the meantime for the sake of the debate, this topic certainly may seem a bit disturbing, perhaps unintentionally sexist as well. So that comes with the territory of a debate. And for that I apologize to those whom I may have offended. No doubt men that glanced over the topic had smirked with a sense of curiosity at the thought of it. With that stated, this was a completely valid position to think about, despite the aforementioned condition that exists (polymastia), and the fact that these women are being labeled with the derogatory term (mutants) being used, I believe if given the chance some women would go for the 3rd breast. And there are enough plastic surgeons out there to perform the task as well. So people break from the norm, what else is new? By the way, if the topic was so silly, you certainly were eager enough to bite at it. In which case, I guess that makes you silly as well. That's not so bad.
It would better if women had 3 breasts as opposed to 2!

There are actually women with three breasts. It's a disorder called polymastia. http://en.wikipedia.org... It isn't 50% more ogling, or 50% additional breast milk... it's a biological mistake. Mutants aren't sexy. And, frankly, breasts are. Your argument is sexist, silly, and a bit disturbing. Women should have the breasts they want, and most seem remarkably happy with two. You seem overly concerned with what breasts mean to men, how about a little consideration to what breasts mean to the women who have them?
Brian Griffin is cognitively dissonant in regards to religion

Socialpinko may have run into some unexpected holiday trouble, a completely understandable thing to happen this time of year. That aside, you’ll remember from my first round that I set out to defend four independent arguments that if any were more plausibly true than false, would render the resolution as stated more plausibly false or inscrutable.My first argument was:(1) We have no psychological data to conclude the presence of cognitive dissonanceMy second argument was:(2) Cognitive dissonance may not obtain In the Family Guy Universe.My third argument was:(3) Atheism can still be a consistent belief in the presence of Brian’s experiences.My fourth argument was:(4) Cognitive dissonance is a weak explanatory hypothesis.So far as I can see, my opponent has not adequately addressed any of these points and thus, with the compressive power of these four independent arguments, we have an incredibly strong cumulative case against the theory that Brian has exhibited cognitive dissonance.Since my opponent was not able to furnish a last round, I will not belabor the points and will leave it now up to the judges to decide. I would like to thank my admirable opponent, socialpinko, for his having instigated this debate. May we meet again in the future!InquireTruth
Brian Griffin is cognitively dissonant in regards to religion

Brian Griffin is a fictional character on the show Family Guy[1]. On the show he is known for being an atheist. I will argue that his being so contradicts past experiences of his over the show's course.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance/clarification. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.===Sources===[1] http://familyguy.wikia.com...
Ladainian Tomlinson is the Best RB in the Game today

ok that may be true, but brian westbrook is on a team with a struggling defense so he is never on the field, and by the time he is on the field they can not run the ball because they are down by too much,lt has a good defensive that makes plays and allows for lt to get at least 20 touches a game, westbrook is the most underrated rb in the game, if you ask a defensive player one guy who is dangerous he is certainly one of the first people mentioned. lt is also not a fully developed pass blocker and some times isn't the greatest leader, if he does not get the ball he cries. Brian Westbrook has stuck it out in philly and has been able to play great and be a leader in tought times in philly, westbrook also carried the eagles to a superbowl several years ago, until lt does that, then he can be considered the leagues best rb
Ladainian Tomlinson is the Best RB in the Game today

Yes that is very true westbrook is a good blocker... Also that LT can be replaced but noone on that roster has big enough feet to fill his shoes... brian westbrook has a great offence line but yet he still don't do as good as LT and why is that? I have more reason's but i have to go to my wrestling tournament so lets see what you can bring to the table for round three...
Ladainian Tomlinson is the Best RB in the Game today

your argument of brian starting 3 yrs after college, is irrivelavant to the fact that he is the best rb in the game right now. Brian may not score, but without him the eagles are nothing, if you look at the chargers, although lt is a great rb, he can be replaced by michael turner, due to their great offensive line and the blocking of the best full back in the game lorenzo neal. Speaking of blocking, westbrook is one of the best blocking backs in the game, making him extremely expendable on third down plays
Ladainian Tomlinson is the Best RB in the Game today

that is becaus look at philly they recervers arnt the greatest they dont have a Antonio Gates or Vincent Jackson, or Chris Chambers that can catch the ball so they don't have to go to LT so much. Also LT started right out of college...Brian didn't start until his 3rd year. Westbrook never scored more than 7 TDs in a season. LT has scored over 10 every season. There are more reasons but i don't want to run out of ammo in 2 rounds.