BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agent 47 would kill Jason bourne in a fight..

I'll make this short and sweet by Introducing Agent 47 http://hitman.wikia.com... Agent 47 is the main character in the Hitman series, of which four games have been released to date. An assassin by trade, he is consistently recognized as the world's deadliest, most discrete and skilled assassin (many of his kills are stealthy enough to completely convince people that they were accidents). He has been known to work under aliases and adorn disguises during missions; the earliest example of an alias is Tobias Rieper (a play on 'Grim Reaper'), among many others. Even though Mr. 47 has a global reputation, he doesn't really seem to show much concern towards it. In his words, "The best assassin, in my opinion, is the one who doesn't appear to exist – or at least one considered only an urban legend." "he is consistently recognized as the world's deadliest, most discrete and skilled assassin." He is so Cool!!!
life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penalty

There are bad people out there who deserve to die do not get me wrong. However, there is no doubt the death penalty withholds too many risks and has too many cons to be considered preferable. These criminals most likely want to die as well, so part of their punishment should be suffering in prison. No one wants to spend the rest of their lives in prison but they still have opportunities to stay connected with the outside world through family visits and everyone has the opportunity to change. Even if they don't change they are under the control of the prisons and will die there. Saying he doesn't deserve to live is probably true but it is better to make him suffer then let him take the easy way out. Overall it is a better choice for capital punishment.
life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penalty

That is a lot of money to be killing 13 people but so many more are facing death because of their hideous crimes. Lavere bryant, a habitual offender for sexual assault, murdered two 20 year old family dollar tree employees and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. the family of the victims said and I quote " I hope you feel the fear and torture you put them through, every moment of every single day, as long as you rot in prison for eternity, and when you rot in hell" . If Bryant was sentenced to the death penalty it might have given the family more closure and would have been expensive but is a powerful deterrent for other murderers and habitual offenders. not only does it provide justice but it also contributes to the problem of overpopulation in prisons today. With over population there are a lot of violent and dangerous people that are let free after a couple years in prison because of over population.
life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penalty

When you state "A life for a life" then that opinion is only held by some families of the victims. However, many families are already suffering and the long process that comes with the death penalty would extend their suffering. Locking up the prisoner will allow closure for most families. Also, this avoids putting the criminal in the headlines and focuses on the family and loved ones of the victim and the community rather than the crime and what happened. Lastly, using life in prison without parole would save millions of dollars that could be spent on violence-prevention efforts, solving unsolved cases, and increasing victim services (where the focus should be). For example, California has spent more than $4 million on capital punishment, which is $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out.
life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penalty

Even though the death penalty is more expensive it is an extremely powerful deterrent. When put on death row prisoners and lawyers do everything they can to stay out of death penalty because they want to go to prison even though they don't know what it is like. Most people would rather die then go to prison because 42 out of 100,000 people are murdered in prison and 4 percent of people report one or multiple situations where the have been sexually assaulted. Prison is also consider hell to many of the people sentenced to certain crimes against the "code". If a pedophile is sent to prison then he is beat relentlessly or often times killed because sexually assaulting little kids is against their code. the death penalty also gives the victims families closure for the crimes they have committed. A life for a life.
Kalam Cosmological Argument for God is Invalid

Thank you, Mecap, for issuing this challenge. I look forward to a competitive and thought provoking debate. I'll begin by admitting that Pro's argument is indeed valid. It's fairly simple, and formalized it runs thus: (1) P → Q (2) Q → ~P (3) Q (4) ~P (5) G → P (6) ~G Now let's consider the Kalam argument. In sentential logic: (1) What begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe began to exist. (2) Therefore, the universe has a cause And formalized: (1) P → Q (2) P (3) Q The Kalam argument is logically valid as well. So it appears we're at a standstill: we have an antinomy. An antinomy exists when two arguments with contradictory conclusions each appear to be definitive. But wait, is this really an antinomy? Well no, actually. I left out a crucial bit of information. An antinomy only occurs when conflicting deductions are reached from the same theoretical standpoint. Pro is arguing from different causal premise. Consider the following arguments, each of which has a different causal premise: (1) If I'm in a particularly vindictive mood tonight, then God exists. (2) I'm in a particularly vindictive mood tonight. (3) Therefore, God exists. (1) If Mecap is a turd who votebombed one of my debates, then God exists. (2) Mecap is a turd who votebombed one of my debates.[1] (3) Therefore, God exists. (1) If Mecap is a moron who wasn't very careful with the phrasing of this resolution, then God exists. (2) Mecap is a moron who wasn't very careful with the phrasing of this resolution. (3) Therefore, God exists. I could go on, but you get the point. It might be worthwhile now to consider the definition of "valid." Valid: so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.[2] This seems to be the case in all three arguments I presented, as well as with William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument. They are perfectly valid inasmuch as they are so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. Pro's only real objection is to the first premise of the KCA, but bear in mind that an argument with false premises is not necessarily invalid. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "a deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."[3] Thus, it seems that even if Pro's critique of P1 is correct, the argument is still perfectly valid and I win the debate. Conclusion: At best Pro might demonstrate that the Kalam argument is unsound, however, this does NOT mean that it is invalid. Perhaps Pro should be more careful next time with the phrasing of the resolution. Thanks for reading, and vote Con! :) 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country

I'm going to be brief to save you some time. Pro's arguments have no relevance to the debate topic. His arguments are also unsupported by reliable sources. His arguments are fallacious (correlations don't prove causation). And his arguments are too vague - and his definition of conservatism unclear. The burden of proof is on my opponent, as the instigator and Pro position. He has not met that burden with the arguments offered. I'm not gonna waste more of your time getting into the details. Previous rounds discuss the problems Pro also hasn't responded to my affirmative case sufficiently. So I win this debate on those grounds too.
Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic

Now, for this debate, I will be looking at two important factors on why Garfield is indeed superior to Calvin and Hobbes. 1. Simplicity/Relatability 2. Impact on the World 1. Simplicity/Relatability. There's a reason why millions of people read the Funny Pages to find Garfield, Jon, and the other characters of the strip. It's because they're simple. A cat that loves lasagna, hates Mondays, and is obese may seem like a boring concept, but the premise works. Many a cat owners relive Jon's struggle of having to feed the damn cat, and have it be a complete d!ckhead at the same time. It's relatable. It speaks to people. A story about a tiger that comes to life and travels with an 8 (or however many years) old kid through some crazy sh!t, not as relatable. The comic strip of Garfield was made intentionally for the millions of cat owners that didn't have the same representation as dog owners when it came to comics and stories. So, one was made. And the simplicity of it all is what makes Garfield such a timeless comic, opposed to Calvin and Hobbes. 2. Impact on the world Now, I'm not debating with you that Garfield isn't funny. In fact, doing my research I found proof that it wasn't even made to be funny. The creator made it to combat Snoopy and others on popularity.(1) Does that make it any worse. No. Because it worked. Due to the simplicity of the character, Garfield and all the characters in it was a huge success. As you said before, you caught a strip of one on a newspaper you were reading. It's everywhere. You can't go two feet without either seeing a Garfield poster in a school, a strip in the newspaper, or a goddamn movie. You can't say the same for Ol' Calv. And the genius of the man who created Garfield, to make it simple in order to create a worldwide phenomenon, and it working, is why I believe that Garfield is a superior comic to Calvin and Hobbes. I await my opponent's counter-argument. Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic

I was offended that a fellow C&H fan would concede, and decided I needed a rematch. You were wrong about several things in the last debate- Calvin and Hobbes does have action- in the form of Spaceman spiff shooting aliens or Tracer bullet solving a mystery. Calvin and Hobbes feels so inventive because it is: the strips take us to new planets, to parodies of film noir, to the Cretaceous period, to encounters with aliens in American suburbs and bicycles coming to life and reality itself being revised into Cubist art. Calvin and Hobbes ponder whether or not life and art have any meaning"often while careening off the edge of a cliff on a wagon or sled. At times, the strip simply abandons panels or dialogue altogether, using black and white space and wordless narrative in fascinating ways. Like Alice in wonderland, Calvin shrinks in one sequence, becoming tiny enough to transport himself on a passing house fly; in another, he grows larger than the galaxy itself. Garfield isn't all that great a comic- all it's about is a lazy cat, a dumb dog, and a sad man. Recently I read a Garfield comic on a actual newspaper, and it wasn't funny at all. Garfield just got excited because he thought he saw a tea rose. No humor at all. However, Calvin and Hobbes is full and overflowing with humor, philosophy, and sometimes, both.
Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic

-People like nostalgia. That is what made people read C&H. They enjoy 'reliving' their childhoods. -As said, The characters have no character. When I said "The lazy cat is still eating, the man is still looking for a date, and the poor dog is still trying to be smarter." I meant that that is all they do. I haven't seen a single Garfield comic (trust me, I used to be a Garfield fan too, and then I found my dads secret stash of C&H) That is not pointless, or about a gluttonous cat, a dumb dog, and a sad man. Seriously. Any comic. Try to find a comic that has a new approach other than the Garfield stereotype and is actually funny. -I did have a point in putting that link in the argument. "The real Calvin and Hobbes" had to be shut down because a person edited the comics so Calvin & Hobbes were in real environments. However, in a similar Garfield approach, Garfield minus Garfield has not faced these consequences, or I would know
Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic

A few things to rebut. -I'm assuming based on what I've seen and heard in your arguments, Calvin and Hobbes is about a boy using his imagination to get away from the real world, like the bills and such. While this can be an interesting story, obviously you only see the parents once in a while, and as such only see the "relatability" once in a while. Most kids would only relate to Calvin for a short time before growing out of the "imaginary friend/adventure" phase of their life. As with Garfield, due to the simplicity of the work, it shows situations that can always be relatable to people, whether it be trying to find love, relationships with their animals, etc. -Garfield's characters DO HAVE CHARACTER. Even in you're own argument, about "The lazy cat is still eating, the man is still looking for a date, and the poor dog is still trying to be smarter.", those are character traits. They may be somewhat simple, but they still reveal characters that think and feel. Garfield is a lazy cat that hates Mondays and loves lasagna. Jon Arbuckle is a depressed guy looking for someone to make him happier. Those are characters that are simple, but work. And that's why so many people adore them. -I know this isn't part of the argument, but I wanted to point out that your source shows how much more lenient the creator of Garfield is compared to the Creator of Calvin and Hobbes. A project for Calvin and Hobbes gets shut down while a similar project for Garfield gets supported/endorsed by the creator and the publishing company. I know this is based on opinion, and has no point being here, but I just wanted to add that.
Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic

Calvin and Hobbes is just as relatable as Garfield. It is not all Calvin & Hobbes. Several times you see the dad struggling to pay bills, (Mom and Dad do not have names) or mom cooking for hours only to see that the food that she worked so hard on is repulsive to Calvin. And about not seeing C&H everywhere, that's because Bill Watterson specifically said that he did not want to be famous like peanuts, or Garfield, because HE WANTED THE CHARACTERS TO HAVE CHARACTER. He did not want his comic to end, with people only seeing a tiger and a kid. He wanted fans to remember their personality's. If it was not for this, Calvin and Hobbes would probably be as famous as Garfield. Once he passes away, it will be still illegal to sell C&H merchandise and make a movie, etc etc. but people seeing a fortune will, (and do) do it. As for Garfield, The lazy cat is still eating, the man is still looking for a date, and the poor dog is still trying to be smarter. Actually, scratch the last one. He doesn't try at all. A example of when the copyright took place- https://www.techdirt.com... :) I await your next arguement
Debate #24: Nonsense Debate

wewbjgccccxhftbfg vcg67yregc gv t76 t67t t67 t67 t g78 b67 tv cer ftr4b fghgcx7yj6ehbtwictrsdf v hvb2uyixbnwdy8recrec vfbhc dgh vtycgfd76gctycvc rxcvd ytcgc67fgcfey8cehyfbfy87fjfhgftguydgfyugcyjgcggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg cbvfc hc tyfvcgdxc dgh ty fg t g76 t67 uy ;'/o/';';;'/;
Debate #24: Nonsense Debate

jhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhjhk there not the there no not the their for you not
Debate #24: Nonsense Debate

Mazho mao87 tu8gifvcxj q8-394ayperosizgh; navre8bqt3y[a84'wirhzsdgnsdFeTW 3B8Y[5 38 p49aywerzdfhgv4j35qw46tshpezgfxuclvjk z;xjvkc erahdfu;aeridfuzcgkvnermdoxi fhewdrfaerewashababababaft 97gq]erialk jgnvaerdfpugaerj;klsdfm vartgelerm ntiguarwh;ds ghw9ruphcvx au wi4ethg nuaerdfxhg layqytaerhzfjdxkcfvmygellasedoixfvuy aer9odgkl bfguahbrtgfmhbedoclaer p9uitgjrkfdzxedkzerawe9zsu fandlugt ryaep9hszdfoxcvk awzdscxlucyg]4pwarusgod;zjcvx raedzgcvxhjknp9awr4bty 4wiegrjkjj`1p42935etupa34u tUIRDHS F ap95yhare;
Debate #24: Nonsense Debate

Let's go: a nonsense debate. Debate #24 this year. a457v0b9wer8ysdfuh 9038q4eryfdsh qewuadfshuqierhjdfs asdiofjlkvij 90+_(*_(7-34trewfasd asdfasdfdasdicdhgpr8otuirhiaof sdnatlidfyhreodf connerf iowejsfdocihareoughluacsadydt horuhdges annoads kewdsjfio nadn ofvfreadhb nmoiaghsdybin aewushrfew dssedzy udneidknm shdfojnsdklmfznoikdjs ouaiwyer98teiojhdsnfocx ourjldafsfkcx ioljkdsaflaf98p ouasdhf9p8q4wyerdshgvpa9sdufhapdsufhapsdip9paew8oudfsuhasjdhfsuadufsjer====as8peyt 9384reughuo 4erwhfadsfasth wrudshf oawiyt auhdfvsjfh uh gasdiuvh vj dstuasdh vjh swiuey udrpu4 tyiuaskdj uaiytwueidf e utyqw9aedhhasdg odh gidsfzf badf ehiko aoshdfuo y3q4ueradfsyh vhdjsnxk ewdsedhisjduhsos dejspaned eds auwpi4egthf weord fpanpna aweoihf 08werhf 3948ewythg nvdosajfl ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg a[sioedyh f34jieadschwaerfdsater shoesd t8934erodsigfvawersduifhasdflsducxyah oiashdfuoerasdg veadfiocja[oisdh9834erudf
Obama should not be relected

The only way to reboot the economy is to put money in. That is what FDR did and it worked. Obama is not a liar. He was overly idealistic and thought it would be easier than it was to pass legislation. The Republicans in Congress have struck down so much good legislation he's tried to put through just because he is a democrat. They have not let him keep his promises. No president keeps all the promises they make during campaigns. Obama's heart is in the right place. He tries to do what is best.
Obama should not be relected

I do not agree with GW bushes decisions but it's not his fault that Obama made a lot of wrong decisions. Thanks to Obama we now owe china more money every second, he needs to stop spending money... Also yes it was obamas responsibility to fill the BP oil spill, Obama needs to own up to his mistakes and admit that he has made some wrong choices. my last point is that Obama has not kept any " promises" that he has made. He is a LIAR and he is not trustworthy
Obama should not be relected

Obama's mistakes? Look at Bush's economic policies. We were in surplus when Clinton left and when Bush left we were in debt. Check any economic journal and they will all affirm that we knew the debt was going to get worse before it improved. You're really gonna blame the oil spill on Obama? What about the company that stupidly was drilling off-shore? If you research the spill you'll find there was not more Obama could do. It was not his responsibility in the first place. Please provide sources.
Obama should not be relected

Barack Hussein Obama has done nothing but double the united states debt, and dramatically increase unemployment rates. And besides it took him 3 months to fill the BP oil spill!!! So why should we relect him for a second term. alright so, the debt before obama was 1.3 trillion dollars. It is currently 8 trillion dollars. Obama needs to stop borrowing money from china that he will never pay back. And you democrats just love to blame obamas mistakes on bush don't you.
Obama should not be relected

First of all, I would like to see some citation proving that Obama has doubled the debt. He has actually slowed the economic decline of our economy significantly. Also, it is common knowledge that the economic status during a presidency is mostly due to the economic policies of the president before. Bush left a huge bag of crap on Obama's doorstep. We should reelect Obama because a lot of the candidates would implement the same economic policies as Bush and support the interests of big business.
Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.

Thank you for your input! I look forward to the rest of this debate. I would like to point out that comparing alcohol to cannabis is futile. It is true that alcohol has more negative side effects, but that doesn't excuse the negative side effects of marijuana. Furthermore, alcohol is only legal today because prohibiting in the 1920's to early 1930's was ineffective and led to crime. Alcohol is not legal today because it is safe, but because banning it has been proven to fail. As one of my sources said, "Millions of families are reeling from the impact of alcohol abuse. One runaway legalized drug abuse problem is more than enough. We don"t need to add another." https://erlc.com... To make it clear why marijuana shouldn't be legalized for any ages or any reason, one simply needs to research the side effects of marijuana. Marijuana use allows toxic chemicals to enter the human body. Researchers still don't even know the side effects of some of these chemicals. When these chemicals are inhaled, lung problems can follow. Marijuana has the worst effect on the mind. Research proves that marijuana use during adolescence and young adulthood can lead to issues with thinking, learning, and memory, as cannabis worsens cognitive performance, sometimes even permanently. Marijuana can also cause attention problems that don't go away. Marijuana can damage the hippocampus, subcortical and prefontal cortexes in ways that could be lasting. Furthermore, cannabis use in young people has been linked with dropping out of high school, dropping out of college, and suicide. Marijuana also puts the user at higher risk for cancer, psychosis (such as schizophrenia, which some people have a genetic disposition towards), strokes, and heart attacks. https://erlc.com... https://www.healthychildren.org... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com... For the reasons listed above, the temporary high marijuana provides isn't worth the lifetime of harm it can cause. Have a good day and good luck to Pro!
Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.

I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.
Gay marriage ought to be legal.

You say you want to preserve liberty but how can you when you don't even see that marriage isn't even a right given by government. There is no right to be given to you. period. God gave the right, the government has no right to "offer" rights to man and wife, therefore it has no right to give it to you. There is no argument to this debate. Just because marriage was given by God does not mean that you are owed anything. This is not a pro-religion argument and you don't seem to get that, rather it's an issue with your government doling out privileges it doesn't have the right to do.