BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is murder and the death penalty is not.

I would first like to say to anyone voting that your choice be determined by who was the better debater. As my opponent has not even replied to my points I would think that the choice should be fairly obvious. However, let me answer his original points because I feel as though I may not have addressed them appropriately thus far. His point is simply that the death penalty is not murder while abortion is. Wordnet defines murder as: murder noun 1. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being The only difference between this meaning and the death penalty is that we have put a loophole in place to make killing acceptable in that instance. However as I have laid out the facts it is less efficient cost wise to use the death penalty than life sentences and it does nothing to deter crime and can result in the death of an innocent person; therefore, the death penalty should not be used because it is not only inefficient but immoral as well. In reference to the abortion situation as I have outlined we have not come to an objective definition of life and as we have not been able to do so we cannot come to the conclusion that abortion is murder because the embryo does not share many of the same characteristics that a living human does. Also, since the child is the property of it's mother then the government does not have the right to tell the mother what she can and can not do with it until it becomes a viably independent entity.
Abortion is murder and the death penalty is not.

Since I don't have much to work with here I will simply reiterate. The death penalty is not cost efficient, does not deter crime in any way, and perpetuates hatred, violence, and vengeance. There is also a slight chance that an innocent person may be killed. It is much better in many ways to simply keep the person in prison for life. Abortion is not murder because the embryo does not constitute a human and the embryo is part of the mother's body; therefore, she may do with it what she wishes.
Being immortal is completely beneficial.

I would like to state that the topic is "Being immortal is completely beneficial. ", not partially beneficial. Yes, you can save millions of people by being immortal & invincible, but what if, say you get tired from all that work? ?? Then, you would stop rescuing people for a while, leaving more and more mortal people dying. That is certainly not helpful. Onto my case. While immortality does have good sides to it, it is definitely not COMPLETELY beneficial. Time Speeds Up Until You're Insane Mentally, every year that passes is mentally shorter than the one before. For example, if you were a child you might think something is finally over, while your mom (when you were a child) might think "It's already over? ". As you get older, time speeds up. When your a million years old, people's lives would start and end in a split-second! That is a terrible downside to immortality, you can't help people if your mind is insanely fast! !Thank you
Being immortal is completely beneficial.

So why is being immortal great? The way I see it there are two points of view for this argument. 1: being a slightly selfish but still reasonable view, that you will be unhappy. See the main issue people have with this is that your loved ones will die. True this would be sad, but people die. This truth is harsh. If you can get over the fact that the people you love will eventually pass away and look forward and see how you can help other people then you could be a great benefit to everyone around you. This brings me to the second way of looking at this 2: I take your meaning of immortal as ageless and invincible not only could you save millions of lives by being invincible. But think of the knowledge you could share with people. You could be a rescuer of some sort going into places that no one else could. You could advance science greatly and overall help the community. Finally: The biggest question you have to ask yourself is what sort of person am I? Will I live for my self or will I help millions and suffer for the better of everyone. Also you should rejoice in the time you and your loved ones share not mourn the time they aren't with you. Think of the happiness you were able to give them while they were with you and be happy with that. Yet again ask yourself the question what will you live for? ~Luke Currey
Colorado Student- Banned "Inappropriate" Senior Photo

I've seen many photos where a girls back is arched; http://www.facebook.com...Is this photo inappropriate?? Okay, granted there's no belly being shown, but her back is arched, and she does have a somewhat seductive look her face. Are we really going to be that picky, to judge body language and facial expression???Senior Photos can be very versatile they are meant to show someone's personality. Yea, that personality maybe more than we need to know but its freedom of expression (That's in the First Amendment). I could bring it farther and say them banning it is a violation of that right! Con Argued: "Do we really want men looking at our High School Seniors that way?"- I'm not sure I understand this. Are you referring to Men ages: 30+? Or Boys ages: 17-20? Here's why I ask:1. Men ages: 30+ unless they are a parent or relative of the Senior, won't ever see that photo (Obviously unless posted on the Internet; Face book, MySpace, Twitter, etc... you get the drift.) 2. Boys ages: 1-20, they are in High School. If you think they don't look at girls that way you're in SERIOUS denial. Its about experimenting learning who you are as a person emotionally, physically, and even sexually. Its just a given.Con Argued:"You can barely get away from wearing clothes like that in public..."- I live in Rochester, NY and the stuff I have seen :l Seriously, its WORSE than that photo. Ill give an example: I went to a 7-Eleven with my boyfriend one night (it was maybe 10pm) and in walks 3 African American women wearing I think the most they wear wearing were legit sweaters as dresses -___- When I say I saw EVERYTHING I am not lying. It was possibly the most horrifying moment in my life!So next to that, this photo is completely appropriate! Con Argued:"Any employer who saw that photo would immediately see her as a sex-symbol..."- Yeah if she were working for any Joe Shmo. In the modeling world?! Don't get me started, she would have bites within weeks, if not Hours!!! (Yes, I understand its a yearbook photo. I am looking at this from all points. There are many factors to keep in mind.)Con Argued:"She should be grateful.."- You'd think right. Well, from a photographers point of view I cant even begin to tell you how many job offers she would be getting. Do you know how much on average a model makes?!? Here's an example:http://www.fashionising.com...Clearly, this is an experienced model but you get my point right?
Colorado Student- Banned "Inappropriate" Senior Photo

Clearly this is all a matter of opinion, but I think it comes down to the dress code of the school. I doubt she would be allowed to wear that in school, and if she is not allowed to wear that in school, it makes no sense for her to be allowed to wear that in a senior photo. For the record I completely disagree with you. I think it looks like an ad for Gucci or something where they are selling sex. It isn't just her clothes, but the position she is in. Her back is cocked, her butt is out, and her eyes are flirty. It is definitely a gorgeous picture no doubt, but is it appropriate for school? No. A senior photo is supposed to represent who the student is. If a girl was standing like that in the hallway, everyone would think she was looking for sex. Can you blame the school for not wanting a student represented that way? It is completely reasonable for the school to discourage young women from presenting themselves like this. A senior photo is supposed to make the student look professional and ready for college. Clearly that is not an outfit you would wear to any kind of professional gathering unless you were a playboy bunny or a pop artist. Does she look college bound to you? I wouldn't say so. I think she looks like she is looking for attention from males. This photo is inappropriate for a high school student. She may be a registered adult but she is still in high school. Do we really want men looking at our high school seniors that way? You can barely get away from wearing clothes like that in public let alone in school. Any employer who saw that photo would immediately see her as a sex symbol and not take her seriously. The school is really doing this for her own benefit. If she had any sense she would be grateful but I guess that is done now since it is posted all over the Internet.
Colorado Student- Banned "Inappropriate" Senior Photo

Id like to debate on last months news of the Colorado student who got her senior photo banned from the yearbook. I am Con for her photo being banned. I will start my case. http://news.yahoo.com... As you can see from the photo Sidney (the student in question) is wearing a black top (just covering her front area) and a yellow skirt. I want to remind everyone that the girl is 18 years of age (meaning she is of age). I don't find the photo inappropriate at all, in fact I find it very tasteful, and classy. Some people on that site I have referenced are going as far as saying the photo is good enough for PLAYBOY, Hustler, and Maxim. I completely disagree with this statement, if anyone saw Lindsay Lohans' photo spread in PLAYBOY then you do know the difference. It just amazes me that people actually said she's equivalent to a stripper!! Making it more than what it needs to be. Do I think that school was right in banning the photo from the yearbook? Yes, and no. Yes- Its the schools property and they can do what they want to it. No- Seems a bit over board, this is a very classy photo. And, I have many classmates have senior photos like this. So it just seems very overboard to me. But that's not the debate; the debate is whether or not the photo is inappropriate. I have seen plenty of girls in High School wear a tube top for their photo session. I guess my real issue is the whole PLAYBOY, Hustler, Maxim thing. I just think that's too far with it! This photo has been very tastefully done, its classy, and the lighting is absolutely gorgeous!! If you want to see trashy photos go to a porn site. Id be happy to hear other view points on this.
Colorado Student- Banned "Inappropriate" Senior Photo

"but I think the school was EXTEMELY vague. . http://dhs.durangoschools.org...... if you look on their site there is NO link for "Senior Photo Regulations" or "Senior Photo Requirements. " I went to Spencerport High School: . http://www.spencerportschools.org...... Heres our "Senior Portrait Requirements"-"- Yeah probably because they never needed to have them cause no teenager before wanted to display themselves like that lol. " I dont care how old anyone is, if they want discipline set rules/requlations and/or Requirements. Its the only way for structure, with being said they have no right to be "offended" because they didnt set the boundaries. Please give me a break, if it were me I would totally take legal action. Heres an idea, discipline the students with rules and structure. "- I don't feel that they punished her. I would like to see their dress code because I bet it goes against the dress code which would make it against rules and structure. So you think we should be able to show anything? Pornography of children? Severed animal heads? That would go against the morals of most Americans. Trust me I am not in favor of most censorship, but we have to have restrictions and limits on freedoms. If not then we should all wear slutty clothes to work, not have any kind of dress code for anything, we could all go around naked. It would be chaos. You want to educate children on sex and death and violence and make them see it as not such a serious thing? They aren't emotionally developed enough to handle these things. I proved that what happened clearly fit the definition of scandalous lol. I don't know why you are taking issue with that.
Colorado Student- Banned "Inappropriate" Senior Photo

"Yes we should be picky and judge facial expressions. How else are we able to read people, get a feeling for who they are or their intentions?"- Is it fair to say we can be wrong? Like your thoughts of her intentions, is it fair you can be wrong? I mean this girl probably really thought it would be a pretty photo, it couldve been very innocent and now we are judging her??? Really, come on."No, the first amendment says you can write what you want, say what you want..."- Okay, do we really have to go through the First Amendment? As you can see here in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org... , it actually says; "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice" I do believe, this means photos as well cause it mentions "in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice." Please don't get me started on the first amendment with everything that Obama has done DISGUSTS ME. But that's a different Debate for another time. It's freedom of expression, it shouldn't matter where that is!! "As for wearing things like that in public, would you not agree that there are places you would not get in dressed like this girl or these girls you are talking about? A seven eleven is one thing, but restaurants and most workplaces would not allow such skimpy clothing."- Do you REALLY think she's gonna wear that in public COME ON! I'm trying so hard to keep this clean but, that's just a STUPID thing to say. I wont even fight that, its just ridiculous."Also, there are many pictures of models that aren't inappropriate like that. Why does she have to have a picture that is so scandalous?"- "Scandalous"? Seriously? I could defend this but the guidelines won't allow it (due to the content). I have SOME WORSE PHOTOS THAN THIS. Everyone is making this photo out to be like some PORNOGRAPHY come on. Its not all that. Its a short tube top, and a skirt. Get over it. A scandalous photo would be of her cooch.....clearly that's covered -___-You're last argument I won't even fight, because in a way I do agree with you. But in a way I don't. Freedom of expression that's all I have to say about it. I am not the type person to just bow down to society because I was told to do so. Is it a bad mind-set? Oh absolutely! But, its how I think. And, its refreshing to see someone (Sidney) who's not blind-sided by society. I credit her by being an individual.
Colorado Student- Banned "Inappropriate" Senior Photo

"Is this photo inappropriate?? Okay, granted there's no belly being shown, but her back is arched, and she does have a somewhat seductive look her face. Are we really going to be that picky, to judge body language and facial expression???"-This girl's back is not arched, she is leaning back, her butt is not out, and she doesn't look like a sex kitten. Yes we should be picky and judge facial expressions. How else are we able to read people, get a feeling for who they are or their intentions? "Yea, that personality maybe more than we need to know but its freedom of expression (That's in the First Amendment)."- No. The first amendment says you can say what you want, write what you want and still we have restrictions on that. TV stations censor and block out inappropriate images all the time. Why? Because freedoms are not absolute. There is a time and a place for everything. A senior photo is not the place for a sexual picture. "1. Men ages: 30+ unless they are a parent or relative of the Senior, won't ever see that photo (Obviously unless posted on the Internet; Face book, MySpace, Twitter, etc... you get the drift.) 2. Boys ages: 1-20, they are in High School. If you think they don't look at girls that way you're in SERIOUS denial. Its about experimenting learning who you are as a person emotionally, physically, and even sexually. Its just a given."- I am talking about all men. Obviously I realize boys look at girls like that. But putting a picture like that is asking for boys to see her a sex symbol. When a boy sees an appropriately dressed girl he thinks she is sexy but classy and won't see her as "easy" or looking for attention. When a boy sees a girl dressed like that, he assumes she is easy, wants boy's attention, and is likely only going to see her as a sex toy. We do not want to display high school seniors in that way. As for wearing things like that in public, would you not agree that there are places you would not get in dressed like this girl or these girls you are talking about? A seven eleven is one thing, but restaurants and most workplaces would not allow such skimpy clothing. Is she going into the modeling world? I don't know but does she want all other employers not to take her seriously? Even so a senior picture is not the modeling world, it is a school environment. Clearly that is not appropriate for school so it shouldn't be in a yearbook. Also, there are many pictures of models that aren't inappropriate like that. Why does she have to have a picture that is so scandalous? Is it a smart idea to risk all other employers not taking her seriously for a senior photo? Regardless of whether or not she is going into the modeling industry, she is a high school student. That does not present her as a high school student. She is more than welcome to have those pictures and present them when she is trying to be a model. A senior photo is not the time or place for a picture like that.
The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

My opponent accepts that this is not about benefits, rather the states interest in marriage. My opponent has 60% of the BOP as the state bars SSM for a reason, I will state it in my arguments. 8000 characters 1 week vote time 1st round acceptance. Also I would like round 2 to have no refutations, just presenting my arguments. Definitions "Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity." http://en.wikipedia.org... I await the debate, it seems fun.
god is deliberate genocide

Stop being so arrogant. Stop putting words in my mouth. You don't me personally. I have way of believing. I don't just take the words of others. To know if the Purim story is true, I use global history to see if they line up. Guess what? They do. I never said I didn't believe verses. I said verses doesn't validate the Torah itself. I have no idea even why you are bashing my religion and saying God isn't real, because we come back to this: Not once have you addressed my argument that God doesn't exist and is at the same time genocidal. Let's say I'm an atheist for the argument sake. How is God genocidal? You have never once addressed this despite me asking it. He can't be. If God exists, he is righteous. If he doesn't, he can't commit genocide. You are wrong according to atheism and religion. Call your title "Does God Exist?" rather than "god is deliberate genocide".
god is deliberate genocide

"I can still believe a religion without using verses." Oh I get it... so you go by YOUR religion without a single thing to go by. In other words, just like ---everybody--- out there who is jewish as well as christian, you invent excuses and you make up YOUR religion as YOU see fit. Now many religions do not have verses, but they do have, all of them, have their guidelines, unless newly invented, which happens every---single---day by little wee folk such as yourselves? However, there are many religions that do have verses, namely your torah, namely guidelines, namely super ultra STRICT guidelines such as YOUR torah, if you knew ANYTHING at all about being an orthodox jew in which case you obviously don't, to go by. In no possible way are you an orthodox jew. Try harder. Invent better excuses please. Oh and oh yeah, just exactly how were you bar mitzvahed IF you don't believe in using verses from YOUR religion you total drab of barren ignorance? Don't even bother posting your final round.
god is deliberate genocide

I can still believe a religion without using verses. The story of Purim and the stuff archaeologists find fit nicely together. But the point isn't whether I believe a religion or not. The point is that God isn't deliberate genocide. You still haven't countered my argument on that the whole entire idea of God is that either he is almighty powerful RIGHTEOUS power, or he doesn't exist. No idea of him is him being genocidal. What I mean I don't give a crap about verses, doesn't mean I discard them. I first find other proof of the Torah being correct. Because if it isn't verses mean nothing. So far I'm satisfied. Also stop being rude, and whining that God isn't exist and at the same time is genocidal. So far you have proven nothing, and this is on a 7 point system. So far all the points are going towards me.
god is deliberate genocide

If you do not give a crap about the verses in YOUR torah, then in no possible way can you give a crap about and or believe in YOUR god, YOUR religion and YOUR torah as that"s the ONLY outlet you have to all three. And since you don"t then in no possible way can you call YOURSELF an orthodox jew which is such a true joke unto itself. Religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a super human agency or agencies, usually involving devotionaland ritual observances, and often containing amoral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (notice the usage of the word "beliefs"?) 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. (same thing) 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: (same thing) That"s EXACTLY what ALL religions are until tested and demonstrated in which none, not one has ---ever--- been. And until you can do that with YOUR god, then you have ziltch, zippo, zip, nothing, nada. So the only delivery that you have is YOUR barfing torah which are a set of beliefs which are what classe"? RELIGION. "How it's played out matters." Oh I get it so absolutely NOTHING according to you took place in your torah because you do not give a crap about its verses. This debate is now over. Bye. Go flap your wings on a jesus jujitsu harmonica elevator in an attempt to get closer to YOUR god. Same thing. No difference.
god is deliberate genocide

I don't give a crap about versus. If I were to ever get into a debate about religion, I would never bring versus. They mean nothing. A religions bible can say what ever bad things they want about women, but that doesn't actually mean it is against women rights. How it's played out matters. "Twiddling your lips and thumbs will not help you either in your exploits of "I don't know" which is what ALL good scientists and atheists will say because nobody knows." - You Why are you debating god is committing genocide if you don't even believe him? You yourself don't agree with your own argument. If god doesn't exist, he therefore can't commit genocide, so you agree with me he doesn't commit genocide. Although our procedures to get to the answer was different, we both came out with the same result. You should be on Con debating how he doesn't even exist. If God does exist, he is all-might-powerful. All ideas of God is him being righteous. That's the ideology of god. Meaning you either have to go with the idea of God being righteous, or him not existing at all. Both of those don't lead to the conclusion "God commits genocide".