BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be legal in all US states.

For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail. The death penalty is only used when absolutely needed, and sometimes it is the only rational/moral option. Even if a criminal was released from the death penalty/jail, it would be very hard for them to make a living. The death penalty can be painless. The death penalty provides disclosure for victims. If the death penalty is not in use, then America will end up spending more money trying to contain criminals from the outside world. Many lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer.
America Does Not Need More STEM Education

STEM jobs are simply cogs in the machine, interchangeable parts. People are human beings. You will find that STEM employees are more literate and have a larger vocabulary than their peers working at McDonalds. Knowing that CSS stands for Cascading StyleSheets does more to land a STEM job than knowing that Emily Bronte wrote Wuthering Heights. Language arts are REQUIRED for all college degrees. I respectfully submit that less language arts, and more relevant study to the actual work of STEM would be beneficial. In summary, STEM jobs are increasing. We need more STEM workers. Qualified workers are hard to find. Being truly qualified for a STEM job is important in the interview to land the job. Outsourcing of core STEM jobs is not an issue. Most employers require onsite work. High level work will always remain in Silicon Valley, Redmond Washington, etc.
America Does Not Need More STEM Education

I'm not sure if it's understood why overdevelopment is an issue. To use a chemical equation analogy, say you need reactants X + Y to yield product Z. If you have enough X, you don't need more of it. You need more Y. Otherwise, you just end up with supersaturation. Likewise, the more effort you commit towards gathering X, the less effort you commit towards gathering Y. If we commit on and on over gathering STEM education, then we won't have the language arts required to match it. The "gamer" stereotype is not necessarily STEM inclined either. People can indulge in playing games without understanding how they're made. It's possible to be lazy or play games just for fun. Heck, if anything, gamers are people who lack language arts and are socially alienated such that they play games to escape alienation. Also, while I agree that there are alternative hobbies, those hobbies are not necessarily convenient for studying. They also ignore how people are entitled to assimilate into the society they're born into for rejuvenation as well. Heck, individualistic hobbies don't rejuvenate the social state of mind which allows people to learn better among groups. Likewise, the matter of blaming one's peers is partially what language arts overcomes. If anything, that reinforces my point because the absence of innate language arts in society leads to a discouragement of STEM education - becoming skilled is inhibited because your peers call you an arrogant knowitall. It's not cool to be smart, and the pursuit of becoming smart is inhibited by conflicting culture. Even at college, students need to have decent social skills in order to still rejuvenate in their studies. Without language arts, they're still ruined because they can't rejuvenate among their peers. Only those who have the endurance to put up with social alienation and keep their heads in the books end up making it out OK. Those who are depressed get left behind.
America Does Not Need More STEM Education

The point has been made, and accepted as fact, that left brain takes priority over right brain in STEM jobs. I thank my oponent, and this alone could decide the debate in my favor. I would like to point out the "Gamer" stereotype. The tech savvy geek who is so delighted with computers that he spends all of his free time playing Halo on his new Xbox. In fact, he owns five of them because he throws gaming parties and is wealthy enough to afford the flat-screen TVs that litter his 8/4 house. Fishing, hiking, scuba diving, hang gliding, even watching TV. None of these hobbies require social skills and are rejuvenating. I would also point to the fact that everyone has a degree of aptitude in normal speech patterns. These are gleaned from one's peers. Someone going to a small school in the south would be discriminated against because of the redneck stereotype. This is not the fault of his school, this is the fault of his peers. College is the place were the rural geniuses rise to the top. Honing their negotiating skills in a dating-friendly environment, I would say that finding a relationship is far more difficult than finding a job. The biological urge to mate brings the introvert out of his/her shell, onto the scene, negotiating for various aspects in the dating relationship. Some even turn into long term. To ace a job interview, all a person needs to do is be a Yes Man. The company is smart, doing things well, and the interviewee is not dazzled (due to experience) but is favorably impressed. Focus on strengths in the interview. Headhunters are always looking for new talent. monster.com is a great source. Don't call "us," we'll call you.
America Does Not Need More STEM Education

To be clear, I don't entirely disagree over the matter of overdevelopment. However, it's naive to believe that career success can be obtained without social skills where you have to network and collaborate on teams. Furthermore, the demand for STEM related products depends on language arts, and the ability to rejuvenate while studying STEM requires language arts in order to avoid burnout. I'm rather baffled by how you said social skills are not required to land a job. People aren't hired if they're suspected of lacking personal chemistry. Also, I'm not disagreeing with the growth in STEM jobs either. My point is we aren't cultivating the labor supply to match it. Students need to be motivated to study STEM which means you need language arts. Without language arts, students wonder, "What am I going to need this for?" I'm not sure about STEM jobs not being outsourced (or recruiting free labor) either: http://www.salon.com... http://www.salon.com...
America Does Not Need More STEM Education

My contention is that social skills are a distraction from reaching the advanced level of knowledge required to operate in the most demanding fields known to man. STEM jobs are a function of the left hemisphere of the brain. Those at the top of their fields often do so BECAUSE of their lack of social skills: they have a overdeveloped left brain. Social skills are a function of the right brain and are not required to land a job. Technical aptitude and a history of successful performance is far more important. Supply and demand: "Over the past 10 years, growth in STEM jobs was three times greater than that of non-STEM jobs, and STEM jobs are expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than other jobs in the coming decade. Meanwhile, STEM workers are also less likely to experience joblessness.[1]" Most STEM jobs will never be outsourced overseas. Requirement for on-site work -- Most STEM jobs require work on the site. This allows collaboration with peers in the workplace, as well as ensuring that each employee works a 40+ hour work week. Requirement for high quality work -- Prime example is the Dell support agent in India, reading from a script. This person is universally despised. 1. http://www.esa.doc.gov...
The Qur'an Contradicts Itself Both Directly and Indirectly

Here is another contradiction:What was life made of?"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)."\When did every living thing exclude Jinn:"And He created Jinns from fire free of smoke (55:15)"and Humans:"He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery (55:14)"The Qur'an cannot keep itself consistant.
The Qur'an Contradicts Itself Both Directly and Indirectly

It is important to discuss religion because they cannot all be true. Even if they provide good moral guidance, a religion which is not true should not be follwed.The first argument I would like to use against the Qur'an is the number of days Allah took to create."Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds (Qur'an 7:54)!"This verse claely states that Allah took six days to create the world."He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): Allah Most Gracious: ask thou, then, about Him of any acquainted (with such things) (Qur'an 25:59)."It now seems clear that the Qur'an claims that Allah created the world in six days. Why then does this passage exist?"Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge (Qur'an 41:9-12)."Here is some simple math. 2+4+2=?I am sure it is not 6. It seems to be 8 days. If the Qur'an is pefect, why does it have 8 days, contradicting all the other verses?
The Qur'an Contradicts Itself Both Directly and Indirectly

I think we should not debate about this because each of religion has it own believing, like Islam with Al-Qu'ran, Christian with scripture, and etc. Muslim could have doubted the contents in scripture on the contrary the Christian could also doubted the content about Qu'ran. Well, for the content whether is it true or not, it's up to your own believing if you think it's doesn't make a sense you could out from it, but if you think another way you have to learn about your religion more, this is what we called with "God Secret". Now I ask you ? do you believe in your own religion holy book ? As a Muslim I believe in the promise and the threat that contained in Al-Qur'an and Hadith. And that's my opinion
The Qur'an Contradicts Itself Both Directly and Indirectly

This debate is about the Qur'an, and if it contains any contradictions. Because Muslims hold the perfection of the Qur'an to be very important, I wish to analyze the so-called "scriptures" to see if they are perfect, or if they are erroneous.The first round is for acceptance and clarificaiton if necessary. The remaining three are for debate.*I will be assuming that Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an is accurate to Arabic. If my opponet would prefer a different translation or Arabic, I will provide that in addition to Yusuf Ali's translaiton upon request.*I will be assuming that the Qur'an does not require anything but its own content to come to a proper conclusion on its teachings. This means I will not accept the Hadiths as a source if they say anything contrary to what is logically read in the Qur'an in context. I also do not care about Imams or Muslim scholars. I only care about what the Qur'an actually says.
This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.

Seeing that NPDAgeek has forfeited round 3, all of my round 2 arguments still stand! Failing to respond to arguments means he concedes them, and thus these arguments should be accepted as TRUE in the debate. Since NPDAgeek agrees that: 1. Elections are a Form of Democratic Engagement 2. Most citizens CARE enough and KNOW enough to make a decent decision most of the time 3. Often the smaller spender wins an election, and therefore elections are not commodities and that elections are, on balance, more won than bought. Round 3 extension of this argument: Many times the non-establishment candidate wins the primary. In 2010 over 60 of the congressional races were won by the candidate that had less campaign dough. In many of the bigger spender wins, it could be attributed to advantages reaped from being the incumbent in a safe district. In most close races, the smaller spender won about half of the time. SOURCE:<http://www.opensecrets.org......; If politicians were commodities to be bought and sold then the highest bidder would always win - that's not the case. 4. PACs can be legitimate forms of expression funded by the cumulative donations of everyday middle-class people. Round 3 extension: Case in point, if over 20 million of the 40 million AARP members donate one dollar to AARP’s PAC then that PAC will be very influential, but it would not hold a mirror to the caricature of PACs that NPDAgeek is trying to draw. 5. Celebrity endorsements are nearly irrelevant to winning an election. In 2000, Nader had a host of Hollywood endorsements and he couldn’t even carry California. Therefore, you must VOTE CON. In his next response, I challenge NPDAgeek to uphold HIS BURDEN OF PROOF by both (A) Refuting all of my arguments and argument extensions made in round 2 & 3. AND (B) Prove, despite that often the smaller spender wins, that elections are indeed commodities to be bought. If he fails to uphold his burden of proof then you MUST vote CON. Respectfully submitted, Hierocles
This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.

My opponent has made a series of baseless claims without attempting to cite any evidence. This is surprising since, as the instigator of the claim, he holds the burden of proof. I will cite evidence to refute each of his claims in a line-by-line refutation of his case. A) ELECTIONS ARE A FORM OF DEMOCRATIC CIVIC ENGAGEMENTi. NPDAgeek: “most citizens do not care”Most Americans do care. In 2012’s presidential elections the turnout rate was over 55%.<http://elections.gmu.edu...;ii-iii. Most voters know enough to make a choice that reflects their values. <http://www.people-press.org...; Voters affiliate a party because they share the party’s platform. Voters tend to vote for their party's candidates because they share similar beliefs. iv. & v.Sometimes the candidate with less campaign money wins. In 2010 over 60 U.S. congressional races were won by the candidate who spent less money. An analysis performed by The Center for Responsive Politics shows that having more campaign money is not enough to win an election. THEREFORE, an election is NOT a commodity. If the party with less money can win the election while the party that spends more money loses that means that elections cannot be a commodity as my opponent suggests. <http://www.opensecrets.org...;B) PACs receive money from diverse sources. Americans donate money to PACs they believe in. These PACs then use those donations to advocate on behalf of the people they represent, like seniors that support Social Security through the AARP. C) CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT:Often celebrity endorsements have little to no impact on the success of a campaign. In 2000, Ralph Nader had a cadre of celebrity endorsements, but could not carry a single state.<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...; Don't let the money in politics push you into fatalistic cynicism. Accept the complexity.
This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.

I accept the interpretation of the resolution, and hold that DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS ARE MORE BOUGHT THAN WON MAKING THEM A COMMODITY Contention 1. Political Campaigns=Advertising Campaigns A) ELECTIONS ARE TV SHOWS i. most citizens do not care entirely ii. most voters know a minimal amount of names, and even positions iii. A majority of voters who care not are not won by content of character alone iv. the candidate who can buy the most things with their name on it, or the most advertising on television, or signs on roads, or bumper stickers or pins is the one most likely to plant their name in the memory of the otherwise uncaring voter population v. That kind of advertising costs money, lots of money B) POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES i. PACs are organizations allowed to endorse candidates and further political ideals ii. Protected under first amendment iii. Amass billions of dollars for campaigns iv. pay for more prime time in a campaign week than the average clerk makes in their life v. They stomp competition with negative ads, and out buy them in face time vi. If joe shmo were to enter the race now, he would never see a single interview, debate, let alone an office seat C) CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT i. Many elections are won based on celebrity influence ii. Obama Clooney and you was a campaign fund raising competition where the winners got to eat dinner with Obama and Clooney iii. Celebrity endorsement costs money iv. If one cannot pay for as much endorsement and their opponent they will lose The election is not entirely in the hands of voters, they judge based off character sure, but if the majority of voters are negligent to already existing positions then they are not going to seek the philosophies of candidates from obscure parties unless they are directly presented with them. The candidate with the most money to buy advertisements, celebrity influence who are backed by PACs are most likely to win elections.
This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.

I accept your challenge in this debate. I stand to negate your resolution. I hold that democratic elections are MORE won than bought. An electoral victory is NOT a good or service to be exchanged for money. The election is ultimately decided by a plurality and or majority among the community of eligible voters, and each voter is free to decide whom she chooses to vote for. Regardless of how much money is spent on election campaigns, each voter stands alone in that booth on election day, and makes her own decision. Definitions: Democracy: forms of government, both direct and indirect, where representatives or policies are chosen through popular elections or referendums. Bought: Past tense of 'buy,' to obtain [something] in exchange for money or goods Won: (In this context) by achieving a plurality and or majority of votes among the community of eligible voters Majority: 50% +1 Plurality: a countable margin by which a number exceeds another number, especially of votes. Time: The time period under discussion is living memory, say approx. 1950-Present
Contemporary American culture is rife with examples of glorifying stupidity.

RESOLVED: "Contemporary American culture is rife with examples of glorifying stupidity." OVERVIEW: This is first and foremost a funny debate, but my hope is that it will be entertaining to read and "lighter" than some of the other debates on DDO as of late. The purpose of this debate will be to examine if it is the case or not the case that "contemporary American culture is rife with examples of glorifying stupidity." Stupidity, for this debate shall include but not be limited to states, acts or facts of being stupid, where "stupid" shall be understood to mean but not limited to (1) lacking keenness of mind, (2) characterized by or emanating from a stance of dullness, foolishness or senselessness, (3) that which is tedious or dull, especially where this is so from a lacking of meaning or sense, (4) annoying, irritating or troublesome AND/OR (5) having proceeded from a state of stupor, where stupor means a suspension or great diminution of sense or sensibility. The verb "to glorify" shall furthermore include but not be limited to: (1) to cause to be or treat as being more splendid, excellent, etc., than would normally be considered, (2) to honor with praise, admiration, or worship; to extol, (3) to make glorious; invest with glory AND/OR (5) to worship. "Glorifying" may be recognized by acts of veneration, praise, worship and/or celebration. To satisfy my burden of proof, I must establish several (more than one) examples of glorified stupidity which may be sufficiently proven by satisfying one or more of the conditions listed above in each respective definition. "Rife" shall be considered to be more than one significant example of glorified stupidity. Acceptance of this debate indicated acceptance of the terms, definitions, conditions, and additional stipulations as such. Non-Americian examples of the cultural glorification of stupidity which have substantial impact on American culture shall be given equal weight as American influences to American culture because American culture does not exist in a vacuum. STRUCTURE: 8k Characters/Round. Opponent must be ranked as good or better than me. Round 1) Acceptance/Formalities Round 2) Introductory Arguments Round 3) Rebuttals and as necessary reconstructive arguments Round 4) Concluding Remarks, Rebuttals as necessary. No new arguments or evidence. Sarcastic comments are not forbidden in this round. RULES: (1) No plagiarism. (2) Quotes/videos/other media from beyond this debate MUST be sourced. (3) Debaters are not to be held responsible if Youtube presents complications. (4) Debaters may post videos in comments if and only if the original video they include in their round is removed from Youtube. (5) Forfeits automatic loss. (6) Sources must be posted in rounds. (7) No willful misinterpretation of arguments. (8) Opponent may not modify rules/terms/conditions in any way, shape or form. (9) Acceptance of debate indicates acceptance of all rules, terms and conditions stipulated in round 1.