BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

Both of us have made fantastic points and I ask that the voters please vote fairly. Firstly, I have provided the statistics for the number of murderers who are mentally ill. My opponent tries to refute this by stating that nobody in a sane state of mind would murder. He also brings up a point that if that were the case murder would be accepted in society. Just because something occurs in society it doesn't mean it's right. Up to about a few hundred years ago(and even in some societies today) young girls were marrying older men. It was accepted in society at the time, but it doesn't mean it was right. Same with things such as murder, cannibalism, rape, etc. None of those things are "right". Secondly, we move onto the prisons. We both have determined that death row prisons are ineffective and expensive to maintain and my opponent feels this could be reduced by killing people given the death sentence quickly. However, as with most crimes there is a small chance of false accusations. By reducing death row wait times you're also reducing time to investigate further in case somebody messes up during the case and sentences the wrong person. It would pretty much be a "you've been sentenced and now will be killed" type of scenario where you have little opportunity to be re-examined. My opponent has addressed this, but even in crimes like the ones he mentioned there could be things going wrong. As for the books in libraries, losing the original of any copy of a book would be a great loss to everybody, but as mentioned before, it's a book. It's the words on the pages that would matter most. As long as there's other copies the same words could be reproduced, leading to little loss as people could still enjoy the book. Obviously this isn't the case for museums, but still the death penalty offers little deterrence as mentioned in previous rounds. Finally, my opponent finishes off by stating that as long as a person is alive they can have hope. However, if somebody is locked up for life in a high security prison with terrible conditions I doubt they would be hopeful for very long. They made other people suffer so it's fair that they would suffer in exchange. By making criminals endure harsh conditions and treatment there is very little chance they would commit the crime again.
Death Penalty

Thank you for your quick response. :) I'll like to begin by addressing my opponents argument about links to murder with mental illness. He makes a point that many murderers are mentally ill and were unaware of the consequences of their crime. However, only about 5% of murderers are confirmed to have some form of mental illness(usually schizophrenia), 25% of this 2% were people who stopped taking their medication. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... So in reality, the statistics for murders committed by the mentally ill are really quite low so if one is to support the death penalty it would make sense to support it for murder too. As for prisons, it is true that there are often comfortable cells. They are often more comfortable than the conditions poor people are forced to live in(http://www.bitrebels.com...), so wouldn't that not deter somebody from committing a crime? The only deterrence that would come from imprisonment is if there were horrible conditions, which in my opinion, criminals fully deserve. This would offer much more deterrence than killing them. Another issue that is often brought up against usage of the death penalty is the cost. Cases involving the death penalty almost always cost more to conduct. It was reported that the state of Maryland pays $37 million for one execution while Tennessee found that death penalty cases cost 48% more than non-death penalty cases. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... This is a huge difference and money that could be used for other things such as improving the American education system. Again, my opponent mentions the comfortable conditions in prison and could still conduct business in these conditions. The solution is simple and much more cost efficient than killing them; remove these luxuries. Finally, for the points about libraries, even if there's different editions of books the text inside is still generally the same and easily reproduced. Even if most copies of one book were destroyed it could still be reproduced by other existing copies. It would be nearly impossible to wipe out one book. Lastly, my opponent mentions deterrence. Deterring people from committing crimes is more effective through other methods rather than the death penalty. Again, thank you. Good luck to my opponent in round 3!
Death Penalty

Good luck to both of us! Firstly, my opponent makes a point that the death penalty can deter people from committing certain crimes. While this may be true for some people it may be different for others. For some people death may be just an easy way out. The thought of being subject to harsh penalties while alive is plenty of deterrence for most people. Many police chiefs have confirmed this that the death penalty offers little deterrence. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Next, there are some points about how the death penalty should only be used in certain circumstances with murder NOT being one of them. However, among many circles, murder is usually considered the worst crime and the death penalty the worst punishment. Using this logic shouldn't the worst crime be punished with the worst penalty? However, as I'm arguing con in this debate I'll stay away from that. My opponent mentions how a fraudster would be deter from committing their crime at the threat of death. If a fraudster spent years obtaining large amounts of money only to be imprisoned later wouldn't it make them feel like their entire life was wasted? By that point they would feel all that time was wasted as the money would no longer be significant to them. As for the death penalty for burning down a library, this isn't fully justified. If all the books burned we could just reproduce them from other copies of the same book. I doubt there is any significant work of literature where only one copy exists. If the book was important there would be other copies produced. Plus burning down a library would also destroy books that are insignificant like Twilight(lol). As for poaching and other such crimes, if we as humans regard murder as a horrible crime wouldn't it be double standards to murder a person for murdering somebody or poaching? Killing is unethical regardless of who is doing it. I'll like to keep things brief this round. Good luck to my opponent! :)
Abortion should be legal

He has already stated the definition from Merriam Webster. "I argue it should be illegal, except if it dangers the woman's life. " Does Con mean only physically? By what I understand if an underage girl gets pregnant, it would "danger her life" very much mentally, and she would most likely struggle for most of the baby's (early) life. I consider that endangering the woman, and her child's life. In my opinion, Abortion should be legal in all cases. I believe it should be a choice by the mother, even if it is morally wrong the government should not be involved in her decision. I believe if the government has the control to tell a woman what choices they make with their own bodies, it is not a very free country after all. I believe this is as much point as I can make for my first argument, and now wait for Con to make his rebuttal.
Deviled eggs are actually demons in disguise

Using my mic because I value forward thinking and enlightenment. So you admit that you falsified evidence and my evidence is correct meaning all your arguments are invalid. I will however address your worry... Sadly I will not be here to see the outcome of this debate. I will now release classified information. Deviled eggs were secret double agents for God in the secret war. They have a reputation for being demons in disguise only because they were seen working with the devil but really they were feeding information to God. Which led to the side of good ultimately prevailing, but at what cost? I urge all the voters to stop the dirtying the name of deviled eggs and let them rest as they rightfully should be, HEROES.
Deviled eggs are actually demons in disguise

returning to the original mic because i hold value to tradition and heritage. The reason adam and eve are known to eat the apple is because according to the argument deviled eggs are a disguise for demons. it is very likely that in the event of eating the apple, which is knowledge, that made adam and eve aware of their surroundings left out the deviled eggs since after all it was satan himself who got them to eat the apple and be banned from paradise. It was his plan all along but he left out deviled eggs so he could use them as spies to look over the realm he did not yet possess. he would of gotten away with it too IF IT WASNT FOR THOSE MEDDLING KIDS!!!
Deviled eggs are actually demons in disguise

tilting the mic in my direction "The deviled egg can be seen in recipes as far back as ancient Rome, where they were traditionally served as a first course." source wikipedia article the deviled egg is a common first course obviously because it is referring to the first sin of adam and eve. It is a common belief for historians that the bible misinterpreted apple for egg from this aramaic below "لا افهم هذه لغة" which means that the devil presented them with a demon, the deviled egg, instead of an apple returning mic to neutral position
Deviled eggs are actually demons in disguise

Excuse me sir,I believe you dropped your mic. While I'm holding it I stand against you in your claim. DEVILed eggs are a bastardization of the term DE-VILED eggs which are the removing of vile things. I also point out that eggs are unborn chicks but in order to go to hell to need to die. unborn does not equal dead. http://cdn.sheknows.com... These are eggs that Satan could never have as demons. Carefully puts the mic back in the holder.
feminism

Yes certainly. But friend, simply giving your opinion on a topic isn't how you start or maintain a debate. You have to make a claim (or take a stance) on the issue and then give evidence and examples to back up that claim. In my last post, I was just explaining two types of feminism and their views.But since I was confused, I am taking back the first stance I made and am taking the side of Radical feminism (the movement that does these things you mentioned such as "main spreading" and "hepeating").Radical feminism is a movement whose main focus and objective is to challenge oppressive systems within society. This is incredibly important, as this revolutionary idea is what the United States government is based upon. We may have a system of checks and balances in government, but having one in society (such as this sect of Feminism) in order to keep certain people groups from having too much power is equally important, even if it may be annoying at times.
feminism

Greetings! Thank you for this debate, this should be fun! In accepting this debate I do not pretend to stand for all of feminism seeing as there are many different sects of the movement. I also do not claim to know everything about feminism. I will use sources from the internet as well as books to support my argument. First, we must define Feminism. There are many different types of feminism. For example: Antiporn feminism, Cultural Feminism, Hip Hop feminism, Lesbian Feminism, Queer feminism, and Radical feminism. The feminism it seems you disagree with is the one that is prevalent in the Pink Hat movement. But my stance will be from the Antiporn and Cultural Feminist movements. These movements advocate the reality: Women are more nurturing, cooperative, and communicative. Instead of measuring themselves against men, women should make their own activities more visible and valued. Want to do away with the dehumanization of women in pornography You say that feminism has "gone too far," but before we can continue, give me more to chew on.
The revisionist position of marriage is worthy of state recognition.

This is a debate revolving around the Same-Sex marriage issue.The purpose of this debate is for me to demostrate the abusurdity of the Revisioinist position. I will be arguing that a Revisionist ideology regarding marriage--that is, a marriage based around love and intimacy strictly between a monogamous couple--is not worthy of state recognition. These are some filters that my opponent must accept, so that we can eliminate strawmen and fallicious argument alike and get down to the real issue:1. For the government to recognize a marriage, it has to spend some money. So before the government acts, it should justify it's actions to prevent wasting taxpayer capitol.2. While it is true that each individual has a right to personal autonomy, extending this right so far as to take money from the tax payers in order to pay for simple recognition violates that whole idea of personal autonomy. Marriage cannot be a natural right.3. If the Revisionist position wishes to be legislated, there must be some inherant reason preventing a slipery slope, to make sure polyamorous or incestual marriages will not occur once society declines further.4. If a different ideology is preferable--such as the traditional position of marriage which I will present shortly--then it is more reasonable to recognize that ideology instead of the Revisionist position.PLEASE NOTE, the burden of proof is entirely on Pro. For him to win this debate, he needs to (a) Justify the Revisionist position of marriage and (b) show how the traditional position of marriage is less-preferable. If he is unable to perform both of these criteria, he will have lost the debate. Since this debate is about ideologies, sources will be given to whoever has the better arguments, not who has better sources. My opponent may present his case in Round 1.-----The traditional position of marriage revolves around procreation. The purpose of recognizing this type of relationship will revolve around acknowledging the special social value of a relationship where procreation is inherantly possible. Considering an obvious factor, that a society that does not reproduce dies, recognition of a procreative relationship is beneficial to society.I won't assume my opponents counter-arguments for now, so all that is left is to turn over to him. Thank you for accepting, and good luck.
Abortion

Ok number 1. making murder illegal does little to stop the murder rate... so your argument is unfounded 2. It is the woman's body however that still does not give her the right to take her baby's life. Please explain to me why, if a woman is killed during her pregnancy that the person who killed her is charged with two counts or murder but a mother can kill the child herself and nobody gives it a 2nd thought? 3. Having an abortion has massive psychological effects that can scar a woman for life 4. so... 5. its not the baby's fault that the father was a jerk a baby is a baby no matter how it was conceived 6. Every child should be allowed a chance to live its life to the fullest if we go choosing who can have kids and who can kill them just because they are poor we are headed into the same situation as China. 7. Many times if the mother sees the ultrasound, hears the heartbeat, or feels the baby kick she would never abort it. this is the reason doctors try to tell her that her baby is not alive even when the president of planned parenthood said the baby is alive. Yes I am very lucky but that does not mean I don't know what these women go through, I have friends who have had to decide its not easy but doing the right thing is sometimes hard! 8. This debate is on abortion not embryonic testing! I have strong views on that subject but I don't care to bring them up in this debate. In closing I would like to say that although Science cannot prove the time a baby becomes alive they also cannot say when he is not alive. do we really have a right to kill a baby we don't know for sure is not alive why would a baby grow for 6 months then one day wake up and say oh guess what I'm alive I know have rights under the constitution? Your argument about the baby being viable once he can be kept alive outside the womb well that all depends on were the mother goes if the mother goes to Vanderbilt the baby has rights under the constitution, however if she has the baby at the exact same time at her local clinic the baby can be killed since they can't keep him alive? If a baby is viable a baby is viable no matter were you go and he has the same right to life that any other human on earth has. I would like to end by saying I firmly believe that abortion is needless, cruel, and murder of completely helpless human life, it should be stopped!
Abortion

1. First, babies are born both blind and deaf. Any seemingly reactive behavior is coincidence and is most likely the baby passing gas. 2. False, abortion does not kill distinctly human beings. It terminates a mass of cells which bare resemblance to the basic human bodily outline. You are projecting your own interpretations of personification upon the fetus, and claiming it has personality, feelings, and emotion. Just because a dog looks like it's smiling, does not mean that it is cognitively aware of it's projection of physical happiness. (No I am not comparing a dog to a fetus, but the projected personification is still the same.) 3. Life's beginning is not a settled fact; not sure where this claim comes from. Sure, the potential for further life development comes when the sperm meets the egg - but that, in no way shape or form, is what defines human life. 4. Your ridiculous assertion that abortion and serial murder are similar carries no merit, and honestly I shouldn't give the claim a second thought. 5. Yes, an unattended to baby outside of the womb will perish due to malnutrition or dehydration, but it is fully developed and a stable organism. A fetus in the womb could not have further growth, whatsoever, without the mother's food and water. What if the women cannot find sufficient nutrition due to poverty and the fetus miscarries; is this considered murder also? Further points: 1. Making abortion illegal will do nothing to stop abortions. It will merely cause women to turn to more drastic, unsafe, and unhygienic means of termination. 2. It is the women's body, she should not be put under the trials and tribulations of pregnancy (including trauma, psychological distress, and physical damage) if she was raped, taken advantage of, or if her contraceptive measures have failed. 3. Giving a baby up for adoption carries massive psychological ramifications, and can scar a women for life. 4. Religious ideology carries no merit under the law. 5. 1/3 women will be sexual abused in her life time - should these 33% be forced to carry unwanted and unsafe babies? 6. Forcing a baby to be born into a sub-par socioeconomic family will merely exacerbate the issue of overpopulation, poverty, and crime. Sure the baby could grow up to cure cancer; but odds are that the child will become yet another victim or circumstance in a poor neighborhood. Do no romanticize the potential of children; think pragmatically. 7. Abortions are not done on a whim. Trust me, I've had friends go through this traumatic decision process. Let the people who it effects deal with it themselves; why the heck do you have a say? You are extremely lucky to not be effected by something like this, but as such, you have no say or perspective on whether abortion should be allowed. 8. Artificially fertilized egg embryo's are experimented on and disposed of in an extremely callous manner. Why don't you start petitioning to end embryonic testing?
Abortion

1. Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester (88%), when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. 2. Fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? 3. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion. 4. The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? 5. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. 6. Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth. It is impossible to determine when life actually starts. You say at conception; at this point, it is merely a mass of cells which have no merit of human life. Your belief in when life starts come from your religion, and this cannot be used as a legitimate point. A women has actually is alive and has rights, should not sacrifice the right to dictate what she does with her own body because you believe it to be so.
Abortion

Hello, this is my first real debate on this site so I'm a little nervous to see how it goes. I must warn my opponent that I am a Christian and as such will not be afraid to mention the moral aspect of this issue. I am taking the Con side in this debate and I intend to prove to my opponent that abortion is disgraceful human murder and should be stopped! I also want to prove that the baby's right to life goes before the mother's right to choose. From the moment of conception the baby in the womb is a perfect work of art with everything it needs to sustain its life for the stage of growth it is in. A huge question that is often asked is at what point does a baby become a viable human being? Well what is the definition of "viable" at what point is the baby no longer just sperm and egg but a living human being with the same basic human right to life as the rest of us have? No one really agrees as to when this takes place so how can we say when it does not take place? The beginning of life is not a gradual process it takes place in an instant after that the development of the embryo in the womb is the same as outside the womb. I contend that life begins at the moment of conception when those cells begin to split and divide to form the child. So although the mother does have rights to her own body the baby, as a human being and citizen of the United states is entitled to the exact same rights.
having sex

Thank you Underage sex should ot be permitted First, 14 year olds are not adults. Adults can make their own decisions of what do do with their lives and bodies, but teenagers cannot. You are saying that Teenagers have the responsibility needed to take charge, but by law, parents still have authority over their children. If underage sex is legalized, there is a great possibility that adolescents will be taken advantage upon. This will also lead to more teen pregnancies, child prostitution, and also child pornography.