BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Rebuttals "The right to life" People whom have been put on the death penalty have taken away other people's lives. Innocent people. Is it okay to say that these murders have the right to live when they themselves have taken away innocent peoples life's? We should be protecting innocent citizens rights. They are the ones who have the right to life. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" "Innocents" 18 is a small number. How many people have been rightly executed? How many people have been wrongly accused and spent their life in prison? [1] Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22 cases where the defendant have been wrongly executed. However, this study is very controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in l2 cases. There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of innocence. Moreover, our judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are protected. Most likely an innocent person would not be executed" [4] Capital punishment is an extreme sanction that is properly reserved for the worst of the worst: serial killers like Ted Bundy and terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.Over the past decade, the murder rate has dropped dramatically. Several recent academic studies show a clear deterrent effect from judicious use of the death penalty: For each actual execution, about 17 murders are prevented, the studies show.Opponents claim that there are innocent people on death row. While that may be true, the number of innocent people who have been executed is zero" "Cost" Shockingly, you will find that over time life without parole is much more expensive than the death penalty. [2] "Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases" "A reasonable alternative" Why would we sentence more people to prison? A big majority of our prisons are already full, thus letting out criminals to let them repeat the crimes they have already done. The death penalty doesn't have to be so expensive! [3] We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost." Sources: [1] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [2] http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [3] http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [4] https://sites.google.com...
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

C1: The right to life“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”As quoted above, The general consensus in the U.S. is that the primary function of government is to secure people’s rights. Some of which are unalienable. In the United Sates, life is considered an unalienable right. This is evident by the quote above taken from the Declaration of Independence.How is it that the State can function as a securer of the individual right to life while simultaneously taking a person’s life? Simply put, it cannot. The State does have the right to remove those who violate other’s rights fromsociety. However, the State has no legitimate cause to take away one’s unalienable right to life. This is true even for the worst individuals imaginable. For the State to take one’s life via capital punishment is for the State to function contrary to its primary purpose. Life as a right should remain unalienable.C2: Innocents At least 18 people have been wrongly executed. 18 people have had their unalienable right to life taken from them unjustly. (1) What cost is my opponent willing to pay for so called justice that she is willing to endorse the unjust action of the state taking people’s lives.C3: CostTrying a death penalty case and the process of carrying it out cost significantly more than life in prison. (2)“the enhanced cost of trying a death penalty case is at least $1.25 million more than trying a comparable murder case resulting in a sentence of life in prison without parole.” (3)C4: A reasonable alternative“In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderersto life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected.” (4)Overview:The Death Penalty is more expensive than the alternative. Innocent people have been and likely will be executed. The States involvement in the death penalty is contrary to the purpose of government and infringes on unalienable rights. Life in prison without parole is a reasonable, cost effective alternative to the death penalty that gives the desired result without the potential harm the Death Penalty does. Due to the inherent harm of the death penalty and reasonable alternatives, the Death penalty should be abolished. Sources(1) http://www.deathpenalty.org...(2) http://www.forbes.com... (3)http://deathpenalty.org...(4) http://www.deathpenalty.org...
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Morality One thing about Capital Punishment, is that it helps maintain the law and lowers crime. Not only does it do these two things, but it also helps grieving families. In today's society, prisons are being over crowded. So, the government lets outs many prisoners free due to the lack of space. Many of these people whom are set free have committed murder, rape and other terrible crimes. Many of these prisoners when let out, will just continue down to their own path. This leads to my argument over morality. As defined in the dictionary, Morality is [2] The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct: Is it safe to say, that these convicted felons had acted in a moral way when committing such a crime? Would it be moral to let these felons free, and then have them commit the same crime over. Would also be of good conduct of the government to let these felons free knowing what they have committed, but let them free anyways, due to lack of space? [3]"Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense." It is more important to protect our society. Letting a prisoner free, whom have committed murder or had raped an innocent person is immoral. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" Constitutional Many people want to argue the fact that, Capital Punishment violated the 8th Amendment, which has to do with "Cruel and unusual punishment" Well, as defined in the dictionary Cruel can be defined as [3] Disposed to inflict pain or suffering: Some states have adopted a new and humane way of carrying out Capital Punishment. [4]"Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm' [quoting the opinion of the Court from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 842, 846 (1994)] that qualifies as cruel and unusual... Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States... Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol cannot be viewed as probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment" So, as you can read, States have adopted more humane way to carry out the procedure, thus not violation the 8th amendment when being called "cruel". Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... [3] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... [5] http://deathpenalty.procon.org......
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

This debate will be going to Kasmic! Resolved "The Death Penalty Should be Abolished" I as Con will argue why we should not abolish the death penalty. Pro will be arguing as to why we should abolish it. Definitions: Death Penalty- the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. (https://www.google.com...) Abolished- formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution) (https://www.google.com...) This will be a quick short debate. 3 hours between rounds with 3,000 character limit. The debate structure will be as follows: R1- Acceptance R2- Opening arguments from both sides. R3- Rebuttals R4- Closing statements.
god owns satan

My Opponent has clearly been deceived by the myth of the Biblical God. Its clear that Satan will hand God a true and proper beating as only is possible when you train in the Hell Fire Gym under the auspices of the mighty Zeus and Hercules. After all everyone besides God is in Hell so Zeus and all those other Egyptian, Roman, Greek, etc. Gods are in hell apparently if you believe the God myth. Its even true that Satan goes for his daily swim in the lake of sulfur and fire every day to revitalize himself and his supple skin. Then after the swim he eats babies which are full of protein to make his muscles strong and powerful. On the other hand, god drinks his milk and honey which is known to make you fat and lazy and he does this while lying around on a cloud playing a harp like a Hippie.And then clearly look at these two pictures who will win? Mighty SATAN http://unsportsmanlikecomment.files.wordpress.com...; width="503" height="308" />Puny God http://eofdreams.com...; />I think anyone with half a brain can see the answer is SATAN.And now back to you.xxxxxxNote to readers this is all a myth, don't take it to seriously, and please don't try this at home.
Mosquitos kill more people than sharks.

On intelligence tests, we mosquitoes have found humans disappointing. In Flying Intelligence, humans scored particularly low scores; they don't even have the capacity to move off the ground. In Evasion Tactics Intelligence, humans utterly fail, as can be seen by their poor encounters with bullets, arrows, and other projectiles. Mosquitoes are naturally superior in that regard. Additionally, life is about reproduction: humans fail their natural task by having only a few children at a time. Humans have entirely different bodies than we do: Killing a human doesn't even compare to killing a mosquito. Pretty much anyone would save a mosquito rather than I human; I've asked all my friends and they agree. Humans are also morally inferior: not one is able to have faith in the Great Mosquito, nor is any one of them able to understand his Son who was Swatted for our sins. Human's don't even have souls. True, they seem to react to pain, but that's not really any sort of consciousness, is it? They are a bit better than machines. We are able to create great works of art. Thus, by "eating" humans we are actually saving the lives of the more evolved and developed species. They are naturally inferior and they taste great. Let's do some population control, shall we? I know what I'm having for breakfast. (Remember: We mosquitoes murder each other exactly as often as sharks: zero. Don't listen to my opponent's attempt to debate from the perspective of humans: that would be animal rights gone too far.) Thanks to the voters! Please read and enjoy!
Mosquitos kill more people than sharks.

My opponent has forfeited this round. I will not add any new arguments this round, but will elaborate next round. Please recognize voters that forfeiting lowers the quality of this debate and wastes all of our time, in addition to being simply rude. We might want to consider cracking down on those who forfeit debates by having this disservice noted in the RFD (reasons for decision). I extend all of my arguments. If my opponent forfeits again I will continue to debate, just for fun.
Mosquitos kill more people than sharks.

I, pro, will defend the position that mosquitos, do in fact, kill more people than sharks. Due to scientific studies, Mosquitoes kill 2 to 3 million people per yer, while infecting about 200 million people per year. My proof is proved in this wikipedia entry: A shark attack is an attack on a human by a shark. Every year around 100 shark attacks are reported worldwide. Seventeen fatalities were recorded as having being caused by shark attacks in 2011, out of 118 recorded attacks.[1] Despite their relative rarity, many people fear shark attacks after occasional serial attacks, such as the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916, and horror fiction and films such as the Jaws series. Out of more than 480 shark species, only three are responsible for two-digit number of fatal unprovoked attacks on humans: the great white, tiger and bull;[2] however, the oceanic whitetip has probably killed many more castaways, not recorded in the statistics.[3] What it states is that less than a thousand people are killed by sharks each year, which proves my position that Mosquitoes do indeed kill more than sharks because of their deadly diseases such as malaria. To coclude this session, this passage declares that all my statements are true.
Mitt Romney will defeat President Barack Obama in the election this fall.

-- Rebuttals --"This is not true as it was reported that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the stimulus package would save at least 900,000 jobs yet it only saved 600,000 jobs as of the last report."My opponent fails to provide any evidence of this being true. In fact the CBO said the Stimulus created over 2 million jobs and saved over 1.5 million other jobs. [1]"The GDP did post numbers that were better then expected but this is the case in almost any recovery period in U.S. History. The economy would have expanded under any president at that rate. Maybe you should expand your graphs a little more."I already said earlier, that before the stimulus we were experiencing a devastating financial crisis, with GDP falling over 8% a quarter, with 700,000 jobs lost A MONTH, and having a global credit crunch, the death of the American auto industry, and large debts. Look at the progress.Now GDP grows 2-2.5% a quarter (normal levels) and jobs are being added more than 100,000 a month. Progress has clearly came. The American auto industry is back on top with record profits. [2] I showed last round their employment figures and that huge progress. Now, the American auto industry produces 40% of the world's electric lithium batteries. Under Bush, it was 2%. Progress. [3] "While they may be, then explain why both parties want to create a new tax code."Because the current code is inefficient, and riddled with loopholes/ tax breaks/ and tax deductions that allow many to not pay their fair share. Romney doesn't want to eliminate these loopholes I believe, they would hurt his major contributors."Job Credit and Stuff"Obama in his American Jobs Act would pass numerous tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Plus, the spending would stimulate the economy with infrastructure creation. The Romney plan would not intervene and help small business, as the Romney governor would oppose government doing such a thing. Win. "Crushing Facts?!? I think Not" First point is that he provides NO sources for any of this, to disprove my arguments. So we can assume, since his arguments in the based have been unfounded, that these should be weak arguments at best.Conclusion: Second, on the economy voters are almost evenly split between Obama and Romney. [4] However, Americans are now more optimistic than they were under Bush in 2004 about their economic future. [5] This, coupled with the fact that Americans think Obama will win 2-1, and the percentage chance of Obama beating Romney is 20 points higher than Romney's score, and the traditional incumbent advantage, coupled with the good economic news lately, makes it probable that President Obama wil win election this fall. Sources: [1] http://content.usatoday.com...[2] http://money.cnn.com...[3] http://www.time.com...[4] http://www.gallup.com...[5] http://www.gallup.com...
Mitt Romney will defeat President Barack Obama in the election this fall.

Thanks for the spelling note, smearing your opponent will not help you. Anyway, I'll start with my rebuttals now Rebuttals "True, but the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that the Stimulus blunted the blade of this recession. Without the stimulus, GDP would've declined a further -6.5%. A further 8.5 million jobs would've been lost. [1] [2]" "The unemployment rate is 1.5 points lower than it would've been without the stimulus." Completely false because the stimulus did not live up to the expectations the congressional Budget Office predicted This is not true as it was reported that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the stimulus package would save at least 900,000 jobs yet it only saved 600,000 jobs as of the last report. The GDP did post numbers that were better then expected but this is the case in almost any recovery period in U.S. History. The economy would have expanded under any president at that rate. Maybe you should expand your graphs a little more. http://useconomy.about.com... "Federal Income Taxes are the lowest in 60 years" While they may be, then explain why both parties want to create a new tax code. Barack Obama did not help small business whatsoever he made it very hard for Small Businesses to accomplish what they needed. Small businesses have been hit much harder during this downturn as their access to bank financing all but dried up to stricter lending practices put into place since 2008. These businesses rely solely on bank financing to grow and increase their payrolls. The administration responded by putting into place loan guarantee programs backed by several hundred million dollars of government funds. Before the money ran out, this seemed to be working as loan approvals for small businesses rose over 90%. http://www.examiner.com... If Mitt Romney was president he would follow the standard republican policy of keeping the government out of the private sector. The Government has continually hurt businesses by creating awful regulations restricting their growth. Lastly, Barack Obama's experience is very minimal compared to Mitt Romney. Baskin Robbins (lol) Basically all Obama has is his short term as a senator. Mitt Romney has been a business man involved with the private sector, he knows how it works. Obama does not. Mitt Romney took control and saved the Olympics of 2002. Mitt Romney most importantly was a governor and ran a state as if he was the president. Right Now on Gallup.org Obama and Romney are in a virtual tie and 55% of Americans say they would rather see Mitt Romney handle the economy than Obama. Of all Americans, 56% think Obama will win reelection. Only 36% think Romney will win, slightly over 1 in 3 people. [11] What people Think is usually different than their actions. Crushing Facts?!? I think Not
Mitt Romney will defeat President Barack Obama in the election this fall.

It has been said many times throughout the republican primary season, that this election will be the most important election in United States history. It has also been voted on by the American people that the economy is the most important topic in the election. Barack Obama's first term as president has been detrimental to the economy's health, for example Barack Obama said that "if the stimulus passed, unemployment would not rise and yet it did, as unemployment still hovers above 8%. Barack Obama has not only hurt the economy but has shoen no care for the deficit and even the middle clasd at times. This fall, Barack Obama does not have a lot to trade off of, he will resort to slandering his opponent and will to try escape all attacks on his record. The one thing he will try to trade off will be Obamacare, which is a socialist insurance system which will eliminate private businesses entirely and will hurt people who have insurance. This is entirely in conflict with constitution. This fall. Obama's tricks will not work. Mitt Romney is a much stronger candidate than John McCain. Mitt Romney has a lot more experience in the private sector compared to the minuscule time at a chicago law firm. Mitt Romney knows how to run a business and that's what this country needs right now. Mitt Romney has a spark that will give Obama a run that is much more difficult than the fight McCain gave him. An lastly as of right of now, 55% of Americans are better suited to handle the American Economy.
Is Christianity True

Yes, Evolution may be a possibility. But how can it simply even start? Unless you can say how things can create themselves, my answer is "God did it." This applies to everything in which you simply can not prove 100% scientifically. Sorry, but unless you can prove something with obvious science, then God simply made it. Also, we do not take the whole entire bible in the literal interpretation. The only time you will ever see this is with either Fundamentalist, or Atheist. About the lame response: like I said, if you can not prove every single step in which the process occurred, all a Theist is going to have to say is "God did it."
Is Christianity True

ok so first off the big bang is the best explanation we have no one said it is perfect second thing we never claimed we made DNA DNA made DNA you know what is a huge amount more complex than DNA? a multi cellular organism. and guess what evolution made those so whats to say it can't make DNA better 3rd off there are other places I am sure we can find where you don't even take your own book so seriously as you do when claiming it proves god Exodus 21:20-21English Standard Version (ESV) 20 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. boom slavery Deuteronomy 25:11 When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy. boom stoning people to death so if this book is so holy and everything in it true why are you not cutting peoples hands off for cheat sorry this is such a lame response I am tired and also due to the nature of atheism my points do not need much behind them I simply need to prove your god can not be proven true without a doubt
Is Christianity True

Here, Let me start with this: 1.) Google who founded the Big Bang Theory and ask yourself this question: How was it formed? There is only 3 ways the Universe could have started: 1.) A superior being put the Big Bang Theory into place, 2.) the Big Bang created itself with no rhyme or reason, or 3.) There was no Big Bang Theory (The Universe has always existed 2.) Think about it this way, compare DNA to anything a human has ever created. Hint: it is much, much more complex. Could DNA have created itself? At first, Scientist believed DNA was quite simple, but now, we know just how difficult it is. Without help, would something as advanced be formed? 3.) How is that a mistake? Mary was both a young women and a virgin. You have seen multiple times in Science and History what we refer to as Miracles. They just happen; something which science can not just explain. It is nearly impossible to say how Mary was also a Virgin (although it may be because of the Holy Spirit, not man), but you are correct in which she was a young women.