BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be abolished

Thanks Pro! I'll jump into arguments right away: 1. Justice. The death penalty provides justice for those who are victims of the horrendous crimes criminals commit. The criminals have wronged people and the death penalty is an appropriate way of ridding of the filth that caused so much harm and stress to our society. Keep in mind that the death penalty is strictly reserved for those who have done the most terrible things imaginable, such as rape and murder. [1] With current technology, the chances of innocent people getting convicted are extremely low, ensuring that the death penalty will only harm the foul and will help the families who are hurt by the criminal's crimes move on. I'll rebut my opponent's arguments next round. Good luck! [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The death penalty should be abolished

Thank you for accepting. The death penalty is something I am very against. The death penalty is the lethal injection of someone who is found guilty of a crime, and I say that it is entirely medieval and unnecessary. I will put it to you, voters and opponent, in a simple way. When you decide to take the life of another human being, you are making the executive decision to not allow them to live any longer. For good reason, this is illegal. Morally, we should not be allowed to decide if anyone other than ourselves deserves to live any longer. In a state where the death penalty is legal, a jury is placed into that executive position. They decide on whether the defendant should live or die, should they be found guilty. They are put into a murderous mentality that can be easily corrupted. While a jury is the most logical choice in a democracy, their beliefs can stand in the way. Attorneys may not even have an influence on some, and therefore the death penalty is subject to bias. Another argument is the fact that it is not necessary. If I were to murder someone, turn myself in, and plead guilty, I would most likely get 25 to life. This is no joke, and it prevents me from being a danger to anyone in society. So why do we need to kill anyone? No one wants to die, and therefore will appeal the decision. An appeal will result in astronomical legal fees for the state and the defendant, lethal injection costs the state money, etc. This is pointless spending. A murderer, rapist, etc. who is found guilty is sentenced to prison for long periods of time, eliminating danger. Therefore, I ask my opponent this. What is the point of taking someone's life? Revenge? Power? There is no logical answer to this question. Lastly, from a moral standpoint, it does not undo the crime. It does not bring a murder victim back to life, it does not take the trauma away from a rape victim. While this is sad, it is true. It does not solve anything, and only provides false closure. In conclusion, the death penalty is a waste of resources and time. $2.3 million is spent per year on the death penalty, with the possibility of the defendant being innocent. I look forward to hearing your arguments. Thank you.
border wall VS. border fence

If All Mexicans have dem lvl. 4 barracks, then the clan of MERICA obviously has barracks of lvl. 9 or higher and can request dragons for cc troops on de_fence. plus, we have Dubians on our side, and they our lit pay 2 plays and can give us all dem lit strats and cc troops, they are even in legandury aruna and will rek all of the filthy Mexicans who try to blow wall. but fences are an-uther story, have no defencive capibilities whatsoever because they have thin frames. walls are nothin' but a chepos who have no money for a real wall to take out the drug cartailage of Canada.
border wall VS. border fence

BUT THEY CAN STILL CHIP AWAY AT THE MORTAR!!!!!! Also, your statistics are false in that it takes double your numbers to blow up a border fence (duh). It's comman no-ledge that the hombres ALLL have level four barrckas and can get wallbreakers, but the fence is impervious to jungle arena attcks and wallbeakers because of all the spring traps (duh).
border wall VS. border fence

We obviously need to have a wall for protection against them dirty Mexicans because a fence just doesn't cut. why? because exactly that, the Bad hombres can cut right through it. any sort of wire cutter with at least 25% mechanical efficiency can sever the metal barbs with 10 Newtons or more, about the capacity of a three year old immigrants arm strength. On the other hand, a wall creates a very problematic situation for the Mexicans, however strong they may be. it takes 1,000,000,000 Megatons of explosives to break a wall with a density of 1000/cm^2 at standards.
global warming is a hoax

Thank you for this debate and it's great to meet you as well, jackgilbert! I assume that the first round is for our position statements? If so, my position statement is: While Global Warming may be played out by the media and garner political attention ( both negative and positive) during campaigns, it is not a hoax- as proven by many years of research, for example. I will also assume that the second round is for our points? Appreciate any clarification. I will see you next round!
Nationalism is Good

This brings to mind the topic of a World Government/ Collective . Nationalism depends on where you were born. It is like rooting for a Sports Team, you support your local team. If you look at the wide image, it is all so small. It is ok to say yay once in a while, but it is never ok to kill,oppress, etc for it. A weird way to put it. Who committed the Rwandan genocide? Hutu Nationalists. There are many more examples. Making a country better? Hard to do that in a Capitalistic system where all the wealth you produce ends up in the pockets of the rich. I never said you can't praise your ' Team ' or humanity. but sometimes we have to realize Co-Operation will take us much farther. Sports are silly. I never said you can love humanity and your country. Since I do not control what you do. I have no stable opinion on Nationalism, sometimes it is a disease, sometimes it is ok. But it still keeps people apart, considering we focus on one team, instead of on all teams. " Nationalism is an infantile disease. The Measles of Mankind. " - Albert Einstein "All of nationalism can be understood as a kind of collective narcissism. " - Geoff Mulgan "Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception." - George Orwell http://www.brainyquote.com...
Nationalism is Good

Nationalism can hold some people together and tear people apart. People should worry about their people more then the area they got born into by chance. People should care about Earth as a collective group, not a small piece of it. Every place on Earth is just a puzzle piece to the finished project, Earth.Nationalism is a love for your nation in people. In no way are we forbidden to love the earth. In my eyes Nationalism keeps people from banding together and accepting the fact that we are all Human, and our country should be Earth. The entire puzzle, not little pieces scattered hear and there. We are all human, but we have developed vastly different cultures from the first days of existence. Is there anything wrong with showing some pride for your culture and heritage, and wanting to make it better for the next generation? Humans will always be divided, but through nationalism, we break cultural ties and replace them with national ones. Nationalism is a good thing. It means you are proud of your country and want to make it better. I do not understand my opponents argument that nationalism should apply to humans in general. Why cant I love my humanity and my nation? I am not subjected to only one. Thank you for debating comrade silly otter. http://kingspell1.hubpages.com...
Nationalism is Good

Sorry for the delay, I was playing to much video games. Yes, I was thinking about Nationalism gone wrong. Since it has plenty of times in the Past. Nationalism can hold some people together and tear people apart. People should worry about their people more then the area they got born into by chance. People should care about Earth as a collective group, not a small piece of it. Every place on Earth is just a puzzle piece to the finished project, Earth. In my eyes Nationalism keeps people from banding together and accepting the fact that we are all Human, and our country should be Earth. The entire puzzle, not little pieces scattered hear and there. If it is Universal, or for our entire race. Sure the Nationalism is fine. But if it is for a Nation, or a ethnic group, then in my eyes it is just an obstacle towards the path of completing the puzzle. Thank you.
Nationalism is Good

I will start the debate by listing a few brief reasons why nationalism and patriotism is good, allowing for a quicker debate.Key Differences - I am sure my opponent will use plenty of examples of nationalism gone bad. He will most likely use examples of North Korean nationalism and Nazi nationalism. Dictorial nationalism does not align on the same level as other forms of nationalism. In many countries, nationalism is centered around the essence of the state, and not the figurative government.Nationalism Binds People Together- Nationalism is what keeps a country together. I refer to myself as a American before I do a Michigander. In the US, we care about our nation as a collective whole. If we were to lack nationalism, what is stopping people from protecting only the interests of themselves and their people. With nationalism, everyone who has citizenship is now considered your fellow countryman. Regardless of Religion or ethnicity.Patriotism increases work ethic- Patriotism is what makes us strive for our nation. It inspires us to work harder, so future generations can inherit our country better then we left it. It is this ambition which keeps countries from failing. These are just my opening arguments. More will be surely added as the ball begins rolling. Thank you Comrade Silly Otter for accepting, and good luck to you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Nationalism is Good

I accept the Challenge. I will argue that Nationalism is bad and silly. I will throw down first. It is silly to praise an area you got born into with artificial borders and so on. Nationalism supports Fascism. I believe it is ignorant and racist considering it divides people up, and make them blame each other instead of working together to fix the problem at hand. " Nationalism is an Infantile disease, the measles of Mankind " - Albert Einstein
Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana

The resolution is: Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana. My opponents job is to affirm this, and my job is to negate the topic. One important point that I must make is that my opponent has the burden of proving that Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana. If he does not successfully achieve this burden, then we default to my side. I believe that Metz put it best when he said; no it isn't. . http://www.nflonline.org... The facts speak for themselves.
Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana

Ok, so this debate has shifted its focus to WC being the best in Indiana by the state championship standards vs WC being the best on NFL standards. My opponent has decided to say that the NFL has no bearing on whether or not WC is the best speech team in Indiana. He argues that the IHSFA is the only competition that matters, since the NFL system is unfair, and how a team with more speech meets can get ahead. But it doesn't matter. WC is part of the NFL. WC has submitted to the NFL. WC debates in the NFL. It doesn't matter that the NFL is part of a national network. In all the schools in Indiana, WC is not the best in the NFL. We can't just ignore the NFL because its a national network. It doesn't matter if its unfair. You decided to be a part of it. It also doesn't matter that teams who go to more meets can get ahead. When you join the NFL, you agree to that. My opponent refutes this by saying that the resolution doesn't say by NFL standards. But my opponent offers no justification. The fact of the matter is, if WC were to be the best speech team in Indiana, they would have to be the best in everything they do. That is the definition of best. If they are not the best by NFL standards, then they aren't the best. Here's my logic in a simple chain of logic. The best speech team in Indiana is the best in all aspects of speech. JUSTIFICATION: The meaning of best. If WC is the best speech team in Indiana, then it is the best in all aspects of the speech. JUSTIFICATION: Simple claim my opponent must protect. WC is not the best in the NFL. JUSTIFICATION: Fact The NFL is an aspect of speech competition. JUSTIFICATION: Fact Therefore, WC is not the best speech team in Indiana, since they are not the best in the NFL. CONCLUSION. Thanks for the debate. I await the voters.
Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana

"However, WC is not the best in the NFL. My opponents refutation is that the system is unequal, and therefore we should not accept it. But the problem with that is that he is trying to do away with the evidence that shows WC not to be the best. WC is obviously not the best in the NFL, and that alone is enough to win me this debate." This debate is on the resolution that WC is the best in Indiana, not in the NFL. That would mean they would be the best in the IHSFA, and because they won the state championship, they are. In the NFL it is also possible for a team with more speech meets, such as out of state ones, can easily get ahead. "My opponent, in trying to affirm that WC is the best, must affirm that WC is the best in all aspects of speech. That implication comes with the topic. But my opponent has tried to ignore the fact that WC is not the best in the NFL. That one incidence of not being the best is enough to negate the topic." We are not talking about the NFL, rather, in Indiana, we would be talking about the IHSFA. "Also, by submitting to the NFL, you agree to abide by the system. You accepted it, so its not the NFL's fault if you think they are unequal." The resolution was not that they were the best by NFL standards. I await my opponents response
Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana

I drop all my opponents arguments. Ok, so WC has done great at sectionals, and has won state championships. However, WC is not the best in the NFL. My opponents refutation is that the system is unequal, and therefore we should not accept it. But the problem with that is that he is trying to do away with the evidence that shows WC not to be the best. WC is obviously not the best in the NFL, and that alone is enough to win me this debate. My opponent, in trying to affirm that WC is the best, must affirm that WC is the best in all aspects of speech. That implication comes with the topic. But my opponent has tried to ignore the fact that WC is not the best in the NFL. That one incidence of not being the best is enough to negate the topic. Also, by submitting to the NFL, you agree to abide by the system. You accepted it, so its not the NFL's fault if you think they are unequal. I await my opponents resposne.
Warren Central High School has the best speech team in Indiana

"My opponents job is to affirm this, and my job is to negate the topic." Yes I have to, and I will give the facts. Warren Central (from now on I will refer to them as WC) has won the sectionals for 8 years in a row (2000-2008) and has won the IHSFA state championship in 2007-2008 year. In 2005-2006 WC won the IHSFA AAA state championship as well as the grand championship. Now with all these honors, it is hard to doubt that WC is not the best. "I believe that Metz put it best when he said; no it isn't. http://www.nflonline.org...; This system is unequal, as original speeches are worth more than interpretations.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) I await my opponents response. I await my opponents response
Sex Offender Registries should be discontinued.

I will not have time to post a full round, seeing as I had school and then when I got home my Internet wasn't working, leaving me with only thirty minutes. opponents arguments: "Such a blanket punishment is decidedly unfair, because it punishes the lightest offenders as strictly as the highest ones. Since punishment should be fair (i.e. it should fit the crime), these registries should be discontinued." I agree with you, it is unfair that sexual offender is such a blanket term, but registries should not be discontinued. If you pee in public, you risk being caught and labeled as a sexual offender. Well, use your brain and DONT do pee in public. There are gas stations, parks, restaurants, etc. that someone could stop at and use the bathroom. There is no need to go in public. "Sex offenders shy away from seeking therapist help, because they fear being revealed and put on the list permanently." They may shy away from seeking therapist help, but if they (or the family) knows what's best, they will seek help, no matter what. And if they are sexual offenders, they need to be put on the list anyways to warn the surrounding area. "Rehabilitation builds the future; punishment gets stuck in the past and neglects today and tomorrow." punishment and rehabilitation should go hand in hand. They should put a sex offender on the list until they have been rehabilitated, and then they can be taken off the list. I know this is not the case, so they should be punished. Punishment will show them what happens when they do something like that. would you rather punish the person that hurt the child or punish the child? because not punishing the offender is the same thing as punishing the child. That is not fair that the child went through the pain. "Such dehumanization is the cause of much social evil: racism flourished because blacks were dehumanized; Nazism grew through the dehumanization of Jews. I ask the reader to affirm that all humans are equal, that offenders are human and deserve our concern... that, in the words of Martin Luther King, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." so you are comparing people who hurt other people to Jews and blacks? Sex offenders deserve this, The Jews and blacks didn't. Gossip is not all the time true, so if we don't have a registry, who will know what is true and what is a lie? my arguments: sorry its not alot, again, I didn't have the time. 1) sex offender registries may stop future sex offenders from committing their crime. They will not want to be put on the list, so they will simply seek help. 2) you cant just simply stop registries. There would be to many parents who would have a problem and complain. And what would you tell them the reason that you stopped them was? Because it hurt the sex offenders feelings? Boo Hoo. There are kids out there who will never get there virginity or trust in other people back because of what these sick people did. The websites will be posted in the comments section, I am really pushing it for time right now. Thanks. And just answer this: If a sex offender were living by you, would you want to know?
Sex Offender Registries should be discontinued.

"People who read the list, fearful and ignorant, ostracize the offenders, mock them, drive them away. " "Their offense becomes a scar FOR LIFE. " "Employers fire them, however excellently they perform. " This may be true, but they did something and they have to suffer the consequences. Even if there were no list, people gossip, and they would hear about it. "They are more likely to repeat their sexual offenses, because everyone expects them to. More children are molested, more women are raped. " Not neccesarily. They will not do it just because people know they are on the list and expect them to do it. They do it because they are sick minded. according to . http://www.gallup.com... 44% of Americans are not at all concerned that this will lead to harassment to the people listed on this list. you are correct when you say thieves and murderers lack an online registry. However, most thieves go to jail or get in some sort of trouble, and murderers get jail or the death penalty. Different crimes receive different punishment. "There are numerous cases where sexual offenders, even years after their crime, get murdered by their neighbors because they saw the offender's name in an online registry. " Yes but like I said before, word gets around, and they will hear about it. some registries tell the person before they are able to look at the registry that it may violate law to harass anybody listed on the registry. . http://www.insor.org... Arguments: 1) sex offender registries help parents see if there are any registered sex offenders that live near them. I wouldn't want my child playing near someone's house who molested or raped somebody. Basically registries are for protection. They let you know if there is anybody in your area who you need to watch out for. 2) They let people know what the person looks like and who they target as victims. If they target five year old girls, and you have a five year old girl, you know to keep away. . http://www.highbeam.com... 3) The purpose of the sex offender registry is not to stop the sex offender from repeated offenses (that is what jail time is for) but for warning parents and children that there may be sex offenders lurking. Registries are doing their job, so why would you stop them? . http://www.nj.com... That was my debate and I cant wait to hear from you again!
Sex Offender Registries should be discontinued.

Definitions: Sexual offender registries: the lists of sexual offenders that are available online. These lists include people with a wide diversity of offenses: from streaking to rape. These lists are FOR LIFE. The local police stations furnish the information for these registries. Discontinued: Abolished, removed, stopped. Police stations will providing these lists of offenders. Advocates of these lists argue that such lists help safeguard local societies from the offenders. I will argue that the harms of these lists far outweigh any benefits. My arguments: 1) Dehumanization and self-fulfilling prophesy These lists dehumanize the offenders. People who read the list, fearful and ignorant, ostracize the offenders, mock them, drive them away. Society shuns the offenders and hurts them emotionally. Their offense becomes a scar FOR LIFE. Employers fire them, however excellently they perform. Apart from the emotional, psychological and professional suffering that offenders undergo, they also succumb to a self-fulfilling prophesy, as they fail to reintegrate into society. They are more likely to repeat their sexual offenses, because everyone expects them to. More children are molested, more women raped. 2) Unfair punishment: For no other crime in the USA does there exist a similar registry of offenders. Thieves lack an online registry; so do murderers! Our justice system becomes unfair when we infringe on the civil rights of offenders when there is no parallel procedure in other crimes. Law should be consistent. 3) Promotes vigilantism: Often individuals take it upon themselves to eradicate these offenders. There are numerous cases where sexual offenders, even years after their crime, get murdered by their neighbors because they saw the offender's name in an online registry. Apart from refuting the above arguments, I will place one additional burden on Con: (a) Provide evidence that such registries WORK and are NEEDED. That they decrease recidivism, or succeed in protecting the community. Only 5% of sexual offenders repeat their crime within the next 3 years. Do registries achieve anything here? Some evidence links on my side: [1] http://bangornews.com... [2] http://articles.latimes.com... [3]http://cfcoklahoma.org...