BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States.

Thanks to Pro for his response. ===== Sources ===== I would like to apologise for not providing the page numbers for the linked sources; I fully intended to, but for some reason it slipped my mind. For ease, the sources are summed up here: [1] and further sources to corroborate the general claims made are here: [2]. The page numbers, in order of sources presented, are page 10, page 12 and page 2 (bottom of page). If you can't find them, use keywords such as '$137 million'. ====== Pro Case ====== 'There have been way less death penalty cases than other murder cases' --> I have no idea what you intend to prove by this. Of course it is true, but it has little to no impact on the resolution itself; the resolution is not 'the modern death penalty isn't so bad because it isn't used that often' the resolution states that the death penalty is BENEFICIAL to the economy. With this in mind, Pro must demonstrate that it is more expensive to incarcerate a prisoner for life than to execute him, along with the enormous legal fees which stem from such an act. 'Lifetime imprisonment almost guarantees SOME type of disease. Treatments/therapy for these diseases/problems are usually VERY costly' --> Unfortunately, Pro has left very little to contend at this point. The sole link he provides gives NO account at all even of how much the treatments cost; never-mind how much that affects the overall cost of incarcerating prisoners. He just gives some vague claim about the treatments being 'VERY expensive'. Well; how expensive, may I ask? And more importantly, how does this affect the overall claim that it is more economical to execute prisoners rather than incarcerate them? Until Pro answers these questions, he doesn't have a case. ======= conclusion ======= Pro has provided no compelling reason to think that the modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States. He has at best provided some reasoning behind the claim that incarcerating a prisoner is expensive, but at the moment that claim in wholly inadequate. Even without my negative case (which stands unrefuted), Pro has yet to affirm the resolution. [1] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States.

Second, the sources provided are somewhat long. I read for a bit, and decided that the con should provide page numbers relevant to the argument imposed. Or you could find facts that aren't . org/pdf documents? I don't know what that's all about. Anyways. I will not respond to the arguments yet, considering I have no proof. Third, here is my main case against the idea as a whole that, the death penalty costs more than lifetime incarceration. - There are WAY less death penalty cases than murder cases. - Lifetime imprisonment almost guarantees SOME type of disease. - Treatments/therapy for these diseases/problems are usually VERY costly. * "The rate of HIV among prisoners is 5 to 7 times that of the general population. HIV rates are highest among African American prisoners. " [1] ** People being imprisoned often bring in new diseases: "about 25% of HIV-infected Americans", "33% of those infected with hepatitis C virus", "40% of Americans with active tuberculosis" [1] *** "Among these inmates, up to 50% have mental disorders. As many as 75% have alcohol or other substance abuse disorders. " [1] [1] - . http://www.thebody.com...
The modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States.

======== Introduction ======== Thanks to Con for bringing this highly controversial topic to light. Although I am of the opinion that the proposed topic should have a relatively minor role in the debate over whether the death penalty should be allowed, it is still an important one that needs to be addressed. At first glance, Pro's case seems obvious. After all, quickly cutting off somebody's life instead of spending money on food, clothing and incarceration for their entire lives should obviously be cheaper. Pro has already brought this point to light by presenting statistics which show that lethal injection is much cheaper than housing an inmate, even for only a year. However, there are a number of hugely important costs he has not considered; costs that tip the cost of executing our criminals as greater than the cost of incarcerating them; much greater, in fact. ==== Case ==== Death penalty cases are much more expensive than ordinary murder cases; this is because of complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections and expenses for expert witnesses. In addition, courts tend to follow heightened due process because of the irreversibility of the death penalty, drawing out the trial. After conviction, prosecution and defense costs must be paid for the constitutionally mandated appeals. In Kansas, a legislative audit found that the average cost of a death penalty case when compared to a similar non-death penalty case was 70 percent more. [1]; in Maryland, the figure is three times more [2]. In addition, the majority of costs are still incurred regardless of the outcome. The true cost of the death penalty includes the costs not only of those trials which successfully execute the criminal in question, but those who are spared as-well. Also importantly, if the defendant is convicted but not given the death penalty, the cost of life imprisonment must be paid on top of the trial expenses. So, what is the comparison here? What is the comparison of life-imprisonment to capital punishment, and how does it affect the economy? Well, a report by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimated these figures: 1. The cost of the present death penalty system is $137 million per year. 2. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year [3] The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.kslegislature.org... [2] http://www.urban.org... [3] http://www.ccfaj.org...
The modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States.

The modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States First, I would like to provide definitions concerning the matter. Modern death penalty - Death by lethal injection. Lethal injection - the act or instance of injecting a drug for purposes of capital punishment or euthanasia. [1] Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful. [2] Economy - an act or means of thrifty saving; a saving. [3] Second, since I have the burden of proof, here are a few facts: *These are not all of the facts. I only mention a few so I can bring up the rest later. - The cost of the total lethal injection process is about $86.08. [4] - Unnecessary costs are bad for the economy. - The cost of housing an inmate in prison per year is about $47,000. [5] [1] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] - . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [5] - . http://www.lao.ca.gov...
Evil does not exist.

1. Pro's Inadequate Definition of Evil I am assuming that Pro hasn't reached high school yet because he doesn't know that starting a paper with a dictionary definition will get you a failing grade. It's one of the cardinal sins when writing papers. As many of you already know, the problem with dictionary definitions is that the description is too superficial. For certain words, it's impossible to capture the meaning in 5 words. And, we see this same exact problem here. One important question that the dictionary doesn't answer explore is this. Is evil defined as an absolute immoral act or is it relative to the perpetrator? Pro simply assumes it's the latter which makes his argument flawed. However, I don't make that assumption. I consider both options and then give an example of evil in either situation. 2. Definition #1: Evil as an Absolute Act Some philosophers consider certain acts evil, irrespective of any point of view. For example, it doesn't matter whether Spartans had a different moral code that allowed the killing of babies. Many people believe that there is a universal moral code that transcends all points of views. Some Christians believe this absolute moral code has been established by God and he instilled it in the fabric of our souls. Whatever the origin, an example of an absolute moral code is that killing a baby to weed out the weak ones is evil, irrespective of the situation or point of view. 3. Definition #2: Evil as a Relative Act There are numerous examples of this case. For example, we, as readers can readily admit that we commit small evils in our own daily lives. For example, we know it's wrong to steal, or we know it's wrong to cheat on that test, or we know it's wrong to beat up our brother. But, we still do it anyway. This is evil. Maybe not on the scale of genocide but evil nevertheless. Is it surprising to see our natural human tendency to go against our own moral code due to a moment of weakness? We open a newspaper and see abundant evil. Many criminals know what they are doing is wrong but they do it anyway.
Evil does not exist.

1. Definition of Evil - 2 Definitions Pro's definition of evil is inadequate. Evil can be define in 2 different ways. First, evil can be defined as something as contrary to general morality. In other words, an act is evil when the general populace finds it evil. Second, evil can be defined as something that is contrary to the perpetrator's morality. In other words, an act is evil when a person goes against his moral conscience. 2. Example of the 1st Definition The general populace today believes killing a baby is evil. If you intentionally kill a baby, you are a horrible evil monster. However, in Sparta many years ago, if a baby weren't up to a certain standard, they would be tossed off a cliff or abandoned on a nearby hillside. By today's standards, it's considered barbaric and evil. It's irrelevant what the perpetrator thought. Morality is based upon what society think. And, we view the actions by these Spartans as evil. 3. Example of the 2nd Definition With this definition, evil is committed when a person knowingly commits an act even though he knows it's wrong. We see this every day. Most rapists know that it's wrong. Most thieves know it's wrong. But, times are tough or they just say screw it, I'm just going to do it anyway. Stories in newspapers every day are enough evidence of this type of evil. 4. Countering Pro's Argument In this section, I shall address the deficiencies in Pro's argument. Pro categorizes evil between religious and secular models. First, I have no idea why he does this and doesn't share any light on the debate. For example, I can categorize cars between blue and red cars but it doesn't help me determine which cars are fastest. Morality can be based upon secular or religious views but the debate stems on whether people follow this morality or not. Second, Pro's argument itself is full of holes. Here are several examples. He assumes God is omnibenevolent although there is no evidence of this. He states if God is omnibenevolent, such a God would not allow evil to exist. This is a non sequitur because an omnibenevolent God can allow evil to exist to contrast it with good. He states that Hitler acted according to his own moral standards. This statement illustrates an unsophisticated and wrong view of an important part of history. Hitler acted the way he did to amass power and leveraged the fears and nationalism during the period. 5. Conclusion I've shown the structure of Pro's argument isn't very illuminating. Further, the substance of Pro's argument is full of holes. In contrast, I've provided a more robust definition of evil and provided obvious examples of it.
Evil does not exist.

Round 1Definitions:Evil is defined as: profoundly immoral and wicked.Profoundly is defined as: to a profound extent; extremely.The Religious Argument:An omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God Exists.If God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient then evil cannot exist.God is omnibenevolet, so he would not wish to allow evil to exist.God is omniscient, so he can see every way in which evil may come into existence and every way in which it can be prevented.God is omnipotent, so he has the power to stop evil from coming into existence.Evil exists. (Contradiction)The point to this is that either one of God, or evil, can exist at the same time. As the religious believe that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God exists, they cannot believe that evil exists. Thus, to the religious monthiests, God cannot exist.The Secular Argument:Often you will hear that events in history, we'll use the holocaust as an example, happened because 'The Nazis were evil.' As much as we may wish to believe this, it is not the case. Evil cannot exist as a motive to someone's actions, therefore the idea of evil is a human construct that has no actual place in reality. Thus, whilst evil may exist as an idea, it does not actually have existence in reality.The reason for this is because it is impossible to be universally (profoundly) immoral. Whilst you may believe somebodies actions to be immoral (i.e. the holocaust), the person whom acted (the Nazis) invariably did not see their actions as immoral. I am not, here, trying to justify the holocaust. It was a horrific event in History, and the Nazis should undoubtedly be punished for their crimes. But does that mean that they did what they did because they were evil? No. During, before, and after WWII, there was a massive wave of anti-semitism spreading across Europe and not entirely avoided by America either. Hitler acted the way he did, not because he was evil, but because he genuinely believed he was acting 'morally.' Thus Hitler, and the hundreds of thousands of people under his command, did not believe that their actions were without a moral justification, thus you cannot assume their actions to have been motivated by their being evil, due to the fact that they were not evil, as they had no understanding themselves of the immorality of their actions. Does this justify their actions? No. But it does mean that they were not evil.Your turn, Con!
Is feminism needed in today's society

My opponent doesn't mention maintenance of equality in his last speech. Thus, my argument about having people still maintain the feminism ideology in order to maintain the equality of the status quo is extended. Cold conceded. Con gives a definition. prefer my definition because my opponent does not have a citation for where it comes from and they didn't mention it R2. Next, he completely ignores my comment about how the feminist movement is not necessarily a push, but maintaining equality which is entailed by the definition. Extend the arg. Saying feminism is about female supremacy contradicts the definition. Feminism in essence is equality of both sexes. My opponent then keeps on bringing up how feminists have misplayed the essence of feminism, I agree. However, we cannot confuse the essence of something with how people interpret it. For example, if someone were christian and decided to shoot up a clinic, we cannot say this is Christianity. Shooting up clinics is not doctrine
Is feminism needed in today's society

My opponent claims that feminism is a movement trying to anchor equal rights when it's most entirely not. The definition I pulled about feminism was that "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.". This nonsense is still taking place today which is why the debate has the question, is feminism needed in modern society. In modern society, a push for female rights (Or in this case, female supremacy) is utterly pointless. While yes, the idea might have been solid in the 80's, it's not needed in modern society. It has evolved into something much worse that you can't ignore. In many cases, the intention might've been good (Hitler trying to "save" his country by establishing a common enemy) the outcome was very bad and leads to a toppled society whether that be men fighting back and gaining more rights or women taking supremacy.
Is feminism needed in today's society

1) My opponent confuses the essence of feminism with other people's interpretation. This is why I mentioned the definition of feminism. Feminism's definition doesn't change, because some people decide to confuse feminism with fighting against men. Therefore, disregard my opponent's claim about feminazis. 2) My opponent says by my logic we would also need meninism. If meninism stands for the equality of both sexes, then yes. Both mindsets of equality needs to be prevalent among people. These two do not cancel each other, they go hand and hand. In fact, they are required for each other. Even though i'm sure meninism is a parody, theoretically if it stood for equality, then it's good. Remember, feminism says "equality of the sexes". 3) "feminism was a rally for maintaining equality for both sexes", my opponent is ignoring the definition. Feminism isn't necessarily a push for equality as in change, but it solely entails maintaining this equality of both sexes.
Is feminism needed in today's society

While yes, feminism is a battle for equality of the sexes, nowadays it's all about female supremacy. It's been hijacked by radical "feminazis" who are still pushing for women's rights today which is pointless as it is as equal as we're going to get. That being said, my opponent states that feminism is needed to main the status quo. If that is true which I'm not denying, meninism is also required to maintain the same standards ultimately cancelling the two out. Why have feminism, a push for equality, when we're already equal. If feminism was a rally for maintaining equality for both sexes, then it would be necessary but in modern days, it's very unnecessary.
Is feminism needed in today's society

Definitions: Feminism- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (1) Observation: In this context, my opponent implies should, not the strict sense of the word "need". Rebuttal: I concede my opponent"s arguments My case: I do concede my opponent"s arguments, but only because they do not matter in this debate. Feminism is needed for maintaining this equality. Without having this equality, atrocities become more probable. Feminism helps us maintain the status quo I conceded. Without people having this feminism ideology, equality decreases. Essentially, people who think there needs to be no equality, start to be more lenient, if not just advocating for inequality. Thus, vote for keeping the feminism ideology if you want to maintain the theory that we should treat men and women equally. Thanks. (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Dragons

Thus, we shall discuss if it is possible for dragons to exist now. "while it may still be considered a myth there have been many sighting in the european area back hundreds of years ago" Prove it. "it is possible that all recods of dragons have been lost because of the time difference between then and now. " Not really. It is pretty hard for ALL records of dragon sightings to have been lost between "then and now. " You're not really arguing; you're just stretching for possibilities that really aren't too possible. "if there were dinosaurs then is it possible there were dragons at one point in time? " Using your logic, one could say that an existence of dinosaurs makes it possible for the fictional King Kong to have been alive. You cannot prove that dragons have existed or do exist currently. You haven't even proven that it is possible. I have negated my opponent. Thank you.
Thatcherism is a force for good

Firstly, my argument is not that the "milk snatching" was irrelevant to Thatcher"s legacy; it was the best way to save money without having to reduce the quality of education by reducing numbers of teachers, etc. Poor children were entitled to subsidised milk, and even those who now had to pay for milk were better off, as taxes were slashed leaving families with more disposable income even after paying for milk. I still stand by what I said, because most of it did end up down the drain. This applied to all types of schools. You also misunderstood my brief mentioning of socialism. My argument is not that Thatcherism works because socialism doesn"t; I just mentioned the huge problems socialism caused in the UK that Thatcherism solved. I am also deeply offended by Con"s rude and irrelevant accusations when he calls me "fascist" and "anti-Semitic". I didn"t even mention Jews! How dare you use an Ad Hominem! The fact remains that inequality didn"t grow by 121% as you said, it was 14%. The article from reuters you linked said this: "The average income of the richest 10 percent of earners in the UK was almost twelve times that of the bottom decile by 2008, up from eight times the bottom 10 percent in 1985 and above the European ratio of nine to one, the report showed." May I point out that this increase took place since Thatcher"s day (1985) despite eleven years of Labour government since then. This means that Britain was more equal under Thatcher than the Labour Blair and Brown in the 2000"s. The facts also remain that 38% of homeless people are mentally ill(http://totalassist.co.uk...). Why can you not accept that? I fully support Margaret Thatcher spending "100 million on improving life for the homeless? Don"t you? Inequality is an issue, however I disagree with the fact "The poor should be poorer provided the rich were less rich", which is why having all levels of income rising above inflation is more important than the gap between rich and poor narrowing. Thank you for accepting my first debate, however I do feel my points were not successfully negated.
Thatcherism is a force for good

Pro did not specify any rules, So I'll just go ahead with arguments. Let the fun begin. I'll have something light and easyOverall view of ThatcherismThatcher's major shift from comprehensive to market values within the system have caused immeasurable harm. Riots arise along with banners that wrote 'The Milk Snatcher'. Though the conservatives are very vocal in their views, often criticizing comprehensive as socially divisive whilst fanatically in favor of grammar schools, their policies however, speak and garner a completely different sight. The head proponent herself eviscerated the Unions, throwing hoards of working class members and children into poverty. Not only that, she usually gets away with these crimes by twisting and flip-flopping contentious issues such as gay marriage. She even claims that the homeless are 'mentally retarded'(1. . http://tinyurl.com...) for lying across the street, ignorant that these were the consequence of her actions. Furthermore, as if claiming homeless people retarded not enough , she went on the offensive against children, stealing their milk by removing the subsidy in order to meet her 'interest' and election pledges. Everything is always about the party, forget the children(2. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). She also claims that the children got 'richer under thatcher' but only to see overwhelming figures that forcast the exact opposide, an increase in child poverty by 121% (3. . http://www.leftfootforward.org...).In conclusion, these consequences are as Anthony Giddens puts it 'Pure ideology' (4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...), it is nothing more than a political maneuver rather than a platform with economic reasons. The resolution of Thatcherism being a force for good is negated.