BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Death Penalty Should Be Phased Out

How a state government works is this, we as citizens gives up some power so that the state protects our unalienable rights and in return we live by those laws that the state has set forth. When someone who just broke one of the biggest laws set forth, which is we do not kill each other, he/she relinquished their rights. How is life in prison a suitable punishment for a person who kills a person or even kills more than one? How is that justice being served? Did those victims not have lives? dreams? rights? Were those rights not just violated by an individual who broke the laws of the government? When someone is murdered, the state has failed to protect that person from his unalienable rights being taken away. The best solution is to serve justice, kill the menace to society, not cloth them, feed them, give them books to read, give them water, or even a shelter until they die in their cells. Example Jeffrey Dahmer, killed 17 boys, he tortured them, raped them, and ate their bodies. 17 boys died and the suitable punishment was to be stuck in jail for the rest of his life? He took their dreams, their future, their innocence, and disposed of the bodies so that not even the families could give a proper burial, and the most reasonable conviction was to send this man to jail for life? Why does he deserve to live? Where does it say he is allowed to take the rights of 17 boys? For people who commit these crimes, prison is a blessing, with all these charges how are these people supposed to live in the outside world? No person in their right mind would hire a murderer. Our international relations should stay intact, we are a more powerful country we should not force ourselves to change every little thing so that all the countries will accept us more. It is impossible to please the entire world, our allies will just find other reasons to look at us in a bad light, we cannot change everything just to fit their likings. The death penalty is a fitting end to a person who did not care about the consequences of his/her actions,they gave up their rights when they decided to break the state laws and take another persons rights away. I do not see the logical reasoning with one person killing 17people and getting to live his life, that seems like a flaw in the justice system if we allow that to happen. The death penalty should not be phased out. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The US Death Penalty Should Be Phased Out

"Again ethical..." Yes, life in prison is a sufficient punishment and safeguard for society. You admit that a murderer's actions are unethical, but when the state returns the favor, you fail to see what's unethical. That is quite a disconnect. Additionally, victims are not entitled to privileged rights such as murder to be used as a retaliatory tool. Not to mention, murdering the perpetrator does not bring back the loved one, nor does it serve justice. And no, jails shouldn't be banned... Con - "A person serving a life term sentence can easily make appeals for past that time period that would accumulate to even more costs in the long run than the appeals of a death row inmate." This is an unbacked assertion that goes in direct conflict with the information provided in the numerous sources I presented in round 2. Life terms may grant more numerous appeals over time, but even so, death penalty trials still cost an average of 8 times more than regular murder trials.[1][2] Con - "This study is far from conclusive. It really does not make sense that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates." It makes perfect sense. It has been demonstrably proven that the death penalty is NOT an effective deterrent, regardless of usage, state, socioeconomic circumstances, or average crime rates. If capital punishment was indeed an effective deterrent, a trend of negative crime rates would ensue; however, that just doesn't happen. "Innocence" No, I do not currently have a specific list. However, what is the likelihood that NONE of the 1,100 executed death row inmates since 1976 were innocent? What about the chances that no execution in American history ever been infringed upon an innocent? "International Opinion" The overwhelming majority of the USA's strongest allies do not support the usage of capital punishment, which will contribute to our international image as being a bunch of barbaric and uneducated Rednecks. This is not a positive image. === Conclusion === The US death penalty does not serve justice, but rather perpetuates injustice by retaliating to crimes with draconian punishment. State sponsored killing is something the US can leave to nations such as Iran, Saudi-Arabia, and China, because capital punishment does not serve an ethical or logical purpose, whatsoever. Instead, government resources are wasted, crime rates are undeterred, and our international image is further tarnished. There are currently around 3,000 death row inmates, which hardly crowds the 1.5 million large US prison system. Overall though, the death penalty is unethical, inefficient, illogical, ineffective, and very impractical to utilize, which is why it should be phased out. Vote Pro. === Sources === 1. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The US Death Penalty Should Be Phased Out

Again ethical... Is life in prison really a fair punishment for a man killing another person? There is no justice being served here. Just because Gandhi says something doesn't mean everyone should agree with his teaching. Not torture, but deliver the same punishment that the criminal used on the victim. The U.S system does not do enough to give justice to the victim. When we send a prisoner to life in prison he basically no longer has rights, or the freedom to use those rights, and we take away his pursuit of happiness. Should we ban jails too? because it is basically the same thing, we are depriving the murderer of his right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Logical/ costs People on death row like I said before has a set time period until their sentence and in that time frame of avg 9.8 years they make appeals which costs a lot of money. A person serving a life term sentence can easily make appeals for past that time period that would accumulate to even more costs in the long run than the appeals of a death row inmate. Ineffectiveness This study is far from conclusive. It really does not make sense that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates. There must be other factors weighing in like more drug usage in those states, more poverty, more gang violence,etc. The death penalty is to serve justice for the victim that was killed. Innocence So, you do not have a list or proof that innocent people have been killed under the death penalty? International opinion What i meant in my last argument was that, other countries have also allowed the death penalty. The death penalty will not be the sole reason other countries will see us in a bad light. Other countries who has the death penalty might look down on us if we took off the death penalty the same international opinions would apply. Conclusion The death penalty gives closure and justice to the victim and their families. We have laws for a reason, and a murderer just chose not to follow the rules of the state, so their rights should be taken away. Sending them to jail like I said takes away their rights as well, to pursue happiness it doesn't mean we get rid of jails. The facts Pro has put forth are far from conclusive just observations, and surveys. Keeping all the murderers in jail will just crowd the jails, and more people will just demand appeals to overturn the ruling the costs will still be ridiculously high. The death penalty should be enforced so that we can seek true justice for the dead victims and not just look out for the criminals.
The US Death Penalty Should Be Phased Out

"Ethical?" First of all, Con immediately assumes that death row inmates are never remorseful, but only proud of their crimes. This assumption is unsubstantiated. Secondly, Con shows disdain for the removal of life, liberty, or property, yet in the next breath, advocates it for certain prisoners. Thirdly, life in prison is hardly a reward, vacation, or "slap on the wrist" as Con puts it, but instead a severe and Draconian punitive measure, which certainly goes far enough. Lastly, despite how angry someone may be at the murderer of his/her parents, basing the US legal system on emotion rather than reason-based law will likely result in further unethical actions taking place. It relates to the quote I listed in the first round: "If everyone took an eye for eye, the world would be blind". In your view, perhaps the victim of a crime should be allowed to torture the perpetrator? Just how far are you willing to go to right the wrong that has been done by committing another wrong? "Logical/Cost?" The studies I cited take into account the appeals process for both death penalty and regular trials, along with detainment costs. A death penalty trial requires much more arbitration and bureaucracy because the state is about to systematically kill somebody. Larger legal teams are required, additional court time, and overall, excessive resources that the US cannot currently afford when considering the deficit issues. Deficits aside, these are resources that could be used to put more Police on the streets, which actually serves a useful purpose. "Ineffectiveness?" Con's "common sense standpoint" is hardly comparable to legitimate studies and statistics. Singapore may have strict laws on crime combined with low crime rates, but Sweden also has low crime rates, yet takes the opposite approach to punitive measures. This demonstrates that crime is insensitive to the usage of the death penalty. The point stands; the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. "Innocence?" It is tough to obtain records of innocent people who have already been executed. The fact that an activist organization had to obtain DNA evidence to exonerate 138 death row inmates makes it self-evident that innocent people have been killed by the usage of capital punishment at some point in time. Many of the listed exonerations would be unjust murders if not for The Innocence Project. "International Opinions?" Con simply asserts that my argument is not valid, yet doesn't provide a reason why. === Conclusion === Con's arguments have not stood up to the facts. The death penalty is not ethical because of emotionally driven vindictiveness, nor is it effective, logical, or internationally popular. The only thing the death penalty can accomplish is the accidental murder of innocents, along with creating astronomically high costs. This is why the death penalty should be phased out.
The US Death Penalty Should Be Phased Out

=== INTRO === I am debating as Pro for the elimination of the death penalty in the United States. I will list the reasons why I support its elimination below. === Ethical === I contend that the death penalty is ethically/morally wrong due to the inalienable rights that all people reserve. I feel that every human being has an inalienable right to live, regardless of past crimes. State sponsored murder is unjust in a civilized society that has the capability to safely detain criminals without killing them. To react to murder with murder is unethical. As Gandhi said, if everyone took an eye for an eye, the world would be blind. === Logical === I contend that the death penalty is inherently illogical. To show that murder is wrong by murdering the perpetrator is contradictory. It would be as if someone stole from me, which is wrong, so I decided to steal from him/her. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the death penalty for murder cases is especially ironic in that sense. === Practical === A) Cost: I contend that the death penalty is impractical due to high costs. In California, the death penalty currently costs $137 billion per year. If this was replaced with a life sentence, the cost would be $11.5 billion.[1] Many other states yield nearly identical comparisons, along with nationwide death penalty trials averaging 8 times the cost of a normal trial.[2] The overwhelming majority of reputable empirical studies reinforce these findings.[3] B) Ineffectiveness: I contend that the death penalty is ineffective at being a crime deterrent. In fact, the states that utilize capital punishment the most have the highest crime rates.[4][5][6] Additionally, 88% of criminologists do not view it as an effective crime deterrent either.[7] C) Innocence: I contend that the death penalty should be eliminated because innocent people can be killed by its usage. If a convict is imprisoned, but later found to be innocent, he/she can be provided with reparations and compensation for the state's egregious mistake. However, with the death penalty in play, an innocent inmate can receive no compensation once executed. A list of freed inmates on death row: [8] D) International Opinion: I contend that the death penalty does damage to America's image. Most US allies such as Australia, Germany, and Italy frown upon capital punishment, which doesn't help with America's image when viewing the matter from where they stand.[9][10][11] === CONCLUSION === The death penalty should be eliminated due to a combination of reasons, which include the ethical, logical, and practical dilemmas associated with its usage. === Sources === 1. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3. http://deathpenalty.procon.org... 4. http://www.amnestyusa.org... 5. http://tech.mit.edu... 6. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 7. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 8. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 9. http://www.angus-reid.com... 10. http://www.roymorgan.com... 11.http://en.wikipedia.org...
All buses should have seat belts

I accept. Since no rules were set in round 1, I will make the assumption I can begin my arguments."All buses should have seat belts"I disagree that all busses should have seat belts.I agree that some busses, those that are smaller in size, should require seatbelts for passengers. Not standard sized or larger school bussesThis topic has been debated by public officials and they have concluded that large busses offer enough protection to shield the passengers inside from harm.The National Highway Transportation Administration says, "School bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in the United States." School busses that currently do not have seat belts."Overall, travel on school bus is the safest way to travel- 40 times safer than riding in a car - with only a handful of deaths occurring to passengers on school buses every year."-http://publictransport.about.com...Additionally, 1) seatbelts can and will be used as a weapon by immature children to injure other students 2) it would be impossible to ensure a bus-full of children do not undo their seatbealts 3) seat belts may trap the child in their seat in the case of an emergency: fire, flooding, etc,.http://www.nea.org...In addition to the debunked safety issue, there is the issue of cost and room:In conclusion: Some busses, the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should not require seatbealts."It is estimated that adding seatbelts to buses would add between $8,000 and 15,000 to the cost of each bus. In addition, seatbelts would take up room currently used as seats, meaning that each bus would have fewer seating places. The additional room in the bus taken up by seatbelts would mean that bus fleets would have to increase by as much as 15% just to carry the same number of people."http://publictransport.about.com...In conclusion: Some busses, the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should require seatbealts. Adding seatbelts to already safe transportation but adding factors of:1) new costs2) decreased seat space, 3) kids using the seatbelts as weapons, 4) trapping kids in their seat during emergenciesand given that 5) it is impossible to ensure each child will remain buckled in his or her seat 6) large and standard sized school busses are already one of the safest forms of transportation without seat belts
Coke is better than Pepsi

It's a shame you weren't able to debate this with with me. In conclusion, Pepsi's inherent qualities allow for a more enjoyable initial experience while reducing the total amount of beverage that is consumed. It is supplemented with a down-to-earth, comedic and entertaining marketing strategy that doesn't deceive the audience and associate it with concepts and ideas from happiness to a children's hero Santa Clause. It boils down to the fact that it is the lesser of the two evils, in this case the high and mighty Coca-Cola brand that will do anything to make money while ignoring the ramifications.
Coke is better than Pepsi

As side proposition hasn't provided any arguments, so I will build my case. 1. Consuming Pepsi is Healthier Than Coke Due to the sweeter nature of Pepsi and it's success in the Taste Tests people are less likely to consume large amounts. This means that they can drink other liquids or foods that provide nutrients and essentials not in soft drinks. This allows them to enjoy the sweet taste and as it overwhelms them past the first few cans, they can forcibly stop, whereas with coke people can consume it in the litre's without any immediate effects. An analogy would be eating slow would allow you to consume less as it alerts your brain your full, similar to Pepsi where your brain is alerted and overwhelmed by the sweeter taste and therefore you consume less. 2. Coke's Marketing Strategy is Destructive Coke markets aggressively to children, even to the point of creating the red and white idea of Santa Clause we have today. This has a huge effect on the childhood rates and Coke is feeding off of that vulnerable market. They've also associated coke with symbols and positive images like Happiness and Polar Bears, completely avoiding what it is their selling; sugared water. Pespi on the other hand focuses on what their product does and is, a refreshing beverage. This allows people to differentiate between sugary drinks and enjoying life. 3. Coke's Foundation is Reflected Today John Pemberton was the founder of Coca-Cola, an individual who was addicted to morphine and satisfied that with his new product that contained cocaine and caffeine. Today, people are just as addicted even though the cocaine isn't there, to the brand and it's subliminal promises of happiness. He created another breed of addicts with it's own set of problems, namely obesity, a huge issue in America. Rather, there should be warnings on coke-cans like there is warning on Cigarette boxes about the affects as people consume it and just ignore it, regardless of their health. Pepsi doesn't dodge this and presents a more real and honest product through their marketing.
The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.

Hello, I will accept your argument. First off, we will be debating whether or not there is any validity to the statement: Hillary Clinton deserves to become president because she won the popular vote. I realize the popular vote does not necessarily determine who is President and we will not be arguing how the President is determined through the Electoral college (as this is objective and can easily be googled). On the contrary, we will be arguing whether or not Hillary Clinton deserved to be President because of her win of the popular vote.
The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.

Donald Trump was NOT trying to win the popular vote. That is NOT how a person becomes the President. If Trump wanted to win the popular vote, he could easily have done so by spending time and money in California. If Trump can do the impossible and win Wisc. Ohio, Michigan, Penn. etc. - Do you really think he couldn't pull out a few more thousand votes in California? If Clinton wins the popular vote, it's only because no one was trying to win the popular vote. Today, Donald Trump is President (elect) because he is simply smarter than Hillary Clinton. He spent his time and money, in the right places, she did not. You can't play the game of Football and claim that a "Home Run" or "3 Point Basket" matters. The final vote tally, which ever way it breaks, is completely meaningless, because it was never contested and was never part of what is required to become President..
The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.

Quote - You literally started a debate topic which no one disagrees on and then worded your claim ambiguously to make it sound as though it was a different debate. I am sorry that I have misunderstood you. I'm not sure how the statement that a a certain point of view or argument, "is idiotic" - could be more clear. Although, I am happy to see that you realize the complete stupidity of the Clinton winning anything argument. Because that argument amounts to nothing more than trying to change the rules after the game. It's like saying I played football by myself and scored 100 touchdowns. So what? Do you think that's what would happen if there was another team trying to stop you? It's just stupid. IF.... Clinton wins the popular vote, it's only because neither Trump or Clinton was trying to accomplish that goal.
The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.

So in other words you created a debate for which the claim was: Trying to change the rules to a contest after you lost is idiotic. That is, quite frankly, a really stupid debate topic. Nobody is going to debate that. You literally started a debate topic which no one disagrees on and then worded your claim ambiguously to make it sound as though it was a different debate. I am sorry that I have misunderstood you.
The "Clinton won the Popular Vote" argument is idiotic.

Quote - we will be arguing whether or not Hillary Clinton deserved to be President because of her win of the popular vote. Sorry, but that is not what the challenge to debate proposes and you should not have accepted this debate. If you had wanted to debate the concept of total vote vs electoral college, than you should have started another debate such as, "Electing a President via the Electoral College is idiotic." The premise of this debate is the idiocy of trying to change the rules AFTER the contest. Before any game or contest is held, both sides agree to rules of fair play and the goals required to determine victory. Attempting to move the goalposts after the game, is the position CON is required to defend.
Walmart's cashier's pay should be raised at least 1$ per hour in the USA.

First, Con is suggesting that the minimum wage be raised across the country. Since this would increase Walmart's cashier's wage Con has made a Pro statement. Walmart cashier's wages are a subset of the set the entire USA wages. Since Con argues the minimum wage should be "10-15"Con and Walmart cashier make less than those amounts Con agrees with Pro. Thanks for agreeing so quickly Con. Thanks for the debate.
Walmart's cashier's pay should be raised at least 1$ per hour in the USA.

Pro says we need to raise the pay of Walmart cashiers by at least one dollar. I think that this claim is flawed. The idea should not be to raise the cashiers for Walmart's salary, it should be to raise the national minimal wage, because it's not possible for a government to raise the minimal wage for one position at one company It's not the fault of the company if they are paying their employees above the minimal wage. It's not their responsibility to focus on being the most moral and generous company, because all companies need to make money, so it is the responsibility of the government to raise the minimum wage to 10-15 dollars an hour. We can't say that these employees need to be paid more, we need to say all employees need to be paid more. We can't single out a single companies when low pay is a national issue, so that is where this topic is flawed Thank you, and I will let pro respond