BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Going to war with Iran is in the best interest of the United States.

Going to war with Iran may possibly be the biggest mistake in American history. Granted this hasn't happened yet, but the sentiment exists, so why not debate it. If the point of going to war is to stop Iran from developing a Nuclear weapon, the new NIA report has found that Iran shut down it's nuclear program 4 years ago, negating a military effort. This only reinforces the idea that progress can be made without going to war. The United States and other countries throughout the world used military and some economic means to convince Iran to shut down their program, so why does war need to be the first option. Because Iran has shut down their program, the nuclear weapons argument is moot. The argument may be made that we need to go to war with Iran to help quell the Iraqi insurgency. Well first, we have to assume that war is in fact going to do that, when that is not even guaranteed! How do we know that our war would be so effective that we would cut of supply lines from Iran to Iraq? What do we do if we invade Iran, and find that the insurgency is still strong in Iraq and being funded by Iran? We know that the insurgency is fueled by extremist hatred against the United States. Well wouldn't a war with Iran just prove them right in regards to our imperialistic attitude and fuel those extremists to do more? Could our invasion not spur those moderate Muslims towards an anti-American sentiment? Also, how could we physically manage a war with Iraq AND Iran? We have 150,000 troops in Iraq, with NONE to spare in America, where would get the support? There is also the size of Iran to take into consideration. Iran is a VERY large nation, much bigger than Iraq, so if we don't have the troops to help Iraq, how are we going to do that in Iran? Are the civilian death's, that are necessarily going to take place due to bombing campaigns to destroy insurgent supply lines, worth it? Do we not take into consideration the lives of the Iranians, who may not even want us to invade their country? One finally needs to consider the growing resentment of Ahmadinejad in Iran. If the people of Iran are beginning to become upset with their president, how are they going to react once we invade? Most likely they would become resentful of our intentions and Ahmadinejad would use this as a rallying point and raise his support. All in all, a war with Iran is in the worst possible interests of the United States.
The death penalty should be abolished

I said in Round 2 that "99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death" in order to prove that the criminals fear death most. Pro refuted it by saying that it's the attorneys' ideas, not the criminals, and they do that for their own benefit. Now Pro is saying something totally opposite. If the death penalty brings profit to the attorney, why "99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death". And it has nothing to do with my original point "the criminals fear death most" anyway, so I believe that Pro has dropped this argument.Deterrence rate is not crime rate. For example, state A has the crime rate of 5 when the capital punishment is used and 7 when it isn't, state B has the crime rate of 3 when the capital punishment is used and 5 when it isn't. The deterrence effect is obvious but we have state A when the capital punishment is used and state B when the capital punishment isn't used have the same crime rate.Summary of the debate- Pro's points+ Life in prison is the harsher penalty: I've refuted this.+ The criminal's family will be unhappy: I've also refuted this.- My points+ The death penalty deters crime: Pro didn't have a satisfactory rebuttal to this.+ Actually not my point but in Round 1 Pro admitted that life in prison is much more expensive than the death penalty.
The death penalty should be abolished

I believe that Con misunderstands my point and the point that these sources bring out. I never said that the life sentence brings them more profit and the death sentence is good for rehabilitation, in fact I said the complete opposite and provided proof. Your "proof" however never mentions the case you try to make but only debates on the expense of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment. Which reminds me, don't you think that the deterrence rate should be a lot higher in states that practice capital punishment? There's a lot of data that shows that there really is no significant difference of deterrence in states with or without the death penalty. Putting prisoners to death would not rehabilitate them, and would also cause heartache for his/her usually innocent loved ones. Now it's up to you, the voters, to decide what the best approach is. Besides, my home state of Maryland recently abolished the death penalty and is expecting further decrease in crime. http://www.google.com... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The death penalty should be abolished

I didn't try to compare the California prison suicide rate with the national state prison average either. My point is the suicide rates in both cases are low and therefore do not prove that "most people would rather die than to stay in prison".Pro's second point is contradicting itself. He said that "Most attorneys fight for decisions that would increase their profits instead of what's good for rehabilitating the prisoner" in order to explain why they choose "life in prison" over "death penalty". It means that according to him, the "life in prison" sentence will bring them more profit while the death sentence is good for rehabilitating (which is obviously incorrect). Then he said that "Which is what the death penalty would do, in most states a sentence of death would have to go to an appeals court immediately. Which, in fact, puts more money into the attorney's pocket." So if the death sentence brings them more money, why are they against it?Regarding the deterrence effect of death penalty, I've presented many studies that have the conclusion that the death penalty deters crime, and I believe that Pro hasn't had a satisfactory rebuttal to them.
The death penalty should be abolished

I forgot to tell Con that I didn't intend to compare prison suicide rates with the state of California and the national average (which is actually above the national average like you said)). The point is that nobody wants to stay in prison, even if it means execution. We cannot reward bad behavior by allowing them to not live with whatever they've done. In almost all cases that involve attorneys, the attorneys speak for the prisoner giving them access to whatever they want to say to a court of law. Most attorneys fight for decisions that would increase their profits instead of what's good for rehabilitating the prisoner. Which is what the death penalty would do, in most states a sentence of death would have to go to an appeals court immediately. Which, in fact, puts more money into the attorney's pocket. Of course prisoners aren't forced to hire attorneys, but they often do. By the way, I looked at some of your sources. Not too bad, although I think that they should have opinions or facts speaking for the death penalty. Your first two are the same thing, and only give a tally of executions with deterrence taken place since 1996. Your last one contains execution procedures and only debates about the cost of imprisonment vs. the death penalty. http://criminal.lawyers.com... http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org...
The death penalty should be abolished

According to Pro's source, the California prison suicide rate is 24 per 100,000 (0.024%) while the national state prison suicide rate is 16 per 100,000 (0.016%). If it is true that "most people would rather die than to stay in prison", shouldn't the suicide rate be much higher than that?Pro said that "nearly all attorneys and their convicts want to testify against the death penalty because that's the attorney's opinion". I think this is another assumption. I would like Pro to present the evidence that support his claim. There is also no evidence showing that "a lot of criminals who testify for life imprisonment often regret it later on as they live their experiences in prison", since the suicide rate is not as high as Pro thinks.Regarding my source, in order to figure out whether the death penalty can deter crime we will need the data of a long period time, such as the study I cited above which used the data from 1960 to 2000, therefore the studies of 1970s and 1980s are not that outdated. I also stated that there are newer studies confirming the deterrence effect of death penalty. For example, 17 out of 24 studies carried out from 1996 to 2010 claim that the death penalty does deter crime. [1] You can see their abstracts here. [2] Moreover, since the death penalty can deter crime more effectively than other punishment, it's safe to assume that it is what the criminals fear most, as Dudley Sharp has said "which we fear the most deters the most". [3][1] http://www.cjlf.org...[2] http://www.cjlf.org...[3] http://sobek.colorado.edu...
The death penalty should be abolished

Con's argument seems logical, but there's not a whole lot of CURRENT sources to back him up. You asked why prisoners don't commit suicide, they do. It's a big problem in states that have outlawed capital punishment but that just shows that prisoners don't want to be in prison. Because of this, they would rather commit suicide than to stay in their conditions. http://solitarywatch.com... Also, nearly all attorneys and their convicts want to testify against the death penalty because that's the attorney's opinion. In fact, a lot of criminals who testify for life imprisonment often regret it later on as they live their experiences in prison and that's why suicide rates are so high. This shows that life imprisonment is much more punishing than execution. You're doing them a favor, and hurting their innocent loved ones. Also some of your sources are outdated to the 1970s and 1980s, not to be intimidating but do you think you can post some more up to date sources?
The death penalty should be abolished

Pro has admitted that keeping criminals in prison is much more expensive than executing them, but he believes that the prison is a more effective punishment as "most people would rather die than to stay in prison". However, I think that this is purely his assumption. If most people prefer death, why don't they just commit suicide? The fact is 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. [1] Therefore we can see that the criminals fear death most. Pro's second argument is the family of the executed criminals will hate the state forever. But how about the victims' family? Do you think they will be happy if the criminals are not punished with what they deserve? In short, no matter what we do, someone will be unhappy. If we are too concerned with that, we will be unable to make any decision at all. Therefore, the criminals' family's "hatred" is not a reason for us to abolish the death penalty. The reason why we should keep the death penalty is because of its deterrence effect. In one of his research in 1975, Professor Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo estimated that each execution deterred about seven or eight homicides. [2] Additional research of Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina has reconfirmed Professor Ehrlich's results. [3] There are also newer studies confirming the deterrence effect of death penalty. Seventeen out of twenty four studies carried out from 1996 to 2010 claim that the death penalty does deter crime. [4] For example, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh of Emory University and Joanna Shepherd of Clemson University, after analysing the panel data covering the fifty states from 1960 to 2000, found out that the murder rate increases when the death penalty is abolished and decreases when it is reinstated. [5] In another study, Joana Shepherd found out that the death penalty "deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates". [6] In short, the death penalty can deter crime. It can save lives. [1] . http://sobek.colorado.edu...[2] "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," (1975), Isaac Ehrlich[3] "Homicide and Deterrence: A Reexamination of the United States Time-Series Evidence," (1985), Stephen K. Layson[4] . http://www.cjlf.org...[5] "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'", Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd (2003)[6] "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment", Joanna Shepherd (2003)
The death penalty should be abolished

There's many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished, but I'd like to share the idea that I think is most logical and reasonable. Sure, it would be a lot more expensive to keep people in prison rather than just executing them but it's a lot more effective. By executing criminals, as silly as it seems you're actually doing most of them a favor by ending their lives. Most people would rather die than to stay in prison, and they couldn't live with whatever they've done. Also, there are the family and friends of the prisoner. Even though there are some cases where the prisoner's crime relates to how he grew up in his family, the family in most cases is in no way responsible. To execute a prisoner would have his parents, children, or siblings alike to hate the state forever for doing that to him. That's why if you think about it, life imprisonment is actually a lot more of a punishing factor than execution for the prisoner himself.
infants born in botched partial birth abortions, should be killed

Botched partial abortions are a terrible thing- when the baby should have been killed- but survived. It is uncommon for a baby to survive an abortion, and there must be a reason for it. Each person is destined to do something great in their lives, and what is different about this baby amongst millions of others? When a baby survives an abortion, the baby should be put into an orphanage- or kept in a hospital until it is ready for an orphanage or foster home. An abortion is already an immoral thing that is only done when needed, yet when a baby does happen to survive the attempted killing, it would be even more immoral to kill it. A baby- the most innocent, harmless thing in the world- brutally killed after surviving an attempted murder. If the baby has been born and then is killed, it would still be the same thing as cold-blooded murder. This would be extremely immoral and goes against all of our human rights- after all, what is the difference between the ways that a baby who has survived an abortion and a serial killer are treated? A baby has done nothing to die, and murdering it in cold-blood just because an attempted murder has not been successful would be even more immoral and cruel, destroying the very basics of our human society.
infants born in botched partial birth abortions, should be killed

irecognize that partial birth abortions are illegal now. but this debate is hypothetical in that it is legal. i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion in all situations (even if it's done in the name of emotions of the mom which just means inconvenience etc, as often occurs... don't debate me if you don't accept this premise. i'll be happy to prove it in another thread though) but say they are against this to debate me. what's the difference between an inch in and an inch out of the mother? i say, it's a techincal difference, so the doctor should just kill it right then outside of the womb. or if we want to add some level of respectiviblity, assuming putting the baby back in and then killing it wouldn't count as to respectability..... we can just transport teh baby to a killing room made and sanctified for that sort of purpose. or, we could wait a few days or weeks if the baby is viable until a govenor gives the okay, and then kill it. it's all the same difference.
Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment

By the way, this isn't serious so have as much fun as you please. Observation: Assets are defined as breasts(chest) or a$$(and anything in the vicinity thereof)So my basic idea is that if I stare at a woman's chest or cute, perky a$$ (yes the description was necessary), it is due to the fact that i take interest in how well sculpted they are. It means I acknowledge the fact that the woman is gifted and I should not be punished for recognizing that fact. Why must a woman be angry if I am stating (through my stare) "holy smokes, you, ma'am, have something that is to be envied by other women. " Is it bad if i find a woman appealing? Does the woman prefer i think her to be my ugly, sagging 70-year old neighbor? Of course not, women generally are flattered b complients, so why not be flattered by another compliment. Heck, if I run away with my legs crossed, my hands cupped, and me peeking over my shoulder at the woman's great chest repeating "DOWN DAMN IT", understand that means the woman is sexually attractive. (the situation was for dramatic effect). Anyways, I await my opponent's reply. Good luck :).
Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment

I'll run through Con's presentation, move to Pro, then weigh the cases.Con ArgumentsNo refutation was rovided towards my observation. In fact the only refutation provided was through his own case(his points clash with mine). Note, however, he provides his refutation to the observation he made, not to my case.The BoP's outlined by Con only outline what women already do, not what they should do (what I am arguing). Thus I outline these BoPs:PRO: must prove that all women SHOULD appreciate staring of the assets. This was shown through the resolution title "Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment", and through his statement: "So my basic idea is that if I stare at a woman'schest...", the underlined portion indicating that this should apply to any woman. (this was a spin on what the Con provided)CON: must prove that staring at a woman's assets is not always a compliment. (I never stated women appreciate staring, I stated they like compliments[I was speaking of verbal compliments], so staring can be another form of a compliment.)1.a) So my opponent establishes some women don't like staring, which i clearly establish in my case. this only speaks of what women already do, not what they should do. so this point can be turned for the Pro.1.b) My opponent states rape victims have a right not to take staring as a compliment. First off, if a women is raped, i doubt the next thing she will think is "I will use a bus". But anyways, there is a HUGE leap the Con is making from staring to rape. Staring is enjoying what one sees, not infringing upon that women's right. Rape is violently overriding that woman's right, causing physical harm to that woman. No way would I agree rape is a compliment, because it induces PAIN, staring does not.2) Can be simply solved by wearing non revealing clothes. Shy people(in the extent my opponent gives) tend to be reserved not only in speech, but in visual presentation as well, so this would not be a problem. Other than that, it causes no harm, thus I maintain that I am correct.ConclusionDrop the flawed logic point, I already have already refuted it, Con has outlined a weak BoP stating women don't like staring, so upholding this only means he is upholding that this resolution exists, because women don't like staring.Pro CaseLet the audience note that my case remains unrefuted by opponent. Furthermore my opponent's case was dropped, so this extends on the fact that the Pro case reains unrefuted. Thus, I extend the Pro case.WeighingThe audience can clearly denote that I am winning since:1)My case goes unrefuted2)My opponent's case was properly refuted3)The true BoP for the Pro was upheld4)Con did not uphold the true BoP, only one that acknowledges what the resolution already understood.
Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment

I'll start off by refuting my opponent's observations:Assets: breasts(chest) or a$$(and anything in the vicinity thereof)Now, my opponent's entire case was based on how women should appreciate people staring at her assets because they should take it as a form of compliment on their body.This is where I differentiate my case from my opponent's. PRO's case is that ALL women should appreciate this staring, but what he doesn't realize, is that he is throwing a blanket statement over women, and generalizing all of them. This is a fallacy.While I agree that some women might appreciate men staring at assets (i.e. hookers), I disagree with my opponent based on the fact that not all women take staring as a form of compliment.I will outline our burden of proofs.PRO must prove that all women will appreciate staring of the assets. This was shown through the resolution title "Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment", and through his statement: "So my basic idea is that if I stare at a woman's chest...", the underlined portion indicating that this should apply to any woman.As CON I will negate the case by agreeing that some women take it as a form of compliment, but not ALL women. Pro states that ALL women appreciate staring, I will state that not all women appreciate staring.Now to start my case:1.a) Some women do not appreciate staringThis is obvious. Not all women appreciate people staring because it feels as if she is being violated by some pervert. This is a personal opinion. Some women appreciate this feeling, others do not. Therefore, not all women should take it as a form of compliment.1.b) Rape VictimsImagine you are a woman. You were just raped. It was the most horrifying experience of your life. Now you're standing on a bus, and hundreds of people are staring at your chest. Again, this would make you largely uncomfortable, and not take that staring as a compliment. Furthermore, building on PRO's failed logic, he says that staring is a compliment to the women's body. Now let's take that a step further. Is raping a woman supposed to be a compliment to her body as well, that she is sexually attractive? Should that woman take the rape as a compliment? This clearly shows PRO's faulty logic. Obviously, no woman would take the rape as a compliment.2. Some women are shy of their bodiesAnother obvious one. Not all women appreciate their body types. Now PRO might say: "Who wouldn't like it if they had a smokin body?". Well, building on my first idea, a smoking body attracts attention. Some people are just naturally shy, and don't appreciate unwanted attention. This is a fact. So if a shy woman had a smoking body, would she not hate it? It would attract unwanted attention and stares, and this would be the last thing she wants. Therefore, not all women appreciate stares. ConclusionI clearly showed the flawed logic of PRO in 1b) and explained why some women will not take staring as a form of compliment 1a) and 2. Therefore, I have fulfilled my BOP and Pro has not.To you, PRO.