BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty is moraly wrong and should be ileagal.

To start off I'll point out the fact that my opponent, in failing to refute my points, has tacitly agreed to them. "how is it that the death penalty is just. if we criticize the people that kill others and then we turn around and kill them that is just a little hypocritical is it not." We kill to punish and protect, it isn't hypocritical to imprison kidnappers, and it isn't hypocritical to kill killers. If one shows themselves to be so evil and dangerous, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment, as I said previously, it is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. "1.we do not have the right to kill another person. 2. why do we believe that it is just that we can take another soul when the law prohibits it and so does the bible." For 1, we don't have the right to kill another person, but the government does, we have given it the power to protect us and to punish wrongdoers, that's what the death penalty does. For 2, obviously the law does not prohibit the death penalty as it is legal, and it never says anywhere in the Holy Bible (Correct me if I'm wrong) that we cannot give the death penalty. Granted it does say "thou shalt not kill," but most theologians believe it only applies to murder. There are examples of men killing other men in the Bible that are portrayed as just and right anyhow. "in roe v.s. wade we argued the point of abortion and with the death penalty that is just another way of aborting a human life. sure it is not as early in life as a fetus but it is still a breathing organism. and when you take on the job of god you are deciding that another human should be killed inhumanly i might ad. now if you look at this argument and decide that it is not your style vote con because you can never change my beliefs in this simple yet harsh environment we call the law!" The only difference is, the fetus is innocent, with the death penalty, the criminal is not. If anything though, Roe v. Wade supports the death penalty, as it upheld death.
The death penalty is moraly wrong and should be ileagal.

how is it that the death penalty is just. if we criticize the people that kill others and then we turn around and kill them that is just a little hypocritical is it not. 1. we do not have the right to kill another person. 2. why do we believe that it is just that we can take another soul when the law prohibits it and so does the bible. when we try to take the job of god and decide when a person is to die we are just creating a new lease on life that we are in charge of deciding that it is their time to go! if you are against the fact that roe v. s. wade was immoral,& wrong then this case could be interesting. if you are for roe v. s. wade this case is going to be interesting for you also. in roe v. s. wade we argued the point of abortion and with the death penalty that is just another way of aborting a human life. sure it is not as early in life as a fetus but it is still a breathing organism. and when you take on the job of god you are deciding that another human should be killed inhumanly i might ad. now if you look at this argument and decide that it is not your style vote con because you can never change my beliefs in this simple yet harsh environment we call the law!
The death penalty is moraly wrong and should be ileagal.

First, I would like to apologize for my delay in replying, I meant to do so yesterday, but I forgot. Next, I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this intriguing debate. The goal of a just society in punishing criminals must be two-fold. First, it must deter, and second, it must be proportionate. As an example, if we killed everyone who commits a crime, we'll have less crime, but that would be extremely inappropriate. So, in examining the death penalty we must determine if it is an appropriate deterrent. Obviously, I agree that it is, but I must prove why it is unjust. First, some observations on this subject: 1. Even if the current method of death is unjust, the penalty itself is not. 2. Cost of the death penalty can be adjusted, just because it is expensive now does not mean that it has to be. Now my argument. 1. The death penalty deters The ultimate punishment is death. It is an event that most of us fear even more than imprisonment. It is the only sure way to prevent criminals from striking again. It has a finality that life imprisonment lacks. Criminals with life imprisonment can still cause harm. My mother, a psychologist has treated prison guards attacked by escaping prisoners. Unless zombies are a real threat, dead people cannot cause this harm. Also, life imprisonment is not always for life. The maximum incarceration period is 50 years, and that's the maximum. Prisoners have gotten out of a life sentence in 15 years. That means they can strike again, and strike again they have. 2. Death is appropriate for some crimes There are some crimes so horrendous that death is warranted no matter the cost. Serial killer Nathaniel White triggered this outburst from the mother of one of his victims: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." It is not fair. When individuals cause cause so much pain and show so little care for human life and dignity they deserve what they get. As there are cases so worthy of the ultimate punishment, we cannot call it immoral or make it illegal. Now, onto my opponent's case. First he says that the method used to kill is inhumane, but as I observed a more humane method is always possible. Then he says that it would be appropriate for serial killers, upholding my argument, not his. Then he says death is more expensive than jail, but that is only because we make it so, not because it has to be so. His last statement about drugs is irrelevant, so I'll won't refute that. I gladly await my opponent's rebuttal.
How was the world created

Sorry for the late post, I had to research this a bit and didn't have time until the end of the week. According to the theory of directed panspirmia, we came from the "seeds" that were "planted" into Earth from extraterrestrial civilizations. To answer your question, we must go off topic from "How the world was created" to "Should we establish new planetary systems?" Of course I don't mind. I have no opinion of the matter so I will give the opinion shared my most Panspermiests. According to them, the point is to basically secure and expand our organic gene/protein life-form, especially because Earth as we know it is slowly turning incompatible with humanity. The moon is slowly pulling farther from Earth's gravity, he sun is slowly aging. Eventually, the Earth will not be suitable for life such as ours. If we want to preserve our race and other organisms on Earth, we must establish new planetary systems, just like the extraterrestrials did to spawn us. P.S. I wouldn't mind continuing the debate.
How was the world created

Hmm...it sounds to me like you are just trying to rebuke me regardless of my opinions. Normally, the person who issues a debate must state his/her own opinions on the matter, but you have provided none. Which means that it doesn't matter which theory I say I believe in, you will challenge me because you take pleasure in proving someone wrong. Which isn't a bad thing. All right I'll play your game nevertheless! However I will not choose any of the theories you have provided me with. I choose DIRECTED PANSPERMIA. Although this theory does not have much to do with how the physical world started, it is about how LIFE started. And I presume it shouldn't matter to you because the Gaia hypothesis does not have much to do with how the physical world started as well. I look forward to this debate.
Should Obama be kick out of offers

At this point, the only way Obama could be "kicked out of office" is if he is impeached, which is Pro's BOP to prove. For an American president to be impeached, they must commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (1) All Pro is asserting is that Obama created Obamacare, shrank NASA, and shrinking the military. None of these are impeachable offenses. However, Pro does assert Obama loves money, which could lead way to bribery, but nothing is done to prove that. Therefore, as Pro has failed to prove Obama should be impeached, I win. 1-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should Obama be kick out of offers

Obama did nuthing for owere cuntry. He made obama cair that hert michigen famlies Im one of them. He is also got rid of nasas space man traval no amariken ben to space for 7 years becuas of him were are sufring. All obama cars about is munny He is hearting our millitary we youst to be the best now were not. He is trying to get rid of ouwer millitary.http://www.westernjournalism.com...http://www.theblaze.com...http://www.westernjournalism.com...
I can out insult anyone via Flame war

This 14 year old bastard portrays stupidity and ignorance so perfectly . He fails to distinguish between a rap battle and a flame war . I am honestly finding it an uphill battle to believe it took him almost 20 hours to formulate something so short as the pink mini skirt he's currently wearing . Do you know what all of this means you 14 year old bastard ? You have actually come into the battlefield with a bazooka without any missiles, and as a subsequent result you are going to get your prominent teeth kicked so far up your assshole to such an extent that you'd be waking up every morning and shove your toothbrush up your rectum . And after reading that thing - that c-rap thing you've shamelessly spewed upon my poor screen, I see it fit to state you are a moron, with an IQ of a mannequin with a head injury . You attempt to appear as a formidable adversary, with your boring rap, only marking you as impotent as a second hand castration . Secondly, what does man thongs and the other shiit you have typed play a role in consorting a decent scurrilous retort worth reading, or are you simply being abstract due to your cranium being also not of literal structure that you cling to inane lines like an adolescent with an overactive imagination? is that it? you're struggling with puberty? To put it bluntly , you still smell of breastmilk and therefore you do not have the capacity to take on this giant ,because I'll simply kick you back to your mothers vagina and watch you play with other embryo's stuck inside her filthy hole!
I can out insult anyone via Flame war

I can out insult and confuse my opponent with big pompous words, via flame war. If you feel you have the capacity to take on a great giant named Thashen , then please accept this flame war challenge and receive the beating of your life! I'm aware I have this special ability to make all my dumb opponents go blank ,but do not fuhking forfeit . Do not accept if your vocabulary is below par! 24 hours to type your best insults! Ding Ding !!!!!!!
Obama

I accept this challenge.It's been a while since I have debated, so I'll be a little rusty.To start off, the reasons I think Obama should be impeached are.. Since he took office in 2008, the national defecit has gorwn 12 trillion dollars Obama-Care is costing Americans money that they don't have He has slackened the immgiration laws so that illegal immigants get free health care, free schooling, and 5 years tax free business. Obama's decisions are not for the greater good of this country, he has completely screwed this country over. These are my reasons. Sorry for taking so long, I have been busy.
Child Beauty Pageants

As i have stated, child beauty pageants are similar to sports in that they both have competition. However, sports are not teaching children to cover up their identities in order to win, whereas in these pageants young girls are being taught that it is okay to mask themselves with makeup and expensive outfits in order to win. These pageants teach young girls that beauty is what is most important. It is teaching them that one must be beautiful and perfect in order to win. "Yes losing can hurt a child self esteem but does this mean we should shy away from any competition." This statement is general in that you are saying all competition is bad. Maybe you have misinterpreted this part of my argument, but I am not saying that competition should be avoided, or that competition is not healthy; I am saying that the competition involved in child beauty pageants is not the type of healthy competition displayed in sports.
Child Beauty Pageants

I understand the point you are trying to get across when you say, "By this same logic, school, any sport, or any sort of competition is a negative thing." However, I do not believe that competing in beauty pageants and competing in sports is nearly the same thing. Sports help keep a child fit and healthy. Any yes, there is competition involved in sports and there are also parents pushing their children to be the best; however, with beauty pageants, parents are teaching their young children that physical appearance is most important. Young girls who participate in these pageants get spray tans, and wear fake teeth, fake eyelashes, and even fake hair. They wear airbrushed makeup and expensive dresses. Parents are teaching their young girls that it is okay to mask your natural look and trade it in for something fake in order to win the competition. "One cannot blame the Irrational behavior of a parent of the existence of the competition." While it seems like I am mostly attacking the parents and saying that they are at fault, it also the judges and the competition that are at fault. These judges deduct points if the child falters even the slightest bit. They do not accept anything less than perfection, thus forcing children to work that much harder at changing their image. These pageants do not teach young children healthy competition; they teach them that physical appearance is what matters most. It constantly stresses the importance of winning and looking your best. In my opinion these pageants promote fake beauty. Whereas in sports children are not covering up their natural image. "Just because there is a potential for cheating does not meant the expiernce is a negative one." You have a point when you say that cheating can occur in sports just like it can occur in pageants; however, beauty pageants are not a healthy form of competition. In both sports and beauty pageants, parents push their children to win and succeed. In beauty pageants children are being taught that it is acceptable to put on a fake image in order to win, whereas in sports children are being taught that physical abilities are more important. Young girls are being taught that beauty will get them places, which is not always true.
Child Beauty Pageants

Competing in beauty pageants can lead to the desperation of the contestants to win. This can lead to unsportsman-like conduct and cheating. Many mothers also cheat so that their precious little daughter will win the pageant. This is not teaching the child to play fair--it is teaching them that it is okay to do anything you need to do to win even if it involves cheating. Losing pageants can cause children to have major insecurities. They may not see themselves as good enough and sometimes girls lose respect for themselves because of their failure. The overall effect of child beauty pageants has children thinking they are worthless failures just because they don't reach parent's and judges' standards of perfection.
Child Beauty Pageants

I am not saying that I think child beauty pageants should be banned. I am saying that the overall effect of child beauty pageants does not benefit the child. Some people may believe that these pageants help boost a young girl's self esteem; however it does the complete opposite. Young girls must deal with the burden of pressure which mostly comes from their parents. They feel as if it is their only job to perform well and if they don't they think of themselves as failures because of all the pressure that is put on them. They are pressured to both act and look a certain way. Some children are overcome with frustration if they lose the pageant which can very well effect the child's mind and body. Children develop eating disorders, such as bulimia and anorexia, and suffer from depression because they consider themselves failures. They believe that if they do not look like the ideal image of a Barbie doll, and act like a beauty queen should act, then they are a failure. This lowers the child's self esteem and can often cause health and psychological problems.
Child Beauty Pageants

First I am a bit confused of what you are actually arguing. The core of your argument seems to be that beauty pagents are bad, but are you saying that being in a beauty pageant is not a positive experience for a young girl as a whole, are you saying that beauty pageants should be not allowed, are arguing that beauty pageants cause those effects you listed, or are arguing that Michele Berg article is an accurate depiction of beauty pageant risks. If you could clarify what more specifically you want to argue about in the next round I would appreciate it, it seems really far to broad otherwise. Addressing some of your points though. I do not think is entirely fair to blame the beauty pageant for many of the symptoms that appear in its participants. Beauty pageants draw a certain kinds of families and parents, and I think this kind of high pressure parent is the true cause of the stress and the issues, not the competition in of itself. Just because it many of the listed issues appear often around these events does not mean there is a causal relationship. As the overly used phrase goes, correlation does not prove causation. Many similar effects can be seen in kids that are pushed by their parents athletically, theatrically or academically. Also I found your comment about beauty pageants appearing glamorous on TV a little unfair, as pretty much anytime beauty pageants are mentioned in the media or TV shows they are given immensely negative coverage and do not appear at all glamorous. It is important not to scapegoat things like beauty pageants when we are looking at issues in todays youth.
Child Beauty Pageants

Child beauty pageants are harmful to young girls; it puts a damper on their esteem and makes them feel pressured to compete and be the best. Some mothers subject their daughters to these pageants as a way for them to live vicariously through their child. Because the competition is so high, mothers tend to put enormous amounts of pressure on their children. If little girl loses she feels as if shes is not pretty enough and not good enough. According to Michele Berg, who wrote the article "Child Beauty Pageants: Read the Warning Label", possible effects for young girls who participate in these pageants include the development of eating disorders, depression, and and even cutting. Child beauty pageants are not as glamorous as they seem to be on television; they can cause young girls to develop serious illnesses because they feel the need to be better and mainly want to please their parents.
Homework should be banned

Defense My opponent says that his 4 studies rebuts my arguments. As I rebutted my opponents case already, his study is wrong. My opponent says that homework can just be done, not well. Anyways, the teachers will check their homework. My opponent says that there responsibilty skills will become worse, but this is a bare assertion as Pro gave no evidence and no sources. How can 98% cheat? Biased, and not true data. My opponent says that in Finland they have the best education: No homework. There teachers teach well. Other counteries may have less education, so they need homework. Look at Singapore. Good education country. They have about 3 hours of homework. . http://www.straitstimes.com...For these reasons Vote Con. Pro failed to fill the burden.
First come last serve

I would like to conclude by saying that with the idea of people knowing that the last person is going to be served first, there would be less queues. Less queues in the sense that It doesnt give people the incentive to arrive early, rather they arrive at a slower pace which reduces the waiting time. The problem with the first come first serve is that it does the otherwise. Here, people use the incentive of they getting served first if they arrive first to arrive way earlier than the time they are suppose to thereby causing queues.
First come last serve

it is true that people go first mainly because they want to be served first, hence they sacrifice whatever they are doing just to be in line earlier than other people. In the last come first serve method, when people know even though they go first they won't be served first, they are rational enough not to bother sacrificing what ever they are doing just to be in line. There will be no anxiousness as to am I late? are people there already ? etc. They get ample time to adjust their behaviour; scheduling their times according to how best they think it would benefit them. With this idea, I believe there wouldn't be a queue since everyone has a different schedule and idea of what time to go. People will end up arriving at staggered times where people will try their luck early, some late and some will meet the others halfway which would result in a shorter queue and on the average, everyone will be better off.
First come last serve

With that logic why would anyone even go to whatever they will wait for? The first come first serve idea is that the person who wants it the most and is the most dedicated will be rewarded by getting what the came for earlier. If thy are such a waste of time then go earlier so you won't have to spend as much time, if you don't want to go early then you have to realize that some people did. They possibly sacrificed sleep and fun to get where they are. Last come first serve will imply that those who want to go first may never be served because they will constantly wait for others to go ahead of them.
Rap Battle

A porcelain throne is where you plop your behind.A preacher is a teacher of the spiritual kind.I'm amazed at some of the things you don't know.You're either new to the language, or perhaps a bit slow.You can sling your pop references left and right,But it's wit, not pop, that's gonna to win this fight.While pop culture changes from season to season,Here at DDO we value time-tested reason.Looking at our arguments, which will last longer?20 years from now, who's rap will be stronger?Oreo's will be full of people from the past,Mine is the one that, over time, will last.So to the voters: it is now your time.Make your decision of who's made the best rhymes.And when deciding who to make king, and who pawn,You'll see this Con's a pro, and that Pro's just a con.
Rap Battle

Oreo's the name of my dog, you silly jester. She's black and white, and compared to you she's a lot better. A teacher ain't a preacher as I seem to recall. 'Cause if you're a teacher, then I'm headmaster over all. A throne ain't a toilet, as I'm certain you can tell. Your lack of distinction just makes me wanna yell. Call me Willy Wonka, 'cause my rhymes are so delicious. I'm an excellent rapper. You might say I'm "Fergalicious." You might say that I'm a fighter, like Muhammad Ali. 'Cause I fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Your puny little arrow only bounced off my armor. Now let me drop da bomb like those guys at Pearl Harbor. You can tell that I'm gonna win this Rapping Cup. 'Cause my words are like a glock, shooting Round 2 up. My grandma got mush, to throw in your face. Then spit in your eye, since she'd beat you in any race. I've shown you what I got left, and it's the backhand of my right. So run along now. Get out of my sight. I don't mean to be rude. I'm just saying how it is. You say I got a "C," but you failed my pop quiz.