BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

Accepting capital punishment in principle means accepting it in practice, whether by the hand of a physician or anyone else. If one finds the practice too brutal, one must either reject it in principle or seek to mitigate its brutality. If one chooses the latter option, then the participation of physicians seems more humane than delegating the deed to prison wardens, for by condoning the participation of untrained people who could inflict needless suffering that we physicians might have prevented, we are just as responsible as if we had inflicted the suffering ourselves. The AMA [American Medical Association] position should be changed either to permit physician participation or to advocate the abolition of capital punishment. The hypocritical attitude of 'My hands are clean — let the spectacle proceed' only leads to needless human suffering. "Defense attorneys... routinely file all manner of motions and objections to protect their clients from conviction. Attorneys know their trial tactics will be thoroughly scrutinized on appeal, so every effort is made to avoid error, ensuring yet another level of protection for the defendant. They [death penalty opponents]... have painted a picture of incompetent defense lawyers, sleeping throughout the trial, or innocent men being executed. Their accusations receive wide media coverage, resulting in a near-daily onslaught on the death penalty. Yet, through all the hysteria, jurors continue to perform their responsibilities and return death sentences. Innocent people on death row unfortunately suffer the consequences of the death penalty not to fault of their own but the jurors.
Death Penalty

When the death penalty is sentenced, in many instances it is possible that the defendant in the case is innocent. There has been a reinstatement of the death penalty, where 87 people have been freed from death row; and later proven innocent. Imagine if those innocent people had been condemned to the death penalty and later found that they were innocent. Playing with someone's life in the matter should not be allowed. The consequences of life and death, should be standard in our system of justice, for example just as we do for our airlines. It is a central pillar of our criminal justice system that it is better that many guilty people go free than that one innocent should suffer... Let us reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us pause to be certain we do not kill a single innocent person. This is really not too much to ask for a civilized society
Death Penalty

Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA [Justice for All] estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million-$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP. The fact that blacks and Hispanics are charged with capital crimes out of proportion to their numbers in the general population may simply mean that blacks and Hispanics commit capital crimes out of proportion to their numbers. Capital criminals don't look like America. No one is surprised to find more men than women in this class. Nor is it a shock to find that this group contains more twenty-year-olds than septuagenarians. And if — as the left tirelessly maintains — poverty breeds crime, and if — as it tiresomely maintains — the poor are disproportionately minority, then it must follow — as the left entirely denies — that minorities will be 'overrepresented' among criminals. The next urban legend is that of the threadbare but plucky public defender fighting against all odds against a team of sleek, heavily-funded prosecutors with limitless resources. The reality in the 21st century is startlingly different... the past few decades have seen the establishment of public defender systems that in many cases rival some of the best lawyers retained privately... Many giant silk-stocking law firms in large cities across America not only provide pro-bono counsel in capital cases, but also offer partnerships to lawyers whose sole job is to promote indigent capital defense.
Death Penalty

Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder. Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good. Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such. Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution. No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976. The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal.
Death Penalty

The death penalty may give more closure to the family who have lost someone due to a murder... However, it is not going to bring back their loved one. A life sentence is much better then the death penalty, because the death penalty is allowing the States to have control over the life of someone. Retribution is in fact revenge, the simple fact of sentencing someone to the death penalty is revenge for their supposed crime. The State is never 100% sure if that was the person who committed the crime unless it was caught on video surveillance, even so, the death penalty is not going to stop others outside the court to continue their crimes.
Death Penalty

The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense
technological advancements

What's your point. You simply stated both sides of the argument proving both sides of the argument. The question is, do you agree or not? Anyways, here my argument for the pro side. You stated, " The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental." What in the world are superbugs? You never defined them... What you just stated about superbugs made 0 sense. Since I am the pro side... Our human race would not be able to survive without medical advancements in technology. Look at the Black Plague or the Potato Famine. They are simple sicknesses to cure nowadays but back then the Europeans did not have any medical knowledge or technology. Thats why 2/3 of Europe died during the Black Plague... You have no facts lol. People did not forget how to communicate with other people; people choose not to. All you have to do is put your phone down and go outside. Not that hard. You said light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial. This depends. Some emit radioactive waves. Our cell phone and necessary. How in the world are we going to connect with outer people without them? Without phones, we would be redoing pony express pretty much again. Overall... Your argument is complete bias and opinion ._. and you didn't prove a single thing. You attempted to prove my side too. lol
technological advancements

It is arguable that technology can be both good and. It has help bring medicines that save lives and it also allows us to communicate with the people we can't see everyday. Even with those amazing things, technology is still really bad for us. The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental.
Why do atheists believe in macro-evolution? It is so contradictory it is hilarious.

Atheists have always been opposed to christianity on the grounds that they take a blind leap of faith into the religion and into the belief of god, but what about macro-evolution? It requires the same blind leap of faith as any religion. Macro-evolution has no definitive evidence of probability and lacks the "missing links" that could possibly prove or validate the theory what-so-ever. The notion that a single cell could be a complex multicellular organism is hard to believe at best. First of all the crlls would lack the DNA to form the tissues and subsequently the organs that would support a multi-cellular organism. Organisms cannot spontaniously create entirely new and complex DNA and gene stuctures. Even by replicating a section of DNA due to a mutation could not and would not produce a nessesary and efficient result that could support a multi-cellular organism. What's more, even if a cell could pull off creating the desired result, the other stuctures that make up a complex organ would still be missing. The chances are astronomical that macro-evolution and the "scientific" explanation of the formation of life are probable or even likely to happen.
Russia won the second world war

my opponent states "Also the USA only joined the war in the last few years, again. America is in no way or shape or form was USA a big factor in world wars." The usa was the deciding factor of the outcome of the war. if the atomic bombing in japan didnt happen japan would have done great damage to the US. And my opponent states that america isnt a big factor in the world wars yet when the united states entered the war the allied started to win. No country is going to mess with the united states/allies when we have an atomic bomb. and my opponent has failed to argue his point. he/she doesnt provide evidence to show why russia won the WW2. im not saying that the united states won the war all by themselves. thats not the case. but that, the US was the DECIDING FACTOR of the war. (In a sense saying if the US wouldent have joined in the war, russia, along with all of the other allies, would have fallen.)
Russia won the second world war

As I have shown before Russia did emerge victorious during WW2 - this has not been challenged. "If conditions where different Russia would probably have fallen to Germany just as most of the allied countries did" If it was sunny and bright during winter then yes. However, if it was just a normal winter in Russia then Russia would have won nevertheless: http://wiki.answers.com... Also the USA only joined the war in the last few years, again. America is in no way or shape or form was USA a big factor in world wars.
Russia won the second world war

Britian and France both feel victim to the harsh assault given to them by adolf. It was up to the united states and Russia to protect the world. Those other countries my opponent has listed only added a portion of soldiers and supples to the war efforts. USA stopped a (also very powerful country) japan with the dropping of the atomic bomb on the 2 major cities Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The USA gained naval supermisy after winning major battles at sea primairly in the battle of midway (4-7 June 1942) . Adolf hitlers plan to attack from different direction failed miserabably when his troops feel victim to the harsh cold climate of mother Russia. If conditions where different Russia would probably have fallen to Germany just as most of the allied countries did. Show me (in ww2) where the USA won any battle because of the weather conditions. All of the united states battles where won from intimidation and power. United states of America won the 2nd world war Russia only protected itself. The Us went out to help other countries who was Russia fighting for?? Themselves? There really isn't a comparision. The united states should have been the only country to have the title of a super power..... I believe that Russia was only given that name because it had a fairly strong economey. I'm looking forward to what my opponent has to say.
Should teens over 13 be allowed to buy and play 'M' rated Games

I believe my opponent's argument is that those aged over 13 should be allowed to participate in buying video games, that are rated Mature by the ESRB system, for themselves. I strongly doubt that this would not be the case.True to my usual debating methods, I will first rebut before I make my own argument."Studies show that most teenagers will use violent and M-Rated games to vent anger(1)."It is my belief that my opponent intended to cite a source here. Specifically, this source: http://www.theregister.co.uk... One I have also read.I will take all that as true.However, I don't believe buying video games should be the future at all. I believe we would gain much more by submitting to simply buying the license for the game. I do believe playing rated M games would be beneficial to the human race. We even use it to treat PTSD*.However, that's as far as I'm willing to concede. Half of the argument my opponent has presented is agreeable with me. We should "play 'M' rated Games." Buying them? No.By only buying the license of these games, community is more developed and encouraged, a more structured relationship between corporations is established, and cultivation of a game beyond its release is also heavily encouraged. It also means that more independent games are shared and more independent video game groups are able to flourish and prosper.I will allow this argument to manifest more in following rounds.
Should teens over 13 be allowed to buy and play 'M' rated Games

Studies show that most teenagers will use violent and M-Rated games to vent anger(1). This is a positive way to vend unlike some teens that may drink, smoke, or cause physical damage to others. 2 thirds of boys play M-Rated games regularly and over 1 fourth of girls will play M-Rated games on a regular basis. Therefore, kid prefer M rated games and use them a mental stress and anger reducers.
cloning

what if you had a clone? Would you be okay with someone having exactly the same DNA? If you are, wouldn't you lose your individuality as a person? What is cloning? Clones are organisms that have the same exact same DNA. Cloning can happen naturally or they can be made in labs. But there are many negative aspects about Human Cloning have been debated by critics and scientist. They fear that physical harm could be done to the embryo because the technology isn't safe enough to use on humans. Some are afraid that the clone will age quicker kind of like a repeat of Dolly. Dolly was only able to live half a life of seven years. she was supposed to live for around 14. but since the cell had created her had lived a full life she only had half. Also the child may suffer psychological harm with thinking that they are worth nothing because they are clones. People who agree with cloning might say that "cloning can help find cures for disease. but is it worth taking so many chances and failing abusing the purpose of life?
cloning

Cloning what if you have Clones are organisms that are exact genetic copies. Every single bit of their DNA is identical. Clones can happen naturally"identical twins are some examples of clones. The good thing of cloning is that Stem cells build, maintain, and repair the body throughout our lives. Because these are processes that stem cells do naturally, they can be manipulated to repair damaged or diseased organs and tissues. so these stem cells can help other people. This topic is important because cloning can help people because our stem cells can repair and maintain our body throughout our lives because these are processes that stem cells do naturally, they can manipulated to repair damaged or diseased organs and even tissues. There was a professional athlete who tears their ACL to the person who becomes a worthless because of a devastating automobile accident, recovery times could be lowered and true healing could occur thanks to the cloning of their own cells to help the recovery process. so I think cloning is a good thing because your clone can do things for u like go to school for you and even we should have cloning because the stem cells we have help that are defective and a story about a athlete who got a accident in a automobile and he got recovered really fast.
Non-citizens should be allowed to vote if they are trying to be permanent residents

1) I believe the idea behind voting is to have a say over what the decisions of the government are which affect us. Non-citizens who are living in the United States are affected by the decisions of our government, and yet are often not represented in that decision making process. I consider this an injustice: they get ruled over by the united states, but don't get the privilege of voting. They also get taxed without representation, considering they have to abide by the US tax law before they're even allowed to vote. Why are we putting up with what the founders despised: taxation without representation? Either they should be exempt from taxes, or we need to allow them to vote. Considering some taxes are automatic, like the sales tax, it seems the only option is to allow them to vote, since it would be impossible to exempt non-citizens from the excise taxes like sales tax. Additionally, they are held liable for our laws yet don't get a say in the laws even though they are bound to follow them. They have all of the responsibilities of a citizen essentially(paying taxes, following the law etc), but we don't give them the benefits of citizens. We should. 2) There is precedent in the United States history to allowing non-citizens to vote. The supreme court once stated, in the supreme court case Minor vs Happersett in 1874, that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote", despite this, federal law currently prevents non-citizens from voting[1]I'll leave it at this for nowSources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Non-citizens should be allowed to vote if they are trying to be permanent residents

Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. It is unfair to the citizens if non-citizens are allowed to vote. They are not legally permanent residents so they should have no say in such matters as politics that can impact the lives of permanent residents in a way they do not like. Even if they are trying to become permanent residents, it still shouldn't be up to them. What if they don't end up becoming citizens?