BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Execution Should Be By Feeding People To Lions And Other Zoo Animals

Executions have become very, very expensive thanks to needing to pay for equipment and chemicals and due to the lengthy appeals process. Feeding someone to a lion would be quick and easy. Just take them to a zoo, toss them in, and let the lion eat them. We could then film it on tv and on that day the zoo could charge a huge price for admission, of which the government would get some and the zoo would get some, both making out with more money than before. There are even more opportunities for money-making. You could have reality tv shows about death row. You could do that now, but it would be even more interesting if the inmates were afraid of being eaten by lions. You could even allow the inmate to hire a trainer to help them beat the lion. If they defeat the lion they will still be fed to another lion and have to pay the zoo to replace the lion if the lion dies, but will get to live at least another month. That could be an entertaining run of shows. Inmate defeats one lion, then suspense builds until the next round one month later. Will the inmate live? Bets could be taken on it, with everyone who loses having their money go to the state. In the end the state could wind up making money off of the execution, not just the execution but coming out ahead even after considering court costs and incarceration. Other zoo animals like tigers bears sharks or anacondas could also be used. They could even make the animal an inmate faces each month a surprise to add more suspense and create another gambling opportunity for the state to make money (gambling on what animal the inmate will face). To guarantee execution happens at some point and the inmate doesnt just keep surviving it should be made harder over time. So if the inmate is still alive after 6 execution attempts the inmate should be thrown in with his feet tied together. If he manages to live 2 more times then he gets handcuffed. If he still lives for 3 more times he is tied spread eagle to a rock and cut so the animal smells him and eats him. If he still lives after that he is thrown tied up in a guaranteed aquatic environment to be eaten by a shark, whale, or giant squid. No way would he survive that. Even if the animal didn't eat him he'd drown.
Safe Haven Laws in the US should be for teens also

Pro asks if I am saying teens are old enough that they should get a job and support their parents. No, what I am saying is that the family has to work harder as a whole if their in a tough situation. The parents may have to get a second job, the teens may have to try and find a job or something simple like lawn mowing, and overall they have to tighten their belts. If the teen has a mental disability then there are programs to help. My sister has a mental disability and she gets a check from SSI every month. If the parents are arrested for a crime then their kids go to social services which is the same place they go under the safe haven law. So either way the same thing happens, so I don't see how that is an argument for Pro. Next Pro says that teens shouldn't be blamed for their parents actions and that teens look to their parents for advice. I don't see how this relates to the resolution, so can you please explain that argument. " Yes you might say that the government doesn't have enough money to look after teenagers.." This is a quote from Pro and he is admitting that the government doesn't have the money. So if they don't have the money then how do you expect this law to work and why would you be for it. I would say that just with that quote it is reason enough to vote Con. Pro then goes on to say "It is like downloading a thing on your computer and it takes 21 years. However, when it's around 80% finished, you stop it from continuing." Again I am not sure what Pro is saying here so I will ask that he restates his argument and then I will address it next round. The final thing Pro asks is how is taking care of infants different from teen. "The law needs to be changed," says Todd Landry, director of the Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services. "We need to get back to the intent of the law, and the intent of the law was always the protection of newborns in immediate danger of being harmed." That is the difference, these laws are to save newborns, after that it is the parents resposibility to raise their children. If they need financial help then, as I said in round 1 and Pro ignored, there are many programs and organizations that are willing to help but simply dropping them off at a hospital is not an option. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Safe Haven Laws in the US should be for teens also

So, you are saying that teenagers are old enough and they should get another job to support their parents? What if they have a mental disability and they cannot get a job? If safe haven laws are only for infants, then where will those teenagers go? Also, parents are not angels and so not only can they be financially ill but they can also get arrested for committing a crime. Where will that teen go other than a foster home? The teens shouldn't be blamed for their parents actions, they look up to them for advice. Yes you might say that the government doesn't have enough money to look after teenagers but those teenagers will soon become the future of this country. Being a teen is only one step away from being a mature adult. It is like downloading a thing on your computer and it takes 21 years. However, when it's around 80% finished, you stop it from continuing. Why is taking care of infants any different from taking care of teens?
Safe Haven Laws in the US should be for teens also

When the parents can not financially support their children that is when they have to work harder and do things like get second jobs. Since we are talking about teenagers then that means they are old enough to also go out and try to earn some money. In addition to that, here in America there are many organizations to help those in need. If a family is at the point where they need to drop off a kid, then they can do things like apply for food stamps, go to the food shelter, go to the Open Door Mission, get help from church organizations and charities, and other places like that. The reason we should not just allow parents to drop of their teenagers is because of stories like this. "The woman who dropped off the 15-year-old said she couldn't deal with the boy's behavior anymore." That is a quote from an article where in Nebraska we used to allow teens to be dropped off. But they had to change the law because we had people driving from other states to drop off teenagers for reasons like the one listed above where the guardinas just didn't want to deal with their kids behavior. http://www.ketv.com...
Girls shouldn't be allowed to play public sports with boys

Thanks for accepting the debate con and I agree to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary instead. Disproportionate Upper body strength Female anatomy in the upper body region is generally less muscular than males. It only takes a simple observation to see that the framework for the male upper body promotes stronger muscular and skeletal structure. Due to this, females tend to have considerably less upper body strength than males, exhibiting only fifty percent of men’s upper body strength and forty percent of male’s upper skeletal muscle [1]. Another factor that contributes to these differences is men’s high levels oftestosterone, which promotes muscle growth in men by stimulating the productionof certain proteins used for muscle development[1]. Susceptibility to certain sport injuries Due to the anatomical differences stated above, females tend to be more vulnerable to shoulder injuries, specifically the rotator cuff and periscapular muscles [2]. Women also tend to have more problems with their knee as well being three to six times higher than men to suffer from ACL injuries in soccer and football[2]. Therefore women who participate in sports (like the ones I mentioned in round 1) that are strenuous on the upper body and knees can put them at a high risk for such injuries. Adverse Perceptions Having girls play in sports like football or wrestling may create the perception that it is acceptableto treat them in this manner. The possibility of boys maintaining this perception is real and dangerous. Moreover, males (on average) are already stronger than females, so they could potentially injury a girl when such perceptions are preserved and translated outside of the sport realm where there aren’t any rules.Conclusion I feel as though girls should be allowed to play these sports but it should only be with other girls. They are already at a physical disadvantage due to the anatomical differences that make them weaker and more susceptible to certain injuries. Restricting girls to same sex sports is fair and it will ensure their safety. Sources[1] - http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2] - http://www.bidmc.org...
Atheism Provides the more Rational and Realistic Worldview than Theism

Important definitions are provided below:Atheism - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Theism - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Rational - Consistent with or based on reason; logical. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Realistic - Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Worldview - The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Exist - To have actual being; be real. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)We will be debating to whether or not the existence of God is likely or unlikely based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. If God is not likely to exist than atheism provides the more rational and realistic worldview. By the same token, if God is likely to exist than theism provides the more rational and realistic worldview. If there is no compelling evidence or arguments for God's existence, then God is unlikely to exist, meaning that belief in a God is unjustified, irrational, and unrealistic. The burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists because the theist holds the positive claim. I would prefer one to accept the definitions above before accepting the debate. I would also like to point out that I do not want one to negate the resolution through semantic ploys. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable God. First round is for acceptance. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.
Welfare should be considered taxable income

:If you're suggesting that a single income in a household should taint all of the welfare recipients in said household, then you are missing something obvious. Example: a husband's income, who cares for his stay-at-home wife and three adult children, will be the sole qualifying income of any of the five members of this household. If the husband makes more than the threshold, then NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD is eligible for welfare. This is how welfare works, currently.Furthermore, if Pro had his way, the welfare would only be taxable to the one who receives it, not to any other member of the household, regardless if they have income or not, thus one could still have zero taxable income. I must reiterate that HOUSEHOLD income is a factor for welfare, not just the individual's income. So, if I live with my parents, and they buy me food and whatnot, then our combined three incomes are used to qualify. However, if they let me live there, but they do not feed me, then only my income is used to qualify because we are not a household "unit", we just simply live together. So, Con's claim that I am missing something obvious is false, as one income does, in fact, taint all the welfare available to those in his household. Because expenses are the driving factor, not wealth, a wealthy man, living off his non-interest-bearing savings account, could receive welfare to buy his food. Are we to reward him for refusing to spend his money?None of my points have been refuted:1. The effect of taxing welfare is unknown, but we know that at worst, it has minimal effect. However, if the vast majority has no income, then they have a negative taxable income. So part, if not all of the welfare, would be not taxed.2. Welfare is paid due to choices (i.e. expenses), and if someone wants to retain their wealth or maintain their lifestyle, it is only fair that they potentially pay taxes on this benefit. Similarly, if they choose not to work as much as they could, choose to keep the children they can't afford, choose to drive the car they can't afford, or choose to maintain a residence they can't afford, they should potentially pay taxes on any welfare received.3. My opponent has refused to comment on why aid to the elderly (social security), divorced (alimony), children (child support), and unemployed (UI payments) are taxed, but aid to the poor is not. This is not equal treatment under the law.For these reasons, judges must vote Pro. The only counter-argument offered was one of emotion (the plight of the poor), but no evidence was offered to support this claim, only the generalization of the poor and the fallacious conclusions drawn from them.
Welfare should be considered taxable income

I thank you for your interesting response. I still believe you are incorrect in this matter. If you're suggesting that a single income in a household should taint all of the welfare recipients in said household, then you are missing something obvious. That would make that worker's income actually less than those of the increased incomes of all of the welfare recipients in the house should he quit. This is not how we create a productive society; neither is welfare. But if people are going to need welfare, it shouldn't be taxed. And if it were taxed, what makes you think the amount given would increase to compensate? The only way this concept wouldn't just be fader for confusion is in the situation of a family. A household that has a sufficient income to support everyone yet some members of the household still receive welfare. I don't think this is a case for tax-reform but more a case for the government being more conservative with welfare in general.
Welfare should be considered taxable income

I extend all my arguments. The following table is the maximum allowable monthly gross income for a household to be eligible for food stamps (and cash benefit) in Minnesota. The phone number to the person I talked to was 952-361-1600 (MN department of human services). I was also informed that a person who has no income and no housing expense will receive $200/month, which is $2400/year, which will leave a negative $3,400 taxable income (assuming welfare was taxed). Household Size Max Monthly Gross Annual Amount Taxable Income (St. Deduct, S/HOH, MFJ) Tax Return (for 1 adult w/no withholdings) Tax Return (for 2 adults w/no withholdings) 1 Adult 2 Adults Federal MN Fed MN 1 1490 17880 8,380 - (838) (447) - - 2 2004 24048 8,148 5,048 2,109 249 (503) (372) 3 2518 30216 10,616 7,516 3,199 526 247 (515) 4 3032 36384 13,084 9,984 3,251 (230) 1,002 (651) This is assuming two adult homes are married, which they likely are not, because if they are not, then one parent becomes the “head of household” and the other is a single taxpayer. This maximizes the standard deduction, which is higher than if they were claiming “married filing jointly”, and makes tax return info difficult, because it depends on how much the HOH makes for EIC, and the “single” parent needs to have an income for it to matter. As anyone can see, the taxable income is very small at these thresholds, so any welfare would be taxed AT MOST at 15% federal, and MN state would be 5.95%, assuming they are at these levels, and not making less. Regardless, the increased taxable income would be clearly eaten by net gains from tax credits. If Con can offer statistics for the average welfare (wages and welfare benefits), I can crunch the numbers and we can see the affect. The bottom line issue is that the downtrodden choose to be on welfare (they have to apply for it), and benefit from it while not contributing to the very system that aides them. If they potentially paid taxes on this income, the rhetoric would be countered, the recipients would not be a total drain on the system, and the legal equality would be salvaged. Otherwise, let’s not tax social security, which was initiated as a welfare program, or unemployment insurance payments, which is definitely an aid program. I do not mean to be caviler, but these people choose not to work, choose not to work enough (perhaps they would need two jobs to get 40 hours), they choose to keep the kids they cannot afford, they choose the lifestyle they cannot afford, and they choose to accept/demand money from taxpayers to pay for their choices. Taxing these payments will subvert the willingness to abuse welfare, and urge those on welfare to get off and stand on their own because it is no longer a free ride. I admit this seems harsh, but it is not sophism; it is merely a practical solution.
Welfare should be considered taxable income

While I am against welfare in general, if it's going to be provided it shouldn't be taxable income. The money comes from the government in the first place to provide for people who are unable or unwilling to work. To tax this money makes no sense as it comes from the government. To tax it, would just be effectively giving less welfare money as its source is the same as the place the tax revenue would end up at. Technically, these people's incomes are zero. There is nothing to tax. The money given is thought to be what they need, and nothing more. I support the notion that people on welfare should have to work or do something productive set-up by the government to collect their checks. That tax would actually contribute to society rather than money being circular. Taxing people who get their money from the tax collectors is pure sophism and should not be implemented.
Welfare should be considered taxable income

I believe this is a straight forward debate. I will be arguing that welfare should be taxable income, thus subject to income taxes. Currently, welfare is not taxed at the federal level, and I doubt any state level (however, some states may include it in other calculations such as property tax refunds). Welfare is government payments to the poor, elderly, and/or disabled including, but not limited to: housing assistance, food stamps, medical treatment, and others. This definition excludes tax credits. The first round is for acceptance and clarification. No new arguments in final round. Caution, only 5,000 characters allowed. I do not expect to use many sources, so I ask that voters disregard points for sources used. I expect this to be a debate using logic and reasoning, not so much facts from sources. But, we will see what happens...
same sex marriage should be legal across the globe

Indeed, there are countries that are conservative like Saudi Arabia, Iran,Iraq just to name a few but these countries are also responsible for human rights violations. Should human beings suffer simply because cultural or religious views must be followed? If the United nations can erect global laws that serve to protect the rights of people, then why should homosexuals be excluded? Human rights come first whilst ideologies, cultural and religious views come second. "Some gays oppose gay marriage as well because of the fact that even though religion didn't necessarily found marriage it has redefined what it is" Again if religion did not invent marriage then what gives it the right to define what it is? For homosexuals to oppose same sex marriage is like coming across an African American who opposes the abolishment of slavery simply because it was defined to enslave only Africans. "Also each and every country should have the rights to make their own laws, if same-sex marriage is universal, where will diversity be in the cultures of the people?" yes each country should, but is it moral to erect laws that kill homosexuals? Or target minorities? Restrict freedoms and discriminate against women? Should a country have the right to erect such laws that are in clear violation of charter of human rights? I don't think so. Using culture as an excuse to deny others the same rights you had for centuries is in no way compatible with modern law or the current age. If such a culture or religion does such to discriminate in such a way then that culture or religion will either have to change or die.
same sex marriage should be legal across the globe

My argument will be that because the wording of the debate is every country should have legal gay marriage, certain nations have extremely-conservative cultures. Like countries with Sharia Law: http://wikiislam.net... The Vatican would also oppose homosexuality, the Catholic capital of the world:http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Not killing people for being homosexual, but allows homosexual acts as long as it's not marriage). Some gays oppose gay marriage as well because of the fact that even though religion didn't necessarily found marriage it has redefined what it is: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... Also each and every country should have the rights to make their own laws, if same-sex marriage is universal, where will diversity be in the cultures of the people?
same sex marriage should be legal across the globe

Homosexuality is a common trait found in nature, it has been observed in hundreds of animals, evolution by natural selection gives us a picture that homosexuality/bisexuality are common natural expressions in the animal Kingdom. Our closest relatives such as the bonobo and chimpanzee, homosexuality and even bisexual behaviour is very common ways to resolve conflict and to entertain. . http://www.news-medical.net... . http://www.yalescientific.org... Religion does not in anyway have a monopoly on marriage, marriage was not invented by any of the world's major religions. Ancient cultural practice of same sex marriage demonstrates this, why deny people the same rights you have enjoyed for centuries? Just because ignorant men who thought the world was flat and whom supported the enslavement of others does not in anyway mean they should dictate which love is right and which is wrong. . https://www.lifesitenews.com... . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Children raised under same sex households have to to be more healthier and happier than children with heterosexual parents. "We found that children from same-sex families scored, on average, 6 percent better on two key measures, general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income,""wrote"lead researcher Simon Crouch. "But on most health measures, including emotional behaviour and physical functioning, there was no difference when compared with children from the general population. " . http://www.salon.com... . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... I conclude my opening arguments and await cons response.
Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed

Gay marriage shouldn't of been legalised. It shouldn't be allowed or accepted in any country. From the beginning of time, it wasn't accepted, so why now? Because it's love? No. It's people wanting to be different and disobey. Man with man and woman with woman wasn't the way humans were made. Man is made for woman, and woman for man... Changing the natural order shouldn't be allowed. Gay is abnormal and isn't what God had created. The children need to know that isn't okay. People who are with the same Sex relationship isn't love.