BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

I accept Pro's definition and my resolution is "The Death Penalty Should Not Be Eliminated". I believe that capital punishment should be kept for criminals who committed very serious crime (mass murder for example). My reasons for that are mainly "death penalty is just" and "it helps deter crime". I will expand my arguments in the next round. Regarding Pro's first argument, I have to say this: You can't outlaw something just because you personally think it's wrong. How can all forms of killing, no matter the circumstances, are wrong? If the police killed some armed robbers to protect the civilians, is that wrong as well? The whole so-called "paradox of the death penalty" is just absurd. Firstly, as I've already said above, not all killing are crime. Secondly, the taxpayers are not guilty of whatever crimes the state committed even if there are any. Thirdly, not everyone guilty of killing is put to death, capital punishment is only used in extreme cases.
The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

In this debate, I will address several main aspects of capital punishment (or death penalty; terms may be used interchangeably) in the United States. Before I begin, I would like to note that I am brand new to this site and I am excited to begin debating and put my opinions out there. So, be aware that I am certainly not the most experienced one here.Now, first of all, I would lie to provide a definition.Death Penalty - Execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. OR - Imposition of a penalty of death by the state."Death penalty" and "capital punishment" are considered synonymous to some extent, but it should be noted that giving the sentence is not always followed through by the penalty itself.Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia (6th edition), numerous other outletsTo follow this, I will present my argument:Morality - Before getting into the statistics and other arguments for the death penalty, the base question for this debate must be, "Is it ever morally acceptable to end the life of another human being?" To that, I have to say no. Personally, I believe that all forms of killing, especially that sanctioned by the state, is wrong. This argument is purely a moral one, based on how I was raised and how I choose to live my life. No matter what the circumstances may be, I believe that killing another person is unacceptable. The kicker here is that the government is actually sponsoring the murder of a convicted criminal. This means that the state takes money from taxpayers and uses it to end the life of a person. However, since killing is a crime, and the state kills someone, we are all guilty of killing. When we are guilty of killing, we also must be put to death. This the paradox of the death penalty, and you cannot avoid it.Before I go into deeper depth of the other facets of the death penalty, I would like to see my opponent address my points and then give further reason why they believe that capital punishment should remain as an option for some criminals. Topics to be addressed may include, but are not limited to: - the death penalty's use as a deterrent;- the legality and constitutionality of the death penalty; and- social, religious, and racial aspects of the death penalty.Round 1 may be for acknowledgement and clarifications, accompanied by preliminary arguments. In Round 2, I will address all of my opponent's points and present new arguments of my own if the need presents itself. Rounds 3, and 4 will similar. In Round 5, however, only closing points should be made. Burden of proof will be divided equally. Please remember to maintain a respectful, intellectual, and professional attitude.Once again, I am new here. As it is great to be here, I will admit that I am a little nervous to undertake my first debate. I thank you for your understanding.
The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

Summary of the debate:I have presented my arguments and explained why we should keep the death penalty:- Death Penalty is Just: It's not revenge, but a fitting punishment for the ones who committed horrendous crimes.- Death Penalty deters crimes: I've shown several studies showing that the death penalty deters homicides.I have also refuted Pro's points:- We can't outlaw something just because we personally don't like it. Morality is subjective and can't be used as a basis to change the law.- The death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore it does not violate the constitution.- Innocent people on death row is a thing of the past. Current methods help us easily find out whether someone is the true culprit.In conclusion, the capital punishment should not be abolished, in order for justice to prevail and innocent lives to be saved.
The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

I feel like I have said all I need to say, and I would like to enthusiastically thank Con for an intriguing and thoguht-provoking debate. Seeing as I do not have the time nor the energy to form a response for this round, I will not make a formal argument. Please do not take this as a concession (it is not), rather it is me realizing that perhaps I may have made this debate too long and underestimated hw much work would have to be put into the debate alone. But this has been a great learning experience and I hope to use that in future debates.Voters: Don't necessarily vote for the person with whom you agree, vote objectively based on the aguments. Thanks. Again, I still disagree philosophically with my opponent, but I have come to a realization that I cannot complete this round. Thank you.
Spreading has its place in Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate.

So it is that my opponent was unable to post his previous round. At the considerable risk of exploiting this for my own benefits, I will say that in my not so humble opinion that spreading (a term which refers to the practice of speed reading in debate rounds) is as futile as it is stupid. Futile, because the value of the exercise of oratorically delivered debate is lost in many, if not most cases where spreading occurs. Stupid, because the need to spread implies that a debater has not allocated sufficiently careful consideration to his or her case to distill only the best, most reasonable and significant arguments/points and instead opts to shotgun arguments with all the force and utility of the projectile vomiting that is most frequently often associated with a peculiarly acute manifestation of gastrointestinal viruses of various forms. Spreading on its most basic level is the result of a debater who has not been properly coached, and therefore cannot edit his or her own crap out of the case he or she reads, and includes orders of information that serve to confuse genuinely attentive judges, and distract the flow-judge idiots who ignore the substance of any specific argument and opt instead to look only for "key words" or phrases THAT ARE STATED in response to other arguments, and not which actually REFUTE arguments. Spreading therefore has no place in either LD or policy debate because it is a cheap gimmick that has little to any persuasive value, reflects and enables debaters to continue to not know how to form/edit arguments, confuses and irritates good judges, plays to idiot-judges inherent stupidity (insofar as they "flow," rather than listen)*, and sacrifices the persuasive value or oratorically delivered debate in what is more often than not no more than a mirage of bullsh!t. *When I say idiot-judges who "flow" rather than listen, what I am referring to are all of those people who ignore the qualitative and logical merit of what specific arguments actually state and instead consider IF an argument was responded to in some way, and not THAT an argument was refuted. It is at this point that I'm supposed to ask you, the judge to vote CON -which is another practice that lacks merit or value in the exercise of debate. The reason is because this entire argument is purposed in persuading you to vote in a certain way, and to ask you to vote CON is practically an affront to your ability to understand what an argument does. So, I will not ask you to vote CON. I assume, after all, that you are mentally adroit enough to understand that my asking you to vote CON is implied. Peace and Love, YYW
Spreading has its place in Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate.

No sources need be cited unless you're using some statistics or foreign rhetoric for some reason (I don't see a need for either of those in this debate). To be honest, I'm just doing this because I need to have three debates to be allowed to vote--I love debating but before I start a really serious debate, I just want to get those three out of the way and I think this might be a fun debate for fellow capital-d Debaters. First round should just be acceptance; maybe say why you're interested in this topic. I'd like to keep it light and friendly; just a good discussion piece between us Debaters.
All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

As I understand, I shall be serving as the protector of incarcerated genitalia or fertility. My partner has issued the following argument, which he believes will reduce the amount of prison rape that goes on. Problem: Prison rape is going on. Solution: Castration of all inmates. Proposition 1: Inmates that cannot have children will not do some raping. Proposition 2: Inmates that are holding less testosterone will not be as frustrated, and will behave better. Proposition 3: It is fair to castrate women who are not likely to do some raping, if men are also castrated. I don't want to waste the time of any readers who might be impatient to learn how this contest might unfold. So I will foreshadow somewhat my counter arguments: 1. Inmates that have no penis, and no desire to procreate, still retain some ability to rape up their comrades. Prosthetics, for example, could be used. 2. I suppose an argument could be made here, but as a strategy for crime reduction, there are many other options that are much easier to implement. 3. This argument leaves me speechless. I maintain that it is unfair. I see no way that the logic applies. Pro will simply need to explain this more fully. Additionally, I will briefly mention a few other items that come to my mind. In no particular order of importance. 4. Rape is not a sex crime, but a violent crime. 5. Isn't forced castration a form of 'rape? ' 6. Rape occurs less often in prison than outside the penal system. Why wouldn't the same logic (that forced castration is well advised as a means of crime prevention), not also apply to those not incarcerated? 7. This is not a serious policy proposal. No public official of note is calling for such Hitlerian actions. We would do well to better understand why not - before we begin this discussion.
All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

The problem of prison rape is a real and horrific one. Mostly heterosexual people are put into an enclosed place without the opposite sex. This results in sexual frustration often leading to rape. The high levels of testosterone in male prisons also leads to more crime. For the sake of sexual equality, we should also chemically castrate women. Although there may be other chemicals that we could use two examples of castration chemicals include: Depo Provera for men and Tamoxifen for women. Because it is reversible if the inmate is found innocent and released then they can quit the treatment and their sex drive will come right back. They have no use for it in prison, and requiring it keeps all inmates including ones who were wrongly convicted safe from being raped.
All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

I thank my partner for the recent submission.I shall offer only rebuttals, since my argument is that this change is not required. From this stance, there is no need to explain the status quo - only why the change in question is uneeded. "It should be noted that "sexual reassignment treatments" including female hormones are approved for mtf transsexuals. Would they approve that if it had potential side effects that were too extreme?"My partner argues that the efficacy of these medications is appropriate for gender reassignment, and so should therefore be appropriate for behavior modification of inmates. The link is not made. I argue that gender reasignement is also innapropriate for inmates who do not wish to recieve this surgery. In a similar fashion, although less extreme, inmates should be permitted to retain some control over the type of decision being proposed here.The "prior restraint" question. Pro does not offer any actual examples of the legal use of punishing a law abiding citizen for his potential future criminal activity. The examples he cites are irritants, yes, but irritants that are demanded by the public. For example, there is no legal punitive action taken by air travelers who must wait in security lines - these are simple security measures. Castration, especially if other measures are available, is decidedly not a mere security measure. It is a stern punishment in and of itself, many degrees more severe than taking off shoes in an airport. "In 2001 140,000 people were RAPED while incarcerated." To say the least, I am suspicious of these claims. As far as I can determine, the 140,000 rapes figure was produced by Human Rights Watch, a reputable organization with a solid track record of data collection. However, in this case, their studies seem to be inadmissable for my partner - these rapes were not all inmate on inmate, but rather, include a significant number of prison gaurd on inmate attacks and coersions. Overwhelmingly, inmate sexual assaults involved juvenile offenders. [1]Considering this, Pro will need to also argue that prison staff should be castrated, which I anticipate that he will not do. The remainder of my partner's argument is non sequitur, and off topic.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

1. We can deal with bone density loss by giving inmates more calcium. It should be noted that "sexual reassignment treatments" including female hormones are approved for mtf transsexuals. Would they approve that if it had potential side effects that were too extreme? 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... In spite of what Con calls "nonpharmacological behavioral controls" in 2001 140,000 people were RAPED while incarcerated. Con also argues that prior restraint is somehow unconstitutional. Prior restrain is used in many, many cases. We use prior restraint when we check people at the airport and they haven't even been convicted of any crime. We use prior restraint on some mentally ill people, requiring them to take their pills in order to live outside a mental institution. The invasion of Iraq was an example of prior restraint, given that George W. Bush thought they had WMD, and even Obama keeps "prior restraint" on the table as an option for Iran.
All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

I need to explain that I am aware that we are discussing chemical, not physical castration. However, there are important caveats to this. I can explain, but as of yet have not been called upon to do so. I do have other objections, however, which I will enumerate. 1. The effects of chemical castration may be permanent, and these side effects include bone density loss. These drugs may also be unsafe. [1]2. This extreme measure is being proposed as a means to control violent behavior, especially rape. However, safer and less extreme measures exist. These include the forced administering of sedatives, relaxants and psycho reactive medications. Pro must explain why these are less attractive alternatives to the sexually humiliating and potentially dangerous proposal that he puts forward. 3. There are non-pharmacological methods of behavior control, such as limiting inmate contact and privacy, that are demonstrably effective in controlling violent actions. Pro must explain why these are less preferable than his proposal - to simply castrate the lot of the American inmate population. 4. The use of these measures has been found to be illegal. [2]5. Levying this punishment on inmates who have not, and are not likely to commit the violent crime of rape should not be punished as if they had. Forcing this castration upon unwilling inmates is a form of punishment - without due process or even after having been convicted of any crime. Such actions constitute acts of "prior restraint," where an individual is punished for criminal acts 'prior' to having committed them. This practice is unconstitutional. [3][1] [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
All Inmates Should Be Chemically Castrated

Rape is both a violent and a sex crime. It would be significantly more difficult to do if you can't get it up.Con clearly does not understand the resolution. I am NOT referring to physical castration, I am referring to chemical (and completely reversible) castration that would only affect the inmates while they are in prison.How can this policy be inhumane? It is just a safety policy. Since inmates aren't allowed to have sex even consentual sex in prison unless it is for conjugal visits (which I would be open to making an exemption for and allowing temporary suspension of chemical castration medications if it was practical).No harm can come from this policy. Even without technically being eunuchs the inmates would also benefit from the "eunuch calm".http://www.menknowwomen.com...40% of men who opt for voluntary physical castration desire a "eunuch calm" from it.I am only proposing chemical castration, but since it would lead to the same reduction in hormones I expect similar results. This new state of mind my lead inmates to more calm and more spirituality as well as a climate of peace in prisons rather than the violence and cliquishness that currently ensues. This could lead to a great reduction in recidivism.
We Should Legalize All Firearms

Final Arguments & Rebuttals: The armoured vehicle WAS hit by an Rocket Propelled Grenade, show me an image of ammunition DAMAGING armoured personel vehicles, besides this point, now to show the aftermath: http://www.youtube.com...;Even here: https://imgur.com..."This M113 APC belonged to the 1st Cavalry operating out of Camp Radcliff. During a routine patrol convoy along QL 19 it was ambushed and destroyed by an RPG. QL 19 was a vital supply line to bases in the central highlands, and thus was also subject to frequent ambushes by Viet Cong and PAVN forces." Source: https://www.tumblr.com... "You do not need the best aim to make sure that you kill them while many studies have proved that shotguns and pistols are EXTREMELY hard to aim." On what studies? Where are the sources for this unproved claim? The explosion created by an Rocket Propelled Grenade fired from the person shooting it to hit the intruder is too obvious, 2nd graders know that you can be killed making such an foolish action, unless you are mentally impaired, you must repudiate.Rebuttal 2: "weapon theft argument"I said earlier that with all weapons, especially military grade, can be stolen, what point were you even making? My previous argument: "This will lead to an increase of destruction in crimes, and deaths in murders/crimes. Again, the purpose for owning weapons is for the intention of defending one's self from an intruder, or a threat. Even background checks cannot prevent the wrong person from taking those weapons, people can just steal them." Though I replied with the argument above, I will make it clear: Economic increase is not the focus, safety is more important. Even with Economic increase, there will be a increase in deaths and destruction in crime with all weapons being legalized.Conclusion:The "pro" (as I mistakenly put "con" in the previous round) person has not provided good arguments in the case of defending the stand for legalization of all weapons, including military rank weapons.
We Should Legalize All Firearms

Your picture of the damage of the "rocket propelled grenade" is completely false. That is the result of multiple rounds of ammunition. The exact same result would have happened if you had fired a couple hundred bullets from the gun into that vehicle. Additionally, yes, it is true that you have a very slight risk in killing yourself when using the RPG to kill an intruder. You do not need the best aim to make sure that you kill them while many studies have proved that shotguns and pistols are EXTREMELY hard to aim. And of course, there will still be people who abuse these weapons whether they get them from a friend or something of that matter, but this is true for ALL guns. Somebody who wants to do damage will still find a way to do it whether it is with a small knife or an RPG. Also, you did not reply to my argument on they economic increase with the amount of people buying these expensive firearms. Conclusion: Con was not able to successfully rebuttal my arguments and ceased from adding any more evidence to the discussion.
We Should Legalize All Firearms

Rebuttal:You mentioned how machine guns bullets can do more damage than a rocket propelled grenade. This claim is utterly ridiculous. Now for me to show an image of how much damage a rocket propelled grenade can cause than caliber/assault rifle bullets: This small armoured vehicle was destroyed with an Rocket Propelled Grenade. This now compared to assault rifle/caliber bullets: Damage is less compared to a completely destroyed armoured personel carrier.Rebuttal 2: "Damage comparison" argumentThis is nothing, as for this claim: "Imagine this: if a robber came into your house with a pistol, he would easily be able to take you on 1v1 if you had a slow hunting rifle. But, if you had an RPG, you would easily wipe their sorry face off earth. "So you want to dematerialize yourself in the attempt of putting down an intruder?A small firearm or even a shotgun could do much better in putting down an intruder. You do not need an explosive to kill someone and yourself.Rebuttal 3: "entertainment and economic increase" argumentThis will lead to an increase of destruction in crimes, and deaths in murders/crimes. Again, the purpose for owning weapons is for the intention of defending one's self from an intruder, or a threat. Even background checks cannot prevent the wrong person from taking those weapons, people can just steal them. Conclusion:The con person's arguments are flawed. He has not proved how owning all weapons would benefit society positively.