BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

There is no way that sustaining someone with food, water, healthcare, electricity, plumbing, etc, for the entire duration of their life sentence is cheaper than putting someone to death. It may be true that the RETAIL cost of the lethal injection is extremely expensive, but there is no actual reason because the components of the injection are inexpensive. The prison system, however, is a for-profit privatized system, so they can set the price for these injections at whatever the hell they want, and there is no price limit for this. The tangible, real cost of keeping someone alive for their entire live is exponentially higher than an injection. We do not live by "An eye for an eye", but our society demands justice and closure. There are people in this world who have, to put it bluntly, "A broken brain". There are people who have no remorse. There are people who don't feel emotions. They are societal cancers. The only solution; eliminate the cancer. Lobotomies are much more immoral.
Death Penalty

The death penalty should be Illegal. The death penalty is wrong and immoral. According to "Against the Death Penalty" there are many different factors that play tribute to why the death penalty should be illegal. Firstly, a life sentence would save time and money as opposed to the death penalty. Secondly, many people believe the death penalty is used as a deterrent, as in we have to make crime rates go down. The truth is, crime rates have not gone down. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other countries. Nothing bad can come from sending someone to life in prison. It keeps crime off the streets and it is a lot more moral than the death penalty. We live in a country where killing is wrong, yet we kill people on death row. It is almost as if we are hypocrites. We do not live in a country where we live by an eye for an eye. We live in a country where we have the right to life, and that should not be taken away from us, no matter what the circumstance.
Why is 1 + 1 =2

I will argue this from two perspectives. I agree with the outcome but not with resouition he stated. I will show that 1+1=2 but not with the logic he presents. I will also show how 2 can equal 1 or 2=1Contention 1PostulatesI am arguing this based off his resolution. I do agree 1+1= 2 but not because of the stance he gave. He states this"1 + 1 = 2 because if you have one item and add another item to it you have 2 items. Therefore, using this example, 1 + 1 = 2"If you have an item and add another item to the first, it does not always make 2 items. The 2 items could merge and make one item. Example 1+1=11By taking 1 and adding it to another 1, you are showing that side by side the could make 11 or even become one item and make the number 11. We know 1+1 = 2 by a rule guideline that is refereed to as the Peano PostulatesIt pretty much states this word for word"1. 0 is a number.2. The successor of any number is also a number.3. No two distinct numbers have the same successor.4. 0 is not the successor of any number.5. If any property is possessed by 0 and also by the successor of any number having that property, then all numbershave that property."This is basically defining what the + is, and stating that every successor of a number can not have the same successor. Pros resolution is not refined, and I can arrive at any conclusion with the guideline he presented. Contention 2Classic FallaciesI could Claim that 2 = 1 or 1 equals itself. This is arrived at using basic algebra"a = ba2 = aba2 - b2 = ab-b2(a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b)a+b = bb+b = b2b = b2 = 1"or that 1+1=1"a = ba2 = b2a2 - b2 = 0(a-b)(a+b) = 0(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)1(a+b) = 0(a+b) = 01 + 1 = 02 = 01 = 01 + 1 = 1"Contention 3Principa MathematicaThis is a book by Russell White head which attempts to explain this very question. Again it shows that adding one thing to another is not the cause of 1+1 =2This adds to the first contention but these are some of the points the volumes try to encompassIt goes on to show what inductive relations are and the essence of assigning values to the numbers in which you are usingView the youtube video aboveIn ClosingHis resolution is false. 1+1 does equal 2 but not by the logic presented. http://quod.lib.umich.edu...http://plato.stanford.edu...http://mathworld.wolfram.com...http://myhome.spu.edu...http://www.youtube.com...
Feist is possibly one of the most powerful characters ever to set foot in a comic book.

before I start the argument, i need to ask you, have you read the Sonic Comic Books, or did you just pull Superman randomly against a god. 1: Feist is a god In the Special Zone, Feist can do practically invincible, and basically do whatever the f*ck he wants. He was the one that molded hundreds of Chaos Emeralds into the 7 we know and love today. Almost nobody ever completes his challenges to get them, as he often cheats to get his way. Of course though, Sonic pulled through, and that's why the 7 Emeralds are in use in the video games. Being a god means that Feist is practically invulnerable, and he can do basically any attack, and that includes Kryptonite barrages and stuff along that route. Nothing can beat Feist, and he often knows his opponent's weaknesses, so he can pul out a Kryptonite planet, or energy from a RED Sun. Superman, even his Prime form, doesn't stand a chance against the godly figure of Feist.
Feist is possibly one of the most powerful characters ever to set foot in a comic book.

Feist is the panda-like Mobian that is from the world of the Sonic the Hedgehog comic books, produced by Archie comics. He resides in the special zone, and is basically a living God. State a character from a comic book you think could beat Feist. Here's the scenario battle: Feist and so and so will be battling in Feist's Special Zone, since that is where he gets his powers from. Each character will have all of their abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. No outside help is allowed. No forfeits. Any of these rules broken will result in a 7 point forfeit to me. Only people who have read the Sonic comic books will know what I'm talking about, so only they can really debate this topic with me. If there are any trolls who accept this, and then keep forfeiting: I will repost this debate for other people to try, and keep doing so until someone actually posts an argument. -2nd round:arguments -3rd round: rebuttals I wish you dudes all the best.
The Welfare State is outdated and there are more efficient alternatives

Oops, that's what happens when you make unsubstantiated assumptions. I must confess my ignorance on the nuances of the UK welfare system, but I'll do my best to extrapolate my US experience, and I apologize in advance if I miss my target. You say that "as a nation if we were more collective then the welfare state could be adjusted." And I agree with the concept, save for the fact that that's one very big "if". Societies are not reliable when it comes to decide what to do with those in need. Some people help, some don't, and what is worse, the opinion of a small but strong sector -the media, a charismatic politician, etc.- can easily sway the choice of those who are not strongly convinced. I agree that background checks are perfectible, and I referred to that when I said that the system is rife with loopholes. That said, welfare is one case when I believe it's best to err on the side of caution. In my view, a system that rejects a person in real need of help is worse than one that lets a cheater to take advantage of it. As to what the percentage of cheaters is, I don't have any reliable statistics and I don't think there is one: our opinions are more often driven by emotional reactions, such as "look at that lazy bum collecting a check for nothing". As true as that may be, those who truly need help often weigh less in our views, as if they were less visible. The idea of some sort of community work in exchange for money actually exists already: it's called low level federal, state or city jobs (sorry for not using the proper UK names, but I hope you get the idea). These jobs are heavily subsidized, and keep a lot of people off the streets. But extending the concept to every poor person currently receiving welfare is dangerous. Should underage kids work? Poor pregnant women? Old people? How old would then old be? Yes you could draft a system in which only those who are physically able do actual work, but that would open another can of worms. Who would have the final say? (for practical purposes, that will be an overworked desk employee who knows nothing of the applicants) What if a person who is really sick or hurt gets the wrong certificate or none at all, and is sent to work? Again I prefer to err on the side of caution, and let a broader group of people reap the assistance, without adding a questionable selection criteria. You ask a very valid question, "Do the negatives outweigh the positives?" Actually that question should be mandatory in any sensitive issue where some people tend to see one side of the equation only. As I see it, the negative is overspending in helping people who do not really need help, money which as I mentioned before comes mostly from very rich people, and to a large extent subsidizes the working and middle class too. The positive is, it keeps a large number of people who have difficulty fighting for survival afloat (though barely). I take that to be a very big positive against a relatively minor negative.
The Welfare State is outdated and there are more efficient alternatives

First of all, thank you for accepting this debate and I was actually referring to the UK welfare state but I suppose the debate can be applied to both nations. Now, I agree with some of these points that there aren't many alternatives but I believe as a nation if we were more collective then the welfare state could be adjusted. The main problem I see in the welfare state is that there isn't as thorough background search of the person applying for it as maybe there should be. This could easily be set up by looking at the census of everyone and medical history, wage etc. and applying data to a computer system and actually looking to see if some people aren't as in desperate need as some. I believe varying the amount of money given to these people is important as an old person isn't as in need of money than someone who has a life threatening disease e.g. cystic fibrosis. This would be the easiest alternative to ask of the government but going back to the idea of more voluntary work I think a reward scheme could be set up for doing a certain amount of voluntary work. For example "100 or $100 for 10 hours of service to the community. This would be cheaper than the current welfare state is and it would give people the incentive to give something back to their community. Welfare state can encourage people to not get better jobs who may be in school and barely able to pay the bills, even if they work. They may make just enough money to qualify for benefits, but not enough money to fully support themselves unless they live in a bad area. People apply for benefits if they are unemployed but surely even in this day and age getting a job would be a more efficient way of earning money and it is problems like this that make the welfare state so evasive. My final reason about how the welfare state is unreliable is it is people who work hard to make a living that are effectively paying for some people to not bother getting a job and get money given to them and them not earning it. These people are not playing their part to help boost the economy which isn't helping the UK out at all. In conclusion I will fire back a different question; Do the negatives outweigh the positives? And frankly I don't believe they do. The welfare state was better when it was first introduced in 1906 but I feel it has taken us a significant way forward but it is old and can no longer lead us in the right direction, it too needs a pension after its retirement.
The Welfare State is outdated and there are more efficient alternatives

First, thanks to Wj for proposing this very interesting topic. I am making the assumption that the debate is focused on the current US situation, but if that is not the case I will be glad to expand it to other countries in the second round. Somebody -I think it was Churchill?- once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Something similar can be applied to the welfare state. It is full of inconsistencies, loopholes and potential for abuse, yet it beats the alternative -the lack of it. I see it in evolutionary terms: animals (other than humans I mean) use diverse combinations of cooperation and violence to reach their goals. When it comes to what to do with the destitute, the weak, the sick or the injured, their strategies vary from community help (survival) to open violence or abandon (both an effective death sentence). Humans have the cognition ability to realize there are multiple alternatives, but we don't necessarily agree on which one to use: so when we are faced with that situation, some of us choose to assist the ones in need, while some others will effectively kick the weaklings out of the group. Add to this that human power goes well beyond animal's: while animals can only assert themselves in terms of physical force, humans extend that power by long reach influence (i.e. a paunchy, feeble CEO can decide the destiny of thousands of physically stronger men). And this is when the need for a welfare state kicks in -an institution above individual power, in charge of redistributing wealth and assistance where the community alone is unable to, be it because of unwillingness or lack of power. Add to this the issue of inequality, be it gender based or racial. Women have made significant progress but are still far from effective equal rights (sometimes the laws exist, but their application leaves much to be desired). Racial minorities are in the same boat -Jim Crow laws are long gone, but a color blind society is still a pipe dream, and in many ways the palliative measures such as Affirmative Action do more to freeze a situation of practical inequality under "tolerable" terms than to pave the way for true equality. I would like to end this with a key question: who is on welfare? The answer is you, me, and the vast majority of Americans. When we think of welfare we think of food stamps, welfare checks and Medicaid. Actually, the bulk of American citizens are subsidized by the State. We assume it's our own taxes which pay for welfare, but in reality, the roads we drive on, the electricity we use, the police that keeps us safe (sometimes...), all this is paid by the very rich. I know this is hard to swallow, but take a closer look at the brutal income inequality today (the infamous 99% vs. 1%, which is a figure of speech but not too far from reality), then at taxation which is slightly regressive but not that much, and do the math. You'll be surprised.
The Welfare State is outdated and there are more efficient alternatives

I believe the Welfare state, the government rule giving benefits to those in need of support through benefit payments and services, is outdated and in need of a replacement. First of all the welfare state is about merit goods i.e. goods that give significant benefits to the individual consuming them and to society as a whole. However people undervalue these and what I mean by that is that if these goods/services cost they wouldn't be bought by everybody. A few examples come to mind for example, education. It is free but some people wouldn't buy it if it did cost. So, the costs to the government or the nation as a whole for that matter. The welfare state costs an awful lot of money to the government, peoples hard earned income is being distributed to some people who claim to have a disability or in desperate need of income but in actual fact are taking advantage of this badly formed concept and claiming benefits they don't need. Also I believe some people may be overlooked by the government when they do meet the criteria to gain these benefits because the background search of some people is not thorough enough. This has become a problem as a lot of people have discovered this 'loophole' and are taking advantage of it. The alternatives to the welfare state include increasing the role of the voluntary sector. This means making people responsible for other people and caring for each other as a community. This may not seem like it would work but I believe a system could be put in place so everyone has to contribute to the community. I also believe some adjustments could be made to the welfare state such as making it universal although this does have its drawbacks. In conclusion I think everyone should play a bigger role in shaping our community and caring for the elderly and the unable instead of just giving them a bit of money in which the government expect them to know what to use it for.
The Acts of Apostles Was Composed Before 100AD

This round is basically for acceptance and definitions of terms; therefore, I'll simply provide a little background and a few definitions. 1. Since no one can conclusively "prove" precisely when the manuscript that came to be known as the Book of Acts, or Acts, or Acts of the Apostles, Envisage and I will be dealing in likelihoods and probabilities, i. e. "When was Acts most likely written?" 2. By Acts of Apostles, I mean the fifth book of the New Testament, a book which was most likely originally nameless, but later acquired the name Acts. 3. By "composed", I mean that the entirety of the book, sans interpolations and additions, was terminated in its present general form before AD 100. Now, I may say that my view actually is that the Book of Acts was terminated in AD 62/63, and I have yet to see an ounce of internal evidence that suggests otherwise. Perhaps Envisage will present such evidence. However, for the purposes of this debate, I need only affirm composition prior to AD 100. Of course, I can line up modern-era "scholars" that will "prove" my contention - provided I get to pick and choose what constitutes a "scholar". I trust that Envisage can do likewise. That is one reason citing scholar's many and varied opinions on the date itself was discouraged. Another reason is that nobody has an adequate definition of "expert" or "scholar". Another is that "scholars" notoriously change with the wind. Views fall in and out of favor, then back in again, then out. Good luck, and I hope it makes for interesting reading for those who might be interested.
The Acts of Apostles Was Composed Before 100AD

I am honoured to have Annanicole as my opponent for this debate. This debate regards the Canonical Book of Acts. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] and composition regards to it's completion in largely it's present form preserved in the ancient manuscripts, ignoring minor changes/copyist errors that may have occurred. The burden of proof is shared, thus voting must be cast on the perponderance of the evidence presented. Appeals to authority will hold no weight either. Voters are required to give a RFD that contrasts each side's arguments as to why one side won out over the other.
Gay marriage

The percent of gay Americans ,off the top of my head, is around 5%. This is a very small number to legislate around the Constitution. There are many rights given in the Constitution, all of which gay people ought to have, BUT marriage is not one of them. I understand the hardships that the gay community must go through but gay marriage is not everything. Society is not ready for this new wave. If Congress amends the Constitution to include marriage, fine...that is the law. But until then, gay people are not granted the the right to marriage by the federal government.
Gay marriage

There are more than those simple rights stated in the Constitution, people also have the freedom of religion, freedom to petition, right to bear arms. The state representatives can only go by what the people of the state want, which there are many people of those states who are gay. Many gay people are judged and looked down upon for who they are, which is not right. The states cannot always have control, the Constitution does hold very important things to it also the congress and others of the Judicial Branches have to follow it by law, or they can be taken out of office.
Gay marriage

The only thing that holds ground here is the constitution. It does not say that the government can regulate and make laws involving marriage, thus, under the 10th amendment, the power goes to the states. The constitution has no bias or opinion. If a power is not explicitly given to the fed, it then goes to the states. We also need to understand that in almost all regards, gay people have equal rights to everyone else. Marriage is hardly anything major when it comes to rights in light of freedom to speak, be educated, and vote.
Gay marriage

With gay marriage though you will have less transfer of STD s, I have never seen it any where in the constitution that it is gay marriages are wrong. I recently did my world history project on the constitution, when I realized that it is no where stated in the constitution that gay marriages are not allowed. So I decided to ask this; Why are people so against gay marriages? many say it is unnatural, but it really isn't, if it was unnatural I guess it is unnatural for women and men to get married, because gays feel the same way for their partners as men and women do.
Gay marriage

I understand the desire for equality in this sense,and I am sympathetic to the LGBT community. My roommate in college is gay. But the issue here is marriage. The feelings and happiness cannot interfere with law. The recent court case in the Supreme Court was unfounded. Nothing in the constitutions states that the government can manage marriage, thus, the 10th amendment states that this issue goes to the states. If said state does no want gay marriage, then it should be allowed to bar it. This is a issue of states' rights. I do not hate these people, I just want to keep with the law.
Gay marriage

I believe that people deserve to marry who they want without the judgement of other people. People can not help the way they feel. People are who they are, everyone deserves happiness in fact many of my friends are gay, bisexual, lesbian but that doesn't make them less of a friend as my straight friends. They are all equally amazing people. They breath the same air, they live on the same world, they have all the same feelings as everyone else. They are not afraid to express themselves but they often find it hard as many people are so judgmental towards them.
Should Mayo Be Considered A Human Being

You can't make mayonnaise a human being without asking first. So that's what I did. I spoke with the Mayonnaise King yesterday and he informed me that his people PREFER to be eaten. Maybe you don't understand because you're a human. But if you were a mayonnaise, your life purpose would be "getting eaten." It's true: Mayonnaise WANTS to be eaten. We both know it's morally wrong and rude to REFUSE to eat that which WANTS to be eaten.
Should Mayo Be Considered A Human Being

It should not be deleted and it is not stupid. When I say "mayo" of course I mean mayonnaise what else would it be shortened from? You stated "If mayonnaise was considered a human being, we'd be considered cannibals." that is the reason we should refer to it as human so we are not cannibals and so we should stop eating it. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE. HUMANITY FOR MAYONNAISE.