BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Undertaker could defeat spongebob

"Everything else he didn't refute and in debate silance is confirmance so he agreed with the agruements I made. For that reason I can see nothing but a Pro balot. " This statement is absolutely false. Throughout this debate,k I have refuted all of my opponents arguments. If there is anyone in here didn't refute all my argument, its pro. Pro lied about me not attacking any of his argument other than that of the cartoon argument, thus he should loose based on honesty. Pro did not attack: My absorption of water and using it as a water gun argument. He did not attack my argument that spongebob is unpredictable, he did not attack my argument of Sponge bob being able to change his body shape. voters go back and read the debate and you will find that my opponent did not attack virtually most of my arguments, and under his own words, he should loose this debate. Pro, thank you for the debate and I also thank the readers and voters.
Undertaker could defeat spongebob

"He says spongebob can't be on land for long, well the only reason he died in the movie was he was held up to a lamp." Exactly how does this add to the argument at hand? I only used it to justify the reason for my parameters. "choke slam is a move that several wrestlers use by picking their opponent up by the throat and slamming them on the ground. Tombstone argument, spongebob is a soft guy, therefore I almost guarantee that Undertaker will break something." My opponent did not attack my previous attacks on his original statement meaning that he agrees that despite the fact that spongebob is soft, his abilities allows him to absorb the impact of massive forces. "my opponent says Undertaker never fought a cartoon character before, well he is wrong due to the WWE All-Stars he's fought presidents" Lets get this straight, When my opponent started this debate, I assumed he meant the real Undertaker and the cartoon Spongebob. I presume that this was also the voters thoughts through out the course of the debate.
The Death Penalty is Acceptable

1. My opponent has conceded that he is "sure you could set up a way to let criminals work", but that he doesn't believe it is worth it. He claims that they've had their chance in life, and blew it. I agree completely, but how this leads instantly to the idea of murdering them, I'll never know. My opponent asks why we should spend our money on them, but he is again missing the point of my idea; to MAKE money for society. Farms do not lose money. 2. I provided a link in Round 1 which clearly explains the information my opponent is requesting. I personally don't understand WHY it is more expensive to sentence someone to death than life in prison, but rest assured that it is. [1] 3. "These people to me are not worth the trouble and the money." My opponent has once again missed the point. Not worth the money? It costs more to kill them than keep them alive, which completely quashes this argument. Not worth the trouble? I think if there is anything our Government should be troubling themselves over it is: - Ensuring due punishment to those deserving of it. - Ensuring society is repaid for what the criminal took. - Doing both of these things as efficiently, humanely and inexpensively as possible. It's obvious that my farm idea far outweighs the death penalty in these areas, and for that matter so does life in prison. It removes the threat to society, ensures punishment and is more cost effective. 4. & 5. "I cannot guarantee that innocents won't be convicted." "The state is not killing an innocent man." As you've admitted yourself, there is no way to ensure that innocent men will not be murdered. This is reason enough to eliminate the barbaric, reactionary 'punishment' that is the death penalty. Voters, I have shown, with sources, that the death penalty is more expensive than imprisoning a criminal, it is less effective at reducing crime, and I have argued that being put to sleep really is no punishment at all. There are far more effective ways to ensure punishment and appease society than to murder criminals. "An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind." Thanks very much to my opponent! [1] - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The Death Penalty is Acceptable

1) I still do not think that it is wise, safe or practical to put criminals in a working environment. It just wouldn't work. Criminals would not work the same way average working Americans would. There would be no drive to put food on the table and nothing to push them to do better except for a security guard yelling at them. That is not work and it's not even a punishment. That is a waste of human resources on common criminals. I'm sure you could set up a way to let criminals work but I don't believe it is worth it. They had their chance in life, they blew it. Why should we spend our money on them? It is cheaper and better to serve them justice once and for all. Why should we be made to pay for a criminals mistakes with money and manpower? Why should they be able to break laws and ignore human rights and then still put a drain on society after they have been caught and convicted? They should not be able to. They are leeches to society and what do people do with leeches? They burn them off, pop them and kill them. 2) I am interested to know why it is NOT cheaper to kill criminals when they are convicted. You keep on bringing this point up but fail to support it with any information. 3) I would like to ask my opponent what the point of a smarter incarceration system would be? A criminal convicted of heinous crimes obviously had something wrong with them. Skeletons in the closet, a chip on their shoulder, mental issues ect ect. These people obviously are not normal people and I myself would not support re-doing our system so that these people can live more comfortably in jail, possibly work and stay alive. What is the point? Yes it is a human life but is it truly a full life? They have committed crimes and then were caught and sent to prison. These people to me are not worth the trouble and the money. I say the death penalty should be used in cases of heinous crimes against people. We should not fight for these criminals to work in a "smarter system". They do not deserve it. 4) My uniform code would put specific guidelines up for the death penalty. It would lay out exactly what crimes and situations would provoke the use of the death penalty. These guidelines would be followed by every single person and courtroom in the country to ensure equality in all cases. I cannot guarantee that innocents won't be convicted. That's not up to me, that's up to the judge and jury, but everyone would be treated the same in every case. No special cases would be exempted or accepted. It would be true it would be fair. 5) The state is not killing an innocent man. The state would be killing a convicted criminal. The criminal could have potentially killed innocents and that is wrong but the state is enacting justice. The assailant is not an innocent person, he is a convict and has been deemed so by the state. Killing an innocent and killing a murderer are two completely different things. The state is not on the level of the killer. This is all I have room for.
The Death Penalty is Acceptable

PRO: "You say that we should put them to work on farms to help the..." REBUTTAL: My opponent's only gripe against my farm suggestion is that the cost of security and farming equipment etc. would cost far too much to be a worthwhile venture. I completely disagree, and in fact I propose that it would MAKE money for the Government. Assuming no drought or other natural-disaster, there is no way that a farm, over a few years, will not make its capital back and then-some. I would like my opponent to say why he believes a Government-run farm would lose money, rather than make money, which is the purpose of owning and operating a farm. Also, even if my farm suggestion does turn out to be unrealistic or unproductive, this does not give any extra weight to the death penalty. Once again, just because other options are ineffective, doesn't make the death penalty any more effective. PRO: "The facts you have brought up are great pieces of information..." REBUTTAL: I can, and will, find more figures if my opponent urges, but rest assured voters that the figures I displayed in Round 1 are very typical. It is common knowledge (yet a common misconception) that the death penalty works out cheaper in the long-term than life imprisonment. It's simply not true. PRO: "You say "there are far more intelligent ways..." REBUTTAL: My opponent seems to agree with my assertion that just because our current incarceration system stinks is not grounds alone to warrant the death penalty. He suggests that it would be too difficult to make a smooth transition to the new system, and I say 'so what?' There are some things which are worth fighting for and struggling for, and the elimination of the death penalty and a more intelligent incarceration system is certainly one of them. PRO: " I agree people have ..." REBUTTAL: I ask my opponent to please expand upon his 'uniform code' argument, because I don't quite get it. Will the system you are proposing ensure 100% that innocent people will not be put to death? PRO: "It does not bring the..." REBUTTAL: No, but if the mother of the child punched her son in the face every time the son punched someone, or kicked him in the stomach when he did the same, or if the son gives another kid a wedgie and the mother followed suit, then the mother would be lowering herself to her child's level. Besides, a little smack on the bum is not quite the same as murdering a human being. PRO: "I would like to politely disagree..." REBUTTAL: I agree with my opponent that we all have a natural fear of death, myself included. But my opponent is confusing fear of punishment with the effectiveness of the punishment once administered. If I said I was going to punch you, and it scared you, that would suck for you. But if once I'd punched you you felt nothing at all, there really was nothing to fear. If I punch you and it hurts you for the next 40 years of your life, you will rue the day you crossed me. Thanks!
The Death Penalty is Acceptable

I also would like to make it known that I will honor your request and will not vote for myself out of fairness. 1). You say that we should put them to work on farms to help the economy, "maybe instead of spending so much money murdering people, we should send them to work on farms to make millions of dollars for the economy" but I believe that is counter productive and the cons of that situation would outweigh the pros. In order to send a criminal who is eligible for the death sentence (meaning he has done something pretty bad) you would have to create a secure facility in which they could work. You would need to hire security, GPS tracking bracelets ect. ect. By the end of this whole thing it would be more like a prison yard than a working environment. The cost of paying and hiring additional security for farm and factory environments on top of the additional equipment would cost a tremendous amount of money. So once again I will say that serving out the death penalty saves American dollars. 2) The facts you have brought up are great pieces of information and I will admit I did not know those exact numbers. I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I do however believe that those numbers are subject to change in certain environments. The fact about Canada cannot be applied to most of modern day America, Canada has such a lower crime rate than the US that it is hard to compare numbers. Also I will like to point out that the South has always had a murder rate than the rest of the country. The south has been one of the poorest parts of the nation throughout history and I think that influences murder rates significantly. (Poverty is a proven source of violence) 3) You say "there are far more intelligent ways of punishing criminals which actually benefit society and don't reduce the Government to common thugs" but the way our incarceration system works now it wouldn't be able to smoothly transition to a more community service based system. It would require an expensive overhaul of the entire system. I will now answer to the original arguments that you have brought up. 1. I agree people have been unjustifiably executed and in my opinion that holds no excuse but I think the system would work if we applied a uniform code for the death penalty. None of this "special cases" crap. It needs to be uniform and fair for everyone being tried. 2. It does not bring the State down to the criminals level. If a parent spanks their kid for fighting in school is that on the same as the parent fighting? I don't think so, I think it is a punishment and in the State's case it is justice. 3. I would like to politely disagree with your last argument. Everyone is afraid of dying, there are not many people who are not frightened of the idea of death. Those prisoners I think would be more scared of sitting in a cell waiting to die than sitting in a cell thinking about what they did. Thank you.
The Death Penalty is Acceptable

I'd like to note that I don't have a cell phone and hence can't vote for myself, so I ask that my opponent please do the same, in the interest of fairness. My opponent has presented three arguments, and I will rebut them in turn: PRO: "1) It saves money. If someone gets. .. ." REBUTTAL Common misconception. The death penalty works out to be cheaper than life-imprisonment. [1] Besides, if tax-dollars are that big of an issue (which let's face it, they are in the current economic climate), maybe instead of spending so much money murdering people, we should send them to work on farms to make millions of dollars for the economy. There are far smarter ways to go about punishing somebody than electrocuting them. PRO: 2) It sets an example for others. If you. .. " REBUTTAL: This is also a common misconception: [2] - Texas, Florida, and Louisiana are among the leaders nationwide in executions, yet also lead the U. S. in murders per 100,000 people. - The murder rate in Canada dropped after the death penalty was abolished there. PRO: "3) Cleaning up society. Do we really . .. " REBUTTAL: Kind of all over the shop here. Do we want murderers and rapists in our society? Of course not. If you took rapists and murderers out of society, would it be better off? Of course. But these two premises don't instantly lead to the death penalty, just a more intelligent incarceration system. It is a false dichotomy to say that because the current incarceration system stinks, we should instill the only other option, the death penalty. Once again, there are far more intelligent ways of punishing criminals which actually benefit society and don't reduce the Government to common thugs. I will now set a few arguments of my own: 1. People are wrongfully executed all the time. There have been 15 death row inmates exonerated in the last 15 years in the U. S. due to DNA evidence. 2. It brings the State down to the level of the criminal they are condemning. 3. The death penalty really is no punishment at all, and I contend that it is tantamount to giving the criminal a 'get out of jail free' card. A man in a cold prison cell will be tortured the rest of his days with regret, self-loathing, terrible dreams/memories, missing out on their family and friends and freedoms. The dead guy loses consciousness and is let off easy. I will leave it there for this first round, thanks again to my opponent. 1. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2. . http://tech.mit.edu...
The Death Penalty is Acceptable

The death penalty is an acceptable punishment for certain crimes. Why? 1) It saves money. If someone gets a life sentence, or some of those crazy sentences that say you are getting 150 years, what's the point of spending all of that money to house and feed these criminals. (let me remind you that those are tax dollars feeding those life imprisoned murderers.) If we just killed them now we save years of food bills and millions of tax dollars. 2) It sets an example for others. If you are thinking about committing a heinous crime they should have an example of other people who have done the same thing. If we let them live or give them short sentences it sends a message "you can kill and get away almost scot free" that is just unacceptable. If you are about to go kill your neighbor you should be thinking "I might be killing myself too". 3) Cleaning up society. Do we really want these people who have murdered and raped and abducted people in your society? I don't. I think if you took these people out of the picture society will begin improving in certain areas. Crimes susceptible to the death penalty? A. Murder B. Rape C. Kidnapping These crimes hurt, kill and maim people. That in my opinion deserves a death sentence.
A picture is worth 10,000 words

I admit that this kind of debate is outside my comfort zone, but I thought it might be fun. (I got tired of more serious debates. ) Pro case point by point with my rebuttals: 1:”that some pictures are worth writing 10,000 words about. ” This argument by pro merely goes to show words value over paintings. Why write 10,000 words about a painting if the painting itself is worth 10,000 words. Would that not make writing about it redundant? 2: “Another reason why pictures can be worth 10,000 words is that they can be interpreted multiple ways. ” What pro says of paintings here is true. Likewise with words, how often are poems, books, religious works interpreted in many different ways. 3: (paintings)” Sometimes, it would take 10,000 words to even hope to imitate it. ” I am not convinced that a painting would require 10,000 words to imitate Counter arguments: To any and all who believe a picture to be worth 10,000 words, I invite you to read the great works of Shakespeare. I invite you to read the great poems of Robert Frost…. To read Hemingway, Mark Twain, Jane Austin, Edgar Allen Poe… and so many others. I invite you to read the Koran, the Torah, and the New Testament. Really read the Lords prayer. I echo the words of Charles Osgood, the “word merchant” who said that “compared to the spoken word, a picture is a pitiful thing, indeed. ”(1) With that I send it back to pro! (1). http://www.ziglar.com...;
A picture is worth 10,000 words

I accept. Accidentally. Oh well, this debate looks like a lot of fun! Thanks to my opponent for the invite. --- I was once in an art class, and was asked to respond to a picture with 10,000 words. I thought to myself: "Can a picture be worth 10,000 words?" I answered myself with a resounding "yes." Some pictures are worth writing about, and some pictures are worth writing _a lot_ about--even 10,000 words. Of course, I don't mean to imply that there is some sort of price tag on pictures that says "10,000 words." That would be silly. If that were true, my opponent and I would both be cheating by having our pictures placed in our rounds. Instead, I only mean that some pictures are worth writing 10,000 words about. Authors write entire books on paintings. I could provide many examples, but to save space here is one: http://www.barnesandnoble.com... Another reason why pictures can be worth 10,000 words is that they can be interpreted multiple ways. Unlike this debate, for example, in which we use words that have relatively few possible interpretations, pictures often give a less straightforward narrative. A picture interacts with people in many different ways, sometimes in ways that take 10,000 words to imitate decently. Furthermore, have you ever tried to copy a painting through words only? That is, being given a description of a painting an trying to copy it? It is quite difficult, even with complex descriptions, which means that there is more information in a painting than a couple of words can express. Sometimes, it would take 10,000 words to even hope to imitate it. My opponent may say that a painting does not equal 10,000 words, that'll they are more than 10,000 or less than 10,000. But that's not the point of the debate, or the saying. The point is that a picture is _worth_ a thousand words; not that it is the same thing as 10,000 words. I have clearly shown that there exists a picture(s) that is worth 10,000 words. Needless to say, I finished my report ;)
The U.S. should legalize and encourage drilling in ANWR

1) Just because we will drill within the border of the US does not mean it will limit dependence, espicially with money hungry democrats in charge. They will most likely sell it to try to fix Geoge's inexistence financial problem. Inuits= terrorists 2)Alaska is still a long way away ergo it will still cost a significant amount of money to transport it. In 7 to 20 years there will be new alternative energy sources not just oil so ha. Inuits=terrorists 3)Do the carribou favor drilling in their home. I didnt think so Inuits=terrorists 4)Refuge mammal list Gray Wolf Wolf Story: A family of wolves Wolf Story (Polish language version) Polar Bears Polar bear denning locations and habitats Brown Bears Black Bears Moose migration study Wildlife Trends: North Slope Moose Caribou (Porcupine Caribou Herd, Central Arctic Herd, Caribou and the Coastal Plain) Maps of Caribou locations Caribou movements in a late spring year (1987) A Caribou Year (and a scientist's year) Frequently Asked Questions about Caribou Three caribou herds Muskoxen Dall Sheep Birds: Refuge bird list Which Arctic Refuge birds travel to or through your area? Bird migration routes Worldwide bird migration Tundra Swans Snow Geese Map of Snow Geese fall use areas Eider Egg Hunt: Field Research along the Coast Wildlife Trends: Peregrine Falcons Bluethroats Buff-breasted Sandpiper Fish: Refuge fish list Arctic Grayling Map of Arctic Grayling locations Dolly Varden Map of Dolly Varden locations Arctic Cisco http://arctic.fws.gov... Inuits=terrorists 4)1herds= population density population density=deprivation of resources Inuits=terrorists 4)2 thats retarded the charleston airport is huge think of how many cariobou could fit in there 4)3 cariobou are always there and it still takes up space where they could leave 4)4 there would stille be harm and risks like the exxon valdez 4)5 exxon valdez nuff sed son 5) nuclear is cheaper and does not kill caribou instantly just slowly Summay: think of the adorable animals (just google baby polar bears and think of what you would be killing) and finally inuits=terroists
Competition is a more essential skill for gifted learners than Cooperation

Sometimes called individualistic learning, the competitive classroom is the more traditional form of learning. Student study alone and complete their own assignments while trying to learn the presented subject matter. Tests and quizzes measure each student"s progress. Letter grades or percentages are given for both assignments and tests. The students often compete with each other for the best grades and for the teacher"s recognition. The pros of a competitive classroom structure include: -Children face the real-world challenge of competition. -Students are encouraged to do their very best. -Independent thinking and effort are encouraged and rewarded. -Children can still work in teams, but compete against other teams: It can be a great way to "enliven the classroom environment." -Students learn the essence of our competitive society-in order to function in a democratic or capitalistic system