BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
death penalty

I accept. I am personally for death penalty because of: -It serves as a warning to future criminals. There's been thousands of cases where criminals stopped doing whatever they were doing since they preferred that to dying. -It's effective. It's way cheaper to produce one lethal inyection than food, water and entertainment for a prisoner for the rest of his life. -In most cases, it's moral. Some crimes such as child rape give prisoners a bad reputation and even get them killed.
RESOLVED: driverless cars will be the norm within the next 20 years

Driverless cars made significant leaps to becoming commonplace over the past year. Legal in California, Colorado, and Nevada, driverless cars have been tested for millions of driver miles and demonstrated dramatic improvements in driver safety over cars driven by people. Pro's expectation is that a number of market forces will promote the rapid adoption of driverless cars and that demand will quickly exceed production. These forces are: 1) As the gigantic increase in safety becomes apparent to insurance companies, insurers will actively promote driverless cars in favor of people driven cars. Insurers will probably begin with significant bonuses and as popularity increases, will decrease and then eliminate coverage for people driven cars. 2) Shipping and delivery services will probably lead the way. The advantage of a driverless long haul truck that move from destination to destination safely, without stopping or rest breaks are compelling. The average truck driver's salary today already exceeds the present cost of maintaining a driverless vehicle and this gap between is likely to expand as the cost of technology decreases. After trucks, delivery drivers and taxi services will quickly adopt a technology that allows safe and continuous transport. 3) The advantages of driverless cars in the city are particularly evident. A driverless car can manage traffic patiently and carefully. Parking becomes far more efficient as passengers are dropped off at their destination and the car parks itself. As the number of cars on the road increases, traffic jams become a thing of the past as every car on the road proceeds at the same speed and at a safe distance. If every car on the road is driverless and coordinated, traffic lights, stop signs, yields, cone zones, etc all become a thing of the past. Cars can pass each other safely without stopping or even slowing down. 4) Passengers, increasingly distracted by phones, computers, televisions, and conversation would be freed to pursue these interests without increased danger. Pro expects that cars themselves would be transformed, resembling lounges or office space as the hardware of driving becomes internalized under the hood. Without driver preferences, horsepower will become irrelevant and smoothness of ride will become more paramount. Passengers will likely become less interested in car ownership, as the cost of taxi services become more economical than car ownership and as a driverless car will probably be seen as less representative of the status and taste of its passengers than cars do in out present driver society.
Should kids go to school later in the day

In order to get a job you probably have to be older than 18, after the age of needing 8-9 hours of sleep. You can change your schedule then. We change schedules twice a year, with DST (Daylight Savings Time). If you set your alarm you won't wake up at 8 and have it become a habit. You also just proved my point, it's earlier to sleep in than go to sleep earlier.
Should kids go to school later in the day

you said that you think that it is better for people to sleep in instead of waking up earlier but as i said before it helps out with future jobs. for example trucker have to get up early to get their load to were they get in high school they get up early to go to school and when you get the job as a trucker you will be ready ready to get up early to take the load. But if you had later school days you will wake up at the usual later time. There are times i go to sleep at 6:30 am but i still wake up at 8 and a can never fall back asleep it becomes a habit when you wake up early.
Should kids go to school later in the day

In order to be healthy, teens need 8-9 hours of sleep a day Cited: Benaroch, Roy, MD. "Child Sleep: Recommended Hours for Every Age." WebMD. February 6, 2012. Web. 8 July, 2014. . I find it easier to sleep in versus getting to sleep earlier and nearly all kids do homework in the evening making the only time to get sleep earlier in the morning.
Should kids go to school later in the day

I think that kids should go to school at the same time because they have more time at the end of the day to do activities. if they start later in the day they wont have time to do their homework witch i am strongly against but it is better for the kids to go to school at the same time so they can also get ready for their job that may require them coming in early in the morning like in high school you get up at 6 to go to school and get home at 2:30. agin i thing school should start at the same time.
Is cheating more forgivable by women or more by men

Actually what I'm talking about is the norm. Up to 60% of couples have had problems with infidelity at some point, and it's these old fashioned outdated concepts of monogamy that cause people a ton of stress. Couples shouldn't fight over extra marital affairs. They should be supportive of them and engage in them without regret or the inner turmoil associated with going against the societal norms. http://www.truthaboutdeception.com... It's been proven that new couples are starting to become more frequently involved in extra marital affairs. http://www.wsj.com... Why should these people feel wierd about or guilty for what most other couples engage in at some point? Instead of going against their natural urges, they should find a way to be accepting of them.
Is cheating more forgivable by women or more by men

There is no need for anybody to vote on this because my opponent can't possibly fulfill the resolution. He hasn't even made what side of the resolution he is on clear. With that being said: People shouldn't feel constrained by the customs of the past. The culture and technology is changing so fast that we need to be quicker at throwing away cultural norms and starting new ones. There is really no reason for a couple to be monogamous. The reason you know so many people who've been cheated on is because people realize on a subconscious level and above that monogamy is a sham. If I make a cute lady friend who I'm sexually attracted to there is no reason, I shouldn't be allowed to make love to her, as long as she desires it. The same can be said for my fiance. She can sleep with other people so long as she is safe about it by staying away from creeps, using protection and not getting overly attached. There are numerous studies that actuall confirm that non monagomous relationships are the way to go. "jealousy was also less prevalent in non-monogamous relationships because it is "more manageable " and is experienced less noxiously." Because both partners established the boundaries of their partnership in advance, there was less reason to feel threatened by other men." http://www.salon.com... Monogamy is a quickly becoming a thing of the past as it should. o we to my opponent.
Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized

Thanks for answering my questions. 1. So you admit that your Round 1 argument was false. You said, "Marijuana only suits one significant purpose, other than the feel good effects of use, and that is as a pain killer," but now you admit that was wrong. Okay. 2. Why should the government decide how many choices we have? If a product is ineffective, it doesn't need to be banned by government. It will lose via forces of market competition. Are you honestly arguing that marijuana is more harmful than, say, OxyContin, Rush Limbaugh's drug of choice? Come on! 3. If you concede this point than another one of your Round 1 arguments is rendered pointless. You're not doing so well. 4. You don't answer the question. When did the Constitution become irrelevant? You are willing to sacrifice freedom for "safety." Not even safety in the sense of "the terrorists are coming to kill us!", but safety in the "I might be tempted to smoke the reefer and I need Big Daddy Government to spank me if I do!" The Founding Fathers would not have thought highly of you. 5. So an ineffective "war" (people still want and use drugs) has been worth the billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of innocents killed by errant bullets, thousands more families destroyed, increased profits for drug dealers, increased childhood usage of drugs, and overcrowded prisons that cause rapists and child molesters to be released into the general population, ahead of schedule, to rape women and molest children again? The detachment from reality of socialists never ceases to amaze me. 6. OKAY, PEOPLE: NOW HE WANTS TO BAN CIGARETTES, TOO. There is no end to the fascism. The government and its dependent-NGOs, agencies, etc., do not want marijuana legalized for reasons I've cited earlier: They exist to protect their bureaucracy, which is funded, in very large part, by the multinational drug companies that would be adversely affected by legalization of an easily home-grown plant. YOU ARE SHILLING FOR ILLEGITIMATE CORPORATE PROFITS AT THE COST OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND POVERTY, not to mention big government at the expense of individual liberty. Your argument is for unrestrained government and central-planning fascism. It is entirely against the spirit on which our country was founded. Most sickeningly, it is against the freedom of sick and dying people to choose the medication that best suits their needs. Marijuana, if home-grown, is much cheaper than any other drug on the market -- but corporate pharmaceutical profits are more important to you than alleviating human suffering. I find that morally repugnant. As for recreational use, what part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't you understand? Where in the Constitution is the government given the dictatorial powers you want it to wield against peaceful, nonviolent people because they make what you perceive to be the "wrong" choice? Answer: Nowhere.
Mystery Debate #2 Re-Do

Dang, you are right. Manny did kill Lenny. "Yes, always. Why?" Jenkins replied. Then a spark ignited in Detective Finn"s head. He started to think about all he did today. Then, it dawned on him. "I know who killed Lenny Goodwin." He then turned to Jenny. "Me?" she asked mournfully. "Here"s the deal. Jenny, you don"t work here. You were fired 2 weeks ago. You didn"t want your husband to find out, so every day you dressed into your uniform and acted as if you went to work. But, you weren"t getting paid, and you didn"t want your husband to be upset with you, so you tried to get Mr. Goodwin to hire you back but he said no. You had the perfect motive," Detective Finn said. He started to hear Jenny cry, "But you are left handed, so you couldn"t be the murderer." He then turned to Marley. "You lied to me as well," he went on saying, "You didn"t come down here to find your husband. You were having an affair with Mr. Goodwin. That"s why there was lipstick on his cheek. You were there when he was murdered. I could say you were the murderer, but that make up you lied about was actually dried blood, and when you stab someone from behind blood doesn"t get on you." He then turned to Manny. "That"s where you come in. You were the murderer. You were hearing rumors about your wife cheating on you and you wanted to confront him. You are right handed, have a good motive, and have a bad enough temper to prove that you are the murderer." Detective Finn finished. Manny stood in shock. He then turned away and ran off frantically, but he tripped over his own shoelace and fell. Then, Officer Jenkins walked up and put hand cuffs on Manny, read him his rights and sat him down on the floor. "Good job Detective. That was a good way to solve the mystery. I have to do wrap up." Officer Jenkins said. "Yep, I am going to go home and probably watch a movie and"".. Oh snap! I forgot to get my girlfriend a first kiss anniversary gift. Man, I don"t get these crazy anniversaries women come up with. " Detective Finn sighed. Then his phone started to ring. Detective Finn answered the phone and started to talk to the person over the line. Then he hung up with a frown on his face. "That was my girlfriend. She called me to remind me that our anniversary was next week instead of this week. If I would have known that, I wouldn"t have had to solve this case." he sighed. Then they both started to laugh. Oh well, all in a day"s work. Good job bossyburrito. You get all seven points.
Mystery Debate #2 Re-Do

1. Marley was in fact wearing lipstick.2. The pink stain on the corpse was lipstick.3. Jenny was in fact left-handed.Added information (I forgot to put this in the story):Jenny and Detective Finn knew each other in high school. Jenny used to be Jenny Gardens but then got married to Derrick Rose (not the basketball player) and got her last name changed. Thier marriage has been rocky due to financial problems.Who murdered Lenny Goodwin?
We need to fix our southern borders.

Fox news is, brace yourself, a biased source. My sources weren't biased except for Mythopedia which is a liberal organization that is focused on the truth instead of conservative lies. Sorry but you still haven't proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we should fix our southern borders. The burden of proof is on you Pro And since you haven't done you aren't favorable to win The simple fact is that immigrants are essential to our economy and haven't done much harm to society. In fact extremist Christians and the right wing have done more unspeakable acts than immigrants. http://www.salon.com... Read that and maybe you'll finally change your mind
We need to fix our southern borders.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not criminals in any way shape or form. And also your source STILL doesn't validate the claim you made in round 1 so I'm just making a guess you just made that up. http://www.newser.com... The question isn't whether to leave the borders just open or closed. Its about fixing the problem before you close the borders or after you close it. Republicans just want to close the borders but democrats want to fix the problem. If your coming from Mexico or other Central American country it can take 10 YEARS! or MORE! Marco Rubio even acknowledged this in the first republican debate. Its not just black and white like you think it is. Why would someone risk getting deported or even sent to jail to do this if there wasn't a alternative. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... (Youll have to download the file) If you think about all these things youll understand that the liberal side of this issue makes the most sense
We need to fix our southern borders.

Statistics show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants. http://www.foxnews.com... This shows that they are a problem when they come over illegally. you say that they are good for the economy. why not LEGAL immigrants. my problem is that the illegal immigration population, Pew Hispanic Center estimated that the illegal immigrant population from Mexico had reduced to 5.6 million or 49 percent of the illegal immigrant population.
We need to fix our southern borders.

No our borders are not a complete disaster. And what again is a bad thing about an open border? Illegal immigrants boost our economy by working for cheap labor AND get paid most likely below minimum wage. Not only that but they pay taxes as well contrary to popular belief http://mythopedia.mediamatters.org... Not only this but building a wall is expensive. Lets face it Mexico is not going to pay for the wall and Trump has not come up with any shred of evidence that he can make Mexico pay for it. Also building a fence would not solve the problem. People will find different ways to get into the country like boats or people who overstay their vistas. http://mythopedia.mediamatters.org... Also you list NO sources that 47 percent of immigrants from Mexico are illegals and will do illegal acts....so that has no impact. It feels to me to be honest that your literally just repeating Trump talking points without listing any sources to back up your claims........like Donald Trump
We need to fix our southern borders.

Our southern border is an absolute disaster to put in the words of Donald trump. We need to build a wall. It will be a great one. He is saying this because he knows the problems with our southern boarder. Now not every immigrant from Mexico is but a majority of them are criminals. I saw an article from the Washington post saying that almost 47% of the immigrants from Mexico are illegals and will do illegal acts. Look this is a big problem and we need to fix it.
The United States of America should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya.

My friend has clearly given some convincing arguments, and I thank him for debating this with me once again. My arguments for this round are simple, yet clear. My opponent says that the Ukraine rebels-aka The Federal State of Novorossiya was to blame for MH417 being shot down. I concede that this could very well be logical, but I ask respectfully and courteously, where is the solid proof of that claim? Was a flag of Novorossyia or a body of a separatist, found at the site? Also, my opponent says that if Novorossyia is recognized, "New Russia", as it translates in English, would want to join Russia. There is no guarantee of this being a certainty. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea held a referendum on independence, and then willingly allowed itself to be annexed by the Russian Federation. There is no certainty that while Novorossyia has many who love the Russian Federation with all their hearts, may choose to be annexed as an Autonomous state inside the Russian Federation's fold. They may still want to remain an independent sovereign state. Furthermore, my opponent says that Russia would occupy Novorossyia, thus keeping what is left of Ukraine in a closed border situation. I personally agree with this statement, mostly. However, if the United States of America officially recognized Novorossyia as a sovereign state, it would put Russia in a precarious position. Russia has already in essence recognized Novorossyia, therefore it should pull all troops from there in the event of USA recognition. USA recognition would also set an example for all nations to follow, like the Kosovo situation for instance, and then Russia could pull away and end it's occupation of eastern Ukraine aka The Federal State of Novorossyia. Once again, I thank my opponent for being willing to debate a very interesting topic, and one that we both like to read about. I am enjoying this debate immensely, and I can't wait to hear my opponents argument.
The United States of America should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya.

It has been a wonderful debate so far. I would like to point out a few things in my opponents round 3 argument that is simply not true or possible at this point in time. 1)My opponent stated in his argument that ,"The Ukraine would preserve its national dignity as a nation. ", however how would a country preserve its dignity when none of its allies came to its need when they were needed the most. Ukraine would feel betrayed by the ones it trusted the most. Furthermore my opponent stated ,"Russia would be able to pull its troops away from Novorossiya". Novorossiya is also called New Russia. Do you really think that the Pro Russian Separatists will not want to join Russia. It has happened in the past. Hawaii used to be a kingdom until some people revolted and asked the United States of America if they could become a state. I believe that Russia would occupy Novorossiya. My opponent also stated that "Novorossiya would could jump start its small economy by being able to trade with all nations. However Russia would become allies with this newly recognized country and the EU and America would not do trade with a country backed by Russia. 2)In the unrecognized state of Novorossiya there is only one political party. It is called the New Russia Party. Notable members of the New Russia Part are also known to be Neo-Nazis & fascists. 3)Furthermore the Pro Russian Separatists are not backed by any country but they are openly backed by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. You may be thinking "So what? Russia is no longer a communist country. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is probably just 7 or 8 old men who want to have a communist Mother Russia. " That is where you would be mistaken. The Communist party of the Russian Federation holds 20% of the seats in the State Duma and 12% of the seats in the Regional Parliament. These Pro Russian Separatists have communist and Marxist beliefs. 4)The Ukrainian Rebels also shot down the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 civilians of many different countries. American and Ukrainian sources have confirmed that it was the Pro Russian Separatists that shot down this civilian aircraft. The rebels have also captured many journalists. All of these are examples of war crimes. Best of luck to my opponent. XD
The United States of America should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya.

Hey :). This is going to be an awesome debate with you. I think that the USA should recognize Novorossyia as a seperate nation. It is a functioning independent state, and has its own flag, government and economy. And while I do not approve of the Russian actions in Ukraine, I think that if the USA recognizes Novorossyia, peace can return to Ukraine. It will grant them peace, and 2 nations can fly their flags in peace. There would be several economic benefits with recognition: 1. The cities torn by war can be rebuilt without war engulfing them. 2. The nations could unfurl their flags side by side, and live in peace with the world 3. The Ukraine would preserve its national dignity as a nation. 4. And Russia would be able to pull its troops away from Novorossyia. 5. Also Novorossyia could jump start its small economy, by being able to trade with all nations. In summary, the recognition by the USA of the Novorossyia would not violate free respect to Ukraine's independence, and 2 nations could unfurl their flags in peace. Thank you once again for initiating this debate and I can't wait to dive into a fascinating topic that has transfixed me as I have read the news everyday on the Ukraine crisis. This is going to be so much fun, my friend