BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hate Crime enhancements are unjust in the U.S.

Good Luck to my opponent as I hope that this will be a good debate. Before beginning with my specific arguments, I would like to define a few terms (from dictionary.com)... 1. enhance- "to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify" 2. hate crime- "a crime that violates the victim's civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender " 3. unjust- "Violating principles of justice or fairness" -Now to my arguments for the round... 1. Hate Crime jurisdiction is unjust. Why must people have to spend more time in jail not because they commit a crime against someone, but because they commit a crime against someone specific. In order to be just in giving people their due, you must look to the crime committed, not who it was committed against. 2. There is no way to prove that the crime was provoked by improper means. When your trying to prove that a crime was a "hate crime", you have to see that it is impossible to know FORSURE if it was provoked improperly (remember innocent until PROVEN guilty). If I kill a person, it is just to give me life in jail because it was my first crime but it is UNJUST to give me the death penalty just because the person I killed a minority. 3. Enhancing hate crimes is unjust. When you increase the penalty for a crime because it was considered a "hate crime" is unjust due to the previous arguments not to mention that your trying to fix a permanently broken system. Hate crimes simply have too many flaws to ever increase its use and to call that use just is simply imprudent. -Onto his arguments. He seems to believe that if someone attacks someone because of one of their beliefs that the criminal will go unpunished, that is simply a logical fallacy. People who ATTACKS someone should go punished, but to increase that punishment because of WHY he/she attacked is what is unjust. If I killed two people, (one because he breathes loud and one because he is old) should my penalty be different between the two... no... it is unjust to do so. (I am going to include this next argument as attacking something he said before but still add it to my case) 4. Hate Crimes can be anything. Look to his list of possible hate crimes. He said that Sexual orientation, Race, Ethnicity, Disability(stuttering, paraplegic, physical handicap, etc.), Identity, Gender, and Age can all be categorized into hate crimes. Identity could be anything. If I killed someone, what if they happened to be African American. And for that matter, how general is "identity". Anyone's identity could be seen as bad. Someone being murdered for being in the foot fetish club could be identified as a Hate Crime? Pick anybody, and you can identify them in any sort of "group" to make it a hate crime. Enhancing this severely flawed system is simply unjust... so please vote Pro. Thank You!
Hate Crime enhancements are unjust in the U.S.

Hate Crimes Enhancements are unjust in the U.S. I negate this resolution because it's wrong. Enhancements are just because they rightly punish the accused. When someone is attacked for their beliefs why should that go unpunished. How is it just on society's part to not protect its citizens from slandering for being born or for their beliefs. Because there are many instances where people are attacked for something out of their control. The following are attacks for things out of the victims control: Sexual orientation Race Ethnicity Disability(stuttering,parapalegic,physical handicap,ect.) Identity Gender Age
Death penalty (worldwide)

My opponent"s whole argument is based on the assumption that humans are capable of understanding to what degree something should be punished, and if they are capable of getting the same effects the offender was put under. And since my opponent talks of equilibrium, my opponent would be assuming that he could make exact equal judgements which is not possible. There many factors to include in order to give the exact judgement, like how the offender felt, what he was thinking, and so on. Therefore it"s impractical to be able to give just punishments. It"s a horrible view to think that killing someone for a way to feel comfortable is justified. This justifies letting people kill anyone else who makes anyone uncomfortable as well.
Death penalty (worldwide)

Justice- Justice requires punishing the guilty, When a criminal does an act to fulfill his selfish motives resulting into personal gains then the equilibrium of justice in society is disturbed. To maintain this equilibrium the criminal should be punished with the same intensity of punishment no matter what. The death penalty is the only actually irrevocable penalty. If the criminal can dare to snatch away liberty, peace, lives from any individual then the justice says that he should also be deprived of all these facilities leading to a comfortable life it the society. It Provides Closure for Victims. A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer him/herself is put to death.
Death penalty (worldwide)

My opponent makes the argument that putting the death penalty in place will deter people from committing crimes, but who"s to say that it will deter more people than encourage people? Yes, people do find the death penalty to be an escape and would much rather want to die than spend tortuous years in prison. Someone who is suicidal may use this method to make it seem as if it were not suicide. Therefore my opponent lacks evidence to make the point that it deters more people than encourage. I didn"t make the innocent argument.
Death penalty (worldwide)

Threat of Death Penalty; Rate of Serious offences Decrease; If we threaten the death penalty more often and more open, and it is legal, more people wont commit homicide or rape, or any infractions like that. PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF DEATH!? it is punishment by society for a deserving criminal, Innocent Executed - no Proof! Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. our judicial system takes extra precautions to be correct.
knowledge: needs to be salvaged from the past wisdom or needs to be updated

If past wisdom is forgotten, then we as people and as inhabitants of our culture(s) will thereby lose from our cultural heritage. After all, were the society and comfort around us crumble down, and if said wisdom would again become relevant and useful in these times of need couldn't we use that to benefit ourselves? Wouldn't that wisdom be useful again? I think if we were to forget all of this and continue forwards we would forget what's truly important in life, survival. If our only aim is to grow and renew as a society and forget all that's not relevant now, what would we fall back on if all the wisdom and "old" information is gone? A great example of this is the fictional universe of Warhammer 40.000, I suggest you look it up.
Freedom = Chaos

I believe in complete freedom, but I am expanding my mental barriers to look at this topic from a different point of view.This topic makes me question what it is that the human race is working towards. On the one hand... A problem is something that disrupts the efficiency of a system, or order. Since problems lead to disorder or chaos, it is in my conclusion that... A problem unsolved = Chaos or disorder = Less chance of stability and/or survival With each problem we solve, we must enforce more law in an effort to keep the problem from happening again. Which in turn takes away more freedom. So... A problem solved = Less freedom With each law not being enforced, this creates more disorder or chaos, which in turn creates more freedom. Chaos or disorder = Freedom My point is this... What is the human races end goal here? Freedom and Chaos or Law and Order? If it is freedom humans want... Then why are we striving for more Law and Order and why does it rule the world?
Freedom = Chaos

This is an interesting idea. Thank you for posting this debate. I must disagree though. While you are right about the no order=chaos thing, I must argue that without rights, there would be no reason to live. We would just walk to work at exactly 6:00 A.M., work in our grey factory until 7:00 P.M., walk home, eat bread and water for dinner, then go to bed, waiting to repeat this schedule tomorrow. Without freedom, there is nothing to look forward to. Nothing to live for. The world will always have problems, but taking away the the things we live for will just create new problems, even some of the old ones were solved. If you think about it, if the world were in chaos, there would be no laws, therefore no one would be doing anything wrong. I realize this is not the way to go, but I would rather live in an anarchist society than one that is without freedom.
Freedom = Chaos

Today I was thinking about the world's problem's and how one might fix them. And then it dawned on me that most of the problems in the world come from freedom. Either in obtaining it, using it, or keeping it from being taken. The more freedom people have, the less rules there are... The less rules there are, the less you can organize a system... With no system, there can be no order... With no order, there can be only chaos... With Chaos, comes problems. After going through this in my head, I can only come to the conclusion that... More freedom = More chaos = More problems I would like to hear an opposing view to my stance on this. - Justin Chains -
Freedom = Chaos

That was a very interesting point of view. This is mainly what we have in play in today's world, just look at all the different countries. We have China, which is a freedom repressed communist country. Then there is America, a liberal filled democratic countries. Then we have Saudi Arabia, a country that is completely controlled by religion. The only problem is, if someone wants to live in a different country, it is usually not allowed in the more repressive countries. I know this is a dated example, but take East and West Germany. East Berlin built the Berlin wall to keep it's residents from escaping to the free West Berlin. The same is true today, just with different circumstances. If a citizen of China tries to apply for citizenship in America, they had better have a good reason, or it will be rejected. We have different types of societies already in existence, the only problem we have is the ability to move from one to another freely.
Freedom = Chaos

"Different people see the line between chaos and order at different places" I agree and I feel that this is completely true. This line is what motivates people to create the laws and also what motivates people to break them. I think it would be a wise goal of the human race to build our world around the understanding of this line, as opposed to doing what we are doing now, which is building our world around tipping the scale in one direction or the other. Have locations (cities, towns, countries, etc.) that are completely free and are governed by complete chaos, as long as the majority of the people that live there want it that way... It would be healthy. Have locations that are governed by complete Law and Order, as long as the majority of the people want it that way it will be healthy. And have places that are governed by orderly chaos, which picks and chooses what is right and wrong based on majority, as we live in now. People need these line choices.
Freedom = Chaos

Again, you have some very interesting points. Unfortunately, we live in a society that tries to focus itself on the individual, not the common good. People strive for laws that benefit them, and do not consider the condition of others. This is why we create new laws, because everyone has their own idea of a perfect society. I don't believe we are actually striving for anything, I think we are just playing it by ear. Both order and chaos have their advantages, but it is almost impossible to get the best of both worlds. Freedom is a necessity in order for a society to function, but so is order. This is where the conflict arises. Different people see the line between chaos and order at different places, so humans will never as a whole be completely happy with the set of laws that we have, that's why we keep creating new laws.
healthy snack truck

I accept your challenge, and would argue against a healthy snack truck. One reason being I doubt it's ability to make a profit, since college students often don't have much money to spend, they won't buy something often viewed as expensive. Eating healthy is often seen as expensive and not tasty, people would be more likely to eat somewhere cheaper and with more calories in fast-food like food. A healthy food truck wouldn't be very logistical either, as the school cafeteria probably has more people that are looking for food. Also, the truck to run the business in wouldn't be cheap at all. A healthy food truck on a college campus would just be a giant money pit.
Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake.

I do not believe pre agricultural people were dumb but things were generally the same but diffrent. This is not semantics. the same things happen back then as well as now just in a diffrent manner . Many issues were in pre-agricultural society war WAS one of them. Apparently societys which are tribes or pre-agricultural fight wars. http://www.opendemocracy.net...;Life was just diffrent but not any better or worse.
Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake.

Pro will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was dis-beneficial and made life worse than before the agricultural revolution (before 100,000 BCE). Pro will also have to show how humanity would still be-able to survive without the invention and use of agriculture. Con will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was beneficial and made life (the quality of life) better after the agricultural revolution (100,000 BCE to today) and acceptance and use of agriculture either as whole regions or individual areas. Con will also have to prove that humanity would not have been able to survive entirely or as the dominate species without the invention and use of agriculture. Terms: Agriculture: The domestication of plant or species for use and convenes of humans (farming, herding, genetic altering, etc. ) Humanity: all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
Violence in video games.

Violence in video games is not the main reason of shootings but it is one factor. When you are playing a video game you feel like you are a god. You can't say that you have never played a game with water guns or Nerf or anything that has to do with fake guns. Violence in video games makes you fell like you are not going to have any punishments when you go shooting around in the real world. So yes violence in video games is a factor of shootings.
Blacks and Whites Should Be Equally Treated

Just because the European economy has more tech is not a reason to be racist towards color. You shouldn't hate the whole of African people because of one person. That's just a prejudice. It's like you should treat poverty the same way as your friend. You don't think of somebody as lower than you because they might be poor, or black. And as I said before, this question has gone unanswered. Is there such thing as white savagery? Or is the label only on blacks. There's only black savagery, right? A black person can steal something and go to jail looking like crap, whereas a white person can go to jail for a much more serious crime, (murder, drugs, etc.) looking like he just got out of a mansion. Am I right?
Blacks and Whites Should Be Equally Treated

What do you mean exactly about treating black and white people? You can't treat any of them worse to the point where it breaks the law either way. And you can't force someone to be nice to someone no matter their reason as to why. I can argue that yes the African population could be considered more savage than that of Europe's. In the sense of IQ and not being able to get ahead technology wise even though most African countries have more resources and more land than Europe itself.
Blacks and Whites Should Be Equally Treated

Why shouldn't blacks be treated equally? Is it their skin? The way they look? Well, I am going to oppose that. You don't get to choose your skin color before you're born. Did you get a little pamphlet while you were in you're mother's woom that asked you what color you wanted to be? No! You can't help it if you're black or white, you just are. Skin does not show who you are, but deeds do. If a black person saved your life, would you still have a prejudice against blacks? Would you force yourself to believe it was a white person, because you might think that blacks aren't capable of doing what white's can? Labels on blacks are a problem. People may say that a person is a savage because he's black, but are there no labels on a white person? Is there only black savagery? Is there no such thing as being "White" but also being a "Savage? Have you ever heard the words "White Savagery" before? Chances are you haven't. Let's use an example. You just bought an expensive, rare Greek coin, and that same day you bought it, it was stolen. You caught a glimpse of the person's skin, and he was black, and now, you hold a grudge on all blacks for their "savagery". Now the same exact thing happened with your new Roman coin, but this time, it was stolen by a white person. Would you now label all people as , "White savages", or is there no such thing as a "white savage?" So it's ok to you for a white person to steal, but not a black person?
capital punishment

one again thank you for providing an insight for round 2. i will try and convince you with the support of an example. if a man has been brutally murdered for whatever inconsequential reasons, will his family be satisfied by watching the convict rehabilitate and one day coming out and ENJOY the sunset or for that matter see his children grow? life imprisonment is not putting somebody behind bars for the rest of their remainder life. the imprisonment is not even for a major chunk of his life. as far as rehabilitation is concerned what good will it do to him when he knows that at the end of the day he will be back to his normal life in a few years. there is an old saying that remains somewhere behind the cobwebs of our otherwise over practical mind. YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.. this five word dictum just about sums evrything up. the criminals must realize that to be fit to survive in the society again is to pay back with what they have taken. giving them a chance to repent and improve themselves is out of the question as even innumerable efforts by them cannot make good the loss. we should take a leaf out of the book of the Gulf countries, where harsh punishments are meted out to as trivial cases as a petty theft. there at least the people there think twice before putting their toe over the line. the idea is not to make a crime free society beause that is almost a hypothetical situation and looks good in fairy tales only, instead the idea is to instil a fear in the minds of the instigators and perpetrators of heinous crimes. in todays society its the other way round. minds of innocent people are brimmed with fears in turn giving the criminals an unsolicited right to inflict attrocities upon US. i am not saying that you go about handing death sentences to ever petty theif. but in rare cases like murder, rapes, terror strikes, etc. the law should not bat an eyelid before sending them to the gallows. people's faith in judiciary will also increase when they realize that the law empathizes with them and has given the harshest punishment possible to the guilty. thank you for this enlightening debate.
capital punishment

I will quote my opponent's arguments and provide counter-arguments. "in a developing country particularly the asian countries where the law is influnced to a large extent by the filthy rich and the political big shots. its really very frustating to see the criminals go scott free due to people pulling a few strings here and there to turn the judgement in their favour." If that is the case, it would happen with the death penalty as well. It doesn't matter what the law is, if it is influenced by politicians and the rich then this type of behaviour will always happen. This is not an argument for the death penalty, and is in fact an argument against it. If the law in some places is as easy to corrupt as making a few bribes, surely we don't want to give those same law-makers the legal right to murder do we? "life imprisonment is the better option when you know that the punishment would be duly served by the guilty. i will provide you with a very startling fact that will really bewilder you. in some countries like India there are "VIP" cells that provide you with such luxuries that one cannot imagine. the "cell" has BASIC amenities like an air conditioner, tv, etc. i doubt people would really mind spending the rest of there lives in this plush jail." So my opponent has admitted that life imprisonment is the better option when you know that the punishment would be duly served by the guilty. This is my point exactly, and my opponent has unwittingly conceded the argument. I agree that it is no good that some places in India has plush jails, but this is not an argument for the capital punishment. If anything it's an argument for harsher prisons. "in the case of capital punishment... the days he spends waiting for the day of his execution will be the longest days of his life. after that long wait am sure he will accept the execution with open arms. the wait will also give him time for introspection and help him in sinking the feeling of what he has actually done." This could all be achieved with a prison sentence, and with a prison sentence there's also the possibility of rehabilitating the person so he can become useful to society again. Thanks to my opponent, I await your rebuttal.
capital punishment

thank you for providing an enlightening argument for the other side of the coin. i agree that in reality death penalty looks like a better option than dying each day in solitary punishment. but in a developing country particularly the asian countries where the law is influnced to a large extent by the filthy rich and the political big shots. its really very frustating to see the criminals go scott free due to people pulling a few strings here and there to turn the judgement in their favour. life imprisonment is the better option when you know that the punishment would be duly served by the guilty. i will provide you with a very startling fact that will really bewilder you. in some countries like India there are "VIP" cells that provide you with such luxuries that one cannot imagine. the "cell" has BASIC amenities like an air conditioner, tv, etc. i doubt people would really mind spending the rest of there lives in this plush jail. but in the case of capital punishment if not for anything else at least he is denied of these benefits, and the days he spends waiting for the day of his execution will be the longest days of his life. after that long wait am sure he will accept the execution with open arms. the wait will also give him time for introspection and help him in sinking the feeling of what he has actually done. waiting till then for another round of healthy argument.