BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The US Federal Government should abolish Capital Punishment

Actually Genesis confirms that when a man is murdered the murder shall be killed. I am not sure what point in your deluded mind you believe I have conceded, but the point is and the point you are avoiding is that capital punishment I just. Thus, federal law should follow God's Law to be just. I understand why those such as yourself wish to avoid this topic, but it is true. Yes, Matt 5:17-19 affirms that all of the Torah is valid and binding in and since the NT. Thus, any differences between the OT and the NT are not legal or moral. You are not too quick on the uptake, are you? Yes, Romans 13:3-4 affirms that it is the God-given duty to the state to bear not the sword in vain, which is to say execute capital criminals according to His Law (verse 2). And no, to call you a reprobate is not the ad hominem fallacy. To commit that fallacy I would have to say your argument is wrong because you are a reprobate. I did not. Rather, you have put your credibility on the line by using yourself as a reference. Notice all of the "I"s in your first two posts. When you rely on your credibility, I can attack your credibility. Surely, you have something more than whining? Your original points are irrelevant in light of the fact that capital punishment is just. And I disagree that I have not carried my burden of proof. Your saying otherwise, notwithstanding. And it is not relevant that there are different interpretations of Scripture. I am giving you the right one. BTW, the fact that the Bible is rejected (i.e., differently interpreted) by fools does not say anything about the Bible. Your argument here is a non-sequitur.
homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or adopt

Thank you for starting this highly controversial topic In order for a marriage to be 'fully legitimate', two things are necessary. One is recognition by the state. The other (which is technically optional) is recognition by a religous institution. Currently, the states of Iowa, Massachussets, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have legalized same-sex marriage (1). Each of these states contains a relgious institution somewhere or another in it willing to recognize a same -sex marriage. Therefore, homosexual marriages can be legitimate and the resolution is negated. More importantly, passing any statue to explicitly ban marriage by people of the sames-sex can have only one purpose, and that is to discriminate. As a result, laws banning gay marriage do not hold up to strict scrutinty, meaning that they stand in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (2). Moreover, homosexuality is not 'voluntary' or a 'lifestyle choice'. Most scholars are in general agreement that homosexuality is either caused by genetics or early psychological trauma (3,4). My opponent's point concerning homosexuals raising kids is disproved by these sources (5). Finally, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court's decision is "Lawerence v. Texas" (2003) stated that the constitution is not bound by any moral code, not even a Judeo-Christian one. As Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." (6). The right to privacy supersedes personal notions of morality not mentioned in the constitution. I think that I've more than negated the resolution. Thank You Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.time.com... (4) http://www.home60515.com... (5) http://www.rossde.com... http://www.post-gazette.com... http://www.gay.com... http://www.bloggernews.net... (6) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Is feminism necessary.

To start off with my argument you put the definition of feminism as "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes". Now let me show you the definition of another group of people looking for equality. "A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. " now guess what this is defining. Thats right Communism. Its sounds good on paper but that's not what they do. They oppress and murder anyone who doesn"t agree with them. The same thing is happening with Feminism. In the 19th and early 20th century feminism focused on It focused on legal issues, primarily on gaining women's suffrage. Second wave feminism in the early 1960s focused on sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities. Third and fourth wave focused on stereotypes and media portrayals of women. Fast forward to 2015 we have all those things(we might be still working on the fourth wave but that's almost over). Women have equal rights and actualy I say they have more than men. Women are more privileged than man so the fact that modern day Feminism still exist comes off as a joke because it is. Here are links to why women are more privileged: 1:. https://mensresistance.wordpress.com... 2:. https://www.reddit.com... 3:. http://amptoons.com... For round 2-4 well debate and for round 5 we'll say our closing statements and why we think we were right just so you know
Is feminism necessary.

Okay, feminism is the act of gaining equality between male and female, not for females to rise above males or vice versa, I understand that males can sometimes be stereotyped as 'pigs' but they are also a wide range of stereotypes against woman, an example being 'women are bad drivers'. So I guess you could say both sides are being oppressed. You also made a case about women being able to claim custody of a child by accusing the man of sexual assault with no evidence.Legality of child custody has been the same for years and years, long before women were on a more or less equal footing, therefore that whole statement you used if anything shows that sexism still exists. If a couple split up society EXPECTS a woman to take up the responsibility of raising the child. The fact that it is hard for men to get custody etc is more reflective of the fact men basically in general obviously don't want it. Otherwise men in their hundreds of thousands would be demanding 'equal rights', wouldn't they? For the offspring paragraph, you said 'Even though that is true women and Feminist like to use pregnancy as an argument saying they're the only ones who can produce offspring so that accusation is not rubbish.'. I would like to point out that you have included opinionated sources and infer that feminists still think they are essential, even though this is just one opinion speaking for all feminists. For your third paragraph, you mentioned 'the pay gap doesn't exist' and provided a YouTube video as evidence. Even if you are right (although I have done some research and I don't think you are, although the figures were highly contradicting), there is still the matter of 'some employers won't hire women in case they become pregnant and have to take maternity leave', which you did not contradict. The reason feminism as a movement exists is clearly because equality has not yet been reached in much the way that anti racism movements exist even though racism has been clearly reduced and as a society we inherently know racism is wrong. Individuals within that society however may not share that view, as long as racism exist people will fight against in and these people will be classified as a group, as long as sexism exists then people will again oppose it, these people are more commonly known as feminists. However don't worry if the pendulum of the battle of the sexists swings too far he can form his own masculanist society. That is the joy of living in a society where people are afforded all kinds of rights. Finally, you seem to be under the impression that feminism isn't that important anymore and isn't really an issue. In places like Western Europe, I agree that we have made a lot of progress and the situation is a lot better, but take somewhere like India, Yemen, Nepal etc. and the situation is a lot worse. Just look at the included source for information why.1) http://www.buzzfeed.com...2) http://www.marieclaire.com...
Is feminism necessary.

Argument 2 "I would like to point out that in feminism no one is getting 'oppressed' or 'murdered' for not agreeing, the thing that is happening is women's rights are being attained." I"d have to disagree with both parts because Feminist are oppressing men. Because of Feminist men are even less privileged and are being stereotyped as pigs. Women have more leeway when it comes to the law. The fact that a woman can accuse her husband of sexual abuse with no facts and gain custody of her children even though she might not be unequipped to raise her children just shows how much more privileged women are. "These sources said stuff like 'I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an "essential" status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.' This is a load of rubbish, I mean, it takes two people to make a baby, hence the male and female are both 'essential'." Even though that is true women and Feminist like to use pregnancy as an argument saying they"re the only ones who can produce offspring so that accusation is not rubbish. Unless you can disprove any of the accusation from those articles my argument for women being more privileged still stands. "Also, I would like to point out that the vast majority of women are paid less than men in the same job, some employers won't hire women in case they become pregnant and have to take maternity leave and there are still a large range of stereotypes against women. These are really important problems that need to be sorted out." If you"re talking about the wage gap, it doesn"t exist. Women on average make less because on average more women choose jobs that are part time and don"t pay as much. If women got paid less then why wouldn"t all the Corporations and businesses hire all women to save money? I know there are some stereotypes against women but there are also stereotypes against men. What Feminist like to do is take a problem that includes both women and men and make it a women"s issue when its not. "Lastly, you said at the start you don't think feminism is necessary. But I implore you to think, without feminism we might not have the vote or some of the other things we see as so normal today. Think, What would the world be like?" Sorry for not being specific. I"m referring to modern day feminism. I know what first and second wave feminism did and I appreciates that. ^w^ Why women are more privileged and why the wage gap doesn"t exist: Female privilege in action:
Is feminism necessary.

First of all, you compared feminism and communism, two completely different ideologies, saying that 'the same thing is happening with feminism' as communism. I would like to point out that in feminism no one is getting 'oppressed' or 'murdered' for not agreeing, the thing that is happening is woman's rights are being attained. For example, as you mentioned, the fight for the vote in the 19th and 20th century, getting rid of legal inequalities in the 1960s and getting rid of stereotypes till this very day. You also argued that women are actually more privileged than men, using several opinionated sources. These sources said stuff like 'I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.' This is a load of rubbish, I mean, it takes two people to make a baby, hence the male and female are both 'essential'. Also, I would like to point out that the vast majority of woman are paid less than men in the same job, some employers won't hire women in case they become pregnant and have to take maternity leave and there are still a large range of stereotypes against women. These are really important problems that need to be sorted out. Lastly, you said at the start you don't think feminism is necessary. But I implore you to think, without feminism we might not have the vote or some of the other things we see as so normal today. Think, What would the world be like?1) http://amptoons.com...2) https://human.parts...
Bullying

As I told that the matter relating to bullying is totally subjective. And here I have only two things to say which have me a clear cut winner. First, my opponent provides no source link to support his arguments regarding the law and leaves on the decision to his opponent which goes in absolute, against the debate rules. Secondly, just because a law forbids doesn't mean that the act is going to get eradicated at an instant, you have to bear it till the time it gets completely extinguished. Moreover my opponent only supports the notion because he thinks it is wrong but is unable to give any reason for his argument. He clings to the fact, just because two like minded people with a weak conscience have committed suicide. I leave the decision completely in the hands of the voters.
Bullying

My point for this matter is that bullying is wrong. If it's not wrong then are they making it against the law. The law goes into effect on December 1, 2012. Look it up if you do not believe me. But the point of this to let the people know that they don't have to deal with bullying. Stand up to it. My Opponent says weak minded. I say not weak minded just tired of the drama that bullies cause.
Bullying

Well, judging what is right is surely highly subjective. It differs from person to person. I said what I thought should be. An d I think most people will believe in what I say. As I said only the weak minded people would agree otherwise. This world is not as fantastic as my opponent thinks and neither does it believe in living isolated without having fun. Fun obviously is yielded from such activities as bullying. That's why you not take everything personally. My opponent though thinks that bullying should not be done to those who take it seriously. But all in all, I think the one who really faces it should take it in a funny way and reply as casually as one could. I leave the decision completely to the voters.
Bullying

Bullying is and never will be ok. People only bully because they have low self-esteem. Just because its "part" of life does not make it ok to do. A lot of people have died because they have been bullied, people even cut because of it. I don't understand why people are afraid to stand up to bullies . Two (2) kids have already stood up to them why cn't anyone else? I'm standing up to them because bullying needs to stop. I honestly don't see why people laugh t others and make fun of them it's stupid.
Bullying

My argument is against bullying because it can cause people to kill them selves and i have friends that have tried to kill them selves. Most people are afraid to stand up to bullies because they have been bullied so much that they think its ok or because they don't want to be bullied. Well i have been and still am being bullied. I look at the kids that bully me and i smile because nothing they can do will hurt my SPIRIT no matter what even if they kill me i still have my SPIRIT. I want to hear your thoughts on this topic. I want to know what you think about Bullying.
We are who we are based on our enviorment. Nature vs. Nurture Debate

"Your example of twins being raised in separate homes is a a good point but this is the only instance that I have heard of such a thing." You have not refuted that major parts of these people's personalities were determined by their genes. You cannot just dismiss this as a fluke. It is too specific to be dismissed as random or a coincidence. Here is another study of twins showing how intelligence is largely genetically determined. "IQ scores have been at the center of the nature versus nurture debate. Studying twin's IQ scores may help us figure out if intelligence is something that can be taught through nurturing or if your intelligence is determined at birth? In 1962, Shields did a study on twins, that included 37 pairs of twins that were separated at an early age. Shields compared IQ scores among the sets of twins. He concluded that, "Intrapair IQ correlations for MZ twins reared together and those reared apart were similar. However, DZ twins reared together had considerably lower IQ correlations than either of the monozygotic groups" (Ainslie 4). Shield's studies proved that even identical twins that were separated had closer IQ scores than normal siblings or fraternal twins raised together. " http://web.pdx.edu... "Both nature and nurture contribute to the interest, personality, ability, and goals of a person. But, twins that have been separated and live very different lives still have the influence of their hereditary genes that guide the person they are and will become. Nature and Nurture help to make up a person, and help to determine what it means to be human." And I will accept that some particular behaviors such as not cursing are learned. However, I have now clearly shown that genes go even further. They decide your intelligence, they can decide if you will develop a mental disorder, and as my examples have shown, they can decide something as arbitrary as what kind of sunglasses you prefer.
We are who we are based on our enviorment. Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Behavior is learned. As a child you are conditioned by your parents to say "please" and "thank you". An experiment was done by John Watson with a little boy named Albert. This situation shows that when petting a rat was paired with a loud frighting noise he was conditioned to not pet the rat the second time it was introduced to him. This goes on with several different examples showing that he is his fear is conditioned and not a genetic trait. It is the same idea as Pavlov's theory but with human behavior. This concept can also be explained by a child's reluctance to use curse words in front of their parents. If they use curse words in front of their mother and they are punished then they will reconsider the words they chose to avoid the punishment next time around.This is a common example of how a child learns what is socially acceptable and what is not. Another example is when a child touches a hot stove. They do not innately know that a burner or a fire is hot. They have to experience their environment to learn. The little Albert experiment: http://www.psychology.sbc.edu... Your example of twins being raised in separate homes is a a good point but this is the only instance that I have heard of such a thing. It is a very small sample considering all the sets of twins in the world and highly unlikely. That may be true to few cases but my argument can be seen in the life of every child.
We are who we are based on our enviorment. Nature vs. Nurture Debate

"I agree that there is a combination at play but I believe that nurture plays a greater role." You must then provide objective evidence that nurture plays a larger role then nature. "A child only learns from what he/she experiences." Please cite a source or provide some evidence for this claim. "A child would not understand manners if a parent doesn't suggest and teach them as a child develops." Again, here you provide no source or evidence for your claim. You are merely speculating. While you have the burden of evidence an have not provided any, I will now provide evidence that nature plays just as big or perhaps an even greater role in human behavior then nurture. If people's behavior was determined mostly by the way they were raised then a pair of twins reared apart would be just as alike or different as any other two people raised in different home. However I will provide examples of twins who grew up in different households never knowing each other who did not meet until adulthood. These individuals were remarkably similar. The twins share almost identical genes so erily similar behavior while growing up in different households can be attributed to genes. http://www.illiteratewithdrawal.com... Also, genes have been found to play a larger role in behaviors like alchoholism then environment. "A study in Sweden followed alcohol use in twins who were adopted as children and reared apart. The incidence of alcoholism was slightly higher among people who were exposed to alcoholism only through their adoptive families. However, it was dramatically higher among the twins whose biological fathers were alcoholics, regardless of the presence of alcoholism in their adoptive families." http://alcoholism.about.com... I will leave the next round for my opponent to post her own arguments and/or try to refute my own.
We are who we are based on our enviorment. Nature vs. Nurture Debate

I agree that there is a combination at play but I believe that nurture plays a greater role. A child only learns from what he/she experiences. A child would not understand manners if a parent doesn't suggest and teach them as a child develops. The examples we observe help us distinguish right from wrong. This is the basis in which we create our own set values and discover who we are as an individual.
The US should abolish affirmative action

PrefaceThis is the first debate I’ve done in over 6 months, and I’m excited to have it with a great opponent on a topic I’ve never done before.The resolution states that the US should ‘abolish’ affirmative action (henceforth AA.) This would require a law to be passed making it illegal. I will be arguing that this should be done because the concept of AA is incompatible with capitalism. My thesis in one sentence would be:Capitalism is essential to any just government, and because AA is incompatible with the principles of capitalism, the US should abolish it.FrameworkIn this contention I will argue for the value I am upholding--capitalism.Governments are created by people, for the people, in order to better secure their human rights. These being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These rights are maintained in exchange for a loss of liberty. For example, citizens would be forced to pay taxes to fund a police force to protect the right to life. Based on this social contract theory, it is clear that a successful government is one that maintains the citizen’s rights while minimizing the loss of freedom to the individual.The government that takes a laissez-faire approach to economics and politics maximizes freedoms and is therefore a just government.AA Violates the Principles of CapitalismFreedom is the key characteristic of capitalism, and AA policies are incompatible with the concept of freedom. Freedom is the ability of an individual to act as he wants, to determine his own destiny. This necessitates the individual’s ownership of himself and the possession of free-will. AA assigns political significance to an individual’s heritage. Because of this, an individual’s education and employment is not determined by his nature and actions but those of his ancestors. An individual only has ownership of his own nature and actions, not those of his ancestors.In this way, AA violates the freedom of individuals. And because any just government would maximize the freedom of individuals, the United States should abolish AA.