BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House supports the death penalty!

Pro Gives us a few reasons why a convicted killer should be executed. These reasons include closure for the family, prevention of future murders, and a responsibility of the state to do so. To address the issue of closure I will give this example. What right did the murderer have to take the family members life? Absolutely none. The right to life should not be taken away because one person violated another persons right to life. The principle survives. It is wrong to kill, it is wrong to act in aggression, it is wrong to infringe on the lives of others. The family would be acting in the same aggression enacted against their loved one in allowing this man to be killed. Not only would this be a violation of this mans right to life but now the family has acted in the same manner as the killer. The killer doesn't have to face any true consequence because once you are dead you know no consequence. You don't know what you did, when you did it, or why you're in trouble for it because when you're dead that's it. You are dead. Furthermore it wouldn't really benefit the family in any significant way. Their loved one would still be dead. To address the death penalty and its ability to deter murders, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters murders. In fact many places have higher murder rates where there is a death penalty. Places like Texas. [1] Any attempt to correlate lower murder rates with the death sentence is futile. Murder rates have consistently decreased as society has advanced. Pros example study is outdated and with out a source to back it up. Even if it was credible it is refuted by the simple fact that across the board murder rates are falling. It is impossible to know whether its because of the death penalty and its actually more unlikely considering Texas employs the death penalty and has a higher murder rate than a state like Colorado as seen in my source. [1] Finally I would point out that we should want to retract as far as possible from a state that can kill its people. Countless examples from past show us that putting the decision of life and death into the hands of the state on any level is a bad idea. Communism, Nazism, fascism, governments that kidnap dissidents. If the government has the power to execute criminals or murderers would it be impossible for them to falsely accuse some dissident who speaks out against them? Thank you and I look forward to you're response. Source: [1] - . http://www.denverpost.com...
This House supports the death penalty!

The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to worry about parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure. Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system. Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done. MOREOVER ... The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime. The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1. Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2. On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect in the United States1. In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people. In conclusion Proposition is begging you to vote with the motion! :)
Is Disney good for today"s children

That was the overall message of the song, yes, but my point was that Disney was reinforcing the Jamaican stereotype within the song, plus the depictions of the Duke of Soul and Blackfish as previously stated. And you have to take into consideration the context of the time period during which each film was written. The 1940s were a time when racially abusing black people was acceptable in America, when segregation and slavery were viewed as positives. The Japanese racism is undeniably deliberate. This was written during war time - the time of the "yellow threat" - when Japanese soldiers could invade the USA at any moment, so of course they were going to be depicted as evil because Japanese people were a hated enemy of the American people. You have failed to argue any of my points validly.
Is Disney good for today"s children

I understand how these things can be racist such as your points about song of the south and Fantasia but in the little mermaid they weren"t trying to stereotype jamacians the song was supposed to be telling Ariel why life was better under the ocean and how they didint have to worry as much as humans. I can understand some of your other points to but I don"t believe Disney is thinking in terms of race and what may appear racist. Disney is thinking more in terms of what an audience will like.
Is Disney good for today"s children

Of course it's not about realism, that's why it's animated - so the directors can get away with more things. And no one is capable of appealing to everyone, but there is a huge difference between not appealing to a group of people, and just being offensive to them. That being said, I do like Disney, but I have my criticisms. I'm going to list some examples of racism in Disney films. Firstly, Song of the South (1946) is widely known to be racist due to the depiction of black slaves, and has been described as "one of Hollywood's most resiliently racist texts" by cultural historian Jason Sperb. Fantasia (1940) - There is a character called Sunflower the Centaur who is portrayed as black with comically over-sized lips, and whom acts as a slave to the white centaurs. Little Mermaid (1989) - Sebastian, the Jamaican crab, sings about how life is better when you live carefree and have no responsibilities, reflecting the stereotype that all Jamaicans are lazy. Also, Sebastian, if he was human, would be black, and he (along with the Duke of Soul and the Blackfish) are once again portrayed with large lips. I could go on and on in more detail but I think I have made enough of a point. So i'll just list some more and you can look them up or take my word for it. The stereotypes in Aristocats, especially the Japanese siamese cat. The song "What made the red man red" in Peter Pan. Again, more Japanese siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp. The stereotypically black King Louis singing about wanting to be human in Jungle Book. The description "barbaric" and "where they cut off your ears if they don't like your face" used to describe Arabians in the opening to Aladdin. The depiction of the sterotypically black hyenas and the Elephant Graveyard symbolising the Ghetto in Lion King. And finally, the depiction of Native Americans as savages, which is highly offensive in their culture, and the complete whitewash of the Pocahontas true story, which was that she was kidnapped and raped when she was 15. Source:
Is Disney good for today"s children

Disney creates good memories for children from the movies by having memorable characters and good stories which stay with you. The parks create memories through memorable fun rides character meet and greets and more. These things are all good for children because there lives can"t always be serious and it"s good for them to have good memories to look back on when times are hard. Disney is not about being realistic or appealing to everyone so that"s why there films aren"t aimed towards apeling to everyone
Is Disney good for today"s children

I don't think Disney movies are good for today's children. Whilst I agree that good memories are made from Disney, be it movies, TV shows, or the theme parks, some of the views and stereotypes just aren't acceptable in today's society. Since you didn't put any actual evidence in your first round, I assume you want this to just be a broad opening statement, so I won't put any in my first round either. But don't worry, I have plenty lined up.
Jesus commands to kill little children.

To close: For those who may read and further explore the subject. 1) The old testament reference implied by Atheistmaximus is part of a set of laws given to the ancient Hebrews. Please note it was a LAW, not a COMMANDMENT, just like any capital punishment law that states/countries have are a warning. Does this mean that governments are in expectation for someone to commit a crime in order to execute them? I think the logical answer (not the emotional one) would makes us see that laws (regardless of how harsh they may seem to us individually) are attempts to prevent a crime and have the potential offender consider the consequences. 2) What was the culture of the time like? 12/13 year olds were considered adults in the society of that day. At that time they were carrying spears and fighting wars, having children, etc. As emotional as we may get by comparing and contrasting their time to children of our time we need to follow this logically (not emotionally). 3) How was the law applied? The elders of the city were the judges who made the final judgments, they were the court. So if a child rebelled against their parents, they were not IMMEDIATELY stoned, they were taken to court. Most likely to insure a fair reasonable trial. I hope we could all see beyond emotional piece of this argument, althought it may seem difficult. Thanks for the debate.
Jesus commands to kill little children.

What could possibly make the desire to have disobedient children killed any f*ck*ng better? You f*ck*ng moron! Really just how does a f*cktard Christian make the killing of children better? Please enlighten us? I am done with you and your dumb questions. Someday this will be really then you and your ignorant mates can cry on Fox News about how you are persecuted and then later have the Christian thugs deface it. I am so tired of f*cking Christians. The romans do not exist. The lions are in zoos. You are the actual persecutors!
Jesus commands to kill little children.

"I asked 4 questions which you failed to address." I will quickly go through your bu*lsh*t. Q 1. The answer is yes. If a person said and was quoted in the paper exactly what Jesus was quoted as saying. I would think what the f*ck! What a f*ck*ng douche! So yes I would. Can you comprehend that? Q 2. I have read it. You can read it. If you want a link. Google it. Q3. Yes. I am not a bible study class for the mentally challenged. I made a point with an actual quote from the supreme Christian douche. If you don't like it. 1.)Tough sh*t. 2.) Post your own with all twenty verses. 3.) Go F*ck yourself :) Q 4. Yes I did read the entire text. Yes I can say I used critical reading and comprehension skills. The comprehension part is Jesus said that. What part don't you understand? What part of what he said before or after changes the context of what he said?
Jesus commands to kill little children.

Please observe the following in regards atheistmaximus response to each question: Q 1. If anyone reads anything in this matter (out of context) how can they comprehend what is being read? Q 2. Michael never posted the additional verses. That should leave any reader wondering why, or what is the fear of doing so? Q 3. See observation on Q 2. Q 4. Atheistmaximus claims that he has used basic critical thinking and literacy skills to "interpret" what he has read, but then continues to say the following, "What part of what he said before or after changes the context of what he said?" Now hold on a second, did anyone pay attention to what Atheistmaximus sais?. It should leave the reader pondering. If in order to truly understand any article, text, etc. we should read the ENTIRE article not just a paragraph or a sentence, because OBIVIOUSLY it does make a difference what is said before and after, Is he really being honest, objective, or over all truthful in anything he is presenting? I still have no idea what has made you upset over 4 simple questions. I think you are banking on insulting me instead of presenting reasonable information.
Jesus commands to kill little children.

Don't say thanks when you are just being an ignorant d**k. It is not taken as polite. It is just showing what an ignorant a*s you really are. Look up ignorant please. Do you think you are so special and the only f*ck*ng semi-retarded Christian to cry foul/context? I don't have to address your vapid gibberish. What part of what he said before or after changes the context of what he said?
Jesus commands to kill little children.

This is not taken out of context. If you don't like what you didn't know was in there and/or don't have the capacity to comprehend that I'm sorry. There is no context in which I would say that. The bible is said to be inspired by perfection. Perfection does not say that s**t. I have read all around the chapter and that fact is. Jesus was telling them that the old testament laws still apply. Including this one. Jesus said "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,' and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death." Jesus was a fictional character that was not half as good as Christians today want to portray him. Jesus clearly said that that old testament laws still apply. That means he was against homosexuals, sex, mixed fabrics, stupid farming practices, shrimp etc... - understanding the author's purpose in writing - seeing ideas in a text as being interconnected - looking for and understanding systems of meaning These are things you have been taught to excuse away all the fucked up passages in the bible. You have not read enough on your own bible to even know that all the gospels are different in such a way they all portray a different Jesus. There is a nice kind Jesus and an angry Jesus. They all tell conflicting stories and details. This is not a book of divine inspiration. It is ancient rubbish. I fully comprehend just how bad and evil a text the bible is. Do you? Stop listening to your priest and read the whole bible. It is not that complicated. Omg you theist crack me up to what lengths you will go to lie to yourselves. Here are a few books to read. Nailed by David Fitzgerald. God's Problems by Bart Erhman Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman Jesus Interrupted by Bart Erhman Yes read them along with your bible. It will actually help you fully understand what they are saying and how horribly you have been duped.
Jesus commands to kill little children.

I see that contextomy* is the straw man of choice. Let me ask a couple of questions, 4 questions based on basic critical thinking and literacy skills. See below: 1. Do you read newspapers, scientific articles, books, or for that matter, would you read the SATs questions in this way? 2. What does the entire chapter say (or at least verses to 20)? I think anyone that is objectively attempting to present facts wouldn't proselytize their own meaning or interpretation by leaving information out, but the individual would allow the reader to make their own conclusion, or an informed one at best. So the question that logically follows is: 3. Was there a reason you decided to leave out the previous or following text? Leave religion out (and yes even a god out), let us objectively qualify your effort. It looks like you "read" the text for yourself or seem to imply the idea of having done so by your statement above "This is what Jebus said. Kill disobedient children..." 4. Let's say you did read the entire text. Can you honestly say you used critical reading skills or at least its concepts? (Allow me to highlight a couple) - understanding the author's purpose in writing - seeing ideas in a text as being interconnected - looking for and understanding systems of meaning * Contextomy - The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining," is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding.
Jesus commands to kill little children.

Jesus commands to kill little kids. Mark 7:8-10 "8. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." 9. And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,' and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' " This is what Jebus said. Kill disobedient children. Yes loving kind peaceful Jebus hates naughty girls and boys...to death. Many Christians say that they don't follow the whole bible but just what Jesus said....do they really? Can you do what Jesus said to do? Read the Holy Bible with care it is only fiction.
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

Gilgamesh is simply a myth to explain how the Babylonian gods saved 1 man from a flood, but has no relevance today. The Babylonian gods are nowhere to be found acting upon humanity nor did they show us that they exist whereas the Bible continues to be God's Word and divinely inspired in each generation. Like i said my opponent fails to provide proof other than his own word whereas i experienced the Biblical God and have a relationship with him while i have never encountered Naryuzap. The Biblical God raises people to eternal life. You are loved because you read the Bible and know God. Stress leaves automatically. People get revelation from reading his Word and supernaturally receiving knowledge not known previously before. "Lets address reliability of the Bible. It is not a book. It is collection of the books. Who is to say what book should be in collection? - Heads of the churches." wrong, no evidence exists to show that the heads of the churches decide Biblical canon. "Each book was written by human. Bible does not say Biblical God was dictating people what to write. It only says they were inspired by Biblical God." Rev. 1:19 "19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;" This shows your statement is wrong "Thousands of years ago, people had less words. One their word has meanings of multiple our words. No translation can be reliable." This doesn't prevent us from learning their language and letting context determine the meaning. "Thousands of years ago, people spoke in metaphors. These metaphors are interpreted differently by different people. Conclusion: Bible is not reliable source." The metaphors used have no strict right or wrong answer. For example: "3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake." Even if we'd never looked at the original Hebrew, in some cases, the meaning would still be clear. The rest just seems like a rant..
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

My opponent wrote just "God" for Biblical God, so I will write just "God" for Naryuzap, in order to make it fair. I will address my opponent's arguments now: - "Gilgamesh" was also passed down by many people, for even longer time then Bible. But still we don't claim that it is truth. - Yes, there are many witnesses of her power. - If by "everything" my opponent means matter and laws of nature, then yes, she created everything. - Both God and Biblical God are invisible, that is not difference. - To what kind of life Biblical God raises people? - Does my opponent by "that state of being" mean "they are loved. stress-free and fulfilled"? If so, how can they know they are other then by feeling it? - Elsewhere of dream is when people are awake. How exactly do people get knowledge from Biblical God during being awake? Lets address reliability of the Bible. It is not a book. It is collection of the books. Who is to say what book should be in collection? - Heads of the churches. Each book was written by human. Bible does not say Biblical God was dictating people what to write. It only says they were inspired by Biblical God. Thousands of years ago, people had less words. One their word has meanings of multiple our words. No translation can be reliable. Thousands of years ago, people spoke in metaphors. These metaphors are interpreted differently by different people. Conclusion: Bible is not reliable source. Now I will address inconsistency of Biblical God. He designed all people, and yet he punished them for being homosexuals by burning them in fire. He committed the greatest genocide ever (big flood), and yet he calls himself omnibenevolent. Except these above, he killed Egyptian kids and the entire army, and yet he told people "thou shalt not kill". We have a word for person like that - hypocrite. He sent his beloved, innocent son to the Earth to be tortured and killed. Since he is omnipotent, he could get same results without sending him there, magically.
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

There's a difference between the Biblical God and Naryuzap 1. The Bible has been passed down by many people (Masoretes, Essenes, Apostles) and there are many witnesses to God's power to their lives. Just look up Christian testimonies on them. 2. God created everything He is invisible He can change everything He raises up those who are dead back to life People don't just feel loved, stress-free, and fulfilled when they pray to God, but are in that state of being. People get knowledge from God whenever he chooses to reveal it to them whether in a dream or elsewhere. We have many sources you can look up to confirm the reliability of the Bible and can experience God now, while we only have your word that Naryuzap but no evidence of his power.
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

BoP is shared. Resolution is topic. Note: Number of believers will not be relevant argument in this debate. It is possible that majority of people are mistaken. What we know about Biblical God: - Everything that bible says - He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent What we know about Naryuzap: - She created all matter and all laws of nature - She is not made from matter - She has ability to change laws of nature, and she has ability to add new matter in the universe - When each human dies, Naryuzap sends his soul to the heaven (Where soul will reside forever in immortal and indestructible body that does not feel pain) - People living on our planet can feel loved, stress-free and fulfilled if they pray to Naryuzap for some time while sitting in silent room - Some people sometimes get knowledge about Naryuzap in their dreams Voting rules: - Who had more reliable sources will not be taken into account. - Forfeit in round 1, 2 or 3 is loss.