BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Ariel Castro was still alive the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for him.

Good points. I'm from Columbus and when the girls escaped in 2013 it was big news here. It was also big news when he killed him self last autumn. I think he should has suffered in the most painful way possible for what he did to those women. Maybe he wanted to die considering the fact that he hung him self so maybe the death penalty would have been to easy for him. I remember when he killed him self, how all my friends agreed he should have suffered longer. Maybe he should have spent years behind bars, being beaten by other inmates and feeling guilt for what he did. The best punishment for him would have been the cruelest punishment. Maybe the cruelest punishment for Castro would have been death or maybe it would have been life in prison. Either way if he were still alive he would deserve to feel the way he made those women feel. He kidnapped his daughters best friend when she was only 14. He took away most if her teenage years. Instead of going to high school, hanging with her friends, going to prom and being a teenage girl she was chained up in some old creeps house being raped. He took away Amanda's early and mid 20s. He also killed five of his own children by forcing Michelle to miscarry when ever he got her pregnant. I'm pro life so I see all abortion (with exception of some) as murderer. Even if your pro choice you have to think about when pro choice means. Pro choice means it's the women's choice as to if she keeps the baby or not. Michelle didn't get a choice when Castro jumped on top of her or punched her in the belly. From what I've learned about Michelle (reading some of her new book, dr phill, other interviews) it appears she wanted to keep the baby's. If it's the women's choice than the women should choose, not some sick sadistic freak. The death penalty would have been appropriate for Ariel Castro because he murdered five people-five baby's. He physically tortured three women for ten years. He was a rapist and a killer. If Castro was alive than the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for that sick, evil man.
If Ariel Castro was still alive the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for him.

Ariel Castro was a terrible man, corrupt person, and resulted to the actions of a cornered animal just so he could cruelly fill his sexual desires. The death penalty would be much too merciful for this man. Even his brothers, Pedro and Onil Castro, no longer consider him family and called him "a monster." (http://www.cnn.com...) If it were up to the family, I would completely agree for his punishment. This man needed a taste of his own medicine. I am especially shocked that this inhumane beast was living in Cleveland. I am from Akron, and I remember Cleveland, it's filled with wonderful people and places to go, and it's really disappointing to me that someone could be so cruel to a fellow member of society and from a place so terrific. His bail was set at $8 million, sentenced to over 1,000 years in prison, and charged with murder (Ohio's law allows abortion through 24 weeks [http://www.preterm.org...] but it is somehow considered murder also, hipocracy of law there). I think he should not have been granted the mercy of death, and suffer here on Earth (unless there's no afterlife).
If Ariel Castro was still alive the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for him.

Ariel Castro was a man who held three women captive for over a decade in his house in Cleveland Ohio. His first victim Michelle Knight was kidnapped in 2002 when she was in her early 20s. His second victim Amanda Berry was kidnapped the day before her 17th birthday in 2003. His third victim Gina Dejesus was kidnapped in 2004 when she was 14. The three women were held captive and against their will until they escaped in 2013. He had one daughter with Amanda Berry who is now 7. He impregnated Michelle 5 times but he would punch her in the belly or jump on top of her so she would miscarry. He would also tell Michelle that no one cared about her and that no one was looking for her and he would beat her constantly. A chilling fact about this case is that Ariel Castro knew Gina Dejesus's family very well. He played in a band with her uncle for 20 years and he was the father of Gina's best friend Arline Castro. He would sing and lead prayers at the vigils held for Gina on the anniversaries of her dissapearance and he would help hand out missing person flyers. He was an evil psychopath and deserved to be beaten, raped and killed. If Castro was still alive the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment.
mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

I'm not establishing any rights. The only rights that have been established is the 1st amendment's freedom of religion is extended to corporations (or at least 90% of corporations) through this ruling. So we're clear, no one is forcing the owners of Hobby Lobby to take birth control they morally object to. Don't take them if you don't want to. No one is forcing employees of Hobby Lobby to take birth control they object to. Don't take them if you don't want to. The only force being applied is the corporation Hobby Lobby is forcing it's employees to take certain kind of birth control. Why should one's employer's religious views be imposed upon the healthcare available to me? Here's what Hobby Lobby should be worried about - Does the employee show up on time? Do the employee work hard? That's all an employer should be worried about. The tradition standard of what kind of insurance the corporation decides to provide remains unanswered, but could make for plenty of cost-savings for the company and plenty of "buying it yourself, we've determined your insurance isn't going to cover that." China is brought up because it calls into question the true motivation of Hobby Lobby. Is this really a religious objection, a way to save money, or just a political ploy? Religious objection's in this area (non-abortion that Hobby Lobby believes is abortion), but not in other areas on the exact same issue of abortion. Viagra is a salient point because it has no medical benefit besides erections, whereas birth control is used for legitimate medical issues beyond preventing pregnancy. This flies in the face of the overtly sexist, "why don't you buy your own?" argument. Sex being a federally protected class. Boner pills - yay! Birth control - no! Buying your own is hard when you're making minimum wage at Hobby Lobby, especially hard if you have another mouth to feed because you couldn't afford the birth control to begin with. Meanwhile, Viagra, Cialis, and vasectomies are covered.
mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

It's estimated that up to 90% of corporations in the United States are closely held, that is 5 or fewer individuals own more than half the company. The issue with the Hobby Lobby ruling is that Supreme Court is now deciding that corporations have religious views. Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide their employees with certain forms of birth control as they considered them 'abortifacents'. Though scientifically, they aren't in fact abortifacents and the Supreme Court stated as much, the fact that Hobby Lobby believed them to be was justification for their religious stance against them. What if Hobby Lobby believed Tylenol to be an abortifacent? Would they not have to pay for insurance to cover Tylenol? It seems that's what the ruling would suggest. What's to stop other closely held corporations for having religious views that save them lots of money as they won't have cover procedures they object to on religious grounds? My opponent criteria is "tradition", only traditional religions would be recognized to have legitimate religious beliefs. Who defines what traditional is? Is there a certain time limit for a religion and its view to be considered traditional. Are Mormons, not considered traditional because they've only been around since 1830? Tradition doesn't necessary mean legitmate or right. What if a new Protestant denomination started tomorrow? Slavery was/is a tradition in many parts of the world. The pill has only been around since the 1950's, how is "traditional" to object to it? Furthermore, birth control has medical benefits outside of preventing pregnancy, such as prevention of ovarian cancer, clearer skin, lessens PMS symptoms, and may relieve endometriosis which may prevent future pregnancies. Yet most of these insurance plans where birth control is objected to based on religious grounds, also supply Viagra and vasectomies. "Traditional" religions don't seem to have any objection to men take pills whose sole medical purpose to produce erections or allow men to opt not to reproduce. Seems to be quite the double standard. It is also fairly self-righteous on Hobby Lobby's behalf. No one is requiring the shareholders of Hobby Lobby to take objectionable birth control, no one is forcing their employees to take birth control the employees object to, but as health insurance in the United States is provided by the employer, Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees that they will not have the choice to take birth control that they find objectionable. Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees and it doing so forced its morality upon them. This is where the China comparison comes in. Hobby Lobby has no objection from getting all its good from China, a country with an official policy of forced abortion , but when it comes to dealing with employees, it has decided to use some heavy handed morality to dictate which forms of birth control they will use, because it believes, though not scientifically accurate, that certain forms of birth control cause abortion.
mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway the supreme court said that closely held corporations do not have to cover abortifacients and contraceptives. http://www.nationalreview.com... it seems that most of the hype against it is put on. people are acting the way they are cause they are 'suppose' to to be 'good liberals'. they argue things like 'so hobby lobby buys from china, who has woman who are forced to have abortions?'. this points out their hypocrisy. some might just be trying to point out their hyposrisy, but most seem to act as if it shows that the ruling was wrong or something. they don't get much into substance. when we look at substance, why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can' tforce their employers to do so? i can undersatnd that it's not always easy to make ends meet and such, but in the bigger picture, buying contraceptives is de minimis. why would someone want to force someone to violate their well gounded traditionally, religious beliefs fo somthing as trivial as that? and maybe there are public health concerns, as people wont buy birth control if it isn't free, and it cause sincreases in pegnancies and abortions. but this is a part of life. we shouldn't ask someone to have to violate their first amendment right even if there are bad social side effects that occur. it's as basic a right as it gets. the most somone could argue, is it opens a slippery slope. but the thing is, we can always limit the decision to contraceptives and abortifacients. est way to approach the issue, is to treat it like they do kids drinking church wine despite drinking laws. it's just a well respected tradition, so they continue to respect it. same with funding birth control and abortifacients. the catholics shoudnt have to generaly fund it. this 'categorical exception' would prevent so many slippery slopes, both for and against religious principles. that is, someone cant object to getting their kids vaccinated under religious reasons. and, the government can to some extent ask employers to violate their religious principles if they are way out of line, secular expectations and such. but we continue to respect genuine, sincere, at least traditional, religious beliefs.
mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

The Supreme Court has established news rights. It has now embued corporations with religious values for the first time in history. This on the heels of other decisions that have allowed corporations to give unlimited sums of money to political campaigns, etc. Another step in giving corporations and special interest groups more "rights" and greater personhood. I was just thinking the other day, corporations and special interest groups don't have enough power in this country and the average Joe is too well represented in Washington...;) Employers have in fact been required to cover birth control in their insurance plans since 2000. It was determined that not providing coverage violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1974 and Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination based on gender. So in fact up until that point these birth control measures that Hobby Lobby now objects to were covered by their health insurance. They've only gotten recent attention because of Obamacare/ACA. The ACA/Obamacare required that it be covered for free, that has been the only change. There were an exemption built in for employers who objected to contraception on religious grounds, those being: 1) primary purpose of the organization is "inculcation of religious values", 2) primarily employs people of that religion, 3) primarily serves people of that religion, 4) is a non-profit. It's essentially an exemption of religious charities. http://www.npr.org... Furthermore, several cases decided at the Appeals Court level where ordered to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in light of it's Hobby Lobby ruling. In these cases Catholic business owners are opposed to all forms of birth control. Others where the government has appealed have been denied review with no explanation. Furthermore, the current religious make up of the Supreme Court is 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Hobby Lobby was decided 5-4, the majority being entirely composed of Catholic justices. So in all likelihood, should your employer want to ban all forms of contraception, that is what is going to happen. http://www.scotusblog.com... The case is about imposing your religious views are on your employees. The reason China is brought up and as Pro has pointed out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Hobby Lobby's views, is because it shows the arbitrariness of religious views. No one can tell what you believe or what you don't believe. Anyone can claim whatever religious beliefs they want to. And after this ruling, what prevents a corporation from cutting costs and having religious objections to any particular medical procedure or medication it chooses to? Why does a corporation which is solely formed for profit-making and business purposes determined to have religious views? And why should these religious views be imposed on employees who they have a business relationship with? This is not a mom and pop shop. Hobby Lobby has 572 stores. 90% of corporations are "closely held" and employ 50% of the private sector workers.
mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

unlike con suggests, hobby lobby is not forcing its employees to use a certain form of birth control. they aren't even really effectively forcing them to. the employees can always get their own forms of birth ocntrol. and they don't force the employees to take the jobs either.. they can get a job somewhere else. same points extend to your point about your health care being limited by this ruling. we shouldn't allow recently conceived of 'rights' to birth control via legislation, to trump constitutiaonally protected fundamental rights to religion. constitoution trumps laws. con artificially constructs that a business should only be concerned with the bottom line, and shouldn't or can't have any concern for their religious beliefs. again, this is a closely held corporation, they are just basically people who happen to be incorporated. if it was a private enterpreneur, i would hope we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the fact that it's a corporate entity shouldn't have any bearing on this. it's a technciality. and people shouldn't have to give up their rights just becaus they want to incorporate. hypocrisy of hobby lobby per china is okay to note, but again it doesn't really establish tha the court should have ruled against them. they still have religous beliefs and rights. shwoing they are hypocrites doesn't change that. con is getting way confused with the viagra point. again, no one is against viagra so there's no point bringing it up. no one is askin them to buy their own cause no one is opposed to buying it for them. sex is not being a federally protected class, it's just not an issue that has been presented. if it were the case that the court was forcing people to pay for viaagra and it was against their beliefs, then con's points might actually ahve some basis to them. as of now he's just ranting about things that are of no consequence to this debate. it is more a facade argument to say birth control is expensive. it's not expensive. but even if it was, we shouldn't ask people to violate their beliefs to buy contraceptives. if it's something the government thinks people should have or need, they can do it themselves. in fact, that's what many say obama will do, offer the contracetives independantly of the businesses. that's what he should have been doing all along.
Purely logical debates are impossble

I'm sorry about my last argument's sloppiness I will keep my argument short because (insert excuse here). : ) I think that the argument you are making has the flaw of simply stating the inverse of what I said with no further verification. In deductive reasoning, the answers are either true or false based on fundamental agreed assumptions (which we will call FAAs for ease of reading), or non-provable based on fundamental agreed assumptions (I think the next con argument should be about the non-provable scenario, wink wink). All FAAs will be traced back to nearly non-refutable information. Another argument I am going to make to get this out of the way is that even if all the FAAs cannot be used to create an answer, I want to make the point that FAAs may not be reliable in the first place and therefore the argument would not be PURELY logical. Another issue is that the point you are making implies that a completely logical presentation of the right answer can be rebutted with anything completely logical. If you can show me that this can happen, your side is still defensible. If you cannot, it is not. Agreed?
Purely logical debates are impossble

I'll keep mine short, since I'm a bit buy right now. The problem with Pro's round 2 post is that it's all in black and white. The fact is, is that in so many different arguments there is no one logical answer. Two people can use completely flawless logic and have different opinions. If debate is the pursuit of truth, it is more often done to find which truth will produce the best results or is preferred by the audience and debaters. As long as both sides propose reasonable arguments the debate can be purely logical, even though the winner will be completely subjective.
Purely logical debates are impossble

This is my first debate on this site.. It's cool that it's on the web so that responses are not pressed for time and sources must be cited. For my first debate ever here, I'm going to keep my points short. According to Karl Popper on the subject of debates, "I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer the truth," meaning that debates are the pursuit of the truth. Since debates are the pursuit of the truth, and the deductive , a purely logical debate would end in truth. The maximum length of any purely logical debate would be one exchange exchanges (if any) and if the incorrect person went first, he/she would immediately disprove him/herself.
Purely logical debates are impossble

I'll start off with a short response due to a short first post. Both sides can simply apply their logic. If both arguments are completely logical, the debate will have both sides justifying the fact their logic is better. Going off Webster's Dictionary's definition, logic is "A proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something". That can be done for almost any perspective. Most opinions are not black and white, where one side has the right logical answer and the other is simply illogical. There are so many different perspectives one can take on something and they can use logic to justify it.
School Uniforms

I believe there should be school uniforms in schools. For one, think about how much time you would have to sleep in! All you have to do the night before is pick out your uniform and you're good. You dont have to worry about picking out specific clothing or worrying about what people will think; everyone is wearing the same thing anyway! Also, you dont have to run around buying new clothes for the school year. You only have to buy one set of uniforms. This can help you save a lot of money. Sure, the uniform may be bland and color oriented, but you are at school to get an education, NOT to make a fashion statement to your fellow peers.
Diversity is not our strength.

I will be negating the following resolution. Resolved: Diversity is not our strength. In this debate the pro has the burden of proof. I encourage the voters to base their vote on who presented the best arguments and not based on your own opinion. I will begin with my first contention. Contention #1:Cultural AwarenessDiversity is good for America for a wide variety of reasons. Diversity provides Americans with a wide variety of cultures and ethnicity's to explore and learn about. It provides Americans with different kinds of foods from all around the world. Diversity also provides Americans with a great amount of cultural awareness. In times of globalization, it is increasingly important to have a basic understanding of cultural awareness because people need to be able to work and cooperate with one another. Diversity within the United States of America provides this for people within the nation. It takes all kinds. Diversity is also important because different people have different skills, different life experiences, and different ways of looking at the world. So when there’s a tough problem to solve, a diverse group of people can often come up with a solution faster than a group who are all looking at it the same way. Diversity helps get things done. Contention #2:Diversity opens opportunities to new talentsSome societies have rejected the contributions that certain members might make. Where women do not work, their potential contributions are lost. Where certain minorities are not considered capable and worthy, their intelligence and goodwill is thrown away. An ideal society would engage all its members, use all their talents, and waste no one’s gifts. Life isn’t fair, and everybody knows it. However, human beings have a moral responsibility to be fair, as far as their circumstances allow. Diverse groups are more likely to be fair, because such groups are likely to be made up of people who try to understand other people’s problems and the way they think. It is unfair to reject someone for being different and it’s uncommon in a diverse group. Contention #3:The Spice of lifeImagine eating oatmeal every morning, beans for lunch, and a bowl of cream of mushroom soup every night. Almost anyone would lose their appetite. New experiences give life its snap, and enliven a dull routine. Meeting and getting to know someone new can be a mind opening experience. Everybody knows this, because they have experienced it if only in a book or movie. It’s one of the reasons people go to the trouble and expense of travel. Diversity is the spice of life. For these reasons and more I urge a Con ballot. I look forward to my opponents response! Thanks!