BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People who commit crimes are often giving lenient sentences. For serious crimes the death penalty sh

Rebuttal"Yes, the death penalty should be reintroduced world wide as a consequence for serious crimes such as murder. BOP?The death penalty should be reinstated because it acts as a deterrentIt does not. I have sourced my assertion and youy have failed this BOP you now have over mine, as it is not sourced or syllogistically proven., it provides justice to the families of murder victims, and it get rids of the worst people in society, who would cause harm if allowed to live. BOP?The death penalty has been utilised throughout history as an effective deterrent to would-be murderers and rapists.It is not a deterrent as I have sourced and proven. The knowledge that in all probability a murderer will be caught and sentenced to death, provides an ample reason for a would-be murderer to rethink his decision before actually committing his crime. The knowledge that a murderer is going to spend most of his life rejected and abstinent and ostracized from society can do the same. You have BOP to prove that my assertion that it cannot do the same is false, or prove why the death sentence is better. Both you have failed.It also deals that it should not be made in court to allow criminals to live or get lesser sentences, if a suspect is convicted of first degree murder, he/she should be executed, with no questions asked. BOP? After all, Norway as I have shown, has a very liberal prison system where nobody can stay in a jail longer than 21 years. Scandanavia in general is liberal, but crime is lower. Also, the Happy Planet Index there is higher. You once again have not met any burden of proof to prove this.In this way, the death penalty not only provides justice to those who have lost family to an evil, but it also deters people from becoming criminals in the first place."Again, I have disproved the deterrence point and you have not proved this at all. In fact, this whole argument is not argued. You have just asserted claims over and over again without any syllogistic proof or actual evidence, whereas I have. I do not need to make any new arguments, as mine do already stand. I urge the flor to side with the side that isn't just asserting, but arguing and sourced.Sources:As before.
People who commit crimes are often giving lenient sentences. For serious crimes the death penalty sh

Yes, the death penalty should be reintroduced world wide as a consequence for serious crimes such as murder. The death penalty should be reinstated because it acts as a deterrent, it provides justice to the families of murder victims, and it get rids of the worst people in society, who would cause harm if allowed to live. The death penalty has been utilised throughout history as an effective deterrent to would-be murderers and rapists. The knowledge that in all probability a murderer will be caught and sentenced to death, provides an ample reason for a would-be murderer to rethink his decision before actually committing his crime. It also deals that it should not be made in court to allow criminals to live or get lesser sentences, if a suspect is convicted of first degree murder, he/she should be executed, with no questions asked. In this way, the death penalty not only provides justice to those who have lost family to an evil, but it also deters people from becoming criminals in the first place.
People who commit crimes are often giving lenient sentences. For serious crimes the death penalty sh

C1: The Death Penalty Is Not an Effective Deterrent Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.[1] Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have anymajor effect on murder statistics.[1]The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Ever so liberal Norway, sentences can only be a maximum of 21 years[2], they have the nicest prisons in the world, such as Bastoy, which offers fun activities, rehabilitation and is nice to prisons. Unlike European prisons with an average of a 70% reoffending rate, this prison has 16%[3]. Norway however has a murder rate of 0.69 people per 100,000, against the U.S' 4.7 per 100,000[4][5]. And to top it all off, Norway has one of the highest scores in the Happy Planet Index, at a fantastic 51.4[6], against America's 37.3, and Ethiopia has 39.2, and Libya has 40.8[6]. The general consensus of what we see is that the death penalty does not work, and that a more liberal prison system fares well.There is not much I can argue against now. BOP is on the claimant and my role is to negate any contentions. Pro must either win with statistics, or syllogistically prove how the death penalty is better. Until then, I rest my case and have my premise. Sources: [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.happyplanetindex.org...
God is Evil

God only freed the Israelites in Exodus 14 because he was keeping the promise he made to Abraham. My opponent says, "God commands that all people be treated well and fairly." God clearly favors the Israelites. God commands the Israelites to slaughter seven different nations. (Deuteronomy 7:1-2) He doesn't give the nations any warning, and he doesn't even ask the Israelites to try and convert them to Christianity. God does not treat everyone fairly. A woman faking her virginity, and a man wrongly accusing her of faking her virginity are very similar crimes. How come when the woman was convicted, she was put to death, but when the man was convicted, he was only whipped and fined? I don't understand how menstrual blood can be used as evidence. Hymens are not solid dividers, there is a hole for menstrual blood to escape. Women can have periods, and produce menstrual blood, whether they are a virgin or not. How could someone have distinguished between menstrual blood and hymenal blood? There was no DNA testing at the time, so there was no absolute way of knowing it was even that woman's blood. God knew that Hitler would kill eleven million people. According to you, God loved these people, yet he still created Hitler. If God already knows what we will do, we do not actually have free will. Using the same example as you did, if the child chooses the bowl of ice cream, he was always going to choose the ice cream. He didn't actually have any say in it, because in the future he has already chosen the ice cream. Some animals act only on instinct. Unless you are going to argue that the wickedness of humans somehow corrupted the biologically ingrained instincts of these animals, these animals did not deserve to die. Also, if the animals needed to die, what about the fish? The chances of only two fish of each species surviving the flood is next to impossible. If Noah and his family didn't have incest, the human timeline would have ended there. If they wanted the human race to survive, they absolutely had to.
God is Evil

Lets take a look at what Exodus 21:7-11 says. It states that "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing to her master, who chose her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has acted treacherously toward her. " My opponent seems to think this verse says that slavery is an acceptable practice. But this is not what the verse indicates. God merely recognized that people did these horrible things and he put restrictions on slavery to make sure that people were treated fairly. In this case, we are looking at daughters that were bought by men to be their wives. Nothing here is condoned by God. In fact, God makes sure that these daughters were taken care of. God does flood the earth because he "saw that man"s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). Every thought mankind had was completely evil. Surely a just God wouldn't allow this wickedness to go unpunished. He gave all the people a 120 year warning of the flood (Genesis 6:3) and they even had a preacher named Noah (2 Peter 2:5) to help them out. But yet no one changed their ways and things ended badly for them. Sounds fair to me. The sixth commandment is you shall not murder (Exodus 20:13). There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. There is no contradiction here. 42 people is quite a lot of people. When I read that passage in the Bible, I get the feeling that this was a group that got together in order to mock a prophet of God. The people of the time period had tremendous respect for their elders...yet they openly mocked an elder who was a man of God. But the most interesting comment the 42 made was "Go up Baldy." Elijah, the mentor of Elisha (the man being mocked) had just been taken to heaven in a whirlwind. In other words, the men were "stating they want Elisha gone, and since Elijah had gone on to the "next world," the implication is they wanted Elisha dead" (https://carm.org...). So it is completely okay that God would justly punish the wicked people. My opponent has not showed that God is evil. He has only showed his/her misunderstanding of the Bible.
God is Evil

God is Evil. According to the Bible, selling your daughter as a slave is an absolutely acceptable thing to do. (Exodus 21:7-11) God commits genocide when he floods the entire Earth, killing everyone except for Noah and his family, and by that logic, Noah and his family were forced into incestuous relationships with each other, because they were the only humans left on Earth. Incest is a sin, therefore God forces Noah and his family to commit sinful acts with each other. The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill," although the Bible directly contradicts itself by calling for the killing of infidels. "And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." (Deuteronomy 17:3-5) God kills forty-two people for making fun of Elisha's lack of hair. "Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number." (2 Kings 2:23-24) God commits genocide, and people still believe he is in the right (not to mention people still believe he is real).
Homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity and the Bible.

I neglected to address blashpemy in my previous argument, as I ran out of characters, so I'll address it here:All sins, with the exception of blasphemy, are equal in the eyes of God (see my earlier example). Blasphemy is special, because it's not simply disregarding the Word of God, it's refuting it, saying you know better than God. That's why it's unforgivable, because it implies that you are perfect (you think you know better than God, a perfect entity), and thus you have no need for the Grace of God. Any and all other sins are forgivable, including homosexuality. Say I had the urge to steal small items from a store (kleptomania). If I couldn't resist this urge, would be unable to be a Christian? It's no different from homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity and the Bible.

I see you quoted it from the NIV and as a future tip the NIV is not a word for word translation and is merely meant to carry the message across, therfore taking doctrine from it is a little dangerous. The 2 most reliable dynamic translations are from the NASB and ESV which state "...nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, will inherit the kingdom of God..." Actually some sins are worst than others and I can hardly see how you'd say that considering an example would be me saying a "Christian" murderer is just as bad as a Christian child who took a cookie without permission. I can support this up by saying some sins are worst based on Mathew 12:31-32. Faith and Repentance... Can't leave either of them out
Homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity and the Bible.

I looked up the verse you mentioned (NIV, to be specific), and I'll quote it here for a "breakdown" analysis: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" This is where the distinction between practicing something and actively supporting it comes into play; For example, I am a sinner, and I sin regularly. Does this mean I actively support sin? Also, there is no reason to promote the persecution of one sin over another. If our highest achievements are but dirty rags when compared to the Glory of God, than how can one sin be worse than another? It's literally infinity + 1 vs infinity + 2. No difference.
Homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity and the Bible.

Well the debate was on whether or not Homosexuality is a sin, but since you agree I guess I can bend the rules a bit. :) Anyway I'd just like to thank you for accepting this debate and I hope we can both actively represent our views in a respectful manner. First off I'd just like to clarify what I mean by homosexuals can't be Christians. Can you be a Christian who is inclined to the same sex and struggles with homosexual temptations? Yes Can you be a Christian who actively supports Homosexuality and practices it? No I agree that Christians are sinners, but now we're getting into the doctrine of Mortal vs Venial( If you believe in those that is) Here is one verse that should clear this up.... 1 Corinthians 6:9
Homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity and the Bible.

As the argument is literally impossible to argue against (it's irrefutable fact), I shall argue that homosexuals are capable of practicing both their preferences and Christianity.In today's America, homosexuality has become accepted to some extent, by Christians and atheists alike. So why do others still believe that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity? Anyone and everyone is sinful by nature, so what singles homosexuality out as irreconcilable with Christianity? Is a felon completely incapable of being a Christian, just because he's sinned? I'm not saying that a homosexuality can be non-sinful (it is an abberation), merely that homosexuals are no worse than anyone else, thus no less needing or deserving of the Grace of God.
Batman goes against better villians than Spider-man

Batman and Spider-man have some of the greatest villains in their respected Rogues Galleries. The reason why Batman has the greater villains than Spider-man is because of Batman's historic and more powerful villains each. Each villain Spider-man has, Batman has one just as strong or even stronger. If the people look at the movies Batman has some on the most historic performances from Batman when it came from Heath Ledger (Joker) and if anyone takes a villain from the Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and Tim Burton Batman movies they can enjoy a great performance from the expected actor portraying the villain. Sources http://www.comicbookmovie.com... http://www.listal.com...
Batman goes against better villians than Spider-man

1) I would check my opponents spelling because I see many mistakes as well.2)My opponent asks for some examples of better villains I will use the villains my opponent listed on point number two from his "My Own Points". My opponent gave examples of Loki, Lizard, Beetle, Chameleon, and Dr. Octopus for his villains that Spider-man goes up against and I will be comparing each one to a Batman villain that is better. Loki is a god, but Spider-man gets the help from the Avengers also has a god in Thor, while Batman has to go against the likes of Bane who is both the strongest man in the world and a super genies who also broke Batman's back while Loki did nothing to Spider-man that is mentioned in the comic books. The Lizard is a scientist turned super villain who has super strength, self healing, and animal behavior when the Lizard, while Batman has the same thing in Killer Croc expect Killer Croc doesn't change back into a human he is just a Killer Croc and can stay under water longer than the Lizard. Beetle is a man in a suit that has the power to fly and can shoot lasers; Mr. Freeze also has a suit, but it can freeze anything and he is also a scientist that lost his wife so he has both a cold heart and motive to kill. Chameleon can camouflage into the background, while Clayface can turn into anything and can make any weapon from his clay body. Dr. Octopus is one of Spider-man's most recognizable villains I'll compare him to Batman's most recognizable villain The Joker. Dr. Octopus is stronger than The Joker, but lacks in the pure evil The Joker displays with killing anyone just for the fun of it. 2) Spider is a part of the Avengers which means he goes up against a variety of villains. Batman is in the Justice League so the villains he goes up against have to be powerful enough to give the most powerful superhero in Superman terrible.3) People can expect a great performance thanks to Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan not to Joel Schumacher who can be included in the discussion for the greatest Batman villain. 4) Spider-man has 10 times as many villains as Batman has. Well Batman has 34 villains from his classic rogues' gallery, while Spider-man has 39 villains from his classic rogues' gallery. I'm not saying I'm a mathematician, but I don't think that is 10 times as many.5) The debate is unfair because I'm rushed.It is not my fault you procrastinated. Batman has some of the craziest, smartest, strongest, and strangest villains of all time. Vote ProSources-http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Batman goes against better villians than Spider-man

Rebutting Your Points 1) You have some grammar and spelling mistakes. 2) You say: " The reason why Batman has the greater villains than Spider-man is because of Batman's historic and more powerful villains each. " but yet you do not give any reasoning or examples. 3) "Each villain Spider-man has, Batman has one just as strong or even stronger. " Once again you have no examples. 4) "if anyone takes a villain from the Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and Tim Burton Batman movies they can enjoy a great performance from the expected actor portraying the villain" Just Just because the actor is good does not mean that the villain is better. My Own Points 1) Spiderman goes up against better villains than batman because they are stronger and more intelligent. Take the lizard for example, he has amazing strength but he is also a scientist. He created a drug that could make him a mutant. If the pure genius does not draw readers/watchers in then the brutal fight scenes will. 2) Spiderman is part of the Avengers, this means that he goes up again a variety of villains. Batman only has a few villains that are well known such as the Joker, Mr. Freeze, the Penguin and Bane. All of these villains don't really have anything special about them. There is nothing about them that makes them special. The joker is just some ordinary psychopath. The penguin is just some short rich dude that likes penguins and Bane is just strong. On the other hand Spiderman goes against Loki (a god), another mutant with the same genes as the HULK, the Lizard (a scientist turned super villain), the Beetle (a mechanic that made a power suit), chameleon ( a villain that can blend to anything) and who can forget the infamous Doctor Octopus (a prison escapee with 4 mechanical arms). 3) Also when you argued that "when people watch batman they can expect a great performance", that is exactly what happens when people watch a Spiderman movie! 4) Also spiderman has 10X as much villains as batman has. The few that I listed are just a few of them. 5) Waiting until there is 5 hours left for me to make my speech so i'm rushed makes this debate unfair.
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living

My arguments are not all based off personal preference, they are based off fact. And here are some points to back me up: A) Bigger Houses & More Space: Compared to an inner-city living situation, you will usually find more square footage for your money in the suburbs. Tracts of land often include room for a home, as well as front, back and even side yards. Many suburbs were evolved from previously rural or wooded areas, so your property may have trees and wildlife. Having more space inside and out is one of the most common reasons previous city dwellers move into the suburbs. While you get the benefit of space, suburbs are usually still close enough to commute into the city. Since cities usually provide a wide variety of jobs, this proximity to income opportunities can give the suburbs an edge over rural areas. B) Better Education Suburban areas typically offer better schools than urban or rural districts. If you have or plan to have children in the near future, it"s a good idea to consider the importance of education in your lifestyle. Even if you do not plan to have kids, knowing the state of the school district can be helpful come resale time. However, in many suburbs you will pay higher property taxes for those better-quality schools. There are some places where you can get a bargain " better value for the property taxes you pay. C) Neighbors & Nature Whether it is local parks or close-knit neighborhoods, residents of the suburbs often enjoy fresh air, natural scenery and a strong sense of community. People often move to suburbia specifically to raise children, escape the hustle and bustle, and improve life and safety for their families. D) Quality of Life Suburbia offers an escape from the work and stresses of the big city, while still allowing relative proximity to other people and necessities. With less traffic congestion and crowding, as well as a lower crime rate, suburbanites often find a higher quality of life than what is available elsewhere. There is access to plentiful job opportunities while having the option for recreational and outdoor activities as well as opportunities to meet people and join a community. If you get easily bored or like the options afforded in a city, suburbia may not be for you. Being far away from the action of city life or without the rolling property in the country may sound unappealing. Outings in the suburbs take time and effort and the commute to work in the city may be long and expensive. But all in all, the suburbs are a much better place to live. And my opponent is just too stubborn to agree