BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Penalty

First of all of course I didn't use sources when my opponent did not. There was no need. Secondly you have not provided a link so for all we know you could be making that up. You must cite your data. In California alone, according to my source, the prisons are crowded with sick and old inmates and the number of inmates over 40 are increasing at an alarming rate. http://www.kpbs.org... After the research I have done it is pretty clear that it is more costly to sentence people to death so I concede that point. Although according to my source, when the number of inmates in the prison for life reaches a certain number, it will become more costly to keep so many prisoners alive. "When imposing the death penalty, we run the risk of executing an innocent person, which is truly an irreversible mistake."- Many people consider life in prison worse than death. Unless a case is reopened, in a case in which someone is sentenced to life in prison, the prisoner is extremely unlikely to ever be released. http://realcostofprisons.org... In the case of the one case that my opponent states, it is tragic yes, but is it not the fault of the judge for being overzealous? The fault of the lawyers for not uncovering or investigating evidence that would have proven the person innocent? Is it worth it to risk the safety of others just so we don't risk the rare case of a false sentence? "The government is not just in depriving someone of their life, even if people believe the defendant deserves death. The law forbids anyone from depriving the life of another man, but what example does the government set forth in imposing the death penalty."- The government is depriving someone of life if they send them to prison. Living in prison is hardly living. Coming from someone who has been stuck in an institution, I would rather die than spend my life in an institution. Also the government says that murder is against the law. It does not say that the government cannot sentence people to death. he court system is a part of the government. There is a huge difference. We obviously cannot allow people to go and kill whenever they choose. Murders kill just because they want to. However when someone is sentenced to death in court, not only have they been spoken for by a professional, but 12 jury members have conceded to their punishment, as well as a judge, and often times more people. These people don't kill anyone because they want to, they believe the person should die because they believe that is the best option. My opponent did nto respond to some of my previous arguments but I hope that he does in the next round.
should obama be able to stay in office after everything he has done to the United States

after everything that Obama has done to our country such as mess with our health care and derive the less fortunet but yet we still want to let him stay since he has been in office the United States has went under more than we already were. we know have ebola on American soil and which is supposed to be illegal because ebola patients are supposed to but on a ship in the middle of the ocean or underground in a contanmint center where they are not our soil we know have it in our hostpital let that sink in for a second.... but have you ever heard of Marshall law well marshall law is were the president can call every to stay in there house and there be a cirfue do u really want Obama telling you cant leave your house cause sure don't! many people think that when Obama is in the realection that he will call war because when an president in office and they are called in war the president can not be removed so think about how many people actually want the stuff above to happen just think about your future and your children or families future.....
should obama be able to stay in office after everything he has done to the United States

Ebola Con tries to change the goalposts by stating that "Obama did nothing to prevent/get rd of the illness. " The resolution concerns actions Obama HAS taken, so even if he had done nothing, this contention is off-the-mark. Also, Con is essentially attacking Obama for not having the cure to Ebola, which is positively laughable. I don't think scientific prowess or a medical degree is a prerequisite for becoming president and holding office. Con hasn't pointed to any ill-doing on Obama's part, and as the Shep Smith video demonstrates, there is no Ebola epidemic -- a dying man who caught Ebola overseas, who was treated in a Texas hospital, passed the disease onto two healthcare workers, who are currently isolated. There is no widespread Ebola scare, nor is Obama at fault. Healthcare Con states that Obama made it ten times harder for the lower class of society to be able to afford healthcare. This claim is untrue. The ACA provides funding for states to expand their Medicaid programs to 133% of the poverty line, providing coverage for the lower class. It also provides subsidies for people of lower incomes -- and, when the employer mandate eventually is implemented, it will provide subsidies for businesses. It also eliminates lifetime caps, prevents discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions, and expands preventive-care access, all whilst decelerating healthcare costs. Con's views on this are simply unfounded. Con has not fulfilled her burden of proof. Therefore, vote Pro. Thank you.
should obama be able to stay in office after everything he has done to the United States

thank you so much for making this debate interesting but I would like you to know that im only 14 and the bola viruse has to do with Obama because what has he actually done to prevent/or get rid of the illness NOTHING! and the problem with the health insurance is that he just made it 10x harder for the lower class of society to be able to afford heakth care and as much I respect you opinion and that you do make since however the people can believe and have their own opinon but thank you so much for the argument/ debate
should obama be able to stay in office after everything he has done to the United States

Many thanks to libralisthegame for starting this debate. I'll briefly discuss the resolution before addressing her case. FRAMEWORK The resolution poses a question to the effect of whether President Obama should be allowed to stay in office "after what he has done." It implies causation to the effect of whether what he personally has done warrants him being removed from office. Choosing to impeach the president is obviously a radical step and a substantial deviation from the status quo, and therefore the burden of proof falls on Con, the instigator, to affirm that Obama should be impeached by virtue of what he has done. My goal, therefore, is to counter her arguments. To prove her point, Con must be able to demonstrate that Obama has done something worthy of impeachment--i.e., abusing his power. Moreover, she must be able to show not only that Obama has broken the law, but that this merits impeachment in a just society, unless she wants to defend the antithesis of enforcing an unjust law in a necessarily unjust society. If the law is unjust, we ought not punish someone for violating it, which is not to say that the president has done so. The onus to prove as much falls solely on Con. CON'S CASE(1) Con discusses a "mess with our healthcare." She does not offer any specificity, or what exactly Obama did--as the resolution keys in on Obama's actions. Without specificity or sourcing, the claim gets discarded. (2) I'm not sure what Con means by "derive the less fortunet but yet we still want to let him stay since he has been in office the United States has went under more than we already were." The sentence is grammatically incoherent, so hopefully Con can flesh this remark out further in her next round. (3) She mentions ebola on American soil. Note that, as Shep Smith has recently took care to note [1], the "Ebola Scare" is widely overblown, and there is no widespread epidemic of ebola in the United States. Not to mention, Con hasn't connected this to Obama's actions. (4) Con speaks of Marshall Law, but how does this have anything to do with what Obama has already done or intends to do? This is nothing more than a fact-free emotional appeal. (5) Con states that Obama will "call war." What does this even mean? Has he not done this yet, per the future tense? If so, how is it relevant to our resolution?Con hasn't actually offered a coherent argument, nor come close to fulfilling her burden. [1] See video
Global Warming

Simply saying "Global Warming" is too vague and open to interpretation. I will define it since my opponent refuses to. I will argue that there has been no significant increase in global temperature for the last 20 years. My opponent must show that there has been and increase well outside of the margin of error. Greater than 1.5 degree Celsius or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit compared to 20 years ago 1 Celsius change is a change of 1.8 Fahrenheits while a 1 Fahrenheit change translates to a change of 0.55 Celsius.
Global Warming

Opponent refuses to even try to address average global temp as a indicator that the earth is warming. If my opponent can't show that there is significant warming by showing temperature increases are well outside the norm, then one can only deduce there is no significant warming. There is a margin of error when measuring average temperatures globally. Since 1880 there has been an increase of 1.53 degrees fahrenheit. If one chooses to err on the cool side within the margin of error one could say the average global temp hasn't changed at all. Until the late 1950's temperature measurements within a tenth of a degree were not possible. So which way do you round? Up or down? And who decided and why?
Global Warming

"I want to prove to you that you're wrong." The first step in proving that the global warming exists is by proving there is a notable temperature increase in the earth's average temperature. If global warming exists the global average temperature should show an increase outside the margin of error when calculating an average global temperature. There has been no warming for seventeen years. And since 1880 the average global temp has only risen 1.53 degrees fahrenheit. But this average includes data that can be completely false or inaccurate as the vast majority of the data is derived from arcane and severely inaccurate measuring instruments and measuring methods. It was only until the advent of satellites and infrared measuring devices that accurate measurements even became possible which was only a paltry 30 or 40 years ago. 17 of those years show no increase.
Children Are Born in Ignorance -- Believers in atheist Dogma Remain So, Unto Death

Someone wrote: "In order to avoid any confusions or straw-man arguments, the definition of an Atheist is someone that does not believe in a god or gods." No it isn't. "Firstly, I would like to note that Atheists "[not knowing] any facts about God" is simply not true." I never made that claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "If you think that educating children on religion will lead them to God," I never stated that I think that, so that is another straw man on your part. "You would need to specify what are the "correct teachings" and what aren"t." The teachings that are correct are the teachings that God has revealed. The ones that are incorrect are the ones that mankind made up (such as atheist Dogma). "Secondly, why is it that you correlate a lack of belief in a god with ignorance?" I didn't state such a correlation, so that is a third straw man logical fallacy on your part. "you can be a Hindu" Hindu is an ethnicity, not a religion or a faith. "In addition, there have been studies done that demonstrate Atheist tend to have higher IQs." No there haven't. "Some religions are highly educated, like Hinduism" Again, Hindu is an ethnicity, not a religion. "My final point is that Atheists, as a whole, are not ignorant or stupid." I never claimed they were, so that is a fourth straw man logical fallacy on your part. "It matters more that you can understand the world around you" Without God, nobody could understand the world around him. " religion as a concept is not harmful, but the religions that have been created are." The religions created by man (AKA the atheistic religions) are definitely harmful. " They typically propagate ignorance and enforce the idea that we should not explore other beliefs since they might contradict their own." Yes, believers in atheist Dogma do indeed do that, and that is why the religion of atheist Dogma is so harmful. "They prey on people in poor and disadvantaged communities and manipulate them because they are less likely to question them." Yes, believers in atheist Dogma do indeed do that -- thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)
Children Are Born in Ignorance -- Believers in atheist Dogma Remain So, Unto Death

Human and animal babies are born in ignorance: They can't control their bowel movements, they can't tie their shoes, they can't communicate with human language, and they don't know any facts about God. As human babies of normal intelligence grow and mature, they learn all of these things from more mature, wiser, intelligent human beings. The believer in atheist Dogma resists this human education process, and remains on the exact same intellectual platform as the messy-diapered babies and the lower animals, unto his death.
Resolved: The term "terrorist" is discriminatory towards muslim United States citizen's.

So my opponent now gets to define what each round is going to be about? Well, I didn't read that in the rules. Since my opponent did not respond to any of my points in my last argument, I am going to assume he either agrees with me, or cannot refute them. So, we return to my opponent's very tortured logic in saying that all criminals are terrorist. So, according to my opponent, every single person who breaks the law is a terrorist. So, every young teen who speeds on the highway, every jaywalker, every streaker, every kid who plays music too loud, and everyone who double parks makes up a vicious group seeking to use their insidious crimes to gain some political end. Does anyone else really think that this is a valid claim? Don't terrorist have some greater political goal than just going to a location expediently, as speeder seeks to do? I guess we should just take every person who has committed a crime, all the way down to a simple traffic violation and put them on the no-fly list or ship them to Gitmo. How is this logical? Is my opponent willing to say that he is a terrorist if he has or does break the law? This is, beyond all else, a ridiculous statement. Is a terrorist a criminal? Yes. But are all criminals terrorist? Definitely NOT! I'm pretty sure that I can now safely say that not all criminals are terrorists. Well then, my opponent might ask, what is a terrorist? Well, a terrorist is one who uses VIOLENCE to achieve a POLITICAL end. They can do this by threatening governments or people. On what grounds do I say this? Well, just by knowing the goal and the method of every single terrorist group! They all, from the IRA to Al-Qaeda, have two things in common: they seek a political end, and they all use violence. So, while a terrorist is a criminal, not all criminals are terrorists. That phrase sounds familiar... It is clear. At the risk of sounding redundant, I have validated the claim that, while all terrorists are criminals, not all criminals are terrorists. Perhaps my opponent claimed this round prematurely.
Resolved: The term "terrorist" is discriminatory towards muslim United States citizen's.

What this round comes down to is the definition of terrorist. If I can prove that any criminals are terrorists, I WIN THE ROUND. This is because my opponent is contributing to the perception that muslims are terrorists by arguing it to be true. To see why a bank robber for example is a terrorist, look to the definiton my opponent gives. a terrorist is one a "a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence",. My opponent says that a bank robber isnt a terrorist because they don't want to harm the government. This may be true but robbers may want to harm people and will do so by threatening them as my opponents definition says. For example, "give me the money or I will shoot you." Thus I have shown that all criminals can be called terrorist not jusst muslims trying to hurt the government. By my opponents own definition, I have won the round.
Resolved: The term "terrorist" is discriminatory towards muslim United States citizen's.

Well then, for clarification purposes, according to dictionary.com, a terrorist is one a "a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence", and history has many examples of terrorists, some who used religion, and some who didn't. Dictionary.com also says that discrimination means "to make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice". A Muslim is just simply a follower of Islam, and while there are some Muslim terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslim. I do not know when the word terrorist became linked, immediately and without qualification, with the word Muslim. While it is true that Muslim terrorist are the most active terrorist at work in the world today, to say that the word terrorist is discriminatory towards Muslims, which would make the word on par with the N-word, because of recent events is a ridiculous statement.
God, as depicted in the Bible, is no benevolent

I just want a simple, easy and polite debate about religion, which I'm aware is akin to trying to get clean hands washing your hands in a mud pit, but I'm gonna try anyway. And yes, I am aware that this debate has been done hundreds of times. I am going to argue that God, the almighty creator depicted in the Holy Bible, is no benevolent, or malevolent. Four rounds: -1st round: Acceptance/Opening statements -2nd round: Opening arguments -3rd round: Rebuttals/More arguments -4th round: More Rebuttals/Closing statements DEFINITIONS: Benevolent (adj) - kind, generous or organized for the good of others Malevolent (adj) - cruel or selfish
God, as depicted in the Bible, is no benevolent

Bs”d The flood: Let’s start here, the flood was not a disregard for life, it is very clear that G-d did not want to kill them all. According to Genesis 18:32 G-d will spare a place on account of 10 righteous people, but Noah and his sons plus their wives was only 8, so he destroyed the world and evacuated the 8. It does seem a bit strange though how G-d would kill al he animals but cared about them in Jonah 4:11 he seems to criticize Jonah for not caring about them, the thing is he still would have smote the livestock in Jonah, so there isn’t an inconsistency, but either way this means he does care for the animals. G-d did know how man would have turned out, but he created them anyway despite the majority which would turn evil. He saved Noah’s family because he had to repopulate the earth. G-d didn’t take another rib and repopulate the earth because he would get a similar problem, so he saved Noah whose genetics would produce a less evil generation. Then work with it. The Plagues: If the US decides to start a nuclear war with Russia, we will suffer even if it is Obamas fault. The conquest of Canaan: The inhabitants of Canaan were not innocent; they practiced child sacrifice, temple prostitution, and many more terrible things. Pointless rules: This is based on your opinion, you decided that homosexuality is OK somehow therefor the Tanakh is stupid, whereas I could say that the Tanakh says homosexuality is immoral therefor you are stupid, I can prove that homosexuality is immoral without the Tanakh, but this is aside from the point. The point of not burning honey to G-d was to avoid all leaven, which was symbolic. Women were ritually impure after pregnancy for hygiene reasons. Cursing your parents and blaspheme got death because they are wrong, Jews are judged harsher than gentiles. Narcissism: No, you are stoned for blaspheme similar to how you are stoned for cursing parents, it isn’t narcissism. Also, 2 of your claims have no verses behind them, and another 2 are based on the Non-Testament, so only the first 2 count. Idolatry is banned for many reasons and among them is because of human sacrifice.
The Big Bang theory is true

Pleased to "meet" you, Con. I look forward to a good discussion. Now, without further ado, I shall analyze my opponent's contentions.Contention #1 This, of course, is not debatable.Contention #2C2 does not logically follow from C1 as my opponent claims. All that the principle of the conservation of energy proves is that the amount of energy in the universe has not changed since its inception. It does not say whether that energy was finite or infinite.That being said, I do not contest your conclusion but your assertion that C2 flows from C1.Contention #3I am not sure as to what you mean by "The Sun needs energy." The sun is essentially a massive nuclear reactor that produces its own energy.[1]Contention #4Your arguments are greatly lacking in clarity, but I believe that what you are trying to argue is that if energy was distributed throughout the universe by the Big Bang then there should be no localized "masses" of it like the sun. As pointed out my response to C3, the sun is a mass with the correct "ingredients" to act as nuclear reactor, thus recycling one form of already existing energy into another.If I have misunderstood your argument please correct me.Sources1. http://www.universetoday.com...
The Big Bang theory is true

Pro will argue in favor of the resolution that the Universe's hypothesized "Big Bang theory" is in fact true.Theory:According to the Big Bang theory, matter and energy was compacted together. The universe was extremely dense. At one point, there was a cataclysmic explosion. The mass and energy filled up those spaces.Contentions: 1. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.2. If statement #1 is true, then energy must be finite.3. The Sun needs energy.4. If statement #3 is true, and the mass and energy is filling up those spaces, how does the Sun have energy?Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Elo System Should be Changed

The fact of the matter is that elo is completely meaningless, as the judges are all allowed to pick and choose which debates they judge. There is no criteria for judgeship, and certainly no credence can be put on a point system that operates so loosely. Who is judging the topic and why? Any ideas? How can the elo system or anyone judged by it take it at all seriously? I certainly do not care what my elo rank is, however I am thankful that this site lets me state my opinion openly.