BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

>Cost< My opponents claim is DP costs less, hangings are cheap. Yes, I agree, the actual execution is cheap, the trials are what cost the money. The added trial costs our justice system demands for death penalty cases are much higher then trials used to lock people up in LWOP, as LWOP can be overturned if your innocent, the extra trials for the DP are used to have lower the chances of executing innocents (though it still happens) and therefore raises costs. "If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for crime victims and their families." [1]>deterrence< My opponent uses the highly flawed deterrent studies that claim the DP saves lives. "One major deficiency in all the existing studies is that none specify the non-capital sanction components of the sanction regime for the punishment of homicide," says the panel's just-released report, such as life imprisonment. As well, "incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers' perceptions," confound the studies, making them suspect." [2] This means ALL studies done forget many variables so there is not one conclusion, hence neither side can win the argument. But I will use a non study, just a basic comparison. 88% of criminologists reject the idea capital punishment deters crime, 87% say abolishing the DP would have any effects, and 75% say the DP is a distracting issue, and lead congress away from looking into real crime issues. [3] Further, even if we say the studies are correct, they do not meet the high scientific bar, and prove nothing. They fail to look into variables, and many are biased. There is no proof the DP has an effect on crime. [4]>Eye for an eye< I agree, LWOP may be worse. >Innocents< Relies to much on DNA. DNA testings are flawed, we see this many times, take this mans arrest, his DNA test was false. [5] Rellying on technology to protect innocents is flawed, also as stated the racism in the DP makes it more likely to execute innocents. _________________________________________________________________________________________________VOTE PRO______________[1] http://www.deathpenalty.org...[2] http://content.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.law.columbia.edu...[5] http://www.10tv.com...
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

I am going to attempt to take a stab at the cost one more time. Maybe the needle would cost more but as for public hangings (again as I feel they should be carried out) would not cost as much as life in prison. Studies show that the death penalty will deter murder. Death is the most feared thing by human beings and it only makes sence that fear would lead to a decrease in crime. Although people wouldn't want to go to prison for life, it is still less feared than the Death Penalty. I think people deserve exactly what they dish out (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and an ear for an ear I feel will make value human life than they already do. (Knowing the person they are murdering may very well be themselves) Maybe blacks and hispanics are convicted more because their crime rate is higher? I don't see it racist when just becauset they are convicted more. Men have been convicted of crimes almost as twice as much as women...is that sexist? I do agree innocent people should not be punished for a crime they didn't commit which is why I believe strict precautions should be in place. Although with modern technology and DNA testing the chances of someone being wrongly convicted are slim to none.
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

>LWOP<It is a worse punishment because you know that you never get out, your only argument is that it is more expensive. Just based on trials, in Nevada the DP costs 200k more. [1] It costs almost 200 million for 5 executions. [2] The DP costs more then LWOP because of trial cost, hence your argument is invalid. LWOP costs more, sorry.>Innocents< The resolution states use it more often. The current system uses "bullet proof" evidence, but still fails to avoid executing innocents. As you say use it more often it mean more innocents die, so the current systeusing "bullet proof" evidence fails, so why would making it bigger help?>Race<No refutation here, you just say I think that the race is not accounted for, and trials should be non biased. Sorry, but that is not the case. "These new empirical studies underscore a persistent pattern of racial disparities which has appeared throughout the country over the past twenty years. Examinations of the relationship between race and the death penalty, with varying levels of thoroughness and sophistication, have now been conducted in every major death penalty state. In 96% of these reviews, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both. The gravity of the close connection between race and the death penalty is shown when compared to studies in other fields. Race is more likely to affect death sentencing than smoking affects the likelihood of dying from heart disease. The latter evidence has produced enormous changes in law and societal practice, while racism in the death penalty has been largely ignored." [3]>Cost again<Trial costs, not the actual execution are expensive. CONCLUSIONMy case is untouched, and prevails, her arguments are false and dont refute anything. VOTE CON______________[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The Bible is not the infallible Word of God

I accept your challenge. I will begin by explaining the difference between an "infallible" Bible and an "inerrant" Bible. If the Bible is infallible, this means it is a" . .. completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. " For the Bible to be "inerrant" is to say that it contains absolutely no historical, statistical, scientific, etc. errors. I will be arguing for infallibility not inerrancy. I will now present the following verses that claim infallibility of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. .. " Psalm 12:6 - "And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times" Proverbs 30:5 - "Every word of God is pure" 2 Peter 3:15 - 16 - "His [Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" Now regarding the first verse, if we assume God is perfect, how can the work He inspires be filled with lies about His nature, the nature of His people, and the nature of His kingdom?
The Bible is not the infallible Word of God

The Bible does not make the claim that conservative Christians make that the Bible is the "Infallible Word of God". It is simply something that Christians have decided to believe in with absolutely NO PROOF. In fact, my challenge to you is that if you can show me ONE VERSE that proves ALL 66 books are "God's infallible Word", I will convert. I will prove not only that the Bible does not make this claim, but Paul specifically says that not everything he is writing is from God. Would you like to debate this topic?
Mrs. Munger should not be a teacher nor an IB level teacher

I disagree fully with the measly survey you conducted. I hardly believe that 8/10 students is a significant sample size of the sheer amount of people in IB English II. Saying 8/10 people believe one thing out of the at least 90 in her classes total, is like saying that 9/10 people support gay rights, while only conducting the survey within a gay rights activist committee. When you stated that students are not asking for easy 100s, but are asking for good grades, that statement is completely subjective. What is a good grade to you might not be the same for others in Munger's classes or Munger herself. The grades she gives, in her mind and probably some of the students's minds, are fair and a complete representation of the student's effort and work. This definition of subjective brings to question your entire argument as you state in your last sentence, that she has "harsh grading, [and] low satisfaction among students" . This is entirely subjective, and only reflects the vision that you wish to create. Take off the binoculars and focus on the bigger picture, the one which paints the entire story.
Mrs. Munger should not be a teacher nor an IB level teacher

Your evaluation of my argument denied my statements yet gave poor support. The exact definition of biased is "unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something" although I may be the con against Mrs. Munger being a teacher, these accusations were produced fairly and you cannot deny the opinions of the students in her class. A test that I conducted showed that 8/10 students disagree with and do not acknowledge Mrs. Munger as a good teacher. Although had been qualified and experienced she has not been for level 2 IB English. Students are not asking for easy 100s but do expect to receive a good grades. On more than one occasion failing or barely passing grades have been given out with no justification. There had not been given any "reviews" for the Antigone quiz. Those were worksheets that were assigned and very little of the information assessed on the quiz was present on the worksheets. You failed to mention that the quiz was a pop quiz and were were given very little time to access our knowledge and practice it. This is the first time Mrs. Munger has taught on an IB level course so your information is false, which brings to question the validity of your whole synopsis and your integrity as a human being. Nonetheless Mrs. Munger should not be a teacher nor an IB Enlgish teacher because of her harsh grading, low satisfaction among students, and inexperience with IB students and academics.
Mrs. Munger should not be a teacher nor an IB level teacher

Your entire argument is completely flawed and biased. In response to your quiz from 11/7/16, review was actually given in the beginning of the class, as well as knowledge of a quiz to be given at the end of the class. She was available for any extra review over the Antigone stories, and had gone so far as to post review sheets for her class to utilize and prepare for the impending quiz. Your argument that most students received 70 or lower on the quiz is not backed at all, and also is the sound of a argumentative teenage students maddened by a low grade. In response to your second argument, where she had "only" give you two points back, that is completely maddening for the general public. Two points aren't even supposed to be given back on any sort of grade, especially major, and that you should be extremely grateful for any points achieved from your sympathetic English teacher. Ms. Munger is a qualified English teacher, having taught English for over 10 years, and IB English at Klein Oak for at least 5. These complaints have not been echoed by other students, even the ones in her junior IB class. I believe that this year, the class has been so entitled and have expected to receive every easy grade and free 100s in every class.
Mrs. Munger should not be a teacher nor an IB level teacher

Mrs. Munger simply is an inadequate human being whom "[does] not care about grade" and refutes to give partial credit and points back for individuals whom actually deserve it. Hard work, concern, diligence are one of the many attributes which are not exhibited within Mrs. Munger's classroom and her students. For example on 11/7/16 a quiz over the reading of Antigone was assigned to students who had read briefly over the story and no review or discussion was provided to analyze the students learning of the story. Most students (including me) received a 70 or lower on the quiz which completely GPA gamed us. On one occasion during a major grade, a group of students had respectfully asked for points back on a major grade because she had simply not stated why points were taken off. After presenting their reasons for points back, a measly 2 points were given back and nothing had really been changed. Mrs. Mungers class is a game of chance and most of the time students are unlucky.
Should students be able to use educational games in school

Still IQ ball, isn't what people need to do well in school, so we shouldn't let them use it. (Also if there was strategy games allowed, Tanks (http://www.addictinggames.com...) a strategy war game would be allowed) Minecraft doesn't teach people anything about architecture because laws of gravity don't apply in minecraft. And testing the brain on how fast your mind can respond to stuff is not the average thing a kid would play (I know this because I'm a kid, and I'm also a kid that likes brain games and I don't like test games.)
Should students be able to use educational games in school

IQ ball is considered an educational game. It teaches the brain strategy and problem solving. Yes I would agree that the game could be altered to be more mind challenging but other than that most games like that teach something are fun. Take minecraft for example although it doesn't teach anything it is used in many schools as an architecture project, Strategizing for combat and teaching basic materials of the world. Or grande pre racing, It tests the brain on how fast your mind can respond to basic math facts ( http://www.arcademics.com... )
Students should be grouped by academic ability.

Greetings. I'd like to argue that when students are sorted via 'academic ability', it really only reflects their attention and participation in class and in tests, not their actually ability in academics. Living in a country where students are sorted by how they perform in each subject, I can safely say that the lower the class you are in, the less you get done and actually learn, because they are all disruptive and inattentive, but not necessarily less able than other students.
Students should be grouped by academic ability.

THBT "Students should be grouped by academic ability." This is coming from a Year 7 who struggles to keep up with the rest of her class. If students are grouped by academic ability, it will be easier for students to learn, and students who struggle will learn more. How would you feel to be stressed with an overload of work every day? ,What if your went to school to find it takes your friend 1 hour to complete her homework, while it takes you 3 hours? What do you think?
Students should be grouped by academic ability.

I too know from personal experience, as I dropped to the third class from the second once. This is the third class of 8 or 9, by the way, so I expected them to be just under the one I had come from. I worked hard to get out of that class, not because I wanted to be with my friends again, nor because I wanted harder material, but because the class never got anything done. They didn't care about learning or listening to the teacher. I shudder to think what the classes lower were like.
Students should be grouped by academic ability.

Hi, My school has recently tried to sort their students by ability. Although I was separated from my friends, it gave me the motivation to work harder and catch up with the rest of my age. My Mathematics particularly improved after being put two groups below majority of my friends. Students have worked so hard and have caught up so much, the school has removed the lower groups and we now have harder groups. Students should be sorted by academic ability and I know from personal experience. Thanks
uniforms

Reasons why uniforms are goodBecause . http://www.greatschools.org... so. "A 2005 study, on the other hand, indicates that in some Ohio high schools uniforms may have improved graduation and attendance rates" [1] Come on, the website is called GREAT SCHOOLS. Great schools are great for a reason, and they think uniforms are good. I think they are too. Now to my oppenent's argument. "uniforms are not good for kids because the kids cant express themselves in the way they want to"I can express myself perfectly with or without a uniform. "Uniforms do not look nice"When I saw this, I was like. .. Say Wwhhaaat? (with an accent on the Wh like when people say howite instead of white so conjugated, this would be huwat) I truly belive. .. that that black belt over there is one of the nicest belts created by mankind. The shoes also look nice. They give people better hops which will boost their self confidence. And the shirt? It is always good because if the person somehow looses his/her memory, they will know what school they are in. Khaki pants are always good because if they are being chased by robbers they can hide and will blend in. Overall, school uniforms are great.
Death Penalty

My opponent has shown no response and has forfeited the round. Out of respect, I will acknowledge that my points still stand and will offer my rebuttals for Con's points. 1. Con has only one point that is recognized of the quick exit of "horrible criminals." This point is failty in 2 ways. -The term horrible is subjective. This could mean that theifs of a couple dollars and serial killers would be dealt on the same sentence which is completely absurd and further violates the sense of morals in levels of punishment. -The point of keeping criminals in jail for a longer period of time is too subjective to Con's point of view. Others may believe that giving a 100% death is more punishing. Given these rebuttals, Con's points are invalid while my points still stand.
Death Penalty

I shall focus my debate upon 2 reasons:EconomyThere was no outline for the method of "Death Penalty" so it is understood in its literal meaning as the "penalty of death. " From an economic viewpoint, this form of punishment is far superior to any other form of criminal punishment. The penalty does not have to be an expensive form of intoxication or electric chair or anything of that nature. Instead, a simple bullet to the head would do the trick. Conversely, the cost of a life sentence or even several years in prison would cost far more than a simple bullet. Speaking in numbers, each bullet round costs around 21 cents (based on The Last Word) which is way lower than the millions spent on prison sentences. Moral and Ethical ValuesBy giving a short quick death, we preserve our humanity. The Death Penalty provides this kind of treatment. Compared to the years or months in jail time, the time spent for a short kill will be far less painful in terms of time spent suffering. Instead of allowing someone to suffer time in prison for long time periods, the penalty provides a much more humane way to end a lfe. Sources:. http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com...Con has yet to fulfill his Burden of Proof.
Thor(Pro) vs Goku(Con)

Before I begin I would like for you to remember that this debate can only include canon material. Meaning SS4 Goku and Broly cannot be used to show Goku's power because they aren't actually a part of the material. This would also prove to bad for you because of the major contradictions Dragon Ball GT created. You realize that Onslaught isn't just and combination of Magneto and Xavier right? Onslaught has the power of near celestial. Also the other story you speak of is from a different universe. Alright I'll counter your points on speed. Thor regularly fights to make sure he doesn't kill his comrade. For example in Superior Spider-Man #25 a venom enhanced spider-man fought Thor but in the end Thor shouted "I shall hold back no longer!" and has made it clear that he does whatever he can before killing his opponents. Thor never used his real speed with he doesn't require it. Also during the Siege event Thor fought against The Void (The counterpart of The Sentry, a 'hero' whose speed rips through space and time. ) and managed to land multiple blows. I'll go back to Silver Surfer a being who is well known for his speed (Faster than light) but on top of that he can also react and think at those speeds, yet Thor still defeated his combat. Now your points on training and endurance. Thor is MUCH older than Goku and unlike Goku he is also the God of WAR. Meaning he has vast knowledge on combat. He has trained much longer than Goku. Instant transmission is worthless considering Goku would only use it to get away and any other way would be very unlike him. Also instant transmission has been proven to fail and Goku never uses it in abundance and he has been hit. A spirit bomb is something Thor would never let happen. Thor has never watched as an opponent powered up or started an attack. Spirit Bombs take time. Also Goku would be unable to wield Thor's hammer, even if he was worthy. Another being could only use it if Thor allowed it. I would like to bring up Thor's ability to manipulate and absorb energy even without his hammer. So even if Goku's false ability to destroy an entire galaxy where true. Thor has absorbed a Null Bomb which was designed to destroy all life in the Black Galaxy. Finally I would like everyone to remember that Goku is the Son of Odin and the Earth Goddess Rhea. He was born to be the most powerful warrior in the universe and on day surpass even Odin. Who alone can defeat every single being on Dragon Ball with little to no difficulty.
Sex is better than drugs

I can see why my opponent took the con side. Bringing religion into the mix is a real boner killer. I would hate sex too if I believed there was an invisible man watching me do it and judging me for it. Not only is this not true, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Sex is awesome whether its premarital or not. Abortion is not even on topic. But I do admit, bringing that up is a good way to get out of the mood. Alas, the burdon of proof for the bible being a relevant source for this discussion is on my opponent. Unless my opponent has anything to say in favor of drugs, I can only assume he agrees with me. Perhaps he has no personal experience with either. To that I say, you should try it. Once you pop, the fun don't stop. You will probably ask yourself why you didn't start sooner.
Sex is better than drugs

This went in a completely different direction than I was expecting. I was arguing that sex is better than drugs and not that sex for pleasure is morally right. But for the sake of the argument, sex feels better when it is wrong. That's why its a turn on to do it in public or at work. Plus the procreation part is a benefit. Drugs can't make another human being. In a way, sex is trippier than trippin balls. Except that trip lasts for life. It's like "whoa here's a little person that i made!" Plus I don't believe in a god who is against premarital sex. I think he wants you to do it. Shoot even god had to get a piece of the virgin Mary.
Sex is better than drugs

My opponent states that sex is like a drug and says it is the driving force behind our species. In the way it is portrayed, correct me if I am wrong is not for pregnancy reasons. It is for fun. The Bible tells us "Thou shalt not commit adultery" it is a sin because it is not natural. We must commit what is natural for our species. Only sex to make pregnancy is natural. Also sex is why abortion is occoured. If people only had it for babies there would be no accidents.