BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty should be abolished

I will provide the voting issues for this round, and why you should cast a con ballot. The first voting issue is the issue of the dropped contention. Now, my opponent completely dropped my first contention of: the death penalty deters would-be criminals. Now, let me explain why this was such a big argument. My opponent continually states throughout their case and arguments of how life should be upheld. Now, with my first contention, the death penalty prevents the death penalty, meaning the death penalty prevents crimes that would have been committed if there was not a death penalty. For example, a criminal hears of someone getting the death penalty, then that criminal is scared of what may happen to them if they murder someone. My opponent wants to uphold the lives of innocent people, correct? Well, the best way to uphold the lives of the innocent is through a death penalty, that way citizens won't be murdered, raped, etc. because these would-be criminals are afraid of the death penalty. Since my opponent dropped this argument, it still stands untouched. The Second voting issue is the impacts of the pro, meaning the future of the pro if the US were to abolish the death penalty. We would see a rise in crime, leading to prisons overcrowding; and it is evident that prisons are already overcrowding. Adrian Moore from, "Reason Public Policy Institute" "Today many state and federal prisons are holding over 20 percent more prisoners than their capacity, and a great number of [those] facilities- are under court order to limit or reduce their inmate populations." So, as I stated earlier, these criminals will either be released or they may escape. In conclusion, if the death penalty was abolished, it was cause hundreds of lives to be lost due to criminals remaining on the streets and in the community. Now, I ask you, would you want yourself or your children to be put in a world full of crime and chaos? The Third and final voting issue is the impacts of the con, meaning the future if the US were to continue using the death penalty. There would not be a rise in crime that the pro offers. As well as, criminals such as Lisa M. Montgomery will not be released or escape. The death penalty overall provides a safer community for the current generation and the future. It is for these reasons why I urge you to cast a con ballot, thank you. Note: I had a pleasure debating with you as you have helped me grasp a better understanding on my current topic for my debate team. Thanks.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

My CaseMy opponent drops my first contention. This is devastating to his case as if a governemtn ought to repect the right to life then the Death Penalty ought to be abolished soley on those grounds. In response to my second contention, Con claims that people are put in prison for life falsly as well. While I grant that people are sometimes wrongly convicted, at least if we find evidence later that proves innocence a life sentence can be ended and the innocent can go free. Not so with the death penatly due to the lack of ability to give back a life that is already gone. Here again this contention stands as you cannot make a restitution for putting someone to death who was innocent as you can for life in prison. The third contention is largley untouched. Con cites what the cost of a lethal injection is but this widely misses the mark. This is due to the fact that the costs incurred in death penalty cases is not just the injection, it is the legal fees and process that must be gone through to get a death penalty conviction. She dismess my source as it is only from California, though she offers no counter examples. Thus the only example we have is mine. Thus, cost is still on the side of abolishing the death penalty. Con argues against my final contention by stating that life in prison allows oppertunity for people to escape. Firstly, escapes from prions are extrememly rare, further even if you buy this counter arguement it is outweighed by the risk of putting someone innocent to death. It is ammusing that my opponenet at this point argues that prisoners ought to be put to death to prevent them from going insane due to life in prison. I say amusing as the negative phychological effects to those on death row and those who have to put a prisoner to death are well documented. Besides, the overuling right to life outweighs the unproven and uncited chance that prisoners go insane from life in prison. Thus far, all four of my contentions stand. Con's CaseMy opponent claims that the death penalty acts as a detterent though has offered no source to back this claim, or show that the same detterence is not acheived by life in prison. She provides a quote with no source. As this stands it is merely an unsupported claim rather than an arguement. Con again tries to argue cost though misses the mark. Here is another source that shows that life in Prison in cheaper to the tax payer than a death penalty. (1)OverviewIt is clear that the death penalty costs more than life in prison. It is clear that life in prison is a reasonable alternative. In the case of somone wrongly convicted, a life in prison sentence can be reversed, the same is obviously not true when the death penalty is applied. Rember at least 18 innocent people have been killed by the state. Most importantly, the death penalty is a violation of a persons most basic right. The right to life. Clearly the death penalty ought to be abolishedSources(1) http://www.nbcrightnow.com...;
The Death Penalty should be abolished

First, I will address my opponent's attacks then turn to reinforcing my own case. My opponent's C2 was along the lines of the innocent people are being given capital punishment. However, a few of these people would have gotten life in prison anyways. As well as, it is not the fault of the death penalty, it is the fault of the investigators, meaning the simple way to solve this is to have hard evidence that the person actually committed the crime. My opponent's C3 was of how the cost of the death penalty was greater than the cost of life in prison. However, "According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost for the drugs used in lethal injection is $86.08." As well as what my opponent fails to inform is that the $1.26M is a study from California alone. My opponent's C4 was that life in prison was a reasonable alternative. My opponent stated that, "Keeps violent offenders off the streets for good." However, the death penalty, not life in prison, keeps people like Lisa M. Montgomery off of the streets for good. Lisa M. Montgomery murdered a pregnant woman, then proceeded to cut the unborn baby out of the womb, claiming it was hers. My opponent is trying to argue we should keep people like Lisa M. Montgomery in prison, where there's a chance for them to escape. As well as, prisoners want death rather than life in prison considering life in prison drives one to insanity. I will now turn to reinforcing my own case. My first contention was that it deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. This means there will be less crime, therefore ensuring public safety. As I had stated earlier, "recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year." Now, I ask you, would you rather have these criminals, who murdered and raped, behind bars, or for them to be rid from the Earth? My second contention was the death penalty benefits taxpayers and the economy; directly conflicting with my opponent's C3. As I had stated, a lethal injection, in reality, only costs $86.08, whilst life in prison costs over $1M. These murderers, rapists, etc. should not be able to continue living in jail cells with the slight chance that one day they may be released or they may even escape. The US should not take that chance. Thank you.
LGBTQA+ people should be able to marry and have respect.

you stated "The third one we wouldn't necessarily disagree with as yes, women and men are different and some ways but that doesn't prove anything." That's called denial. Are you hearing yourself? NONE of them were pro LGBT. You simply cannot pervert humanity and believe its good! Your the addict/ the Alcoholic who find comfort only in those who like you are living a life of total selfishness. I want, I need, I crave, I seek ... it's all about you. There is a price for the choice you make. SO MUCH of your evidence has been from the Bible. as I figured and again, Now whose deluding theirself? NONE of the argument was from the Bibe, anyone can plainly see that, but when you are desparate to have the sin, to Feed the Flesh , the self gratification, the lure becomes your own downfall and prison. You are a slave to LUST, you lost the ability to love long ago. You have perverted it, turned it into a sexual thing. Because that's all you crave, you have become enslaved to lust! That is your choice, but do not call it, wholesome, it isn't, don't call it good, it's evil, Don't call t right, it's wrong, don't call it love, it's lust, Don't call it caring, it's selfishness at the cost of another human soul? NO ONE want anyone professing such LOVE that they would (purposely mind you) drag them to HELL with them. THAT is the epitome of selfishness, and genuine hate! Revelation 14:10 they, too, will drink the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. In closing, To drag a person too this place with you, and SAYING you LOVE THEM is many things indeed. The WHAT? I leave to you? You couldn't SEE the truth ... I think this question you might be able to figure out ... that is IF you TRULY LOVE someone!
LGBTQA+ people should be able to marry and have respect.

As this debate comes to a close, I would like to point something very important out. TWO out of your only three sources ALSO are pro LGBT https://hbr.org... https://journals.humankinetics.com... The third one we wouldn't necessarily disagree with as yes, women and men are different and some ways but that doesn't prove anything. I don't need to be saved. Satan took care of that and her crowd seems a lot friendlier. So ironic because according to her nine laws, I could marry or date who I want with no issue. Basically, they say nobody should be an a hole and that's about it. I like that. As would many. SO MUCH of your evidence has been from the bile as I figured and again, without it, there would not be much of a reason to be so against LGBTQA+. Your other sources don't even fully back up what you say and you constantly use insults in order to make you seem right when all the comments seem to disagree. Again, do you read the bible? DO you ever sit down and really look at it? Because remember, I was lectured about it EVERY DAY for eight months in one of THE most holy cities in the world. Pretty sure I have a decent understanding of it and why I wouldn't like it. The concept of hell doesn't even exist in Judaism. And even though Rabbis often do not like LGBTQA+ stuff, they are way more understanding of it than you seem to be. Stop trying to act like you must be right. What if I told you your god is BS? Your bible is BS? YOU are BSing? I could take your bible and burn it and feel no remorse. It's a book. A few thousand year old book and pretty childish to believe in it SO heavily. Start in the beginning with a snake that can talk, then to go on that the entire world was flooded, not to mention "IF ye do this, ye be put to death!" mentioned so often. Religions in general should have been a way to keep good morals in people and put ruler ship above a king, but as you demonstrate, it is now corrupt and not needed. Mankind has advanced enough to figure out on it's own what is moral based on secular law and we all know it works way better. Imagine without religious corruption, no 9/11. no huge wars breaking out, no death over things like two guys wanting marriage, less hatred if a person is this or that way, etc. You can tell me all you want Imma burn in hell. Hah, if it even exists. YOU don't actually know. YOU are guessing just like most believers because that is what they are told since birth. If you think for one second telling me I am a sinner for being queer and that I'll burn in hell will change me, WRONG. It won't. In fact, there is a cute guy next door. I think I may ask him out for tomorrow. And only you to thank. We'll reserve our table at a super gay cafe under your username. And then, we will make out and have a nice big beefy sexual session with only you to thank for the idea. :D I actually want to thank you! I am now super turned on by the thought of it! I think this bible you talk about can help indulge in our foreplay too! We can use the pages as wipes after we are done! :D
LGBTQA+ people should be able to marry and have respect.

I think exactly the point is that you point to the bible for your conclusion. But if the bible did not exist, you would have little reason to say most of what you said. Does the bible not say you should love all people and that god is loving of everyone? You sure don't show it. Also, I feel I may have more experience with the bible you claim to go off of than you do. I was in Yeshiva in Jerusalem for eight months studying TORAH aka the OLD testament, aka, the basis of your biblical rules you go off of. The TORAH would not approve of this kind of insulting language you use. It may have parts against homosexuality, but it seems it's because of the risk of homosexual sex. Also, it doesn't seem to say much about being against lesbians. You have also been reported for your word usage since insults are not part of a valid argument. It is very sad to see the bible which is supposed to have GOOD morals turn you and others into people full of hate. Also, unlike you, I have sources that back up my arguments: https://www.york.cuny.edu... https://www.reuters.com... http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu... http://libguides.usc.edu... https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.livescience.com... https://www.sciencedirect.com...
LGBTQA+ people should be able to marry and have respect.

People that form up the LGBTQA+ representation are like anybody else and should be treated with respect. They are neighbors, friends, and people you may see everyday. Although some may not admit or show it, it is a possibility for anyone anywhere to feel a certain way. The myth that all must have a "nuclear family" is exactly that. A myth. Especially in countries that are considered free, it should not be a problem as it is. There is so much hysteria over who is LGBTQA+ and who isn't and people often try to avoid at all costs to be labeled as part of this and for what? So society approves? Why not change society like many have been trying to for years? Not only this, but even the amount of identifications is laughed at for being quite extensive and is quite idiotic. Nobody would make fun of the alphabet for having so many characters or numbers for being so many. Nobody laughs at the periodic table for the possibility of new elements or mocks scientists who discover another planet. So why when there are different identifications found and discussed do people feel the need to laugh at it? Not only this, but these same people who laugh at it, mock it, and kill people over it are often the same people that claim to love some form of an "all loving G-d" which obviously by their horrid actions, either their vision of god is not true or god just plain sucks and is jerk. Religion MUST be mentioned because it is MAJORLY why so many people are very against LGBTQA+ rights. The whole idea of Adam and Eve along with punishment of homosexuality comes from many religions. Religions obviously cause bias because it is a standard of morality claiming to be right, but there are too many to say which one is. When people are so sure one is right, it shapes all of their viewpoints without them truly considering otherwise and causes bias the entire lifetime unless convinced otherwise. This is a very root cause of anti-LGBTQA+ feelings and must be addressed too.
Should colleges be free

The idea of a free college education sounds great and would be great if it worked. The biggest problem to this theory is the term "free". It may be free to the students, but it is not free for everyone. Someone has to pay the colleges for their expenses. Teachers are not going to work for free and someone has to pay the building costs and maintenance. As we are seeing with "free health care", someone has to split the bill. Maybe some cities or even states can afford to take on this roll in the short run, but the long term costs are going to eventually make this nearly impossible. My first main question to my opponent is: where is this money going to come from? My second argument is that there are programs already available to help with the costs of college. Yes, some of these are loans, which are costly and time many years to pay off, but there are millions of dollars of grant money and scholarships wated each year because people do not apply for them. I am hearing high school councilors say all of the time that there are hundreds of thousands of scholarship money available to any high school senior. The problem is that either they do not know about it or do not go through the process of trying to earn it. I know of one scholarship at our school last year that was worth $2,000 dollars. The person that earned it received it because he was the only one to apply. There are numerous academic scholarships, extracurricular scholarships, and work programs that help with the cost. I am a college graduate who was able to earn my degree with student loans and grants. Yes, I have to pay those loans back, but there are even programs to help with the repayment of loans. Most loan institutions offer a repayment plan based off of your income. This greatly reduces the monthly payment. Many loan companies have loan forgiveness after paying on the loan for a certain number of years. Some places of employment even pay a portion or all of a student loan. Our very own President came from a poor family in Hawaii. Yet he ended up with an Ivy League education, a United States Senator, and eventually President of the United States. Therefore, it CAN be done.
Obama is going to make a bad president

You said, "everyone thinks he is going to get assassinated". Once again, this statement is totally absurd. His inauguration, alone, is expected to draw a crowd of at least 1 million. Obviously those people aren't going there to see him die. In fact, do you think the 66 million Americans who voted for him thought he would be assassinated? I think not. [1] Of course, as with any other "controversial" political figure, there is a chance of him being assassinated. Obama isn't taking his chances, however. He has been placed under full time Secret Service protection, and reportedly, his neighborhood has been turned into the likeness of a fortress. So even if an attempt was made, it is highly unlikely it would be successful. [2] "he beleives in no god when there really is a god" I don't believe this point is at all relevant to the topic and the debate at hand. However, I will attempt to refute it anyway. Apart from the fact that one's religious beliefs have little to do with their moral character, and that the existence of God is highly disputable, Obama does actually believe in God. In fact, he said it himself: "I've been to the same church, the same Christian church, for almost 20 years. I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. " [3] "If Obama dies then we will have Biden as our president and I really dont want that to happen. I think McCain deseved to win beacause he understands what its like in Iraq and Obama does not. " This point is also very irrelevant to the topic, but here goes. Did you know that McCain is 72 years old? Instead of worrying about Obama's assassination, you should consider the fact that the national life expectancy for males in the United States is 75 years. After that, its President Palin. As Matt Damon once said, "It would be like a really bad Disney movie. The Hockey Mom. " [4] Here are some of my sources: [1] . http://news.yahoo.com... [2] . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [3] . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [4] . http://www.foxnews.com...
Muhammad Drawing Contest

A drawing contest!Since the muslim population are lacking pictures and images of their beloved prophet, I decided to draw one for them! Pro and Con will draw the muslim prophet, Muhammad.Whoever drew the best drawing of Muhammad wins!Rules1. No plagarism2. Only add a little description3. No Ks4. You should have your name or your signature somewhere in the drawing.5. Digital drawing and hand drawing are allowed.Structure Round 1 - Con posts her drawingRound 2 - Pro posts his drawing; Con skips this roundGood luck to Emilrose!
Android Is Better Than iOS.

Android is clearly better than iOS, because it has better tampering capabilities, and Google Play charges no tax.Android is clearly better than iOS, because the ability to modify the software is substantially easier. It's not exactly supposed to be modified, but if you were planning on it, there are websites to visit (after getting root). You can install android apps that are root-only on your android phone, run androidOS on an old iPhone, and even install custom ROMs on your android phone. Android is much better than iOS, because you pay for what's advertised. Who doesn't love saving money on a microtransaction? Who loves paying the displayed price? I love to see that I paid $9.99, if the price is $9.99. Google Play Store works like this, whereas the App Store doesn't. Android is clearly better than iOS, because it has better modifications capabilities, and you save money using Google Play Store. This is SOFTWARE ONLY
Android Is Better Than iOS.

Many of your points revolve around Android's greater customization. I actually fully agree with said points, but I don't believe they make the case for Android alone, so I'll look at some other points. iOS does have far fewer variations of phones using it, this much is true. This doesn't spell out any real downside of iOS. On the contrary, iOS is often seen as easier to develop for because there are fewer phones to take into account. In terms of how this effects the number of apps on the individual stores, the app store has approximately 1.2 million apps while the google play store has around 1.4. This may suggest the opposite of what I said about ease of development, but you have to consider the higher scrutiny apps go through to be put on the app store. With this in mind you'd actually expect the difference to be more substantial than it is. Nevertheless, quality is more important, and with the aforementioned app screening process, you can expect more quality apps in the app store.
Android Is Better Than iOS.

1. There are over 100 phones that support android. IOS has one.2. Android has the ability to view Adobe flash player. IOS cannot. 3. IOS has less apps now than are available on android. They tend to be lower quality too. 4. Android phones have the support of Google. Things such as maps, Earth, and the newly released Google Now.5. IOS is too reliant on its own resources. Android supports a wide variety of browsers and interfaces.6. Androids are MUCH more free to customize. An iPhone has to be jail broken to be able to do even the least bit of customizing.These are just a few more points to add as to why Android is better. To touch on the "virus", I see your point about penalizing casual users (the majority), HOWEVER from a developer's standpoint, it's beneficial to be able to have modifiable options. The only people putting their phone in risk, are those potentially doing illegal modifications. (In which case it's well deserved). I was also talking about legal custimization of the phone.