BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

To continue: 1. My opponent holds the belief that one good crime deserves another. This means that my opponent holds the belief that murder deserves murder; murder is the act of killing. Do any of us deserve to die? The simple answer is no. No one walking the Earth today deserves, no matter how heinous their acts may be, to be killed for a crime. Why killing that person makes us just as bad as the person we are trying to punish. Two wrongs don't make a right. And plus, killing the accused murder will not bring back a victim. It's blood spewed for a cause that only amounts for more blood. 2. Actually (according to the 2007 Guinness Book of World Records) India is the world's most murderous country with an average 37,170 murders a year. That's more than the population of my home town! And it's not about how many murders actually occur, its about the question of does Capital Punishment have any effect on crime? In my home state we implemented the death penalty in 1989. Since then, murders in the state of Mississippi have tripled from 9.8 in 100,000 to 30.1 per 100,000. You accused the blood of being on my hands. Our tax dollars pay for capital punishments, so isn't the blood of those who are executed on our hands? 3. You dodged that bullet very nicely. However, it will not fool me. I'm not saying what I want, I'm asking "What are the boundaries of our government"? Government is just a group of people, people just like us, do they have the right to kill. You also made the point that more than half the population supports Capital Punishment. First, I'd like to see some raw data on that; and second this is a common none fallacy. Just because the plurality of the population thinks a certain way, that does not make their thinking right. If society wanted to kill everybody over the age of sixty because they burdened our health care system, that certainly wouldn't be right. Also, how do we know that the person we are executing is the real killer. There are hundreds of cases of people being released from death row after new evidence was found that proved their innocence. I wonder how many didn't get that miraculous evidence that saved their lives?
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

Let me begin with my deconstruction; 1. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, but this is an inaccurate, oversimplified adage for the situation. I would argue a more fitting phrase would be; one good crime deserves another. I'm being facetious, of course, because it is common knowledge that there is nothing criminal about capital punishment. If it is so, would my opponent support jailing the executioners, judges, juries and prosecution attorneys that put the prisoner in the situation? Surely not. My opponent further argues for the rights of the prisoners, yet this is inherently hypocritical. If the person in question killed another and took away the victim's rights, why should their's be preserved? That person knew the ramifications of their actions and chose to waive their ownership of their rights. To use another adage; they made their bed and now they must sleep in it. 2. Well I was under the impression that such reasoning is evident; we, as a society, have determined that a certain level of killing is acceptable. There are several reasons for this. One is that we, as taxpayers, refuse to pay to accommodate these despicable people. Secondly; these hardened criminals present a danger to the less violent criminals in the prison. Capital punishment absolutely helps to reduce the levels of violence found within the prisons. And what if some of these deranged killers were to escape? The blood would be on -your- hands, sir. Furthermore, my opponent can apparently not tell the difference between correlation and causation. You are looking at only one variable in the equation. You have not told us how many of those crimes were second degree (therefore not a capital crime), which were first degree (rarely capital) and which were especially violent, heinous or involved more than one victim (more commonly capital crimes.) But to refute your inferences, let's look at other countries that execute large amounts of criminals (U.S, India, Indonesia, Iran, China) and compare their murder rates with other countries: India - 3.4 murders per 100,000 people Iran - 2.9 murders per 100,000 people China - 2.3 murders per 100,000 people Indonesia - 1 murder per 100,000 people These are all very mild numbers, and I would consider myself safe in these countries. 3. It is irrelevant what you want, it only matters what the collective wants. If more than half of the population are in support of capital punishment, it should continue.
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

Alright let's get started. I hear your from Canada, they don't have Capital Punishment up there. But that is irrelevant. Capital punishment is wrong when it comes to murder. I will be reinforcing these main points in my later argument... 1-Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you've been convicted of killing somebody; it doesn't make you any less of a person. Since you are still a person, you have the same rights that a person has: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To deny you of your right to live is a violation of your legal and moral rights. 2-Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong? In the United States, the use of capital punishment has not help reduce the amount of homicides that occur per year, in fact they are on the rise. (I gained that information from the FBI). 3-My government is suppose to represent me. I would never kill anybody. Therefore, how can my government (which is suppose to represent me) kill a person. Government's just a group of people; a group of people who have just as many rights as the rest of us. And we do not have the right to kill.
Immortality would be a desirable thing

Resolved: An individual choosing to become immortal would be a desirable thing.This is a debate about whether or not it would be a wise choice for an individual to choose to be immortal. My side is contrary to my true position, but I thought of interesting in somewhat eccentric arguments for Pro. No semantics on the word "desirable" please. We all know what it means. attempting to win by twsting the defintion of desirable will result in a forfiet of all 7 points. Immortality: Someone who is immortal lives forever (or, to the heat-death of the universe) and cannot die. They cannot suffer any fatal illness. They cannot suffer any major injury. They cannot age. Basically, anything that would cause severe permanent damage won't happen. But, they cannot give their immortality up. They are unable to die until the heat-death of the universe, even if they wanted to.[1] 1. http://www.debate.org...
"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is more Educational than any Video Game Advertised to be Educational

Pro has continually demanded a educational game and be advertised as such to be presented, so i will try and appease him. Peacemaker(1) is a geo-political simulation of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is marketed as a "serious" game, a sub genre of educational game(2). It fits my presented definition of a educational game that I will cite now due to his displeasure with a lack of appropriate source(2). Peacemaker's benefits may not include healthy eating habits as in GTA SA,but it does help the user develop better critical thinking skills in Problem/solution type format. Its educational content is also not hidden behind a game that was designed with no educational purpose in mind, it i right up front. In the game the player takes on the role of either the Israeli prime minister or the president of the Palestinian authority and is required to solve the conflict using the two state solution, something which no real-world diplomat has been able to do to date. Despite the near impossible goal, the game makes allowances so the factions appear more agreeable with varying levels of difficulty. The player once in his given role is in almost complete control of his countries government and is supposed to use all available resources to reach this goal. The game teaches many things, from the aforementioned critical thinking skills to other benefits like being diplomatic and making compromises. it also exposes the player to real world politics and contemporary international issues. I will once again try and correct Pro as he seems to be under the false impression that you can complete the game without killing anyone, this is wrong. I have personally played and completed the game several times, he seems to not understand what "complete" means. 100% completion requires the player to do all of the missions in the game, even the car theft mini game, not to mention all the missions, most of which require the player to involve himself in illegal activity. I reaffirm that it is impossible to attain 100% completion without committing any crimes, so pro is wrong in his assumption that you can complete the game without committing a crime. For my closing arguments I will say directly to Pro, that the voters will decide if the game I present has any educational value that exceeds that of GTA SA, you cannot contend with my choice because you stated "any" game that was marketed as educational could be used. And finally I hate to be frank and informal with you, but the game is called "grand theft auto", a crime is depicted in the title, even if by some chance you could complete the game without committing a crime(which you cant), the game already presents its self as a crime-simulator. (1) http://www.peacemakergame.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is more Educational than any Video Game Advertised to be Educational

My opponent seems to nonchalantly assume that the game forces the player to become associated with the in-game elements that appear malevolent, such as the violence and prostitution. However, it should be noted that the game does not force its players to use violence, steal, have sex with prostitutes, hijack a car, or fire weapons. (1) In fact, the entire game can be completed without doing any of these things. (2) The player simply begins the game on a bike, and from there, the player is free to do as he/she pleases. If the player's moral compass leads them to murder, they can not blame the game, for they chose their own actions. And with an adult helping them play, they can confront them about morally objectionable things the player has done, and ask them why they choose that action, allowing for bonding between the player and the adult. (3) (4) This also allows the adult to get to better understand the child on a psychological level, which in turn, allows the child to prosper. (4) My opponent appears to contradict himself, he states early in his argument that my examples are good lessons for children to learn, while later in his argument, he denies that, and states that these lessons are only educational for those who aspire to be a career criminal. I ask my opponent, are the lessons I previously listed in round one beneficial for those who do not aspire to be career criminals? If the answer is no, I ask for him to justify how could a person who doesn't aspire to be a career criminal not benefit from these lessons. My opponent states that "The Sims" is more educational than Grand Theft Auto. First off, I must ask my opponent to relate this game to the resolution. Has The Sims been advertised as an educational video game? Was it designed to be educational? If it has been for either of later, what about the game is more educational then GTA SA? If it is not related to the resolution, can my opponent find another game that relates to the resolution and is more educational than GTA SA? (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.gamefaqs.com... (3) http://www.thecutekid.com... (4) http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com...
"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is more Educational than any Video Game Advertised to be Educational

I would like to first say that all the reasons my opponent stated are good lessons for children to learn, but the game does not simply end with good eating habits and a stay away from drugs message. The game also incorporates and encourages the use of vigilantly violence, disrespect for law enforcement officers, use of weapons, gang affiliation, prostitution, stealing, and a myriad of other less then beneficial lessons. I myself am a proponent of the games industry, but i would be ling to myself if I said that GTA SA is more educational then say "the Sims" or another real-world simulator. What I will say about GTA games in general is that they are fun and they do no adverse damage to children, but by no stretch of the imagination are they "educational" for anyone besides someone who aspires to be a career criminal
This statement shows a lacking in character of a person.

I apologize, I am writing this on my phone because I am out of town. I will have to make this short. my opponent has not really made a proper argument. He merely assumes as a premise that someone of character would believe that some people such as starving children deserve something. However, the statement has little to do with a person's actual character. It is a philisophic statement. One may believe that no one deserves anything, yet believe that they should give to others regardless of what they deserve. A person can still believe it is right to save jews and feed the hungry. That person shows what we would consider good character. Lastly, the voting is not dependemt on whether you believe a starving child deserves food, but rather who presents the best arguments and so forth. Since pro has failed to uphold his burden, I feel I should win this debate. He has not really made any argument at all to be fair.
This statement shows a lacking in character of a person.

"The fact is, none of us deserve anything, including the children in Africa or the Jews in the Holocaust." I would say anyone of character would agree with the people who raise money for the starving children of africa that they deserve to have food. I would say that a person of character would agree with the allies that the Jews needed to be saved. This statement clearly says the opposite. They did not deserve any of this. Yes this statement was meant that way and is not being taken out of context. My argument is simple a person of character would say that the children deserve food and the jews deserved saving, this quote says the opposite. As long as you the reader believes that a person of character should think they deserve these things then you must vote for me as this quote contradicts the things you believe a person of character would think.
This statement shows a lacking in character of a person.

I am left unsure of my opponent's position in this debate. My opponent mus show that by stating, "The fact is, none of us deserve anything, including the children in Africa or the Jews in the Holocaust," a person shows a lack of character. My opponent argues that the previously mentioned statement entails that "everyone is deserving of everything" yet he has failed to show why. In fact, the statement suggests the opposite, that no one is deserving of anything. Either my opponent has derived his argument from a extreme use of semantics or we are both unsure of our positions in this debate. I will accept his assumptions on morality; I wouldn't have said it like he did, but I agree with him more or less. Right and wrong are concepts understood by generally everyone. However, my opponent's argument fails as far as I can tell, unless I am missing some key point. The statement never insisted that everyone is deserving of everything. Also, he never developed the argument so much to say, "thus, this person shows a lack of character." That is what Pro's argument must achieve, and it failed to do so. Given that Pro has the Burden of Proof, I will leave round 2 at that, and I will await his next response.
This statement shows a lacking in character of a person.

The first thing to say is I am not going to explain why the holocaust and child starvation are wrong. If you don't grasp that concept please don't vote as you are too ignorant to vote. Now lets begin by going over what this statement entails: If everyone is deserving of everything. Then every crime is deserved. Deserved means : to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital http://www.merriam-webster.com... Then it is morally right to kill someone as they were fit to be murdered. There is no way to differentiate between right and wrong because every action is right. Now if I really have to explain why these things are wrong, my opponent can take the debate because I don't want idiots to vote for me anyway.
Objective Morality

Look I`m sorry if I came off to harsh and i did not do well in school either i lost interest dropped out and got my GED and am now in my studies to become a nurse. Look i`m not going to pretend i know what its fully like to have the afflictions you have if you do indeed have them aside from that My own personal view aside from morality My hope for humanity considering you seem to be interested in that is that we leave primitive superstition in the past as a relic of humanity that we instead focus our ingenious and science to through the use of technology can achieve a level of power and comfort never before experienced and spread all over the galaxy I do hope we dont get wiped out or kill ourselves in the mean time
Objective Morality

"Since my theorem is based on absolute terms, I know I am right. Thus anyone who argues against is already wrong before the debate has begun." Yea and i`m the one with the ego. I am not the one claimed to have developed my own theory that is perfect. "Off topic, do you think can lose that ego enough to answer, "If there was a chance to unite the world in a common goal to save itself, would you deny it because you're adamant on keeping a pessimistic view on life?" In addition to, "Is it better to live in a world of love than hate?" Don't worry, not all can be that brave." Ok the first half of what you said about a common goal for Humanity well it depends on what that goal is if its something i disagree with on every level then No. As for "is it better to live in a world of Love than hate" Sure i guess but that depends heavily on what you see as Love me and you could have very different ideas of what that is And Lastly "Don't worry, not all can be that brave." how has any of this been brave we are typing on Key boards in an online debate site Lets not act like a Keyboard warrior
Objective Morality

>>>I did not say morality should be subjective it just is morality differs person to person. I am arguing that I am pro/for "Objective Morality". You, my opponent, are arguing con/against "Objective Morality" or in other words, for subjective morality. I was implying you didn't argue your position. But you foolishly argued a statement that was objective and now your ego is bruised. >>>What part of my original post was denying logic.... Since my theorem is based on absolute terms, I know I am right. Thus anyone who argues against is already wrong before the debate has begun. Since my argument is truly objective, yours must be subjective. Your first argument was an objective statement to YOU. But since you are subjective for arguing, the statement itself was formed by bias, yours or the worlds. It appears you have denied the logic of your bias long ago. So I ask again, " if you're as subjective as the morality in which you defend, then how can you ever be right?" Off topic, do you think can lose that ego enough to answer, "If there was a chance to unite the world in a common goal to save itself, would you deny it because you're adamant on keeping a pessimistic view on life?" In addition to, "Is it better to live in a world of love than hate?" Don't worry, not all can be that brave.
Objective Morality

Look you say " If there was a chance to unite the world in a common goal to save itself, would you deny it because you're adamant on keeping a pessimistic view on life?" What does this have to do with subjective and Objective Morality My personal pessimistic or optimistic views are irreverent. Then you go on to say "You show no evidence of why it should be subjective. Is it better to live in a world of love than hate? " This is meaningless I did not say morality should be subjective it just is morality differs person to person. Then lastly " I know these are subjective answers, but you gave a subjective response which clearly means that you're denying logic. If you're denying logic then you are subjective. And if you're as subjective as the morality in which you defend, then how can you ever be right?" What part of my original post was denying logic as far as I`m concerned your entire post has been nothing but ramblings of a pseudo intellectual with hints of autism Sorry for anyone else having to read this i know my grammar is Trash and i`m not being very civil but if all of the replies are going to be these meaningless ramblings then no thank you
Objective Morality

It no longer has to be subjective. We can find meaning in this life. Admittedly even though I'm right, I'm still not done. Let me ask you this. If there was a chance to unite the world in a common goal to save itself, would you deny it because you're adamant on keeping a pessimistic view on life? You show no evidence of why it should be subjective. Is it better to live in a world of love than hate? I know these are subjective answers, but you gave a subjective response which clearly means that you're denying logic. If you're denying logic then you are subjective. And if you're as subjective as the morality in which you defend, then how can you ever be right?
Objective Morality

Bottom line I just want Humanity to endure for as long as we can even if that is done through trans humanism or genetic engineering and yes I do understand that if humans had the emotions of the Vulcan's we would most likely be more advanced and have a better chance at survival but unfortunately humans are very emotional irrational creatures so we have to work with what we got and hey maybe one day we will create AI that is cold and calculating enough to help us along