BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The death penalty should be illegal in the united states.

Thanks, Pro, for starting this debate. Here are my opponent's arguments: 1. Putting someone on death row wouldn't accomplish anything. 2. Fear of death does not reduce crime. 3. God said that we shouldn't kill. 4. Some people are wrongly convicted. Pro, if you had any other substantial points, please point them out. The rest of what you wrote just looked like filler. --------- Rebuttal --------- I'll begin by pointing out that what the "Lord" said should be completely irrelevant to this debate. Since we do not live in a theocracy, the laws of the U.S. Constitution should prevail: there is a mandatory separation between Church and State. This completely negates my opponent's third point. That said, I'll concede to the second point that the death penalty not deterring crime. However, that is not the reason that the death penalty is in place. One argument in favor of the death penalty is that people who intentionally and maliciously deprive another of their right to life open themselves up in justice to any proportional punishment. In other words, the answer to your first point is that the death penalty "accomplishes" justice. Regarding your last point, while it's true that some people are wrongly convicted, I'd argue that this is irrelevant as the death penalty should only be utilized in situations where there is a plethora of empirical evidence demonstrating with almost certainty that the defendant is guilty. Since we now have advanced technology and DNA testing in addition to a whole bunch of other crime scene investigation resources, we can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. In the cases where we can, the death penalty should be an option. Remember that this punishment can be reserved for special cases only, or perhaps not even implemented at all (if a judge or jury rules against it). However, keeping it legal means that it will remain viable option; one that I don't think is necessarily wrong. Now that I've dismantled your arguments, I'll provide a few contentions in favor of the Con position. First, utilizing the death penalty can provide a source of comfort or closure to a victim's family. Now I'm not saying that the justice system should be about revenge; however, eliminating the death penalty as an option is seemingly showing more sympathy for the killer than it is for the victim or their families. Moreover, while the death penalty may not work as a deterrent outside of prison walls, it very well serves as a deterrent for prisoners already serving a sentence (usually a life sentence) in jail. And finally, with the death penalty being an option for punishment in a particular law case, it can serve as a useful tool that gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. Many times the killers even confess (shortening the process and saving people a lot of work, time, grief and money) simply because they're scared of potentially receiving the death penalty. With that said, I'll send the debate back over to my opponent for now.
The death penalty should be illegal in the united states.

1. My opponent concedes the first argument. 2. Pro herself says, "My opponent asked if I think that justice is better served by implementing the death penalty and my answer is yes." This looks to me like Pro has conceded the 2nd point as well; the death penalty is the best way of achieving justice. She then continues to post random arguments about our allies in the so-called War on Terror and geographic disparities regarding the DP. These points are completely irrelevant. 3. Pro points out that over 95% of death penalty cases have made rightful convictions. That is more than non-death penalty convictions, which have over a 12% rate of being wrong [1]. Do we stop other processes of the justice system because they can be wrong 10 or more percent of the time? No, we press on knowing that we're aiming for the greater good. The same logic must be applied to the death penalty, because with increasing technology including DNA validation and updates, that figure of being 5 wrong in death penalty cases can, will and has decreased. 4. I said that only a handful of people die from the DP each yet. Pro then said that "several" people die each year... and then made a snide remark about me being wrong, when meanwhile, these approximate figures match up exactly Fail. Regarding waiting 20 years to be sentenced to death, I've already answered Pro's question. You cannot let a convicted murderer roam the streets free on the basis that the verdict might have been wrong. If that were the case, the entire justice system would fall apart for every crime. We have to trust our system and continuously improve it. 5. Pro concedes to my argument. 6. Yes, I think that's irrelevant. No, I don't think the DP has anything to do with the fail justice system. 7. Pro says, "So in some way you have to either pick a side of supporting the death of the killer or leaving them be." Yes. I say to "leave them be" would not only be immoral but dangerous to society. 8. Uh, Pro concedes? 9. Once again, killing a convicted felon achieves justice. Their right to life is only being infringed upon aftre that made a conscious and malicious decision to take the life of another. [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Should Abortion Be Outlawed

Abortion is the legal killing of babies. Defenseless in the womb, the unborn children are ripped and burned to shreds and thrown in the trash. Their unique set of genes is completely wasted and destroyed for the parents' convenience. Almost every scientist in the field will tell you that life begins at conception, and ending the potential for life is just as bad as ending it after the potential person has been moved from the uterus to the hands of the doctor. If necessary I intend to provide as much proof as wanted to prove that when you abort a baby, you are killing a life and ending an opportunity to live.
Should Women Participate in Wars

For my closing argument I'll keep it short and to the point for the voters. My opponents main argument today is that... It just isn't right for women to fight. She hasn't provided us with any logical, and sensible reasons why women shouldn't fight. However, I've brought before you some common sense reasons: it's equal rights, women want that right to join the army, women are just as capable, and it increases manpower. My opponent brought up that I degraded men with my source as it shows some men are too weak to fight... However, that isn't degrading as it is true, some men are just too weak to fight. Then my opponent brought up business and hiring races, for one that has nothing to do with this argument as this is about gender fighting in the military. So therefore her point on that was invalid. So for my last words, whereas my opponent failed to bring good reasons for her argument to the table, and that I provided common sense answers, and whereas her examples such as nazi germany are just horrible. I urge a vote in affirmation.
Should Women Participate in Wars

The point I was trying to make is that defeating a tyrant/bully by increasing the number of people participating in war through allowing women to take part, does not make it right, even if you believe your own country is somehow better. Imagine Nazi Germany trained women and let them fight alongside men, and settled for Europe having won, would you still think that women should participate in war? I have not said Hitler or Nazi Germany were good, nor do I believe dictatorships are a good thing. However Nazi Germany was probably not as bad as we are led to believe, see Hitler did not want women to participate in war (why I brought him into this), he wanted women to serve his country by being good mothers, and encouraged planned births - stable families, and a healthy lifestyle. These are good things regardless of whether it can increase the size and strength of a dictator's army. You say 'times have changed' and label me a sexist simply because I oppose certain freedoms for the betterment of mankind. Your "argument" is just manipulative language. Women participating in war has inevitably led to women voting, and the lives we live today. If people are equal now, and equal in race and gender why is it that businesses must employ a certain balance of males, females, black and white people, old and young. Suppose 80% of job applicants just happen to have black skin, that means people will be turned down for a job because of their skin colour. Do you think that is right? I am forced to turn my attention to his source where his ideas have come from. "There are physically fit, tough women who are suitable for combat, and weak, feeble men who are not" This is evidence of men being degraded. There is more to being a soldier than being fit and being able to shoot people. You must be willing to sacrifice yourself for a cause, and I don't see why any women would because their goal is to be emotionally happy. If a grenade fell nearby to a woman and a man, do you think a woman would jump on it to save the man or point it out? If a female soldier was captured, would she accept torture? "The next battles for female soldiers will be ensuring that this policy is implemented effectively, stamping out any remaining sexist attitudes, and fighting to ensure that the military addresses its outstanding sexual violence problem" So, basically if you think women shouldn't participate in wars you are automatically sexist.
Should Women Participate in Wars

I would like all voters to take note of my opponents comment on how Nazi Germany was actually not that bad since Hitler wanted woman to be good mothers. My entires opponents argument is all based off of his or her biased and sexist ideas. 1. This isn't the 20th century anymore, all people are now equal in race and gender. The points my opponent brought up are old ideology, however, women are very capable of performing the duties as men and as equals it is their duty as well. This kind of thinking that men are superior to woman is no longer prevalent to today's society as we are realizing we were in the wrong back then. 2. Majority of Americans agree that woman should fight in combat roles. People in both parties and all walks of life agree. Woman should serve and most importantly be able to fight for their country. If majority of Americans agree then it shows that our society has changed. 3. Hitler was sexist Hitler wanted women to just be mothers and not participate in war cause simply he was sexist. He believed men were superior to woman in all respects and wanted woman to stay in the kitchen. My opponents only arguments are that of sexist aliens ever coming to earth and that hitlers germany wasn't that bad... Sources: http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
Should Women Participate in Wars

If women were found to have taken part in a war these aliens would think: a) Humans are weak/desperate and therefore the war is winnable b) Humans deserve to die. The above is only hypothetical, and is merely to show we are heading in the wrong direction. In European countries I understand that in WW2, women played a big role in the war effort against Nazi Germany by making bombs etc, and according to history books Hitler was perhaps the most evil man ever to be born. But does that mean women should participate in wars? I don't believe so. Asking, or forcing women to fight or to make weapons that will kill people is plain and simply WRONG; it is like beating a bully by becoming a bigger bully, it doesn't solve anything, it just makes things worse. We are led to believe things would have been worse if Hitler won WW2. However history is biased, the victor will always seem better. Hitler wanted women in Nazi Germany to be good mothers, and to bring up children at home while fathers work. It is possible there was a hidden agenda [1]. There is however no doubt that the door to feminism has been opened as a result of allowing women to participate in war and that men have become degraded and will probably continue to be. No man should have to kill a woman. What can women gain by becoming a target? Sources: . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
A just society ought NOT use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Unfortunately, my opponent has not shown up for Round 2. If you check my profile, you will see I am against the death penalty. However, just because I am against its actual use, does not mean that I think it could NEVER be morally justified. This is the point I am arguing. Not whether the death penalty should be done away with in the U.S., but under any circumstances could a single use of the death penalty be morally justified? I have argued that yes, it could be. "What if a man has raped and murdered dozens of children. He admits to the crime. DNA evidence proves beyond any doubt that he is the killer. In fact, he even filmed the crimes and posted them on YouTube. The victims' families universally want him to be put to death. And because he is so sickened by himself, the perpetrator wants to be put to death too. You say that capital punishment is NEVER justified. What about in this case?"
A just society ought NOT use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

The thesis of your position is at the end of paragraph 4, "the death penalty is NEVER morally justified." This is the point that I will argue against. First, you say "the death penalty is universally immoral and unjust." For one, this is not true. Many cultures accept the death penalty as moral and just. There is simply no truth to your claim of universal immorality. In fact, more cultures encompassing more people of the world view the death penalty as moral and just than cultures and people who do not. This does not make the death penalty moral or just, but it does discredit your claim of universality. Your sub-point A is akin to Cultural Imperialism. We, as individuals, may believe the values of a given culture to be moral and just, or immoral and unjust. But that only proves our individuality. We all have different and unique values. Again, this does not prove which values are right and which are wrong. Furthermore, just because some legal systems impose the death penalty for what most Americans would consider minor offenses does not in any way support your thesis that the death penalty is NEVER justified. "The death penalty is irreversible and kills the innocent." This is a fact, for sure. But it does nothing to prove your contention that the death penalty is NEVER morally justifiable. You say the death penalty confers "no benefits over life imprisonment." Here are two: 1) No potential for recidivism. If a killer is put to death, then he cannot kill again. A prisoner in prison for life may escape, or he may kill other inmates or guards. 2) Is there not benefit in the mental satisfaction of the victim's families? If the victim's family would gain satisfaction from the execution, this does NOT make it right -- but it does imply a benefit. Similarly, other victims' families may derive a benefit from life imprisonment, but your point is that capital punishment is NEVER morally justified, because it NEVER confers benefit over life imprisonment, and this is just not true. Again, the problem of your argument lies in its absolutist nature. It is leading you to make several irrational and false claims. I will leave you with this: What if a man has raped and murdered dozens of children. He admits to the crime. DNA evidence proves beyond any doubt that he is the killer. In fact, he even filmed the crimes and posted them on YouTube. The victims' families universally want him to be put to death. And because he is so sickened by himself, the perpetrator wants to be put to death too. You say that capital punishment is NEVER justified. What about in this case?
The war in Georgia

Greetings my esteemed Monster, and thank you for your timely response. I apologize for my tardiness as I am rather busy. But I hope to do better in the future. Let us begin shall we? In your first argument, you say that Russia would be willing to "go out with a bang." My first argument here is that this is unwaranted. My second argument here is...WHY THE H*** WOULD RUSSIA GO TO WAR KNOWING THEY WOULD LOSE? Simple answer...THEY WOULDN"T. Russia knows that they would lose and they wouldn't go to war to lose. There are two warrants to this argument: 1. Everyone likes to live. 2. History proves. During the Cold War, Russia never attacked us because they knew that we had more nukes, they knew they would lose. If they didn't do it twenty years ago, there's no reason they would do it now. Not only that, but the international community would immediately side with us as I've already talked about. You forget to talk about how the international community would side with us, and that's pretty crucial. Now, bringing up my training statement. You missed what I was talking about. It's not that they were just training. They were training for an invasion. The exact invasion that they made into Georgian territory. It was quite literally a rehearsal for invasion. They went over the strategy they would need to do the invasion into Georgia. This is BEFORE they were involved. That means that was their intention before helping South Ossetia out. You say that they can't be expected to play by the rules right off the bat. I'm saying that when someone doesn't play by the rules, they should get punished for it. The analogy that you gave doesn't really apply here. Russia isn't an ADHD country that accidentally invaded Georgia because they weren't on their pill. They thought it out, practiced it, and performed it. A better analogy would be of a murderer that has blueprints on how to blow up a house, practices with explosives, and then demolishes a house while the family inside is sleeping. To just say "bad boy, don't do it again." is absurd. That man needs to be punished just like Russia needs to as well. They need to know that kind of attitude will not be allowed mr. Without troops this won't happen. I've already told you how this is true, and you haven't argued that as well. Next you say that we didn't stop Russia from taking afghanistan or any other countries. Well, we did help afghanistan beat Russia out. So that is just as good in my opinion. As for the other countries, they were communist to begin with, they just kind of absolved into russia and formed the USSR. Now let me bring up another scenario from the past. After Hitler comes into power, he quickly invades this little no name country outside of France. Britain, France and the other world powers give him nothing but a slap on the wrist. Hitler then uses this and invades france and quickly takes it. The result...the largest war this world has ever known. Russia has just invaded the small no name country. You said you don't want another world war...then send troops into Russia before it escalates.
The war in Georgia

Greetings! Thank you for taking my debate. Okay, first off, I want to correct you. I would like to say that Russia can not beat the US at its own game (and by that I mean bullying people around.) I know we have more nukes. I know we have more everything. I know we could beat them. That does NOT in ANY way mean that they can't do damage to us. imagine if they got a nuke to Chicago, san fran, la, new york, or something. just ONE of these cities would SERIOUSLY damage the U.S.s already bad economy, and also halt a good part of our military production, if they were tactical and precise. I know we could beat them. We could beat there damn a**, but it doesn't mean they can't hurt us. Even so, if I were the prime minister or president or whatever the heck they have over there, I would do as much damage to the USA as I could for the exact reason that you and I can both agree on... They'd beat Russia into an alternate dimension! Might as well go out with a bang, eh (pun intended :P)? Now, bringing up your training statement Yes, the Russians were training there military. They were training for modern warfare. So were the georgians, so are the insurgents in Iraq, and so is almost every country on planet earth. its the new thing, and with this war, with the war in the middle east, and with tensions and nuclear bombs, you'd be an idiot not to. Now-- By interfering I mean sending a military presence. Why can't we do something else? Its only been a couple weeks. Honestly, to me its similar to my situation, which is-- I am severely ADHD..... People think that i can go 2 months of free, no pill, then go back to school and SNAP I am going to behave perfectly, and cause no trouble. Same with Russia. They haven't had this kind of action for a LONG time. They can't be expected to play by the rules right off the bat, now can you? I say, we be persistent, send WEAPONS like we did in Afghanistan (which brings up my next point) and push them harder and harder, and also meet face to face with the russian government and military leaders. My next point we didn't stop the Soviet Union from taking Afghanistan. we didn't stop them from taking any other country either! If it gets out of hand, like over expansion and a repeat of the cold war, then by hell send military units. But I just don't think we can afford to send them just yet. I feel like I missed a couple of my points, but I'm not sure... Good luck!
The war in Georgia

I don't have much time to write this (sleeping pill is starting), so I'll start off-- I am completely against interfering in the war in Georgia. I believe that they should pay for what they did. To my knowledge, they attacked South Ossetia, who is somehow tied to Russia. Russia attacks Georgia, for the combo of Russia pretty much being bombarded with extreme western influence. They did go a bit overboard with it, and I think its justified. they are telling the west that we needn't mess with them. I, for one, completely agree. I don't want another WW on our hands. Besides, if America DID interfere, and send troops, we'd be completely screwed with the combo of all the peace keepers in the U.S., the war in the middle east (and I know you will challenge me on this, but I would say that having troops all over and in ever country of the middle east pretty much, even if its not an official war, is war and war peacekeeping.) and then Russia would be a wakeup call, they have nukes, they have cruise missiles, they have the technology to destroy us. the middle east can't hurt us. RUSSIA CAN. We don't have to interfere to keep an eye on them, so George Bush, there are these new things called Satellites. If you want to use the upkeep cost, then use them.