BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools shouldn't be able to ban books from their librarys

If children are truly interested in something, They will find ways to access it, And even if this content contains violence/hatred, This does not necessarily mean that the child will be violent/hateful. We have no right to stop them from reading anything they have an interest in. Young children will often be too intimidated by seniors to interact with them, And the seniors should be able to understand not to get the books out for them if they truly see a problem. While some books may appear appropriate for children and are not, If the school was actually concerned enough to put a system in place, They would be sure to check the books carefully. Reading is incredibly important to help build a strong vocabulary, Reading things you're interested in can potentially help give you vital knowledge regarding the field of work you may enter later in life. Therefore if children are able to access these things it may lead to them getting greater quality of work through adulthood
Schools shouldn't be able to ban books from their librarys

Thanks for this counter. I'd like to state that more often than not, Children are "interested" in content that contains violence or hate. The teachers of a school may contact the parents of a child upon discovering that said child has successfully fed themselves such information and yet the damage is already done. I don't see any method other than brainwashing to get rid of such information. Point #2. If these restrictions are not enforced correctly, Young children will still get past them or use their seniors to get books that are inappropriate for their own age. Point #3. Some books may appear to be for kids but have inappropriate content. The school may not be able to see through this and thus, Young children can still access such content. Look forward to R3. Thanks, K. A. Petros
Schools shouldn't be able to ban books from their librarys

Restrictions should be put in place regarding the exposure younger children have, To prevent them from unintentionally finding content innapropriate to them, However if they have a legitimate interest in the topic of the book, They should not be unable to read them. If there is genuine concern teachers have the ability to contact their guardians. Some books do spread misinformation and if managed correctly teachers can make students aware of this so they know that the information they are consuming is false. Reading is a vital part of growing up, And children are much more likely to read things they are interested in. Not giving them the ability to do this in a place designed for education seems absurd
Schools shouldn't be able to ban books from their librarys

Good luck to you. Here is my argument, Then. 1. Kids from lower grades are exposed to content way above their age level. 2. Some books openly spread inappropriate messages, Or have false information. 3. Regarding Argument #2, These books are considered as gospel by students which leaves them misinformed. 4. The issue of such books to children may lead to children getting some information which they should only be getting from higher-grade textbooks. 5. This may lead to the pollution of the minds of children who are carried away by these things.
Gambling age limit should be reduced to 15-16

Forfeit. Give me a point for that folks. To conclude, gambling age limit should be reduced as children will be able to gamble better than adults due to no access to alcohol, inability to earn money and that parent supervision will be there anyways. Anyways, when online gambling age limit is 13 (Casino games on facebook) why not let it drop to 15 in real life? I know its virtual money online, but still, some children buy chips and play it properly. And I play cards with my friends with money despite being under 18, shouldn't I be allowed to enter the casino?
Gambling age limit should be reduced to 15-16

You said a lot of petty crimes such as theft are commonly done by late teens. I would like to certainly see the evidence of that. Also, you said they can get access to alcohol, which doesn't make sense as we are not lowering the age limit for gambling, not for alcohol. Value for money has often been taught to many children. Most common children know how much they have to fight for that little pocket money, and I am sure they would not waste only of it that quickly. And adults are usually the ones who have no value for money, as they know they can earn it back, but children know once their money is gone it will take a lot of pleading to get it back. Plus, while there is the spoiled rich kid scenario, the same case is with the adults. Many people have gone broke due to gambling their entire income away. Also, it is more than likely that in the end it will be the parent's choice whether to send his/her child to the casino and how much money he/she takes, so they would only let the child gamble if the trust his/her decision-making skills and intelligence.
Gambling age limit should be reduced to 15-16

Heya lord_megatron, To start this off, I'm not going to say that pre-adults don't know the value of money as it's quite obvious for most of them. They generally don't have to go to work around 39 hours a week to make a living and still struggle with spending and surviving. And so, they value it less as they didn't earn it. But more importantly... Their brains aren't as developed as an adult's and neither is their maturity for the most part. A lot of petty crimes such as theft are commonly done by people in their late teens. They do foolish things that, while most of the time are small, giving a 15 year old access to gambling? They'll likely not be working at that age and will take some from their parent(s)/guardian(s) thinking they'll (the teen) will make it back and return it. If they did have a source of income and squandered it on gambling, there would be no point in them working. And they can also get their hands on alcohol and spend everything, not just adults. Note: Not all teens are like this, but it certainly wouldn't be wise to give 15 year olds the rights to gamble. Good luck!
Gambling age limit should be reduced to 15-16

For those of you who say children don't know the value of money, you are wrong. Many adults don't value money, and under influence of drink they may go bankrupt. Children aren't allowed to drink which may make them more efficient gamblers. They also have a more intuitive mind. I am a child and I play pretty good poker, better than some of my adults. And I haven't lost anything too crushing. Money is on a short supply as it is.
Communism is worse than Fascism.

Most everyone knows the word Fascism, and those who aligned with it. From the Nazis to the Fascist state of Mussolini's Italy, Fascism's rise to popularity in the early 20th century spelled doom for millions, there's no question about that. Communism on the other hand is the opposite extreme of Fascism. The government completely controlled industry, distributed and redistributed wealth to maintain equality of outcome, and made private property non-existent. What sets communism as the greater of 2 extremist evils? The primary facts that show this difference can be split into 3 main groups: 1. The cumulative death toll of each, and how each killed their victims 2. Economic functionality and the standard of living for those not being persecuted but who live under each system 3. Cultural influence of each and the threat of its ideas spreading As per the structure of this debate, I will go into more detail on these 3 primary factors that point to the conclusion of Communism being and having been more severe a threat to society than Fascism.
Communism is worse than Fascism.

I will be arguing in favor of the statement that Communism is worse than Fascism. My opponent will Argue that Fascism is worse than Communism. Round 1 = Accept. Round 2 = Opening statements Round 3 = Supporting arguments Round 4 = Rebuttal of opponent's supporting arguments Round 5= Closing statements. Rules: > No arguments Round 1. > No Ad Hominem arguments > All sources required for evidence collected. > All arguments are to be made using the CER formula (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning). > Breaking rules means automatic debate forfeiture. Definitions: Fascism: a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
The U.S media covers up black on white crime and over reports white or "white" on black crime.

I should have said it more clearly. Millions of people would watch a news story about a baby shot in the face or a man who killed a marine and his pregnant wife. People love drama. The Casey Anthony trial was big news and so was the johnbenet Ramsey case. I have problems with the leftist and conservative media. The leftist media race baits and appears to be run by people who hate whites and the right wing media spreads Islamophobia and anti gay feelings. I know each news station will only tell stories that fit their agenda. I didn't see anyone on national news discussing beat whitey night. Black mob attacks on white people happen hundreds of times a year. 500 of these events are documented in white girl bleed a lot by Colin Flaherty. Just search "teens attack Memphis Walmart" it was in September. Look up Chris lanes killer racist tweets. There are pictures of his account and the tweets he sent out. You do seem to understand that black on white crime is more common than white on black crime.
The U.S media covers up black on white crime and over reports white or "white" on black crime.

Thanks you for debating me. I see you don't deny that black on white crime is more common than white on black crime and that the media hardly reports black on white crime. You also don't deny that events that can be used to push political agendas like gun control will be reported on more. Many of the cases I named are very brutal and would be read about by many. Millions would watch a story about a baby shot in the face or a marine and his pregnant wife killed because the killer was a minority and wanted to take out his frustration on them. If people care about a kid who was suspended for vandalism and was caught with burglary tools they'll care about the 14 year old stabbed to death in her Chicago home. But they don't. Most pepper don't know. The leftist media also covers up the many stories where guns are used in self defense--because it wouldn't fit their agenda. Their agenda, when it comes to race, is that whites are racist, all minorities are victims and white cops are out to get black people. The media will report on some of these cases but leave race out. For example a couple years who a bunch if black teens best up white people at at the Iowa state fair. They called this "beat whitey night". In Memphis recently a group of black teens yelled "beat whitey" as they beat up employees in a Walmart. These stories were reported but the "beat whitey part" was taken out. A year ago when Australian baseball player Chris lane was killed by three teens the media labeled this as a thrill killing. One of the killers had sent out racist tweets about how "90% of white people were bad" and how he was going to kill some "wood". It's not just a coincidence that he killed a white guy as the victim was jogging. He appeared to have targeted the first white person. Thanks for debating.
The U.S media covers up black on white crime and over reports white or "white" on black crime.

I am not racist. What I am saying is a fact. Not all black people are responsible for the actions of some black people. Same thing with whites, Hispanics ect. Please no race baiting, racism or denying of facts. There is a double standard in the U.S media. If a white person commits a crime against a black person even if it is out of self defense as we saw in ferguson that event will be discussed and reported on a lot. If a black person commits a crime against a white person that crime will not be reported. Statistics on race and crime in America From DOJ and FBI.gov. Every year their are 15,000 20,000 rapes of white people by black people and 30 rapes of black people by white people. Black people are twice as likely to commit a hate crime against a white person Black people are 39 times more likely to commit a crime against a white person than a white person is to commit a crime against a black person. There are about 700,000-1,000,000 violent crimes a year involving black and white people. 85% of these crimes are committed by black people against white people. There are 10,000 black on white gang rapes a year and almost 0 white on black gang rapes a year. Examples of black on white crimes that the media underreported Joshua Chellew was 36 years old when he was beaten and pushed in front of a car by four black men in Marbleton Georgia. He died. Antonio Santiago was 13 months old when De'marquise Ellksin shot him in the head killing him after his mom didn't give him money. This was also in Georgia. He was white Hispanic and his killer was black. Bob and Nancy straight were an elderly couple from Tulsa. They were beaten to death by Tyrone Woodforke in 2013. Their killer was black and they were white. In 2013 a Kansas City boy was lit on fire by two black teens as they yelled racial slurs. Melinda McCormick was 33 when Gregory William, Keisha Pughe and Anthony Presley beat he to death Jane Juergens was jogging in Westerville Ohio in October 2013 when a black teen stabbed her to death randomly. Kelli O'Laughlin was a 14 year old Chicago girl who was stabbed to death by John Wilson Jr in 2011. She had found him robbing her families home. He sent texts to her mom through her phone taunting her. David Forster and Marjon Rotsami were beaten by 30 black teens in Virginia, one opinion piece was written in the Virginia times that the worked for. Kevin Shifflet was 8 years old when a black man slit his throat as he played in his yard. The killer did it because he hated white people. David Dunlap and his pregnant wife Whitney Butler were killed by Mayco January in Colorado Springs. These are just some of the many black on white crimes that have been underreported by the media. The media over reports white on black crime even if that crime is done out of self defense.
Decriminalization of Marijuana

Rebuttal: It is proven that marijuana is not severely detrimental to healthMy opponent presents a source from WebMD. I would like to present a source from the exact same site, but the article states that there is in fact no connection between marijuana use and cancer. [1] Actually, I have a second source which hypothesizes that the cancer-killing chemical THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in marijuana would eradicate any aged or cancerous cells immediately. [2]As to the claim that marijuana use increases the chance of mental illness, this has not been proven. There are many people with disorders such as depression and anxiety who use marijuana to alleviate the symptoms. A similar drug which uses a chemical almost identical to that in marijuana is being considered as a treatment for depression. [3] However, it is true that overuse of marijuana can exacerbate schizophrenia in some people. There is not a link between the plant itself and mental illness beyond this though.Marijuana's effects on the brain are very temporary and only occur during the "high." After it has passed, the user returns to their normal mental state. [4] There has been no legitimate link between long-term memory loss and marijuana usage.To address the issue of addiction, the statistics which were shown are misleading. Out of all of the people who are admitted to drug rehabilitation, only 16% of them are there for marijuana addiction. [5] Marijuana almost never causes a physical addiction, but instead can potentially create a psychological addiction. This is far less concerning and causes no withdrawal symptoms.Voters should note that my opponent did not recognize my statement about te number of people in prison for marijuana possession.Although my opponent does use a quote to assist his case, I have already established the fact that marijuana is not highly harmful to health and that it can in fact be beneficial. The only possibility left is that he is referring to the "adverse effects" which are societal and which have not been addressed. As I have said before, marijuana use among teens is rising and approximately 56% of Americans have tried it before their 20s. [5]I do thank my opponent for not bringing up the age-old concept of the "gateway drug" which has been repeatedly proven to be false.Unfortuntely my response was limited by the amount of time I had and is not as sufficient as I would like. Having said that, I will strive to bring the strongest argument yet in the next round.Thank you.1- http://www.webmd.com...2- http://www.washingtonpost.com...3- http://www.abc.net.au...4- http://www.weedmeds.org...5- http://healthland.time.com...
Decriminalization of Marijuana

Alright. I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. To begin, smoking marijuana has been proven through recent studies to be devoid of serious health issues. In fact, it has been proven to reduce the size of brain tumors and other types of cancer. [1] Marijuana joints contain three times the amount of carbon monoxide and tar as a cigarette, but the average marijuana user only smokes a joint a day. The lung disease emphysema has never been linked to marijuana use in any reliable modern study. Studies done in the mid-1900s were extremely inaccurate due to technology restraints. In the year 2010 alone, over 750,000 people were arrested for simple marijuana possession in the United States. [2] This is a huge cost to American taxpayers across the country. Those people were not arrested for any violent offense; they were arrested merely because they possessed a certain substance. If marijuana was decriminalized, this problem would be greatly avoided. Finally, the criminalization of marijuana has been overall a complete and total failure. Marijuana usage among teens specifically has increased. [3] Criminalization of marijuana, as well as other drugs, has been shown to not have any significant effect on usage. [4] 1- http://health.usnews.com... 2- http://blog.mpp.org... 3- http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4- http://www.drugfree.org...
Decriminalization of Marijuana

To begin, the definition of decriminalization which I am using is "to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of," from Merriam-Webster. Please don't try to use any semantics against me; it wastes time in a debate of this nature.In this debate, first round is acceptance, second is beginning argument, third is for rebuttals and clarifications, and fourth is simply the final round of rebuttals/clarifications.Sources are necessary.
Woodbury, from TWD (See for further details)

The situation here is long term benefit vs short term benefit. Killing other survivors can gain you some supplies but recruiting survivors gives you a permanent new worker. If you start attacking other groups, they will either leave or fight. If they fight they will kill the other groups members and destroy or steal the other groups supplies. If a ten man group attacks another ten man group, what happens if each group loses four people and then the group with the food runs off? Now both groups are mutually poorer. This reduces both groups chances of surviving and rebuilding greatly.
Woodbury, from TWD (See for further details)

OFF TOPIC ARGUMENTSMuch of what my opponent responds with is not related to the resolution of this debate. For example:"No one gained from the feud between the groups. Woodbury's aggressive stance actually slowed progress because the feud killed woodbury's members and occupied it's resources. The continued fighting led to the cities collapse."If the resolution for this debate was something like: "The actions Woodbury took were good", then bringing up Woodbury's aggression leading to their downfall would be legitimate (sidenote, Michonne was actually the initial aggressor). However this debate is over whether or not Woodbury's continuing to exist would be good for humanity, and this is off-topic. PSYCHOPATHMy opponent puts forth the idea that since Woodbury is run by a psychopath, they can't rebuild a civilization. Why not? Given the resolution of this debate, we're assuming that the leader's psychopathic attributes will not actually lead to Woodbury's downfall. I can't see any reason why having a psychopath at the helm would stop the re-birth of a society. What about him being a psychopath will make him be like, "No, no wait a second! This is looking too much like a civilization! We're gonna have to stop it right here."?In fact, there are plenty of psychopathic traits that would be helpful in the growth of Woodbury. "The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them."[1]Being incapable of feeling guilt would be very helpful for the leader of Woodbury when he needs to get down and dirty to keep the city going. Being cunning and manipulative will help get the most out of any person or situation. While you probably wouldn't want to be an enemy of a psychopath, being on the same side as him is very helpful.Thanks for reading. Source:[1] http://crime.about.com...
Woodbury, from TWD (See for further details)

In a society in total anarchy, a woodbury like city has no benefits. First, they didn't want to fight rick's group for food, they had that. They thought rick was a threat. Both of these groups could have worked together and improved the town and quickened rebuilding, but the governor's aggressiveness leads to both parties hurting each other. No one gained from the feud between the groups. Woodbury's aggressive stance actually slowed progress because the feud killed woodbury's members and occupied it's resources. The continued fighting led to the cities collapse. Also, woodbury is run by a psychopath, which means it's not exactly a great place to rebuild civilization. The most valuable asset in a world in anarchy is not supplies but workers. In times of starvation food is more important, but workers help the colony take off. Worker can scavenge for supplies, grow food, build things, and guard food and other workers against enemies. A war between two parties is mutually destructive because it kills of both sides workers and destroys or steals their supplies, setting back progress. The colony also stops growing because all resources and workers are allocated to the feud. Had Woodbury not started a fight, they would have continued to expand. If they had worked with Rick's group they would have grown even faster. By starting a feud , they set Rick's group back by killing many of his survivors and destroyed all progress woodbury had made when the town collapsed.
Woodbury, from TWD (See for further details)

Resolution:On balance, a city like Woodbury from The Walking Dead, in the situation it finds itself in, in the TV show (i.e. zombie apocalypse, complete anarchy), should continue existing for the good of humanity. First Round will be for Acceptance, if you have any questions, please ask them in the comments before accepting. Any issues that arise over the question of the debate itself will be the responsibility of the person who accepts this without asking a clarifying question.