BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the falling of the world trade centers

I will accept your challenge, arguing the position that the towers were not rigged with explosives -- or, more specifically, that we cannot prove that they were, and therefore cannot conclude as such. The burden of proof is on Pro. He must prove without a shadow of doubt that he is correct. After all, it is not possible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that the towers were not rigged, just as I cannot argue that the world was not created 30 seconds ago, and we all were born with our memories. My point is that there is no conclusive evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Are there valid questions to ask? I think there are, yes, and I support the idea that people, such as Jesse Ventura, are asking the hard questions. I think he has gone too far, though: he actually suggested that former Vice President Dick Cheney ran the program, and asserted that "[t]he Bush Administration either knew about the plan and allowed it to proceed, or they had a hand in it themselves." That type of rhetoric, I truly believe, is over-the-top and reckless. We should be able to have a reasonable discussion of the facts. In doing that, we would need to consider the ramifications and pragmatism of our claims. Even if the conclusion of our debate is that the 9/11 story simply does not add up, and that there are more viable questions to ask, I do not believe that it is plausible to accept Pro's case unless he can prove -- again, without a shadow of doubt -- that the towers were (not "could have been," but were) rigged with explosives. Frankly, I do not believe the evidence is there to substantiate his point, or the point that 9/11 was a conspiracy. With that said, I await an interesting discussion, and would like to wish my opponent the best of luck. http://www.today.com... -- where the Jesse Ventura quote came from.
The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was unjustified.

Like I said before I'd debate this topic again since I still feel that I didn't do the previous A-bomb justification debate justice, and I'll keep on debating this topic until I do feel as though I gave it justice. (When I say justice I do not mean a win, I mean a coherent, understandable, strong argument.)Rules:(1) First round is for acceptance.(2) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(3) No trolling, or semantics.(4) No new arguments in the final round.(5) Lets keep this mature and courteous (I lost some points myself for calling my previous opponent ignorant which was a big mistake).The Burden of Proof is shared.
Confederate Flag

Well, here is some fact's about the Confederate Flag! MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery. FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion. MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves. FACT - Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression. Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days." Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies! Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901! MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships. FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation. BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious. These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products madefrom raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South. This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media. Source: http://www.rulen.com...
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

The last round being forfeited is extremely disappointing. I would have loved to have seen this debate to the end (while all speeches being filled) but none the less I will summarize the round. 1) Counter-plan flowed through -->It was completely dropped. 2) Funding DA compared to substantial Topicality -->The most arguments to be flowed through are the substantial T and Funding DA... Either A) It will be substantial and the funding DA will lead to all of the harms listed or B) It won't be substantial and Affirmative would therefore be non-topical. I asked my opponent to pick one but he has failed to do so. 3) Energy Topicality Affirmative has yet to show HOW this energy could be used. At least I don't see it. 4) Global Warming It does not exist. If you flow through my last speech when I talked about them, you will see that each of the 6 arguments take out the Inherency Harms. Therefore, he has no Inherency, Harms, OR Solvency. In other words, every single stock issue is flowed in favor of Negative (CON)... In the end of this round I am left with uncertainty about Jatropha beans. There just isn't enough reason to break status quo substantially without harming the current balance of money. It solves for nothing. It just isn't worth the risk of a complete economy crash. As far as the information presented in this round, you must vote Negative (CON). Thank you!
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

This is a policy debate with Inherency, Harms, Plan, Solvency, Disadvantages, Topicality's, Counter-Plans, and the works. Evidence is necessary to prove points that need it. Since I can't begin without an affirmative case, I will wait for my opponents case before beginning. The topic is the 2008-2009 NFL Policy debate topic: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Thanks and good luck to my challenger!
Gay People Cannot Be Christian

My opponents arguments are, except for the last one, based on that you cannot be a Christian if you are Gay because it is a sin. If just sin made it so you were not allowed to be a Christian, then absolutely no one would be a Christian. Do you go one day without coveting or wishing you had something that someone else had? Even Christians sin every day, but when we ask forgiveness, God grants it. That doesn't mean we should do whatever we want and then just repent, we should still try not to sin, but we are imperfect and bound to sin, which is where Gods forgiveness comes in. My opponents third argument states that "There are those that argue that the only valid path is a personal relationship with God. Ultimately that leaves internal discourse between the individual and their believed savior, pertinent only to the individual concerned - including discussion of ones sexuality. Many look at trends in certain derived meaning from Jesus' teachings to justify this approach, and to justify the belief that it homosexuality is ultimately acceptable, given the person as a whole." There may be some who argue that, but that doesn't mean it's true. This is an incorrect appliance of the Bible which states that we should have a personal relationship with God, not just with God though. Thank You
The Death Penalty makes more sense than Solitary Confinement for Life.

Thank you for your cooperation. This debate is now both ideological and source-based. "My first argument, is that in fact, executing one inmate costs more than keeping that person alive for a lifetime in prison. So, it is no burden on taxpayers. In fact, the death penalty is more of a tax burden." Okay, what if the criminal in question was fined an amount equivalent to the cost of the court case? This would be an easy solution. As long as the criminal carries the burden of the cost, the taxpayers pay nothing. "On a more ideological note, I believe it is important to err on the side of life in this issue. DNA testing and new technologies have vindicated people on death row in the past. Why take a chance putting someone to death when there is that small chance he/she may be innocent? It is far worse to kill an innocent man than to let a guilty one free." New technologies should be applied BEFORE the person is placed on death row. Once a person is PROVEN to be guilty, he is guilty, and thus may deserve the death penalty, depending on the severity of the case. Killing an innocent man can be avoided. It is very hard to frame someone into a death penalty. "The death penalty also gets rid of the idea of redemption in life. Sure, someone may find God or something on death row, but what chance have they to redeem themselves in life? They will always be horrible murderers in the eyes of the public. Convicted murderers who have gotten the chance of life imprisonment have done some very good things with their lives, such as that one lady involved in the Manson family slayings." It is kind of hard to do anything good for society while in solitary confinement. http://www.cnn.com... It is kind of hard to be "model prisoners" when there's nobody that you can communicate with, and nobody to observe you. This debate is for solitary confinement vs. death penalty, not life sentence vs. death penalty. Also, for religious purposes, anyone on death row should be given about a month to do anything they need to do before they die, such as writing wills or going to church to find God. Finally, what do you think that these prisoners do while they're in solitary confinement for life? There's really only one thing they can do: plot a breakout. The prisoners have no purpose in life, unless they break free. This is a bit torturous, and constant breakouts would only add to the cost of security, which is a problem right there. This is, in my opinion, one of the major problems of solitary confinement, that can only be fixed by abolishing solitary confinement. In conclusion, the death penalty makes more sense than solitary confinement for life, because the death penalty gets it over with, while a life sentence gives you many more worthless years with nothing to do, except escaping, which only puts even more of a burden on the rest of us.
The Death Penalty makes more sense than Solitary Confinement for Life.

Hello Mongeese, I hope this makes for a good argument! I will give a short opening here, stating that Solitary Confinement for Life makes more sense than the death penalty. My first argument, is that in fact, executing one inmate costs more than keeping that person alive for a lifetime in prison. So, it is no burden on taxpayers. In fact, the death penalty is more of a tax burden. On a more ideological note, I believe it is important to err on the side of life in this issue. DNA testing and new technologies have vindicated people on death row in the past. Why take a chance putting someone to death when there is that small chance he/she may be innocent? It is far worse to kill an innocent man than to let a guilty one free. The death penalty also gets rid of the idea of redemption in life. Sure, someone may find God or something on death row, but what chance have they to redeem themselves in life? They will always be horrible murderers in the eyes of the public. Convicted murderers who have gotten the chance of life imprisonment have done some very good things with their lives, such as that one lady involved in the Manson family slayings. These are just some opening thoughts. More details and debate to come!
The Death Penalty makes more sense than Solitary Confinement for Life.

Okay, I think that the death penalty makes much more sense than does solitary confinement for life. I'd like to provide a reason: The taxpayers of the country that the criminal broke the laws of have to suffer from paying for food, medicine, and security for said criminal. I'd like for whoever accepts this debate to give their reasoning for why they believe that the latter is a better solution than the former. Also, I'd like this debate to be ideological, without outside sources. Thank you.
Racial profiling is a useful tool for law enforcement and use of this should be encouraged.

Terms of discussion: - 1st round is for acceptance and opening statements - Opponent will be arguing against the use of racial profiling in any form by law enforcement. - Definition of racial profiling: The use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offence (1). Race should not be ignored by law enforcement in the profiling process considering that it is just as relevant a factor as previous convictions and is a vital part in the upbringing of any individual and thus greatly speaks to the individual's mental state. Adding to this is the fact that individuals of other races than Caucasian are statistically more involved in crime than Caucasian individuals (2). Any factor with such a huge significance should not be left out of law enforcement's assessment of the potential risk especially in times like these with the threat of yet another tragic terrorist attack happening at any given moment. Times like these call for an increase in the ways law enforcement use to protect us and prevent further violence. (1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Racial profiling is a useful tool for law enforcement and use of this should be encouraged.

Your definition was "The use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed a crime." That definition violates the 14th amendment. You say that you don't want police to stop anybody just because of their skin color, but that is how racial profiling is practiced. Police stop people of color more often because of their skin color due to a belief that race is connected to crime.I don't know if we can really call statistics provided by the FBI beyond suspicion. They're an organization that harassed Civil Rights leaders and framed people suspected of terrorism (1). You say that these are out of every 100 people, but most statistics I've seen are out of 100,000 people, and I can't recall seeing on the page where it said it was out of 100 people. Still, doesn't really matter.I think what you're really arguing for is that race should be mentioned when giving a profile on an offender. Which, if we can determine the race of a suspect of a crime that is already established, then sure. But that's not what Racial Profiling is. RP takes place before a cop can even be sure that any crime has been committed.Okay, so ONE psychology professor agrees with you. Big whoop. There are scientists who discredit evolution, a flat earth, and say that 9/11 was an inside job. Finding somebody who agrees with you doesn't make you right in the slightest. I'm still not sure to what extent you want racial profiling practiced. If not for stopping passer-bys on the street or in their cars because of their skin color, which is what racial profiling is, then what? Once a crime has been established we can have an idea of the racial makeup of the perpetrator. Most crimes are of the same race because most crimes happen within a community, so if a white guy is murdered it is a good idea to suspect a white killer. Even in the case of murder, however, the suspect is usually somebody the victim knew, or its obvious in some other way who did it. In this next round I want to know: ~What Pro means by racial profiling~How racial profiling would be implemented and developed~Whether or not it is okay to search a person based solely on their race, lacking any other reasons for suspicion.~A response to the point I made in the first round, ie, arrest statistics just show who is getting arrested, and not who is committing the crimes.~A response to the point I made in the first round, ie, even if, for example, black people were more likely to deal drugs, this does not mean that a black person is likely to be a drug dealer. Your move.(1) http://theantimedia.org...;
Recreational Marijuana

Why do we need recreational marijuana? Many people can understand why we have medicinal marijuana to help out people who have health conditions or disorder, physically or mentally but why recreational? Cannabis is a plant that contains the mind-altering chemicals tetrahydrocannabinol also known as THC which is the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis is responsible for a euphoric high. Cannabis should not be legalized, however, it the most commonly used drug in the United States. According to Agata Blaszczak-Boxe, wrote the article "Potent Pot: Marijuana Is Stronger Now Than It was 20 Years ago" on February 8, 2016, stated the potency of cannabis has increased from 12 percent in 2014 as a supposed to 4 percent in 1995. With that being said CBD, cannabidiol- an ingredient that sometimes boosted its potential health benefit, has drastically changed from 0.28 percent in 2001 to less than 0.15 percent in 2014. The increase of THC potency will build people"s tolerance and have them dependent on cannabis which means people will soon become addicted to it. People who are heavily dependent on cannabis and stop using will suffer withdrawal symptoms like depression, stomach pain, anxiety, and insomnia. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, a board-certified internist and addiction medicine specialist said [He's] been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine, and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis." This states cannabis is addicting, and legalizing cannabis will result in having a higher percentage of people using. On August 2, 2016 Journal of Drug Issues wrote an article called "Evolution of the United States Marijuana Market in the Decade of Liberalization Before Full Legalization" and found in their study that "the number of US daily marijuana users has risen dramatically since 2002 and now 68% of users report daily or near-daily use." This article was done in 2016 when it was still illegal now imagine how it is now, in 2018, that it has become legal. Before it was legalized, many people would make up excuses to use cannabis, now people don"t need an excuse and are provided quickly. Since Proposition 64 was passed, many people walk into the dispensaries without the proper knowledge of usage, therefore, would cause them to abuse it. In a journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence published a survey and reported that "22% of marijuana users experienced "acute anxiety or panic attacks following cannabis use," and 15% had psychotic symptoms following use." That being said legalizing cannabis will result in a negative outcome like drug addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and misuse.
Recreational Marijuana

Recreational marijuana has recently become legal for recreational use in 8 states and the District of Columbia, under Proposition 64, of those 8 states being California. There is a great amount of controversy surrounding the passing of recreational marijuana. Legalized marijuana is regulated for customer safety. Before recreational marijuana was legalized and dispensaries started to be created people were buying it off of the street. This meant that it was being grown by the person selling it or they got it from someone who may have gotten it from another person. This meant that the consumer didn't know if there were harmful drugs or chemicals mixed in the product they were buying. According to The American Public Health Association (APHA), who wrote and article called "Regulating Commercially Legalized Marijuana as a Public Health Priority" on November 18. 2014, with recreational marijuana being legalized it will allow the government to enforce laboratory testing and regulations to make sure that the marijuana being sold is free of toxins. This means that the consumer will no longer have to buy off of the street but will be able to go into a dispensary where the marijuana has been tested for toxins in a laboratory. On January 8th, 2018 a Washington State Legislator posted and article called "WAC 314-55-105: Packaging and Labeling Requirements" which by law requires Washington state to produce health warnings, quality assurance, THC content and concentration, as well as other important information for the consumer. This allows the consumer to know exactly what is in their product its just like food labels that provide the consumer with information about what is inside weather is be vitamins, fat, or sugars. Legalizing marijuana allows for the consumer to read exactly what they are buying and know that it complies with the government regulations. The Bureau of Cannabis Control states that with recreational marijuana being legalized it allows the government to set age restrictions and the people buying it as well as license and regulate the entire supply chain of marijuana including growers, distributors, retailers, and testing labs. This means that the government will be able to control how much and who is selling the marijuana and it will decrease the amount of dealers on the streets selling and importing illegally. Brooke Staggs, a reporter of cannabis, wrote in and article titled " "Here Are the Rules for Legal Marijuana in California Once Law Goes into Effect Jan. 1," in November of 2017, that in California alone the legalizing of recreational marijuana will requires regulations that include limitations on the serving sizes for edible marijuana products, seed-to-sale testing and tracking, and 24-hour video surveillance at retail stores. The Government will now be able to monitor what is being sold to each consumer making shops close at 10 P.M every night. They will also be able to regulate where shops are located which requires them to be 600 ft away from any school according to The Bureau of Cannabis Control Regulations.
My favorite band is better then my opponent's favorite band.

My favorite band is The White Stripes. For this first round, My opponent will just state their favorite band, and our arguments will begin in round two. In order to win this debate, my opponent must prove that his favorite band is either better than or equal to The White Stripes. The better band will be judged on these qualities: 1. Talent 2. Chemistry 3. Diversity 4. Communication with the Audience 5.
The voting age should be reduced to 16

No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.