BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Weed - Gateway Drug

Pshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, WOW And I quote "Sorry Kenny, my motivation to respond back is depleting. I did what I had to do in philosophy, and now I'm going to half a*s my way through the rest." Soooooo, Your motivation is depleting because you had to use debate.org in order to complete an assignment in our philosophy class? For someone who loves philosophy, and is taking it again next semester, I can't see why you can't continue to debate ("I'm done with this debate") and if you are, you already stated your going to do it half a*s? Basically, I see how it is... Also, seeing both sides does help my argument, because for the people who are viewing this debate and are going to eventually vote on it (I hope)... will know that I'm not being biased in approach. I still stand by Weed being a Gateway Drug, but it's important to come into a debate open minded because you in the end can possibly switch sides. I'll admit if I'm wrong, and I'll learn from those mistakes, but you haven't supplied me any evidence that changes my views. And I quote "("Obviously it depends on the individual" -- hmm, sounds a little like my beginning statement: "What's really to blame is the personality of someone who smokes it.")" Correct, BUT... a large number of us change our personality in order to conform to peer pressure or we give in to curiosity. So it appears this affects a large number of us as a whole. You've seen I space out, had I tried some, I don't know what planet I'd be on lm*o. As for Friday, I Texted you what we are doing! I'll see you tomorrow!
Weed - Gateway Drug

Sorry Kenny, my motivation to respond back is depleting. I did what I had to do in philosophy, and now I'm going to half a*s my way through the rest. Well, I'm afraid "seeing both sides" doesn't help you in this case. To be honest, it seems like you're taking the easy way out with an argument. Of course I can see both sides too, however, I will still attempt to argue that weed is NOT a gateway drug. Maybe there is some truth behind your theory, but just because you stated it doesn't mean you're demonstrating it to be true. "Obviously it depends on the individual" -- hmm, sounds a little like my beginning statement: "What's really to blame is the personality of someone who smokes it." MAYBE IF YOU WOULD'VE JUST TRIED A LIL THAT NIGHT WITH ME AND ASH, YOU WOULD'VE HAD DIFFERENT THOUGHTS! haha whatever, I'm done with this debate. I'm looking forward to the Summer. Let me know what's going on for Friday!
Weed - Gateway Drug

Well it would be nice to try and rebuttal something but I'm not sure how much I can do on the words "ashtronomy forfeited this round" Anyways, I guess I could define what exactly gateway means, at least to me. So If it helps possibly putting things in perspective for the viewers, then so be it. From my understanding, and it might not be yours (that's fine), I believe gateway means something that opens or allows access to another thing. So, Marijuana would be the gateway that opens the door to try other drugs, possibly harder drugs. I have said this before but I definitely can see both sides of the issue to not be biased. If only my opponent had responded, I could possibly write more but I'm not going over critically think about this at least until my opponent responds. Try and respond next time to the allotted time limit Ashley : )!
Weed - Gateway Drug

First off punk, your relying on a website to inform you of what the definition of something is. A website that is "tenacious" (hold a belief) or possibly you are because for all I know, maybe the website supplies another definition that you held out of, and you decided to be selective. Not that, that would matter because a definition off a website is merely whomever initially wrote it's thought. Not to kill my argument but I can see both sides enough to know what that it could be a gateway drug or it could not be. This debate is a mere stalemate either way, and will be voted based off opinion instead of a matter of realization that there is no correct answer. For example: Teenagers most likely will start off by smoking weed, and then from there will possibly move on to do a harder drug. That's what all the research will adhere too, and try and sway you. But, then now I will stay with my argument and say that because teenagers initially begin with smoking weed that, they than hang out or go to places that will introduce them to another drug. Of course this is not always true, but a mere thought to be looked upon. Smoking weed to begin with, will then lead you or gain you access to taking another drug, possibly a harder drug. By smoking weed, and meeting new people...they too will open a door for you to try a harder drug. Obviously it depends on the individual, but in this day and age and how people treat other people...peer pressure is a cooker. A "myth" is a fair assumption and I do think that research is a bunch of bull statistics that tries to universally sway people but I can see how Weed might lead someone upon trying a harder drug. It wouldn't be true to say it doesn't because even if there is one person that smoked weed and went on and did cocaine...that's all that's needed to debunk a myth. If "God" showed up, that one instance...would debunk a large portion of people who don't believe in him. Not trying to mix in religion in here, but just implying a different instance that can relate.
Weed - Gateway Drug

Haha WE'LL SEE, I look forward to it too. Marijuana's reputation for being a "gateway drug" is inaccurate and false. Even though I wouldn't normally go by a dictionary's definition for this word, we'll use it just for the sake of argument: gateway drug noun Definition of GATEWAY DRUG : a drug (as alcohol or marijuana) whose use is thought to lead to the use of and dependence on a harder drug (as cocaine or heroin) The word, "thought," indicates that this is not a strong definition, and is not backed by any physical evidence. How do we know that the Marijuana is the cause of someone trying harder drugs? Is there any empirical data you can provide that shows there is a direct correlation between the two? What about all the other cases when someone has smoked weed, and choose not to try anything else? Marijuana is just a common factor involved in "gateway drug" belief. What's really to blame is the personality of someone who smokes it.
American Society Has No Moral Authority to Punish Murder

Burden of proof is on Pro. In this usage, "society" refers to the Government of the United States. I am NOT talking about lynching here. Rules: No profanity, no sexually explicit language or material, no violent threats, no name calling, and no forfeiting without stating in advance that you're going to forfeit that round. Failure to comply by all of these rules will result in a loss for the violator.
American Society Has No Moral Authority to Punish Murder

It seems to me that my opponent has misunderstood the nature of this debate. Then again, perhaps I should have clarified this more than I did. I am not denying that crime needs to be stopped, or that criminals shouldn't be punished. I am also Pro Death Penalty, in case you're curious. What I'm saying is that when our government acts just as wretched as those who are branded criminals, does it really have the right to be the entity which enforces justice? That is, should murderers be punished by murderers? After all, the Government provides funding for initiatives of murder. http://www.foxnews.com... I did after all, in the last round, provide evidence that abortion is murder. Therefore, the Federal Government plays a strong role in countless murders of the unborn every day. So before punishing any more crime, shouldn't the Government have the responsibility of ending its own immoral activities? Shouldn't they, in a metaphorical sense, take the plank out of their own eye? I hand the (imaginary) microphone over to my opponent.
Kaskmir, a envoy needed

Life is full of coincidences... Anyway, thank you mr.cots for starting this debate on such a delightful topic (from my perspective because I just did a ton of research on the topic). I shall start by first outlining the Kashmir problem. After gaining independence from Britain, there was some political unrest because the Muslims wanted a Muslim Homeland and demanded a partition of India. Once the split took place, Pakistan was founded as a Muslim Homeland. Kashmir is the bit of land between India and Pakistan, and Pakistan wanted Kashmir because most of its inhabitants were Muslim (1). Kashmir though, was and is an independent state. And Kashmir had the choice to be a part of India or Pakistan or continue functioning autonomously (2). Pakistan invaded Kashmir; Kashmir asked India for help; India goes to war with Pakistan. The two countries have been fighting since, though recently, they have been working toward peace (3). A US envoy would not be necessary because he/she would interfere with current proceedings between the two countries. When India and Pakistan are trying to find peace between them, and by doing so, solve the Kashmir problem, why should the US interfere? All that would happen was a 3rd, completely unrelated, party to come into the negotiations. A third party would have to be pleased in the negotiations, and it is taking more than 60 years for 2 parties to find common ground. US involvement only complicates matters. Moreover, it should not be a US envoy. It should be an envoy sent by the UN if any envoy should be sent at all. The UN has a committee dealing with the Kashmir problem, and they haven't sent an envoy. Instead, the people have issued some orders that have yet to be followed (India and Pakistan have been procrastinating for decades). Back to my point, the UN has yet to send an envoy to solve the problem, so why should the US send an envoy when they have less to do with the problem. The possibility of nuclear war is very minuscule. To deny any chance is foolhardy as there is always a chance no matter how small. But I can say nuclear war is one the hardest stretches a person would consider. If there was to be nuclear war, India would win. India has the advantage with more nukes in hand, though that isn't too much of a difference, Pakistan going to a nuclear war with India, it would mean certain destruction for Pakistan (4). The purpose of Pakistan was to create a Muslim Homeland, and going to war endangers that Homeland. Furthermore, if Pakistan was to bomb India, Pakistan would be killing more Muslims that it would be saving. Both go against the purpose of Pakistan's existence or efforts. Sources: (1)- India, Pakistan, and Kashmir: Antinomies of Nationalism by Ashutosh Varshney (2)- India, Modern found in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity (3)- India: New Elected Leader Brings Hope for Peace in Kashmir by Athar Parvaiz (4)- http://en.wikipedia.org... I now await my opponent's response.
Individuals act only on behalf of their own well being

Unless one subscribes to libertarian freedom, it is trivially true that we always act out of some desire. The mistake pro is making is in equating desire with self-interest. Desires are directed toward other things--sometimes toward our own interests, and sometimes toward other people's interests. Egoism is not simply the view that people do what they want. It is the view, as the resolution says, that "individuals act only on behalf of their own well-being." If anybody is motivated to act on behalf of somebody else's well-being, then the resolution is false.While it's true that the man in the thought experiment chooses the life insurance policy becaus he wants to, his desire is directed toward the well-being of his family, not himself. Granted, his desire is satisfied in the process, but psychological satisfaction is not the goal; the goal is to provide for his family.Pro offers one argument in favour of her view--that when people act morally, they only do so to avoid punishment. Even if that were true, it would not be sufficient to establish the resolution. After all, morality is not a factor in all of our decisions.But besides that, her premise that moral acts are performed to avoid punishment is false. Many people believe in morality but do not believe they will be punished for violating it. They do what's right simply because it's right. People do their duty because its their obligation. Some people subscribe to a subjectivist notion of morality and behave according to their own personal values, so they obviously don't anticipate being punished.
Individuals act only on behalf of their own well being

First, to disprove the neg's argument While I understand what you are getting at, notice that I defined one's well being or self interest as a way that satisfies personal desires. Lets use your example. The man was buying life insurance to protect his family members in case of his death. You say I can't find the motivation, but there are two scenarios for this. a) he was being forced to pay for the life insurance, in which case it would still be in his own self interest because it is assumed something bad will happen if he doesn't, hence the forced. b) he wants to help his family members. Because self interest is defined as a way that satisfies ones own personal desires, he is in a sense satisfying his own desires because he wants to help. Therefore, even in your situation he is acting on his own well being by satisfying his want. Now to develop my own While many may argue that following morals will cause many selfless actions, there is a way to disprove this as well. I believe that no one is born with a sense of morality, it is taught, which is why it is subjective and varies from culture to culture. Therefore, people are only moral to save themselves from the punishment they expect will occur if they aren't moral. For example, a religious set of morals: if you are good then you will get sent to a good afterlife (just one example out of many). So therefore, the reason that one who follows this religious code would be moral would be only so that they don't have to suffer when they die. To the Neg- thank you for providing a thought provoking argument
Individuals act only on behalf of their own well being

I recently did this same debate with another person, but he didn't really grapple with my arguments, so I figured I might as well do it again.I don't think Pro will be able to show that all of our actions are self-interested. Pro may be able to point out the benefits of acting in the interest of other people (e.g. it makes you feel good or look good), but Pro will not be able to show that that's what motivated the action. I suspect Pro will simply assume it and assert it, but will not be able to demonstrate it.All I have to do is give one example of an act that is motivated primarily by the interest of others rather than self, and that will be sufficient to refute Pro's point of view.Here it is: A man buys a life insurance policy that pays his family after he is dead.The man gets no benefit from the policy since it doesn't pay out until he's dead. In fact, he has to pay for it, so it's actually a negative benefit to him.Now, Pro may object and say that he gets a psychological pay-off. Maybe he feels good about himself. Or maybe he's comforted in the knowledge that his family will be taken care of when he's gone. But that confuses the result of getting the policy with the motivation behind getting the policy.Here is a thought experiment to show that whatever psychological benefits the man may get from buying the policy, those benefits are not what motivated the choice. Rather, the choice was motivated solely by the man's concern for his family. He was not acting in self-interest; rather, he was acting in other-interest. Since the only possible benefit the man could get from the policy is psychological, let's imagine that there's a pill he could take that would give him those exact same psychological benefits, except that the pill wouldn't cost him a dime. So now he has a choice between two options:A. Pay for a life insurance policy, and recieve all the associated warm fuzzy feelings.B. Take a pill for free, and receive all the exact same warm fuzzy feelings.Clearly, B would be in the man's best interest since he would be getting the same psychological pay-off, but he'd save money. Yet any of us, if we were in the same situation, would choose A. That proves that it isn't the psychological pay-off that motivates our behavior. Rather, it's a concern for the well-being of our families that motivates our behavior. We don't get the policy so we can feel good about ourselves or be comforted. We get the policy so our families will be taken care of when we die.That disproves Pro's point of view.
Individuals act only on behalf of their own well being

Acting in one"s self-interest is acting in a way that satisfies our personal desires. Individuals are selfish in nature, so even if they seem to be selfless, for example donating to charity, they will in actuality be acting only to better their social standing or feel good about themselves. Even if they do not realize this, their subconscious does. In this way, there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.
abortion

If my opponent had her way, rape victims would be forced to carry the child of their abuser. If my opponent had her way, children would be forced to carry a child and put themselves and the baby at risk. My opponent failed to disprove any of my statements with facts. My opponent failed to argue with anything other than opinion on one single case. My opponent was disrespectful throughout this debate not just to me but to commentators as well. Quite frankly, I have nothing else to say. I have debated my point and I thank you for your time.
abortion

Intending a battle? If you truly wanted understanding of my points, you would have asked, not stated your own. 1) you haven't explained from round 1 how science proves murder otherwise. 2) Sexual assault and rape are different, depending on the state. So 237,868 females are not all raped. Sometimes the assaulter uses protection, sometimes girls are on birth control, sometimes the egg isn't fertilized, and sometimes females lose the baby along the way. Don't get me wrong, the numbers are heart breaking. But also, you need to put in different factors. 3) "Even if a teen could later put the baby up for adoption the baby would have already been exposed to dangerous conditions." How so? Please list a VAILD source to this. 4) Yes. I'd make suffer through pregnancy. There may be pain, but its not worth ending a life for. and p.s somebody do not experience the pain of labor. There's drugs and C-sections, so it's not all pain. Yeah, I can't send her to school, but there are tutors, that many people use, or home-schooling. 5) 'Something is illegal is illegal' There are plenty of it's, and's or but's in laws. Are you kidding me? If there weren't, we wouldn't have laws. How do you think court cases come about? Because there is criteria for a law. 6) 'if abortion were illegal, the doctors couldn't just request the government let them slide by the law to save her life.' I'm so confused by this. As you said, it would be used for one option. Why would the government have to let them slide by the law to save her life, when it IS the law saving her life. Is that what your saying? Also, if this was true that doctors had to ask permission to abort the baby, then we'd be doing it with every abortion, and since it takes so long that she'd be dead anyway, then we would have no babies being aborted and they'd be all born. Also, doctors don't have to ask permission. They simply tell the government. It's the government consulting with the doctors to make sure that there is no other way. At least, I think this is how it runs. If not, please correct me. 7) Hmm...I'm not sure what exactly counts in determining when the baby is alive. I'm not sure if it is 5 weeks, or 18-21 days when the heart starts to beat. The cells are still life. How is it 'only cells' ? We are only cells. So would you not have a problem with killing any other human being?
abortion

In the sense that there is now a debate in the comments too, I'd like to say a thanks for those who have joined in. Nonetheless, I think there needs to be some clarification here. In my previous statement, I had said " I assume you are a woman, correct? With that being said, I do not understand how you could be against abortion." In saying this, I was not intending a battle here. I simply wanted you to help me to understand your point of views. Which you have made clear, rather rudely, and not just to me. My sites were reliable, if you bothered to read them all the way through. If you want a debate, then do it properly. According to rainn.org, there are 237,868 victims of sexual assault each year, and 44% of them are under the age of 18. Imagine being 12 years old and pregnant due to a rape. First and foremost, can your body even handle a pregnancy at that age? How could this affect her future? The younger a mother is below age 20, the greater the risk of her infant dying during the first year of life and infants born to teens are 2 - 6 times more likely to have low birth weight than those born to mothers age 20 or older. Even if a teen could later put the baby up for adoption, the baby would have already been exposed to dangerous conditions. Because you are a human being, male or female, picture this. Your baby girl, the one thing your life surrounds, is raped. She's only 8 years old. Are you going to make your child suffer through that pregnancy? Remember back to when you were carrying her. How your stomach got bigger and bigger, how you vomited in the mornings constantly, how your feet got swollen, and lets not forget the excruciating pain of labor. All in a tiny 8 year olds body. You can't just send her to school, either. http://www.rainn.org... Something illegal is illegal. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. What I'm trying to get you to understand is just that. At this point in time, you accept abortion ONLY if the woman is in a life-threatening circumstance. That does not mean you think it should be illegal, it just means you only think it should be used for one option. If abortion were illegal, the doctors couldn't just request the government let them slide by the law to save this woman's life. By that time, she'd be dead anyway. If you have an abortion at the right time, no harm will come to you or the fetus. I do agree with you to a certain extent. Abortion is the killing of a baby, once it reaches five weeks. According to Baby Center, at five weeks, all the parts of the baby begin to form. Before that, there is only cells, which I do not have a problem with aborting if their are horrible circumstances involved. http://www.babycenter.com...