BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of a God

Modal Ontological Argument 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. “Possible World” mean a hypothetical reality. Not an actual planet. P1 justification: A “God” idea has no incoherence, and it's intuitively possible. The other premises follow Modal logic -an undisputed system of logic- and premises 2-4 themselves are undisputed. Transcendental Argument We know there's logical absolutes These absolutes are immaterial, absolute, and perfect The source of these absolutes must also be immaterial, absolute, and perfect Nothing in the universe fits (3) The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God P1 justification Without logical absolutes, I couldn't write this, nor could anyone read this. These laws are The Law of Identity: Metaphysically, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself. " For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true. " The Law of Excluded Middle: Metaphysically, this law asserts "anything is either A or not A. " For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false. " We also refer to such statements as "tautologies" The Law of Non-contradiction: Metaphysically, this law asserts:: "Nothing can be both A and not-A. " For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false. " [1] These form the basis for rational discourse. P2 Justification We don't find these in nature. Not in atoms, not under rocks, not on the Sun. They are just properties of maternal. If they were dependent on our universe, we would find them in what's in the universe. We know they're absolute, if we travel 1 million light years in the universe, they still would be true. If we go 7 billion years into the past, they're still true. Thus they must be absolute and perfect. P3 Justification Follows from 2 P4 Justification Same arguments can be used in P2. If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would. It would be true that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. P5 Justification Until Con gives us a source that fits these things and isn't God, the conclusion stands. [1] . http://editthis.info...
Every Child Should have Homework

Addressing what you say about how homework prevents students from going on a device with a screen, what is so bad about students playing video games or watching television or surfing the internet like you are now? I don't see your point there. Additionally you say "Homework, actually is designed to prepare you for the real world. If you're planning on doing anything in your future that doesn't involve flipping burgers at a McDonalds, then, you WILL have some work that you will have to do at home." I understand this, but being a student myself I do not see how writing spelling words five times when you already know them, answering hours of time-consuming math problems that you already know how to solve, and completing more useless homework will help you in life. If anything, it will give you less time to study for an upcoming test or give you less time to just be with your family and friends. Here is my proposal; all schools have their teachers evaluate what students do and do not need homework. To conclude, I will ask you this question. Why should you waste time doing something you already know when you could be doing something much more productive?
Every Child Should have Homework

Homework is a tool teachers use to keep a student's mind refreshed about what they study, undergo and experience in class. When kids don't have homework, they spend their time on video games and TV. 50% of all children aged 10-14 spend their time on a thing that requires a television set. Hell Yeah, if you think homework is bad, you're welcome to do so. Homework, actually is designed to prepare you for the real world. If you're planning on doing anything in your future that doesn't involve flipping burgers at a McDonalds, then, you WILL have some work that you will have to do at home.
Go into world war 3 for the sake of humanity.

Because my opponent had forfeited the third round, I have no rebuttals for this round. However, I would like to add that by going into World War 3 and facing despair, we may learn to love each other. Humans had been, and is being, cruel to each other. With World War 3, we would finally come to sense how important others are, related or or not. We would learn to be caring and loving for others. Without mistakes, we won't learn.
Go into world war 3 for the sake of humanity.

I apologize for forfeiting round 2. I was so busy I forgot I have a debate going on. As for my arguments: By going into World War 3, there will be lots of benefits to mankind. 1. Less population. Surely if World War 3 occurs, soldiers and civilians would be killed. However, they are not being cruelly "murdered". They would be just "unlucky victims" who happen to die from the influences of the war. With a big clearance of our population, the global issues like greenhouse effects or over-usage of resources would be solved. 2. Renovation. With war comes destruction. Old buildings will be destroyed as well as old factories and industries. After the war, they would be renovated using a more high-tech technology and more advanced construction skills. An example had been seen when Japan lost World War 2. It had been greatly renovated and is regarded as one of the most developed countries in the world. 3. Banned military. In countries that lose the war, they would have to face the consequences of not having any military forces to protect their country. Here, the funds that are normally used with military forces will be used for renovation and improving the state of the country. Looking back at Japan, with no military forces, it spent all of the country's fund on improving the country. It had no reason for any protection because America was protecting it. Is it justified? Sacrifices are needed for the betterment of the people.
100% legalized marijuana

Thank you very much for your arguments in round 3. My third argument will talk about how marijuana is a 'Getaway' or 'feeder' drug, and is linked to users going on to use worse drugs such as heroin and cocaine. People who use marijuana will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. We can debate the health effects and science of marijuana all day, however we cannot debate that there aren't harmful effects of hard drugs. Worse drugs seriously damage peoples health. One major study, conducted in 2011 found that smoking cannabis daily 'sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use' and that 'Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction.' By legalising marijuana, it makes people more like to use it due to its accessibility, and potentially resort to harder drugs. They may even need to sell or manufacture cocaine or heroin to financially meet the costs of marijuana and other drug addictions. Legalisation clearly makes the situation of drug abuse much worse for the health sector and the police as marijuana can lead to much more dangerous drugs.
100% legalized marijuana

According to a 2012 ACLU report, Black people are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people despite comparable usage rates. Furthermore, in counties with the worst disparities, Blacks were as much as 30 times more likely to be arrested. States spent an estimated $3.61 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010 alone. New York and California combined spent over $1 billion according to the ACLU report. Approximately 750,000 people were arrested for marijuana law violations in 2012 according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation"s annual Uniform Crime Report " comprising about half (48 percent) of all drug arrests in the United States; that"s one marijuana arrest every 42 seconds. A decade ago, marijuana arrests comprised just 44 percent of all drug arrests. Approximately 42 percent of all drug arrests nationwide are for marijuana possession. Of total arrests for marijuana law violations, more than 87 percent were for simple possession, not sale or manufacture. There are more arrests for marijuana possession every year than for all violent crimes combined. A marijuana arrest is no small matter. Most people are handcuffed, placed in a police car, taken to a police station, fingerprinted and photographed, held in jail for 24 hours or more, and then arraigned before a judge. The arrest creates a permanent criminal record that can easily be found on the internet by employers, landlords, schools, credit agencies and banks. The collateral sanctions of a marijuana possession arrest can include loss of employment, financial aid, housing and child custody. The criminalization of marijuana in the early 20th century was not based on any scientific assessment of its risks " but rather racial prejudice and politics. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest during the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. Artists and performers " especially black jazz musicians " were common targets.
100% legalized marijuana

Thank you for your arguments! I will begin with some rebuttal against your two arguments. Firstly "A drug dealer makes tons of un-taxed money off children every day. If marijuana was to be made legal it would cut down on black market activity". This argument simply put says we should legalize marijuana to cut down on black market activity and make it an industry. This argument would be applicable if there wasn't serious health implications with marijuana. With this logic heroin and cocaine would be legal. "Concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research". This argument is invalid. In 2014 professor Wayne Hall, one of the World Health Organizations advisors released a report into his research of marijauana. This research conducted in the 21st century found that- Adverse effects of acute cannabis uses were "Driving while cannabis-intoxicated doubles the risk of a car crash; this risk increases substantially if users are also alcohol-intoxicated. "Cannabis use during pregnancy slightly reduces birth weight of the baby. and that the adverse effects of chronic cannabis use "Regular cannabis users can develop a dependence syndrome, the risks of which are around 1 in 10 of all cannabis users and 1 in 6 among those who start in adolescence. "Regular cannabis users double their risks of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders, especially if they have a personal or family history of psychotic disorders, and if they start using cannabis in their mid-teens. "Regular adolescent cannabis users have lower educational attainment than non-using peers but we don"t know whether the link is causal. "Regular adolescent cannabis users are more likely to use other illicit drugs, but we don"t know whether the link is causal. "Regular cannabis use that begins in adolescence and continues throughout young adulthood appears to produce intellectual impairment, but the mechanism and reversibility of the impairment is unclear. "Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or reporting psychotic symptoms in adulthood. "Regular cannabis smokers have a higher risk of developing chronic bronchitis. "Cannabis smoking by middle aged adults probably increases the risk of myocardial infarction. Clearly there is modern research into marijuana and it's not all "old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects". My second argument is that marijuana is a very addictive substance,as proven by NIDA studies which suggest that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it rising to about 17 percent in those who start using in their teens. If marijuana is an addictive substance then legalizing would only worsen the situation we already have with drug addicts, making it more accessible would only mean that more people would become addicted and potentially be unable to work etc. or become so reliant they couldn't afford it and be in financial issues.
100% legalized marijuana

Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source - especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
100% legalized marijuana

Thank you for your opening argument! Firstly, I would like to talk about the negative health effects of marijuana. Marijuana has several short term negative effects which include- panic attacks, anxiety, depression, sleepiness, restlessness, lowered reaction time and increased heartbeat by almost 50%- sharply increasing the risk of a heart attack However what makes the effects of smoking marijuana even more severe is the length of time that the drug stays in the body. In one smoking of marijuana- the drug stays in the body for around to 14 days and in smokers who smoke marijuana more often and more intensely, the drug can stay in the body for up to 3 months. This means that one smoking of marijuana stays in the body 56 times longer than 3 pints of beer, which is usually removed from the body within a maximum of 6 hours. There are also several long term effects of marijuana which include-Respiratory issues such as- Reduced resistance to bronchitis, rapid destruction to lung tissues and fibres, potentially causing lung cancer. Marijuana also affects the immune system, causing abnormally low or high activity and in some cases the body begins to fight off its own "good" cells. It also causes abnormal growth in teen users, brain disorders and abnormal cellular structures, sometimes even the complete destruction of cellular matter. Marijuana negatively affects the urological system, it reduces male sex hormones, and can cause erectile dysfunction. Marijuana is also shown to cause testicular cancer in some cases. The most overwhelming negative effects of marijuana lie in the brain, it can cause permanent brain lesions, learning difficulties, depression, and other long term psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. Here we can see a long list of violent, destructive long term effects of marijuana. By legalizing this drug, it means that more people are subject to the affects of the drug, causing more illness, injury and in some circumstances death.
100% legalized marijuana

Prohibition of marijuana does not prevent children from gaining access. In fact kids have easier access to weed than alcohol. Think about it, a drug dealer makes tons of un-taxed money off of children every day. If marijuana were made legal it would cut down on black market activity and their sources would, in some cases, be limited to adults contributing to minors. If some kid asked me to purchase weed at a store I would tell him to take a flying leap. Especially since I am not making any money... and I have dignity and morals! Where as a drug dealer might not feel the same.
The United State's government is no longer representative of the American people.

Since Pro didn't clarify, I'd like to propose an exact resolution: ‘On balance, the US government is not representative of the American people.' Obviously, it's not the case that the US is either always perfectly representative of the majority's views or never representative of the people's views and completely controlled by elites. The argument will be about whether the US government is representative of the American people in general. 1. The Iraq War was supported by the American people at the time. [1] The invasion may not have technically been Constitutional, but since when do the American people care about that? 2. While this decision was unpopular, I don't think it shows that the government is unrepresentative of the people. People may not support this specific decision, but they do support the existence of the Supreme Court as an unelected, undemocratic body, and respect its right to make decisions they don't like. 3. Pro argues that the bailout wasn't a good deal for the American people, but that's irrelevant. People did, in fact, support the bailout at the time. [2] 4. The reason only a narrow spectrum of views are represented at elections is because those are the things the American people believe and vote for. The American people think, for the most part, that what the government is doing is what they should be doing. They oppose cuts in all major causes of spending [3], and sometimes hold contradictory opinions, such as supporting cuts in corporate subsidies, but opposing cuts in farm subsidies. [3] The reason the US government has such bad policies is not because evil politicians control everything, but because the evil American people control everything. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://pewresearch.org... [3] http://www.harrisinteractive.com...
The United State's government is no longer representative of the American people.

I will argue that the U.S. government is no longer representative of the American people in the democratic sense of the word "representative." In other words, the political decisions of the U.S. government are determined by the will of the politicians themselves, which itself is greatly influence by the "special interest" group's super-P.A.C.s, as opposed to political decisions being made on the basis of the consensus of the American people and their collective will. This is evidenced by the following: 1) The invasion of the Iraq war by President George W. Bush without a Congressional Declaration of War, and therefore without so much as even representative consent of the people. 2) The 2010 Supreme Court ruling that political candidates are allowed unlimited financial contributions from any entity (in the name of the 1st amendment), as in either individuals or corporations, but thereby giving corporations a distinct advantage over individuals and therefore giving them priority over the American public in determining policy. 3) Government "bail-outs" of large corporations and banks, stemming from failures of the government to regulate these corporations and failures of these corporations to abide by the law and to be responsible for their own expenses and profits, resulting in a) Unwarranted taxes on the American people, b) Enormous bonuses for C.E.O.s and other officials of these companies paid for by the debt so incurred on the American public, c) No visible benefit from said bail-outs to the American people, in that unemployment did not improve as a result, and in fact has worsened or remained the same since. 4) This point is not a documented fact, but an argument in itself, and is barely ever recognized, let alone mentioned. My argument here is that all elections for U.S. political candidate are presented to the public as false dilemmas, where only two (at most three or four) candidates/parties are represented, when in fact, any citizen can be a legitimate candidate, Constitutionally-speaking. However, the nature of media-based political campaigns requires that a candidate needs large amounts of capital to make himself known as a candidate, and therefore candidates who are willing to pander to special interests, or come from wealthy, politically-oriented families, are at an advantage over those of humble occupation who nonetheless may have the best (or better) interests of the nation and the people sincerely in mind. 1) a)Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution. b) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://www.nytimes.com... 3) http://www.washingtonpost.com...