BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

Thanks DHDebate for what will hopefully be a fun and challenging round. I've looked forward to this type of debate for a while as well. However, in R1 you said "nothing may be used that isn't presented in this round". But "this round" only refers to R1, right? So it would seem that I'm barred from using questions outside of round 1. Now, normally I would assume that he doesn't intend that in the way I took it and intends this debate to be fair, but I made the same assumption during another debate we had together, where I assumed he wouldn't use semantics but he did :/ So I just want to make sure that I am allowed to ask questions outside this round. Moving on, I'll try to use some tactics that haven't been used a ton before, so hopefully this debate will be different than the others. 1. Your full name is Dakota Hiltzman, correct?4. Is morality subjective? 7. Is the cake a lie?6. Are you also BangBang-Coconut and Hello-Orange?3. What made you want to do this debate? 10. Are you a Utilitarian? As in, do you believe that the best action is the one which benefits the most people?5. Are semantic arguments acceptable in this debate?7. Do you prefer Lincoln-Douglas debate or Policy debate?11. Do you have any questions for me?I ask my opponent to quote my questions in his round and then give his responses after each individual quote, so its easiest to follow for the judges. I'm not using this to create contradictions, its really just to make it easy to follow.I await my opponents responses.
A Comprehensive Immigration Reform is key to our Economy and one should be issued

"My opponent ignored the fact that we won't be over populated in because if every US Citizen was given just an acre of land, We would only fit in the state of Texas. " The earth has 7 billion people and 7 billion people could fit into Los Angeles. However the big problem is getting enough resources to supply those people. That is what is happening in India and China and it will happen in the United States if many more people are to enter the country. "And like China and India, as for that my opponent also ignored that our US birth rate is going down now, with abortions coming out stronger than ever before. The US is a well developed country and one way of telling it is a developed country is that our birth rate is declining. " Although the USA is a well developed country, the people entering the country would not be "well developed". They would mostly come to the country in search of better opportunity and a better job. "And extend the evidence that I had that specified that if we pass an immigration reform, it will end up solving our economy and providing jobs. " There are not enough jobs in the United States for the American population. How do you find jobs for millions of more people. Conclusion: I thank my opponent for this debate. However I would like to point out that the United States has no need for immigrants considering the fact that there are many people who are unemployed. Pro says nothing about what kind of laws should be passed and he does not specify how effective they will be. Therefore, I think I have won this debate.
A Comprehensive Immigration Reform is key to our Economy and one should be issued

My opponent ignored the fact that we won't be over populated in because if every US Citizen was given just an acre of land, We would only fit in the state of Texas. And like China and India, as for that my opponent also ignored that our US birth rate is going down now, with abortions coming out stronger than ever before. The US is a well developed country and one way of telling it is a developed country is that our birth rate is declining. And extend the evidence that I had that specified that if we pass an immigration reform, it will end up solving our economy and providing jobs. I don't think my opponent even looked at the evidence that was clearly specified. And again I tell you guys to please vote affirmative on this case because they had no evidence that specified that the US will be over populated. I presented evidence that an immigration reform would in deed provide jobs and solve for the economy Vote Affirmative
A Comprehensive Immigration Reform is key to our Economy and one should be issued

My opponent states that Immigration Reforms are what will help the US economy. This is incorrect because: 1) The bad economy is largely because the US is n dept. How will immigration reform help this? 2) The USA is struggling to provide jobs for people already living in the United States. How will they provide jobs for more people who come to the United States. 3) The USA will become overpopulated like China and India if more immigrants are to come to the country. Conclusion My opponent has still not proven that immigration reform is going to solve anything and until he can do this, I will rest my case. The trouble that the USA is currently in is larger than just immigration. My opponent has not clearly stated what kind of immigration reforms are needed.
A Comprehensive Immigration Reform is key to our Economy and one should be issued

I honestly have to call you out on being un-topical with the resolution on the first part. And a comprehensive immigration reform is needed and could help out our economy. http://www.usnews.com... That basically says that an Immigration reform would provide jobs and solve our economy that is extremely fragile at this moment. Workers studying in the field's of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math from outside of the United states could come to our country , work with the brilliant minds that they have, and solve our economy. I honestly won't say anything against your " Democrat and Republican" argument because it's off topic. The resolution states that the economy is fragile at this moment and through passing an immigration reform, it could help our economy become resilient. I think you also got the resolution wrong. An Comprehensive Immigration Reform is where congress passes a reform that allows people from other countries to come and work in America. So... I tell the audience to vote affirmative.
Marijuana should be completely legalized

B) Sources 2 and 4 cannot be taken seriously because they are biased. When I provided sources, I didn't quote a pro-cannabis magazine, I quoted serious medical studies, which doesn't compare to quoting websites that are dedicated to spreading anti-drug propaganda. Source 1 is a magazine, which may not be biased but still can't be compared to a medical study when assessing it's veracity. As for source number 3, I never stated that marihuana wasn't bad for teenagers, I specifically said that it was harmless for people with fully developed brains and should not be sold to minors. I also never said it had no short-term effects, it may affect memory and concentration on a heavy smoker, but that doesn't mean that those effects won't wear off once marihuana is no longer consumed on a regular basis. As for the change in the structure of the brain, a study has been conducted on January disproving that belief. [1] Marihuana having 60 chemicals in it is false, cannabis is a plant, and can be grown in your own backyard without using a single chemical, if the government regularizes production and farmers start to use chemicals for more profitable harvesting, then it may contain chemicals, but that wouldn't make it any different from a tomato, or a lettuce. C) Where is the evidence of people committing more crimes when they are "freaking out" from cannabis consumption? If you are stating that as a fact without any evidence, you have the burden of proof, and I can deny it as long as you don't provide evidence. Panic attacks are a debilitating condition, you wouldn't be able to commit a crime while suffering from a panic attack even if you wanted to. As I said, you can consume marihuana in a variety of different ways other than smoking it, and regardless of that, you could smoke oregano and hurt your lungs, that doesn't nor shouldn't make it illegal. The THC in the smoke is not what causes the damage. People do consume marihuana for the health benefits, I'm not denying that it's a minority, but I could very easily provide sources for hundreds of patients that use marihuana for relieving symptoms of illnesses. Medical marihuana is just marihuana, the only difference is that it's prescribed, not the substance, some people use marihuana for medical purposes without getting a prescription. D) If your premise is protecting the public, my argument is that there is nothing to protect them from when it comes to marihuana, since it has been proven to be harmless and much safer than the majority of the products we consume on a daily basis (I urge you to investigate how many chemicals you are consuming when you eat a stake that you bought at the market). Not legalizing marihuana is costing taxpayers a lot of money, it's making police focus on harmless pot consumers rather than on actually dangerous people, it's taking a right away from adults that should be able to do what they want with their own body and preventing certain people from using it to improve their well being. [1] http://www.jneurosci.org...
Marijuana should be completely legalized

Many of those sources and "pros" of smoking pot are referring to medical marijuana, which is a different animal than just smoking it. B) This trumps the last post as even more incorrect. Pot is not good for you, and we are starting to find many flaws in pot usage. [1] [2] [3] [4] Marijuana is still a drug with over 60 chemicals in it, and in almost every case, drugs are not good for you. The benefits are extremely mild compared to the potential consequences. C) What? Your argument had no basis. You can't just say something like that when I only stated a fact. Most crimes that are commited by people that are high are commited after taking too much, and pretty much starting to freak out. That has a basis, it's called just saying something non controversial. Pros point here is not backed up and he just denies sensible information. I said nothing of lung cancer. All I pointed out was that anything you smoke into your lungs other than natural things is not good for you. Example is being in a coal factory, or walking through a sandstorm. If it gets to your lungs, it won't help you. And even the idea of doing weed for the "Health benefits" is so ridiculous. No one does weed for the positive health benefits. And using medical marijuana as an example is not valid, because it's an entirely differnent situation. D) Safest drug in the world? How about the skinniest fat guy? All I'm saying is is that saying it's the safest, doesn't mean it's good. And by safe you mean by how lethal it is, which isn't even in the premise of my argument. Sure cannabis isn't a military weapon, but neither is a disease. And the government can exert its constitutional power on that issue. Protecting the public is not limited to bullets. [1] http://www.bustle.com... [2] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [3]http://www.m.webmd.com... [4]drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Marijuana should be completely legalized

Okay, round 2. B) This is not true. The pros have been proven by several scientific studies [1][2][3][4] while there is no proof of negative long-term health implications caused by the substance itself. C) Even though you may have a panic attack after consuming pot (which happens very rarely), that doesn't make you more likely to commit a crime, this argument has no basis. It's not necessary to smoke Cannabis to benefit from it. You can use a vaporizer or consume it orally and have the positive health benefits without any smoke going into your lungs. There is no proven correlation between weed and lung cancer or emphysema. [5] D) Since Cannabis is so safe and has been proven to be the safest psychoactive substance in the planet [6] I see no reason to keep it illegal. Also, as I previously stated, I believe adults should have access to any substance they choose, since they have the right to decide whats best for them, and cannabis isn't a military weapon, it won't put the population in danger. [1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] http://www.cancer.gov... [3] http://www.compassionatecareny.org... [4] http://www.collective-evolution.com... [5] http://publichealth.lacounty.gov... [6] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Marijuana should be completely legalized

I believe marijuana should not be legal, but I do also disagree with strict punishment of having it. I have no problem with incarcerating the dealer, but just possession should not have jail time. Also remember, you have the burden of proof. A) you do not have to incarcerate people so harshy for having it. I'm not arguing for the current laws 100%, but for it to not be legalized. This is only valid assuming the laws now are permanent. B) This is very very flawed. While yes, it can cure physical pain and other things especially while you're high, outside of medical uses there are far more cons than pros. Almost any drug or substance has some pros to it that might decrease chance of some disease, even though the product is still bad. C) while you cannot overdose on pot, that doesn't mean you can't take too much. Taking over the normal limit could give you paranoia or anxiety issues, which is where the marority of crimes with pot happen. The second part is extremely untrue. Using just several joints a week, you can cause damage to your brain and psychology. Even the occasional marijuana user, if smoking a couple times a week, affects his or her ability to be motivated and impairs his or her decision making. It has been shown to make new connections in the brain, encouraging further drug use. This is mainly due to the nucleus accumbens, which is the part of the brain that controls pleasure, learning, and again motivation. Pot smokers, many times found to even be people who barley smoke, experience less pleasure from natural rewards, and similarly to other drugs, use pot more to gain more pleasure. It is the ultimate gateway drug, because it encourages and normalizes more drug use, and is culturally seen as harmless. Also just to not, nothing you smoke into your lungs is going to be good or beneficial, unless it's air or something. D) well until the 70s or so I would say, everyone smoked and nearly everyone thought it was harmless or good for you even. Now it's a plague on the world, literally killing you through your lungs. And with pot, we have discovered that it is mainly bad for you, and we are only scratching the surface. Just because someone is an adult does not mean they can do whatever they want. Our governments main job (even originally) is to protect the citizens. And I would classify this as protecting the citizens. No, not everything you can hurt yourself with should be illegal, but I mean you could hurt yourself with a tooth brush. High powered military caliber turrets are not available for purchase though, because they don't really provide a benefit to everyone. They are generally bad.
Marijuana should be completely legalized

I will be Pro. Marijuana should be legalized without any restrictions other than the ones placed on tobacco or alcohol. The reasons are: A) By criminalizing Marijuana, people who are not a danger to society are incarcerated, taking their freedom from them as well as costing the state (and therefore the tax payers) money. B) Marijuana has tremendous health benefits, on a variety of different conditions including but not limited to: Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, migraines, insomnia, lack of appetite, nausea, and any kind of physical pain. C) No death has been produced by a marijuana overdose, and no long-term effects have been found if consumed by people with fully developed brains. D) Even if there was a risk in using marijuana which may not have been discovered yet, that does not justify keeping it illegal, as the state is limiting an adults right to do what they want with their body. You could hurt yourself with pretty much any legal item/substance that you can think of, and that does not mean that every object or substance in existence should be illegal.
Time is an intangible reality

Con proffers 5 statements/questions. Lets regard them A B C D E. A. Of course time is real. I have stated this from the outset. B. Time can be regarded as constant. But time does not need to flow. Events flow. C. Humans created clocks. To facilitate their need to measure the duration of events. D. Dinosaurs? Please explain. E. It is impossible to waste time. Time wasting is a human social concept. There is nothing in Con's argument so far, that discredits my opening proposition. Time does not require human justification. Time just is.
Time is an intangible reality

No More than 100 words per round. Use your own thoughts and ideas as much as possible. Do not rely on third party referencing. No formal structure to this debate. Time just is. Humans have acquired the ability to measure and calibrate the duration of events. We regard this as the passage of time. But in reality time does not have passage. Nor does time necessitate the need to be observed or given structure or value. Time will always be. Because time just is. Time is an intangible reality.
Universal Healthcare

Thanks for your rebuttal. As I can see you"re your argument is just based on morality. You have different morals then other people. You have the right to think that your morals are better than other peoples. But, when you"re going to debate someone only using your morals as arguments. That isn"t really strong. I notice that you talked a lot about Michael Moore"s documentary. Mr. Moore is a hard-core socialist. His films and books are completely biased. He isn"t going to put things in he"s documentary that is going to help the "capitalist" side. A common theme in Michael Moore's documentary was that anyone interviewed from an international country said, "We don't mind paying the little extra for taxes to help those in need." Do you really think that Mr. Moore would actually put in an interview clip of someone saying otherwise? Also a funny thing is that Mr. Moore became rich from capitalism. Hypocrite... [http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...] Back to health care" When you sign a health insurance agreement/contract, you agree to the term and conditions of that agreement/contract. Therefore, for the guy who got his finger cut off, he was pretty sure in breach of his contract because he was under the influence of a drug. That"s life. If you break an agreement, you lose your privileges. And if you don"t agree with the terms, then find a different health insurance company. The reason people can"t afford health insurance is because of taxes. The government steals up to or even more than half of your income. That"s what I call robbery. [Watch this short video if you don"t agree that taxation is theft: http://www.youtube.com...] Nobody is entitled to free health care. These doctors go to school for 10+ years and you want them to work for free? The health industry is like any other. You pay for the service you want. And, I"m sure that you do not know/understand capitalism. The definition that you referred to was made but socialist that wants to give a bad name to it. You are thinking of Corporatism and Cronyism. Also, you said that in France, they offer completely free education. Once again, nothing is free. You and your parents paid for that thought taxes. The government cannot give free things to anyone!. In conclusion, universal health care isn"t the best way to go. I agree that we need to reform it but to reform it to make it more like a free market. My idea of health care and any other industry, when you need it, you pay for it. Very simple, I want to be able to choose what to do with my money. If want to donate to charity, cool but to not force me to do it. Call it selfish, but remember. I worked hard for my money. Why should I give it to people that sit on their couches all day. Thanks for the debate. It was great experience for me (It was my first).
Universal Healthcare

I"m also looking forward to a great debate. Why should I pay for other people"s medical bill? I work hard for my money and I should have the right to spend on the things I want. If you need to go to the hospital, you pay for it. If you know that you wouldn"t be able to pay your bills upfront. Get insurance. If you can afford that IPhone, you can afford health insurance. You are not entitled to anything. And the funny thing is the people call you selfish because you want to keep the money you work hard for" Make sense? No it doesn"t. Having a public funded health care system is very inefficiency, because of many reasons. Firstly, there is no incentive to be efficient. (Ex:) If a public hospital goes into debt, it doesn"t matter because they will just take more money from the tax payers. If the hospital was privately owned, there will be a lot of incentive to be efficient because they need to be. Many "Anti-Privatization" people would say that "now the private hospital will treat the injured cheaply to make more money. There is some truth to that. Profit is important but if the "costumer" doesn"t come back, there wouldn"t be any profit. In a free market, there will be competition in every market. (Ex:) Let"s say, there two private hospital in a town. I broke my leg. So I chose to go the hospital (a). The doctors fixed my leg and I pay the bill. But I didn"t like the service because it was too slow and the staffs weren"t nice. Therefore, for my check in appointment, I chose to go to hospital (b). After my appointment, I liked the service, so I decided to only go to hospital (b) and I"ll tell all my friends about it. It"s very simple economics. The biggest misconception is that people call it Free Health Care. It is not free. Also, the only thing that Universal Health Care is only going is push the government deeper in debt. To conclude, universal health care is a bad idea. Because, I should be able to keep my money and pay for only the things I use. Also, public hospital does not have the incentive to be efficient.