BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul is the best republican candidate

I support Ron Paul primarily because I think the original description of what government should be in this country, as outlined in the constitution, is very much different, very much better, and very much smaller than what we have today. Today, I believe government far exceeds the bounds set for it both economically and socially, and instead of at least respecting the rule of law enough to amend the constitution, as was done for prohibition, current politicians simply chose to ignore it. I think that economically, it is immoral for the government to force us to work nearly half our time to pay for its overreaching policies, and socially, I think the government only has the right to prohibit actions when they directly harm another person, e.g. violence, theft, fraud. Abuses such as warrantless searches, suspension of habeus-corpus, and other governmental and executive abridgments of free speech and other rights need to end immediately. Regarding foreign policy, I actually had very different opinions only 6 months ago, before sitting down and really thinking about the issue open mindedly. I think that we need to consider for what reasons we have a right to invade another country, and carefully consider the impact of our policies. The idea of pre-emptive war, as Eisenhower pointed out, was invented by Hitler, and I wholeheartedly reject it. We need to have a moral definition for just war, that we would be as willing to have applied to us as we would be to apply it to others. It is not right for us to become the aggressors, to invade countries that have not attacked us. I'm tired of electing republicans only to see the size of government increase, instead of diminish, and Paul is the only candidate I've seen that actually wants us to reconsider what the role of government should be in the first place, and has the courage not to promise more government policies that according to conservative principles, shouldn't exist at all. He's also the only one I've heard that wants to return a respect for the constitution, and to point out that we should either abide by it, or amend it, but not ignore it. He's the only one, I believe, who means real change.
Legalize narcotics

"The simple fact is that drugs kill people, and they drive people to kill others. They may not cause all crime, but it is true that drugs are a major motivator in many violent crimes. Prohibiting drug use prevents people from throwing their life away, but also keeps them from taking someone else's." So you believe that you should decide what people do with their lives? Reminds me of a system that didn't work out too well, no? Drugs are a major motivator in many violent crimes? You know what else is a major motivator in many violent crimes? Stress. Family. Work. Hell, without these, we would be set, right? "One cannot argue that drugs are a negative influence on society. They corrupt, kill, and generate profit for evil people. And if a government does not prohibit this activity, it is the same as endorsing it." This argument reminds me of the abstinance only policy that our government adopted a few years back. If I recall correctly, hasn't the number of teen pregnancies INCREASED since it went into effect? Not banning something isn't the same thing as endorsing it. Otherwise you could go along and say that our government encourages smoking! After all, theres no rules against it, besides the few limiting factors they have for public locations. So our government encourages anything it does not ban? "Government may limit free will, but it does so in the best interests of the people. People cannot always act in their best interests, and in this case there is clearly cause for government to intervene in people's choices, to prevent widespread harm." ..*sigh* It is in the peoples best interest to be able to live, rather than have their government live for them. "Drugs cannot be eradicated, but they can be held at bay. Even if the problem can never be truly prevented, it is better to try to hold the evils of drug abuse at bay than to roll over and accept them." True. Drugs CANNOT be eradicated. Held at bay? Not so much. The same addicts are going to continue to do drugs, and if the laws currently in effect remain as such, the circle of violence and drug use will continue. The only way to stop this chain, is to change the way the reaction spreads. This would be easiest achieved through a law. Or lack thereof for that matter. Perhaps the violence would stop if the pressure from the government was not so great to push people into such a corner. Legalized drugs does not mean that rehab centers would stop, in fact, they would probably see an increase in productivity! After all, with this action no longer being illegal, perhaps people would not be so opposed to going to rehab when they realized they had a problem. Perhaps the best way to help people, is to let them make their own choices.
Legalize narcotics

The simple fact is that drugs kill people, and they drive people to kill others. They may not cause all crime, but it is true that drugs are a major motivator in many violent crimes. Prohibiting drug use prevents people from throwing their life away, but also keeps them from taking someone else's. One cannot argue that drugs are a negative influence on society. They corrupt, kill, and generate profit for evil people. And if a government does not prohibit this activity, it is the same as endorsing it. Government may limit free will, but it does so in the best interests of the people. People cannot always act in their best interests, and in this case there is clearly cause for government to intervene in people's choices, to prevent widespread harm. Drugs cannot be eradicated, but they can be held at bay. Even if the problem can never be truly prevented, it is better to try to hold the evils of drug abuse at bay than to roll over and accept them.
Legalize narcotics

"The idea is not to remove the lower class, simply ensure that the temptations they are subjected to do not pose such a large threat to themselves and others. In some cases, it may be helpful for the poor to have alternatives to turn to, but in this case, drugs POSE as an alternative to exploit people. They offer false hopes of comfort and solace, only to bleed desperate people dry and leave them broken. Religion may oppress people, but how many people steal a car for their church?" You manage to leave out the tales of success that have sprung from the lower class. While they are rare, they DO generate hope. This hope, and dreams of the future should be enough to push people towards making their lives better, rather than throwing it in the trash. If somebody does not view their life to be worth living, then the Darwin awards will be receiving plenty of new victims. People will take out rage in one way or another, blaming drugs for the violence and social deviance of the lower class is simply ignoring every other factor in their life, and every non drug related crime that has been committed. Especially those revolving around the lower class. "As for the absence of exploitation, ALL drug sale is exploitation. Just because it is a corporation selling the addictive product does not mean its not pure extortion." Because we ALL know that your average shady drug dealer abides by the laws set up by the government to prevent from exploitation...Companies do it, but they are at least regulated by law. And the regulation on companies is enough to outweigh the majority of ignorance that will come through the doors. "America is about freedom. But at the center of this issue is whether or not the freedom to abuse drugs will affect the freedom of others. Those driven to drug abuse will steal, kill, and God knows what else to get their next fix. This effects society as a whole, not just the drug addict. And while it is not feasible to eliminate drug use, as long as just one life is protected, it is all worth it." By your logic, yet again, you wish to eliminate risk. One life protected could easily be achieved by...oh..for the sake of argument..we will say...the manufacturing of chocolate easter bunnies. I'm sure that at least one life has been claimed by allergies to such a thing, would you suggest that we should ban ANYTHING that could claim even a single life? And No. It is not feasible to eliminate drug use. Only a large portion of the violence caused by it can be eliminated, by the legalization of it. I should hope that you are not under the impression that, should drugs be legalized, hundreds upon thousands of people will feel the need to go test out heroin after a long day at the office.
Legalize narcotics

The idea is not to remove the lower class, simply ensure that the temptations they are subjected to do not pose such a large threat to themselves and others. In some cases, it may be helpful for the poor to have alternatives to turn to, but in this case, drugs POSE as an alternative to exploit people. They offer false hopes of comfort and solace, only to bleed desperate people dry and leave them broken. Religion may oppress people, but how many people steal a car for their church? As for the absence of exploitation, ALL drug sale is exploitation. Just because it is a corporation selling the addictive product does not mean its not pure extortion. America is about freedom. But at the center of this issue is whether or not the freedom to abuse drugs will affect the freedom of others. Those driven to drug abuse will steal, kill, and God knows what else to get their next fix. This effects society as a whole, not just the drug addict. And while it is not feasible to eliminate drug use, as long as just one life is protected, it is all worth it.
Legalize narcotics

"All drug addicts are victims. It is true, people are responsible for their own lives, but no one is perfect, and no one can be expected to make perfect decisions all the time. Several studies, including one by the New York Bar Association, demonstrate a clear link between poverty and drug addiction. The study found that people who live in the poorest environments, the inner city poor, are far more likely to become drug users. People born in hopeless environments are always prone to any promise of escape, be it drugs, religion, or any other dangerous outlet." Everybody's a victim to something, that cannot be helped. And suggesting that we remove the lower class is simply not possible in a capitalistic society. As you stated though, People born in hopeless environments are always prone to any promise of escape, DRUGS, RELIGION, and MORE. Drugs are NEVER the only way out. "This debate is not just about drug users. If drugs were legalized, the drug pushers who deliberately prey on weak, helpless, desperate individuals for profit would walk free. There would be no penalty for intentionally getting people to experiment with drugs, and no penalty for exploiting their desperation to make a quick buck." You are eluding the truth! This debate IS about drug users. Should drugs become legal, the predatory drug pushers that you see today would not exist! If drugs were legal, you would see businesses selling drugs rather than a black market that exists below the blanket of society! No penalty for experimenting with drugs? You do understand that drugs...are...dangerous and addictive? Drugs are bad, but that is not the debate. This debate is based on the freedom to choose for yourself, right OR wrong. That is the essence of America, just as true as the title of this debate itself states "Legalize Narcotics". What this boils down to is improving our government, and allowing America to grow as it was intended by our founding fathers.
Legalize narcotics

Well played. To say that a ban on risk is impractical is not the same as saying risk is desirable. For example, driving poses a significant risk to life and limb, yes, but it also produces a large number of benefits to our society as well. The trade off of those benefits (ease of travel, etc)is that some people may die. This example does not apply to drug use, however. There are no spillover benefits from heroin addiction. The risk to society is not mitigated by any positive outcomes. Therefore, the risk of people caving to temptation and becoming addicted is too great to ignore. Drug users may still become successful people, true enough. But imagine a world where drug use was not illegal. Chances are, with no legal repercussions, the great drug addicts of the world would never have recovered, and would in all likelihood have died long before living out their full potential. People can free themselves of drug addiction on their own, but not everyone is so lucky. There has to be another body in the equation, someone always looking out for the people's interests, regardless of their situation. All drug addicts are victims. It is true, people are responsible for their own lives, but no one is perfect, and no one can be expected to make perfect decisions all the time. Several studies, including one by the New York Bar Association, demonstrate a clear link between poverty and drug addiction. The study found that people who live in the poorest environments, the inner city poor, are far more likely to become drug users. People born in hopeless environments are always prone to any promise of escape, be it drugs, religion, or any other dangerous outlet. This debate is not just about drug users. If drugs were legalized, the drug pushers who deliberately prey on weak, helpless, desperate individuals for profit would walk free. There would be no penalty for intentionally getting people to experiment with drugs, and no penalty for exploiting their desperation to make a quick buck.
Legalize narcotics

First off, I agree with you completely. People are weak. One moment of weakness COULD herald the end of a life. One moment of weakness. Anywhere. But you must consider that drugs are not the only risk that exist. For example, one second during driving, one wrong move could be the end of everybody in a proceeding car accident. If you are going to maintain a ban on drugs, you might as well propose a ban on risk. After all, not all drug users die from addiction, or the drugs themselves. In fact, there are MANY drug users who end up to be very successful people, who have made the world a MUCH better place. Now imagine all the potential of those sitting behind bars? People that would choose to partake in events such as these cannot be viewed as victims. They are risk takers. I will not condone their actions however, I view them to be foolish, myself. They made a choice, and they must live with it. Life is not about "replays" or "do-overs". However, the side of enforcing a war on drugs DOES have its ups, does it not? After all, a fairly large chunk of violent and non-violent crimes are committed due to drug use. But you must ask yourself, would many of these crimes be committed if drugs were viewed in a different light? Perhaps the unfortunate individuals who so desperately were seeking help would have better methods to turn to than crime?
Legalize narcotics

People are inherently weak-willed, and drugs exploit that weakness. In this day in age, dangerously addictive drugs are easy and cheap to make (crack cocaine, for example), and in one moment of weakness a person can become a helpless addict, often for the rest of their lives. Drugs have been shown in numerous studies to cause people to lose control of their actions. Drug addiction hijacks the body's survival instincts, making people do things they would never consider, all to get their next fix. Lives are torn apart, crime skyrockets, all because people have been ensnared by a drug pusher. People have the right to decide what to do with their life and body, but drug abuse clearly presents a danger to all of society, and should therefore be outlawed.
Speed Rap Battle

My notification didn"t go , that got under my skin I just lost conduct but its not enough to earn him a win Im going to type at 50 words a click Burry this fuker and give him a metaphorical dik Speed raps are literally what I do the best So this guy is in for a powerful test I"m going to teach you guys how I do this with finesse You focus on words and match syllables surely I digress Pretend I"m Jesse James and Im in the wild west He can"t beat me so he can abandon the quest After hearing my rhymes he"s going to be depressed This is just a free loss on his record, he will never progress Its only a matter of time before he starts acting in distress Then hes going to realize this was never even a contest Hell hes probably even going to be impressed That I can spit rhymes this fast, and even compress This battle just ended , I put one in his chest Now Im wearing this kill like is a symbol or crest Im battling a guy named bob turner why kind of gay name is that This guy probably has fuking acne, and is obese and fat. Im glad I forfeited a round, this guy needs the confidence boost The fact he thinks he can beat me, is all just a roose I'm going to bury this fuker and stick him deep down in the ground I'm going to murder this btch silently and not even make a sound Bob turner is dead, I beat this btch with just one round So he had my crown for a round, but im a lyrical hound I lock on to my contenders , zone in and kill I do all this sht because its a thrill Don;t lie to yourself you had to climb a hillThis battle was the moment you accepted, so just sit back and chill
Speed Rap Battle

What's this? A fcking forfeit? I made you my b1tch, put on your corset Didn't I say you didn't have a chance? You're nothing but a blowhard, you will not advance You exude more hot air than George Bush on a cruise Apologize to Al Gore for Global Warming, the literature is there for you to peruse This battle is over, I've made my point Now it's time to role a joint [of tobacco] I will ascend to my throne, having overtaken the so-called champ I was expecting a battle, but it turns out he's nothing but a tramp That's enough pain for you for now I'll wait to see how you respond so I can plan for you to go out with a pow
Speed Rap Battle

Who does this fcker think he is battling the champ B1tch I ball hard, you haven"t the slightest prayer Vengeance is futile, resistance is rare Your bars are so weak they don"t even compare When I"m through with you, you"ll be struggling, gasping for air Your bars are nothing but doctrinaire Ima wipe that smirk right off your bloated face You think you"re baller but you"re nothing but a disgrace 8900 ELO my left nut You"re a chump, a deceiver, something you can"t rebut You say you"re going to level me, destroy me, end this right here But wouldn"t you agree you"re cruising to get smacked in the derriere? B1tch I ain"t playin, my rhymes are contagious, ostentatious, ageless I"m a double agent and you"ll never understand it Your reign ends here, kiss it goodbye This is the point where surely you will die [on the leaderboard] I simply need a single bull"s-eyes Target acquired, locked down, no way I can miss It could be prevented If only you weren"t such a priss With that said an era comes to an end Wasn"t quite what you had penned, wasn"t quite the trend You didn"t expect for me to apprehend Or to perform at this level where surely you will lose Debating you is truly just a snooze I could defeat you even with two fingers shoved up my arsshole With that I ascend to my throne No begging, no pleading, we ain"t going home No turning back now, this is the major leagues I can understand your combat fatigue But no mercy, ever, I will not concede Until I win this battle you"re at my mercy So buckle up, this will be a bumpy ride All devices astride, you can"t deny that you"re cruising for a beating How"s that for a prototypical Easter greeting? This is over, the only option is retreating Concede or surely pay the price And then maybe I"ll be generous and allow you your last rites
It is better to be a man than to be a woman in the United States.

The living experience of females is superior in that we can be "stingy" or generous with physical affection–legally, we have a choice. A male is driven by that drive and is often consumed past legal and rationale thought. The male lives longer only when coupled with a female, who offers a better life. A woman may have a drive to couple with a man, but the woman is superior enough not be consumed with that drive to the point of committing crimes of passion. A father can tell his child, “I am stronger; follow me.” The child may follow or disobey, but a majority of people will at least acknowledge the superior strength of the adult male to the child. A mother may tell her child, “I am smarter, listen to me.” The child may listen or disobey, but the majority of people will at least acknowledge that the child should have listened to the mother. A woman may approach a man and say, “I am superior, listen.” A man may roll his eyes or smirk – the attitude of a teenage child. However, most men are wise and experienced enough to be silent when a woman speaks. Men may say it is like ignoring a Chihuahua, a mosquito or a fly. “Not worth responding,” a man may tell himself. Yet, ask a man to mention this very debate to his female mate, his mother, his female co-workers and the man would be afraid---as afraid as the young child challenging his father in a fight; as afraid as a young student challenging the principal at school. The male would begin to worry that his need for females (wife/mother) would be unsatisfied after such a statement. The male that is willing to broach this debate at work would be considered a fool, not brave. This male would be laughed at by other males as being an idiot, attacked by women, and perhaps at risk of losing his job. A male saying “Males are superior to females” would be as much a pariah in professional society as a peasant saying “The Queen is inferior to my shoe” in a feudal society. In either case, the best defense would be to claim an addled brain.
It is better to be a man than to be a woman in the United States.

I will now deconstruct each in turn: 1. Males rely upon our own achievements, not on the adulation of others to determine our self-worth. 2. It's only because of the unscrupulous monopoly women have on female genitalia that Valentine's Day or anniversaries even exist. If you choose to celebrate manipulation and stinginess making the female experience better than the male, then I'll leave you to ponder that point. 3. This is merely a recast of point #2; yet I stand is living proof that it isn't nearly universal. There are many males who find a mate based upon their genuine heart and charm and not upon such shallow things as physical displays or fancy cars. 4. Assuming we have achieved true equality in society, crime and punishment should also be equal. That said, even in such an egalitarian future, society should laugh at and think less of a man who claims he was beaten by a female. 5. Again assuming we are living in such a future as one where true sexual equality has been achieved, the stay-at-home dad should no longer be an issue. 6. While your point about sperm banks are true, that is not really the point of this debate. Men need females for much more than just procreation; there is a natural attraction between the sexes that cannot be denied in the vast majority of humans. To reduce a man or woman to either a sperm squirting or babymaking machine is a bit crass. We are not discussing replacing one of the sexes; we are simply discussing who has a more enjoyable experience in total during their lifetime. In conclusion, while this was a short debate, it has served to highlight that no matter how equal men and women become in all societal measures there still are fundamental differences between the sexes that cannot be escaped. And based upon my previous round 2 arguments, which my opponent has neglected to address directly, I feel I have proven conclusively that the male experience is indeed better.