BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gary Johnson is the best presidential candiate for Nov 2016.

My opponent has shown Hilary Clinton has a similar stance on many issues that Gary Johnson has. I say we drop these issues since the differences are too small to quarrel about. Instead, lets focus on gun control. Yes, its tragic that people use firearms for malevolent purposes. I mourn for the victims of violence just like anyone else. Yet, we need to see the big picture. Trading freedom for security will not solve the problem, and may even make it worse. "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." R13; Benjamin Franklin [3] Our forefathers fought hard to liberate the original thirteen colonies from the British. Our fathers also knew we could lose this freedom very easily. I wish we lived in a more ordeal world, but we don't. The people must keep the government in check. We need firearms and it is just that simple. As seen by the attack on France via a large truck, firearms are not the only weapons capable of killing. [4] Note, France has some of the most stringent gun control laws. [5] As seen by statistics homicide by firearm is not even within the top 10 list in the USA. [6] In fact, heart disease and cancer are. Despite these diseases having cures that are cheap and readily available by following a whole foods plant based diet. [7][8] Thanks for reading and thanks for the debate. Sources. 3. https://www.goodreads.com... 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 5. https://www.theguardian.com... 6. http://www.cdc.gov... 7. http://www.ravediet.com... 8. http://www.forksoverknives.com...
Gary Johnson is the best presidential candiate for Nov 2016.

Gary Johnson seems to be a reasonable man in my opinion. Separation of church and state: Supports separation of religion and state. (Aug 2011) [2] Drugs: "Marijuana is safer than alcohol." (Aug 2012) [2] "Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime. (Jan 2001) " [2] Immigration: "Bigger border fence will only produce taller ladders. (Jan 2016) " [2] From the above you can see Gary Johnson is a reasonable man. That's what need in a leader. Not somebody who is going to drastically and erratically change everything. http://www.ontheissues.org...
Prostitution do more harm than good

I believe that prostitution do more harm than good. Prostitution definiton is any kind of sex that needs money in return. My arguments basically lie on these 3 things : 1. Prostitution is bad for the health for every parties involved. The chance to get infected by STDs will be higher upon how often you have sex. Also prostitution is done without fully concent by every parties. The consent is fake. every parties needs to find their partner is secured from STD, but without medical check up being shown to each other, basically there is possiblity that one might get infected because his/her partner(s) (either the cutomer or the prostitute) who lied. 2. Prostitution lack on regulation and control. even in the most regulated place we often find narcotics in there. where we find prostitution, we will almost certainly find narcotics. 3. Degradation on women (for female prostitute) and also on man (for the male prostitute). Prostitutes give image that the customer can do anything to them just because the customer is paying. We sometimes find the violant acts in prostitution due to this reason. Regardless the prostitute has given "some rules" in advance, they still be the victim of sex violance due to this image. On the good side of prostitution, we find nothing but the pleasure of the society. Which I think can be exchange with other more constructiove entertainment such as music and arts. So, I believe prostituion do more harm than good
Claim: We, In America, Need to rethink the way we define crime and the way we punish it.

=== Marijuana Crimes === I get that you think pot offenses are over-punished and I will agree with you there. It was not my understanding that this is a "legalize pot" debate. Assuming it is not, I will provide additional points regarding other crimes. === Inhumane Treatment === Part of your description of inhumane includes "no personal space, " minimal clothing, And healthy-but-unappetizing food. I see these as inconvenient but not inhumane. In fact, It sounds like the average American's life from a few generations ago. The other part of inhumanity is violence inside prisons. I agree that prisons should be kept clear of physical and sexual violence. But, Are you willing to buy decreases in violence with decreases in freedom? === Separation from Home === Putting violent offenders in prison seems very appropriate, Even though they likely will temporarily lose their job, Car, Girlfriend, Kids, Etc. Even if these are permanent losses, They seem appropriate "justice" for having committed violence. === More on Justice === You say, "there is no point" in punishment because it can't undo the crime. You seem to equate punishment with "making someone suffer" and rehabilitation with "teaching someone a lesson. " I don't see them as so distinct. I would argue that suffering is the best teacher. Time out is a form of punishment. What is it called when I "make someone suffer to teach him a lesson"? From the other side, I have a few more questions. The teaching of lessons normally comes after the time-out (or whichever punishment). How do you teach a violent criminal who isn't in prison? What is it called when I coerce someone into listening to my lesson? Do you have a method that avoids exercising authority over them (which could be called punishment)? === 1 Million Offenses === A typical yet insignificant example is littering. My "one piece of trash" does not victimize anyone, But if everyone dumps one piece of trash, Every street becomes a wastebasket. There is a world of infractions that fit this description, But few of them land an offender in prison. Another example is shoplifting. Many people think that a large company with a chain of stores is not victimized by a small theft. (This raises a pertinent question: how much does the victim have to suffer before a law is made to criminalize it? ) But, When a generation of kids start shoplifting, Even large thriving businesses will go bankrupt. A more significant example is prostitution. My one lay with a woman for money does not victimize anyone per your definition. However, When millions of men "demand" it, There arises a "supply" problem. When the costs of a lay grow too high, There becomes a large incentive to find more "supply. " This has and does lead directly to human trafficking even though no individual John asked for it.
Claim: We, In America, Need to rethink the way we define crime and the way we punish it.

I have accepted this challenge for these reasons. First, You seem to be earnest and sensible. Second, I agree that a big overhaul of laws (at all levels) would be great. Third, I don't think you and I will agree on how to overhaul the laws. === Prison Treatment === This appears to be your primary point. You repeatedly call it inhumane and claim that it creates monsters. I am under the impression that prison treatment is not desirable, But humane. What are the factors that you consider inhumane? The biggest problems I can think of are that 1) criminals are separated from their homes, And 2) they are stuck next to other criminals. These are undesirable circumstances but strike me as well within the realm of humane. I am unaware of any good substitute for these two problems. === Responding to Crime === I think separation of criminals from society and rehabilitation of criminals are great goals in responding to crime. However, I see no problem with justice, For punishment and for deterrence. I punish my children (of all ages) when they misbehave and I see it as a relevant and successful strategy. I am not sure why that would be different for other people's kids (meaning criminals). Overall, Both under-punishment and over-punishment have a hand in creating these "monsters. " This is a place where an overhaul is appropriate: rebalancing punishment. === Defining Crime === You admit that laws arise from morality but complain that government is in the morality business. It is hard to find a single law that is not based on a specific moral judgment. Even when such laws can be found, Proactive enforcement of them brings us right back to morality. You are correct that anything can be made into a crime. At any moment, I expect that every US citizen is violating one rule or another, Without even a notion that a rule exists on the topic. This is a place where an overhaul is appropriate: eliminating surplus laws. Using potential victimization as a basis for rule-making is necessary but probably not sufficient. The most obvious omissions under this method are the myriad flavors of self-destruction. Less visible are the seemingly innocuous activities that can be ignored in 1 person but not in 1 million people. === My first solution === Shouldn't every society get to be self-determining in its laws? If a society really feels strongly about something, They should be allowed to make rules on the topic. Unfortunately, "we the people" of the US rarely have a say anymore in our laws. First, Most existing laws were written by people from generations ago. Second, Most new laws are written by well-meaning but disconnected (from society) bureaucrats in Executive Agencies. SOLUTION #1: Remove most laws from the National Government and give rule-making back to State and Local governments (the lower the better). This would make laws both more balanced (re: punishment) and more responsive (changeable as "society" changes).
Claim: We, In America, Need to rethink the way we define crime and the way we punish it.

I did not say nor did I mean that criminals are 1) dogs or sub-human, 2) stupid, Or 3) can't learn. Your suggestion to "feed their brains" is only as good as the inmates make it. You said it yourself: "most of them just keep their heads down and do what they're told. " This sounds like a difficult learning environment even for a motivated student.
Claim: We, In America, Need to rethink the way we define crime and the way we punish it.

I'll try to clear things up I never said prison was punishment per se. What I was getting at was that people want to punish criminals. I'm not against prisons. That would be dumb of me, Lol. I brought up punishment to show that our criteria for dealing with criminals is flawed. I was basically saying the main purpose of jail should be to keep dangerous people separated from society. The punishment part of it speaks to how we treat them after the fact. I hope that clears it up for you. "I did not say or mean they can't learn. I said they "are not easily taught anything" Do you have evidence that criminals can't learn as good as normal people? Because criminals are just people. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should be trying to rehabilitate serial killers, But if you start with the assumption that criminals can't learn anything then they won't because you're immediately dismissing them. This is the attitude I'm talking about that society treats them like sub human. You would never tell a regular person that they're incapable of learning. But you have no problem saying it about a criminal. I"ve met a lot of criminals in my day and I never thought many of them were dumb. Most crimes are committed out of desperation, Not stupidity. "I suppose that many of them still don't show up to classes that are offered" lol, I'm guessing you've never been arrested. Based on our current system, Being tardy would not be an option if we made it mandatory. Only a very small amount of the inmate population actually rebel against the COs. Most of them just keep their heads down and do what they're told because they don't want to be messed with. "That doesn't solve the minimal personal space, And it doesn't improve the food. " Actually, It does. 22 percent of the national prison population is drug offenders. I don't know the percentage of other no victim offenders, So I won't quote those. But arresting 22 percent less people would make it much easier to improve standards. Also, Most prisons are privately funded and the government pays incentives for each person in the jail. This means that emptying the jails would lower cost for the government. Food and space issues fall on the dollar of the prison owners, Not the tax payers, We need to either need to give prisons back to the government or make the prison owners fork out the money to take care of their prisoners. I won't talk about prison privatization too much because we're too far in the debate to really get into it. Another time maybe :) As for implementation, It would have to be a gradual process. We would start by releasing any offenders that committed victimless crimes because that's the worst part of it, Then we would have to start auditing prison conditions on a national scale and calling the private prison owners to fix their buildings up, The same was we would do to any other business. The rest would depend heavily on legislation. In closing, I would be happy if even some of these changes ever got implemented. I think we've come far enough as a people to move past petty punishment. Good debate
Claim: We, In America, Need to rethink the way we define crime and the way we punish it.

=== Misunderstandings === I think I have misunderstood you a few times in this debate. The biggest lack of clarity is how you say 1) prison is punishment, 2) punishment is bad, But 3) prison is okay. This has been confusing and led to the next section. === Teaching Criminals === I don't think I was talking about criminals like they were dogs. I did not say or mean they can't learn. I said they "are not easily taught anything. " The hardest part of teaching someone, Is getting them to show up and bother to listen. Thinking they were not in prison, It seemed particularly difficult to teach them. Now I understand that you are okay with imprisoning the criminals. If they are forced to be there, Then it becomes much easier to teach them. However, I suppose that many of them still don't show up to classes that are offered. Thus, Even in prison, It is hard to teach them. === Your solution === So, You want prison to be less hard on the inmates. Okay. Let"s say we don't mix drug offenders with violent offenders. I think you would see that as a major step forward, And so would I. That doesn't solve the minimal personal space, And it doesn't improve the food. To achieve those improvements, The nation would need to put out a significant amount of money to build more prisons and improve the quality of the food. How much will that cost? What is less important to society that these expenditures? How do you suggest implementing these changes?
marijuana should be legalised it would help us in the long run and get us out of debit

I do not disagree with my opponents stance on Marijuana as stated in Round 1. However, as with accordance with the Debate topic, he has not shown how it will get the U. S. out of debt, as I am presuming 'debit' is a misspelling of 'debt'. As shown on this website, as of 21:04 GMT the U. S. is in $12,385,520,848,188 of debt. . http://www.usdebtclock.org... number is constantly increasing and will be greater by the time my opponent reads it. My opponent must prove how legalisation of Marijuana would eliminate the U. S. debt. I await my opponents response.
marijuana should be legalised it would help us in the long run and get us out of debit

"The tax the government puts on them eventually goes to help with funding sources to the governments wants. So if Marijuana was legalized and put into packages like cigarettes. The tax on them could help get us out of debt. " --> While the taxation of Marijuana would no doubt bring in revenue for the government and help ease the deficit, it would be in no way able to match the thousands the U. S. deficit increases by each second. By personal estimation it takes approximately 5 seconds for the debt to go up by $100,000 [1]. It would be implausible for enough Marijuana to be sold to generate enough revenue to match this. "On top of that the people they put behind bars for crimes related to marijuana would lower the amount of images in jail and that's another fee waked off the budget. I am under the assumption that if marijuana becomes legal if would create jobs for people unemployed which would lower the amount of money needed for welfare or what not. " --> Whilst I agree with you that it would create jobs, it would not be sufficient to alone match the growing deficit. And as for decreasing people in prison, current criminals would be "grandfathered" (i. e. they old laws would still apply to them) but the inflow of prisoners would initially drop. However, an increase in numbers from people who still sell drugs illegally and people who break regulations would go into prison. Although there would be less prisoners, to say all the current marijuana offenders will just disappear is false. "the 1930-1940's 12million spent. 1940-1952 2billion spent. 1960-1970's 9 billion spent. the 1980-1990's 220 billion spent. Who knows what they are spending now on the war on pot. it was quit funny. " --> The following statement has no sources, and is therefore holds no weight in this debate. My opponent has not shown how the legalisation of marijuana alone would counter the U. S. deficit Thank You.
marijuana should be legalised it would help us in the long run and get us out of debit

I apologize I have been really busy with working and school. I am sorry I didn't put my argument regarding putting us out of debt which is what I met not debit. I have no sources to back up what I am about to say and for all means vote for for con. What I have to say regarding getting us out of debt is simple..... If Marijuana was legalized it could put us out debt little by little. I did not mean by any means it would make us debt free. I only said it would help. Think about cigarettes. The tax the government puts on them eventually goes to help with funding sources to the governments wants. So if Marijuana was legalized and put into packages like cigarettes. The tax on them could help get us out of debt. On top of that the people they put behind bars for crimes related to marijuana would lower the amount of images in jail and that's another fee waked off the budget. I am under the assumption that if marijuana becomes legal if would create jobs for people unemployed which would lower the amount of money needed for welfare or what not. Those are some of the few things that i believe would help out. Again no sources but just know what is spent allready to get pot of the streets etc and taking that into account. I watched a documentry forget the name but will add it in the comments when i come across it. the 1930-1940's 12million spent. 1940-1952 2billion spent. 1960-1970's 9 billion spent. the 1980-1990's 220 billion spent. Who knows what they are spending now on the war on pot. it was quit funny. The movies the government would show our parents "i am 26" so like the mid 60's-70's "if you smoke pot you will go crazy" its freakin hlliarious. So to end this very short rebuttal I only met help us get out of debt not debit. So thank you for correcting what i met. I would love to hear how you think it would not help and make it worse for which is what I assuming what your conclusion is going to be. Marijuana been around for generations and it took the government to scare us out of using it because it would make us go crazy or do other drugs or lower our self esteem or do something to us but they don't know what. People drink, smoke, eat unhealthy so whats wrong with pot especially if it would help cut some of our losses and gain some potential income to help us out in the long run. Even if its a little bit it stlll helps . Thank you and congratulations. I will better prepare myself next time when i have the time to gather sources or you. P.S. whoo hoo the saints won the super bowl
Gay rights.

First I would like to bring up from Con that the child may have abnormal behavior. Which I far from agree on one of the sources I have found has talked about a life which not father and it does not affect the child. But the child would mostly grow up to be a lesbian is raised by two mothers. http://www.narth.com... Also I would like to bring up gay adoption to the voters if I must. They never told us how me benefit from this. Did you know that 33% of kids are living in a female same sex family and 22% in male same sex family. That is how we benefit from it. It gives kids a place to be and foster kids a place to stay. But also as I brought up above about how the child could be gay there is no fact that the child will really be born gay. http://gaylife.about.com... now I would like to bring up regilon. I was reading one artical i hope you all read it was quite nice. The over all story was about a gay woman finding god. She delt with pain and pressure through her life. I think it shows that god did make gays. http://www.christianitytoday.com...
Gay rights.

I for one am a huge supporter of GLBT I feel that they should have rights just like a straight man or straight woman. I don't think they should fight for their rights people who think they should are closed minded and ignorant. Also many people say its a sin. I'm catholic and I see no sinning at all. In my mind there is a god I don't wish to back away from I find if being gay is truly a sin...then why would god make a gay person. There are many things gays can't do but the worst of all is not able to get married in some states in the USA. What is so treating about gays not being able to get married? Is it because they can't have kids so then the human population will go down? How about adoption they could always adopt kids and give them a loving home. Is it because 2 woman can't raise a child or 2 men can't raise a child? No it's because people think the child will be confused about if they are GSB (gay,straight,bisexual).
Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

You: Just a point of order, I assume we will discuss the validity of carbon dating dinosaur bones, rather than the outcome of the dating. Otherwise, I can't debate your statement without performing tests of my own. Answer: Yes, it's about the validity of the results. _____________________________________ You: Carbon dating depends on the half-life of Carbon-14, which is around 5700 years. That means that the amount of Carbon-14 is cut in half 10 times within less than 60 000 years. Therefore, carbon dating is not recommended to determine any age over 50 000 years. (1) Rather, you should use Radiometric dating, where they look for isotopes with a half-life of millions, sometimes even billions of years. (2) While a bit less accurate, it can be used over much longer time frames. If you want to approximate a skeleton you found in a tomb, carbon dating is better but it's useless over the time frames we are discussing. Answer: I completely agree with everything you said, I would suggest that carbon dating begins to be less accurate after three thousand years, due to the constant (and faster than outcome) transformation of N-14 into C-14. However, we're not looking to determine an exact date for the age of dinosaurs. The point is, there should be exactly zero atoms of C-14 inside the bones if the dinosaurs went extinct 100,000 years ago, not to mention 70,000,000 years ago -- and therefore, I have to conclude that it had to be younger than that, since C-14 is found inside. _____________________________________