BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize Marijuana

I'm Pro-Leaf and a member of the American Marijuana Party (AMP). Therefore, a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana for recreational and medicinal uses. We seek to remove all penalties for adults 18 and over who choose to consume cannabis in aresponsible manner. We demand an end to the war on productive and otherwise law abiding citizens by the powers that be who claim to protect us. We demand the right to use any medication our healthcare providers and we deem fit without government interference. We demand the release of all people imprisoned on marijuana charges and that their criminal records be expunged. We demand that all property seized in marijuana raids be returned to the rightful owners at once. We demand that our law enforcement officers make more efficient use of our tax dollars and use the resources they have at their disposal to go after violent criminals and crimes that actually have victims. We demand the right to grow marijuana for personal consumption, just as alcohol can be brewed at home legally so long as it is not sold untaxed. We demand that you stop treating us like second class citizens for consuming something that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and cause numerous deaths each year.Cannabis has never been reported to have caused one. Now that you know where I'm coming from, a few rules, if you will. R1- Acceptance & clarification. R2- Opening arguments. R3-Rebuttals and conclusions. I also ask that no religion be used for grounds of argument. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting my challenge. Good luck.
THBT African Americans are racists.

Though I am not an African American, I will be taking Con side of this debate. You say that ALL African Americans are racist. As we know, that is not at all true. Think about the Africans who are priests or Presidents. Would you see them calling their people "homie" and "crackers"? Not at all. "Not all African Americans came from the same tribes" Most African Americans descended from West African countries.Studies indicate ALL of us may have originated in Africa long before tribes existed. True, some may be racist, but that does not honor God. God made us to take care of each other and not to be racists. You also state you want some street language in this debate. I will not use any because I am not one to curse or use street language. Good luck to my opponent and I hope to hear from you soon.
THBT African Americans are racists.

To all my niggas, nothing personal dawg, I believe that African Americans are racists because they like to use the word honkey/honky6 (in general) to white people. That is not all homie. They call other African Americans niggers, why? As you know my homies, not all African Americans came from the same tribes in Africa. Anyways, I love to see the usage of street languages in this debate. This is Hannibal, you better recognize fool!
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

So let's start off with the theory... 1) Fairness. The affirmative has the burden of proof to establish that what they say is true. Given the burden of proof of course the affirmative will have more ground. This is just the nature of argumentation. Just because my opponent doesn't understand that doesn't mean that the debate is stacked. 2) He ignores this point. My argument that the debate is educational when one actually debates the topic still stands. This can be considered a drop. 3) My opponent mentions point 1 and point 2, but he never once even talks about point 3. He completely dropped this point conceding that the debate is MORE FUN when one DEBATES THE TOPIC AT HAND. This means that he agrees (by not responding to my argument) that by whining about how "unfair" the resolution is he is in fact HURTING the value of entertainment in this round. He dropped it and this is my last opportunity to present arguments so I don't get to respond to anymore of his arguments after this. In light of this I ask that you the voters do not allow my opponent to bring this argument back up. Thus this debate has been proven to be fair, educational and entertaining. Voter affirmative The only response that my opponent offers is that people will download illegally any way. What my opponent does not bring to your attention is the fact that this is not what we are evaluating. We are trying to determine whether or not it is justified not if people will do it any way. His entire argument is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what we are debating about. His point falls however interesting of a thought it may be... On to my second point... My opponent starts off with his first point contesting my evidence analytically. The words he is attacking are not mine they are BBC's. BBC is a legitimate source for international media. Plus they are BRITISH!!!!! Take it up with the editor. Second point he makes is him basically him restating his point that I already refuted. I showed the numbers. I gave you statistic's showing how just because they make money off of concerts doesn't make stealing okay. He drops my points and ignores my statistics and has given you no reason to vote in negation of the resolution... Thank you and vote affirmative. :D
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

So lets look at the two arguments that have been mainly presented within this debate. First I shall cover the resolutions debate, then move on to the actual case. My opponent in the beginning of the second round begins by saying 1) "argumentation occurs only under conditions of uncertainty" and 2) "Debate is educational when both positions are more concerned with the topic at hand and less concerned about whether or not they agree with and are confident debating their position." and though my opponent may be correct that a debate requires two sides and this debate can be educational, he fails to see some of the more critical things making the debate worthwhile. One of these things that the resolution doesn't meet is fairness "Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified." automatically has the wording that "Illegal" is unjust, and therefore by affirming the resolution the affirmative already has a much more ground and arguments to present against the negative. Secondly in order to have a proper and reasonable debate both sides must stick to the argument he/she presents and should be concerned in whether they are supporting their decision in terms of the resolution as for that's what makes a good case in a good debate. And to the second part of the case http://www.guardian.co.uk... from the following source above, they point out that though downloading of illegal music may be wrong it is unstoppable, even if the producers release it FOR FREE, many fans/listeners still continue to pirate the music illegally rather than just going to the site to get it. So whether "illegal" downloading is justified cannot be shown but in the eyes of many fans and even to certain music artists it certainly is, and can even be taken advantage as to promote profits, rather than continual resistance against music pirating, To address his terrorism funding argument I will point out many key flaws that he has to this and those are... 1)Illegal downloading is free? therefore provides no funding... so in the case of this resolution it does not fund terrorist organizations rather the selling of it does though which is not a problem the neg should deal with. 2) a turn on his case that music can be justified by allowing the masses access to p2p sharing sites (which don't cost money) therefore the selling of music will become obsolete and musical artists (as presented by evidence above) will still continue to make money off concerts and other such methods rather than trying to sell their music.
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

My opponent begins with a theory argument about how unfair the topic is. There are several problems with his claims. Starting with his points... 1. Professor David Zarefski of North Western University says that argumentation occurs only under conditions of uncertainty. The implications of this statement mean that if true argumentation is occurring, then any position is debatable. This topic is no exception. 2. Debate is educational when both positions are more concerned with the topic at hand and less concerned about whether or not they agree with and are confident debating their position. 3. A debate is more fun when the topic is being debated and not whether or not the participant likes debating the topic. My opponent tries grouping my two contentions together saying that all he has to do is provide one counter example. If the resolution is a universal claim, then it is not unfair to assert that the negative must also universally prove that obtaining music illegally is ALWAYS justified. Even if you don't buy my resolutionary argument the one example that my opponent has provided is not one that shows that obtaining music illegally is justified AT ALL. About his example. He claims that artists and performers do just fine with out the Internet, therefore stealing from them is fine and dandy. While it's true that that lots of money is made from performances it is also true that billions are lost from illegal music downloads. A guardian.co.uk article elaborates, " At least 7 million people in Britain use illegal downloads, costing the economy billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, according to a report. Shared content on one network was worth about ï¿½12bn a year according to the research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property". It doesn't matter how creatively my opponent can excuse stealing from people. He can't prove that it's justified. My opponent's arguments against my second contention a based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what my argument establishes. This argument is a statement of fact. It illustrated the horrors that illegal music downloading can lead to. In a world without illegal music terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah would have no funding. THis si something that my opponent has not acknowledged. Thank you and I urge an affirmative vote.
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

In today's debate we are going to look at how obtaining music via "conventionally illegal" means IS in fact justified. I accept the frame work that my opponent has provided in his observations HOWEVER, there is one thing that I would like to point out. The resolution is tilted in the favor of the affirmative. Just look at how he worded it. I am going to look specifically at the word "justified". The word justified has special significances in this round, in that he presents it in such a way that the CON cannot possibly meet the standards which have been previously set for the round. I have several issues with this and they are as following: 1. The nature of the resolution as a whole is that it is a universal claim. As the PRO has set it, because of how the word "justified" is used the negative is forced to make a generalization that is impossible to support making the debate unfair. 2. A fair debate is an educationally effective debate. We learn to debate better by debating, not by being forced to be an advocate for an impossible position. 3. A fair debate is also a fun debate. I like to debate. I like to debate even more when the round is fun and fair. Thus entertainment is an acceptable and indeed an important standard for evaluating the legitimacy of this, or any round. For those three reasons this resolution is unfair. For the sake of fairness, education, and most of all entertainment I urge you to vote in negation of this resolution. But alas whining about how unfair the resolution is, is a big time sissy way to win a round. So, if you don't buy my fairness argument look to my next argument about cases that do in fact justify a negative ballot. In his first two contentions my opponent tries to give you a mere handful of reasons that show that the resolution is up held. What he is doing is trying to prove a positive over generalization as valid. He does this with three examples. This is no where hear adequate. He must show you that it is NEVER justified. All I must do, on the other hand, is give you one instance in which it is justified. Consider the following counter example to his point one... Every time a band comes to town every one knows. Why is that? This is because live performances are SO MUCH MORE COOL than listening to a some song on your iPod. Music groups make thousands of dollars off of ONE PERFORMANCE verse about 99 cents (give or take) on one song on iTunes. Artists don't make their money on Napster and iTunes, they make it on tour. His point two doesn't establish anything beyond the fact that some random terrorist group in Lebanon uses illegal music to make money. While this is uncool it does nothing for the claim that downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified. I has no warrant and can be disregarded. I light of thus I urge you to vote in negation of the resolution. Thank you
Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified.

I affirm the resolution Resolved: Downloading music from or of conventionally "illegal" sources and/or methods is not justified. But first, I offer the following observations in order to clarify today's debate. OBSERVATION ONE: this resolution is not restricted to a geographic region, thus we can conclude that this debate is pertinent to international issues. Therefore arguments concerning foreign examples are both topical and legitimate. OBSERVATION TWO: "Conventionally 'illegal' sources and/or methods" does not pertain strictly to the illegal downloading of music, but can also include any means of illegally obtaining music. I offer the following definitions in order to clarify today's debate. Download- to transfer (software, data, character sets, etc.) from a distant to a nearby computer (from the Random House Dictionary) Justify- to give or to be a good reason for (from the Cambridge University Dictionary) Under these definitions I present the following BURDEN which the con must uphold in order to be considered for winning the round. The con must show that there is sufficient reason to "illegally" download music. My FIRST POINT is that MUSIC PIRACY HURST BOTH TH ARTISTS AND THE PERFORMERS. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, the U.S. sound recording industry suffers direct losses of $5.3 billion annually as a result of global music piracy. This shows in numbers the billions of dollars that the U.S. sound recording industry alone loses every year as a result of music piracy. On a global scale Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year. Even if the con side could mitigate the significance of these numbers they still have to uphold the burden of showing them to be justified. Music piracy, both domestically and internationally, results in economic losses in the billions every year, causing financial harm to the very people who produce the music that is being stolen. Furthermore, my SECOND POINT is that at times MONEY FROM ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING GOES TO THE WRONG PLACES. Last year in 2009 a BBC News article reported that a large amount of the money that funds Hezbollah is derived from selling illegally downloaded music. The money made form this music ends up fueling terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah. So in the case of the people who are impacted by these groups, buying illegally downloaded music further enables terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. Remember, the negative has the burden to prove that in light of the two points presented by the affirmative, obtaining music through illegal means IS justified.
Politically, the republican party is better.

It is apparent that my opponent is more concerned with attacking the republicans than proving that it is a superior political party. Therefore, I will simply attempt to defend the credibility of the republicans. Free markets: In America, the government does not hand out money. Instead, it regulates things. This takes money away. The second the government establishes a new regulation, jobs are lost and inflation occurs. It is not good for people to lose their jobs at the same time prices go up. Peace Via Strength: Organized terror, not necessarily from the government of say, Iran, is the problem. America should intimidate those terrorist organizations. In addition, though North Korea is small, it still has an extremely large military and nuclear weapons. It also has no regards to sanctions and rules placed against it. Though it may not take much to take them out, it will not take but one nuke to take out LA. America should intimidate North Korea so that it is obvious that they would not be able to take it out if they started a fight. Who would pick a fight with the biggest kid in school? No one. Health Care: People becoming selfish is not a bad thing. It is instead, keeping what they earn. That is not a bad thing. However, socialism just takes that away. If people in America do not like their social standing, they cannot blame the rich, they can only blame themselves and do what it takes to gain a few social steps. Socialism is taking away from the workers and giving to the non-workers. Healthcare does also create competition between businesses. If two businesses both required the same things from workers, but one paid better and had better conditions, people would choose it. Lets say that the better company provided healthcare for its employees and the other did not. People would choose the one that provided healthcare. Therefore, the other company would have to adopt a healthcare plan or superior retirement plan to bring in employees. This competition makes conditions better. Judiciary Courts interpreting the constitution: Why should gun owners lose their right to keep and bare arms because someone who does not like guns determined that the constitution could be interpreted differently? In this case, I support the old principle called state's rights. Leave the interpretation of the constitution more directly in the hands of the citizens in the area affected as opposed to people three hundred miles away. The topic of debate seems to have changed. I have defended my party while my opponent has attacked it. Both sides have good points but my side provides personal freedom, or at least more than my opponent. Vote for me, though neither side, I admit,really met their BOP. I have offered reasoning for my party and why its policies are important or effective.
0=nothing=Information

belief is non sense. it dosnt make sense, becasue you have to imagine it. you can believe i am wearing a hat, disbelieve it, believe that i am not wearing a hat, or accept you dont know i dont know that you are wearing a hat or not, but to even make the claim i have to imagine it dont imagine a black cat making its way to the top of a tree ´ you cant accept a lie from a stranger without belief..
0=nothing=Information

First off "do you know that i am wearing a hat right now? if you dont, is it then true that for you to say i am wearing a hat?" This makes no sense what so ever, so I wont even touch on this. Pro says "i dont know=i can at best imagine it" If you don't know about something, how can you imagine it, If are dumbfounded about it? Pro basically agrees with my statement when he says "if you believe the kid that is your choice, maybe he is leading you to a back alley.. but this claim is different, certain aspects you would know and be certain about." I was basically right, you can believe a lie from a complete stranger.
0=nothing=Information

You state: "if its true i dont know, then going beyond that can only be false" *Its only the truth if there is evidence and proof, therefore you believe because of the facts. You then say "hm, i cant accept a lie from some one else, without belief" *You can believe a lie from anyone, a complete stranger in fact. If I was walking down a street and a kid came up to me and said they lost their mom, I'd believe them, even if it was a lie.
0=nothing=Information

Pro states : "belief=be lie, as I don't know is true" we are looking at the full origin of the word. Belief "something believed; an opinion or conviction:" Therefor, you cant just can't pick out 3 letters and turn it into something else. Lie "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification." You state: "as i dont know is true" A lie means you know for a fact it is false.
0=nothing=Information

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true beyond what i know is what i dont know, and know is matter now, 0 and 1 know is matter, matter is now, i know my experience of now dangerOus=to rely on=religion 0=nothing=information 1=something=matter(true) matter is the opposite of information 1+0=1 is a false equation, it cant equate, so its just 1, so the explanation is just 1+0(1), because it cant happen
Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory

I'd like to start by thanking my opponent, Smooosh, for challenging me to this debate. Looking forward to a solid debate. This round is just for acceptance from him. Smooosh, if you have any concerns about the way this debate is structured, send me a PM and we can iron them out. I'll start with some housekeeping. Some basic definitions: Vaccine: a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease The MMR vaccine: the acronym stands for measles, mumps and rubella, three single-stranded RNA viruses, and the vaccine is meant to impart a protective immunologic response to those who take it. The vaccine is composed of live attenuated viruses, meaning that their virulence has been strongly reduced, but the virus is still viable. This ensures that the vaccine will have the strongest and longest-lasting effect, meaning that the vaccine only has to be taken in its two-shot series once over a person's lifetime. Should be mandatory: it is net beneficial that these injections required for individuals under the law. I will stress two terms in that last definition: net beneficial. This is the criteria on which the burdens for each side in this debate are based. While I carry the burden of proof, that only means that I must show that my case is net beneficial over whatever alternative Con provides, whether that's the status quo or a counter plan. Con can either show that my case is not net beneficial, or outweigh my case with whatever alternative he presents. I'll define the specific limits of my case in my opening round. For now, I'd just like to leave it with this. Looking forward to it!
'Nothing' exists.

The word nothing is the same as saying zero. Atheists...zero gods exist. Behind the rock, zero objects are there. Zero is not a solid tangible thing. It is a human mental construct to explain the absence of things. Our language is set up in a weird way where "nothing" is treated as a tangible object. But when you think about nothing in mathematical terms as zero...then its existence becomes a lot more questionable. Zero in itself is representative of non-existence, so to say the opposite would kind of be breaking a few language and math rules.