BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Term Limits

Hey, bill, "Your reason for liking is totally wrong. Ronald Regan was 78 when his term was up. This would make him 82 when his next term was up. Don't you think at that age, you can catch a cold easy out "campaigning". When you are 82 or 78, a cold can leave you in a hospital for weeks or if it is bad enough, you can die. With the term limits, you would get a new, healthy president every 4 or 8 years. You would not have to worry about his health." That is why I would still like to allow the people to vote every 4 years, and it would be taken into account that Reagan would be old so if the peole wanted take a chance with a old but quality president then let them...I would...But if the people believe he is to old and he might get sick don't let them...but don't make a man who could still be a great president retire vjust because he was there for 8 years. "If you really thought that statement over, wouldn't you think that the White House has a better chance of becoming a Dictatorship or monarchy if it stayed 1 president for 16 years?" I did think this over and I don't think it really would end in a dictarorship nor a monarchy. I still think that if we allow a vote every 4 years then the people will get away from a president that starts to get power hungry and chose a new fresh president to lead this country right. Well, I just noticed that this is the last round so I would like to just say this...Term limits are good for a country that likes change...for the better or worse...but in the position we are in right now with foreign policies in bad shape how bad would it be if we have a president negotiating with these foreign countries and he gets along with these foreign countries leaders, but he has to retire b/c of term limits...we have to rebuild that connection our leaders and there's had had because we had to get rid of this president who got along with foreign leaders and rebuild those connections. This potentionally can be bad for our country and our Homeland security. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night
The use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the USG*

I negate- The USG has no right to limit the use of cannabis for consenting adults using cannabis in a recreational manner... given the following conditions * Resolution does not apply to government employees * Resolution does not apply to those who are in the act of driving motor vehicles while under the influence of the drug. While alcohol has already been made legal, there are still some minor restrictions on it's use (such as driving) without an outright ban. * Resolution implies that the person A. Is an adult and B. Has informed consent * USG is understood to mean "United States Government" referring to the United States Government on any meaningful level (EG: Federal, State, and Local)
The use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the USG*

You have failed to prove that the legalization of cannabis would make it's use more prevalent. While it might seem like common sense, I have not seen any evidence that long term use of cannabis would increase with it's legalization. I suggest it might even go down after an initial surge, as it is no longer restricted, so, the 'danger' goes away. Cannabis users are indeed innocent. This is a primary part where your argument fails. You suggest they are guilty and they should go to jail because they have the drug, but what should the justification for this be? Earlier, you listed an increase in crime as one of your reasons, however, there are already crimes against other crimes. Not all cannabis users have committed violent crime, most of them in fact have just done the drug and nothing else. Should those users be thrown in jail for just taking a drug when the "tight" federal budget and police force could be used elsewhere, against violent offenders? You show no reason as to why we should be extra careful. This 'extra careful' behaivor is no reason to limit personal freedom. In your world, personal freedom would not exist- we would be far less productive as we would be slaves to the government, as with the USSR- which happen to collapse. As far as religious laws go, we have alot of tension already. The personal freedoms that would be gained would be acceptable as compared to the slight tension we would get. Kids can get into alot of things, the parents should be responsible for cannabis as they should be knives, outlets, and alcohol. Sex also stimulates some of the same parts of the brain as cannabis and other opiates. Are you to suggest sex is also a gatway drug? Cannabis should be legalized, there is no evidence that use would rise upon the legalization, and the personal freedom benefit, added onto less strain for our justice system would be far worth any risk we might acquire.
The use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the USG*

Hi, I like what I see so far, so here goes, good luck ;) I propose that the United States legalize the use of cannabis, with the fore said restrictions, for recreational use. I understand your argument is not for the legalization of cannabis per se, or for any other uses, like medicinal, so I will not be discussing those. Firstly, I'd like to narrow the scope of the term "adult". I'd like to interpret the term "adult" to the more accepted legal term "age of majority", in the United States, generally, it is 18. It is the age, where not just in the US but most parts of the world, you are allow to drink, vote, drive, marry and die for your country. Secondly, informed consent, meaning that the actor knows that he is taking a drug, and knows some of its side effects. My first argument will have to be one of comparison. I think it is wise to examine cannabis without the negative connotations associated with the word, like it being a subclass to drugs, and from a objective point of view realize that cannabis can merely be another form of vice that is harmful if not used in moderation. Alcohol, tobacco and gambling are all harmful if used in excesses, and so are most things we do in life (e.g. working, socializing and eating), so does that mean we (god forbid) ban all these? I do concede that the rate that the harmful effects of cannabis set in, if used in excesses is not as quick as that of working, drinking, smoking and eating, although one could argue that they all eventually could lead to death (heart attacks from clogged arteries or stress from overworking, binge drinking leading to liver failure then to death, and smoking leading to lung cancer then to death). This of course does not mean we should allow cannabis because you will die from other things anyway, but this goes to show that cannabis is not one bridge to far from other vices of today, therefore what makes it any different that it deserves an outright ban? The United States is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and with that being said, the ban placed on cannabis intrudes on personal freedom, the basic right of humans to choose. It is legal in countries such as Belgium, Peru, Russia and the Netherlands. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If the USG allows citizens the right to bear arms, vote for the country's leader and fight for the nation, then why can't it allow people to take cannabis. It is a direct violation of personal freedom, as this argument is for cannabis to be used in a recreational manner and not for business or distribution. Even if cannabis can cause personal harm, what right does the government have to decide whether what people do or take is harmful to themselves. So far I can't see why cannabis should be banned from personal use for recreational purposes.
A Woman Can Rape a Man

First thank you for your statistics, and I have some more: http://www.oneinfourusa.org... I do believe that people have found some flaws with the methods of this research, however, the point I am trying to make is that they're are a lot of statistics out there, in order to find the entire truth we would have to go deep into the methods and scope of each study-(which I am not willing to do as it would take a log time and rape isn't exactly my favorite topic)- and even then we could say that those statistics are underestimated for both sexes. Yes, male victims are more likely to commit suicide than male non victims, however, as you admitted, the same can be said for women, 56% of women in one study who reported child sexual abuse had a history of suicide attempts .http://zcenter.org... This, with the addition of risk of pregnancy and physical pain imply that women rape is more serious than male rape. As for societies' view on male rape, there are stereotypes that some people may take to seriously, however, people have different view points-society is not a massive group think- and now,with the rise of MRA, men can find support online, if not with someone in their community. You are correct, in that my last argument has little or no supporting evidence (beside the YouTube video), however your argument that "it may be true for some (very few), the majority of men aren't so "sexually confused" that they will rape someone" has absolutely no supporting evidence or citations. Men do consent more than women, and have a higher sex drive, meaning that in a relationship, men will often be the first one's to ask for sex, and even if they don't it is likely that they will consent to their partner's wishes. ---------end of debate--------- I thank my opponent for challenging my position (I do in fact still agree with him). While doing research, I was surprised by the amount of female on female rape in some studies. lastly this topic disgust me greatly(as I hope it does everyone), as rape is often not separate from domestic violence and other crimes, as well as it is used as a way to manipulate people by blackmail ( someone may manipulate another by threating to tell the police that an entirely consensual sexual encounter was rape)
A Woman Can Rape a Man

I want to keep my response brief, so here it is: For your first paragraph I have some opposing statistics: http://www.slate.com... And also note that these statistics have their own sources, which are linked in the article itself. Your second paragraph doesn't really argue against me, but rather agrees and states that it's the same for women. Also, my aforementioned source shows that I didn't just come up with the statistics, I just forgot to add the source (sorry). In response to your argument that male rape is less serious, the circumstances you mention, I agree, are quite serious and can't happen to men. But, studies have shown that the suicide rate for sexually abused males is 14 to 15 times higher than other males (source:Holmes, W. C., M.D., MSCE, and G.B. Slap, M.S., Sexual Abuse of Boys. 280(1) Journal of the American Medical Association (1998): 1855-1862, citing numerous studies.) which I consider to be very serious (and women's suicide rates are probably higher after rape too). I'd also like to draw your attention to these sources also: https://1in6.org... http://www.livingwell.org.au... So no, a man can't get pregnant, but he can still be physically and emotionally harmed (so you may say it is slightly less serious in some cases). And to your last point regarding male sex drive, I admit that it is, quite obviously, higher for males. But looking at the two video,s your claim that "even clear-headed, men consent almost every time" is wrong, as in the video only 30% of the men agreed to have sex, which is by no means "most". Also, in response to your point "women can get sex almost whenever they want, so why would they go out of their way to rape someone? ", women won't want to have sex with a stranger and, as statistics suggest (your source in fact: http://www.statisticbrain.com...), most rapes are done by friends or people already in a relationship (Percent of victims raped by a friend or acquaintance: 38%, Percent raped by "an intimate": 28%). And finally, your claim "men find it hard to find a sexual partner" has no evidence, and your claim that "may lead to them [men] to being so sexually frustrated that they are willing to do anything- even rape" is merely an assumption, and though it may be true for some (very few), the majority of men aren't so "sexually confused" that they will rape someone (contrary to the popular belief of feminists, not all men are rapists). Well... I kinda lied a little at the beginning there, but I thought I needed to challenge your argument (which was quite good) fully. (sorry if it wasn't really a round rebuttal)
A Woman Can Rape a Man

The statistics that I will be using are from the U.S. department of justice, which say that 3% of all men have been the victim of attempted or completed rape and 16% of women have been the victim of attempted or completed rape . 3% /19%~16% of all victims of rape are men, and 16%/19%~84% of rape victims are female, I would say that is a pretty significant difference. http://www.statisticbrain.com... As for them being "grossly underestimated" this argument is the same for women, one study suggests that 80% of women do not report rape. http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... I do not mean to suggest that these figures are 100% accurate. However, you cant just say that the statistics are off to some degree and then just come up with new figures. especially figures that have no basis-you think that is what it would be. I cannot address your 2nd paragraph as their is no numbers or proof to back it up besides the youtube video- which I will address. The video is an example of a male teenager getting seduced by a previous professional cheerleader, in the video the boy was not taken seriously to some however, in the video, the speaker even says that these are not representative of the entire community, and the individual is definitely not "separated from society". as for my arguments: First if a women gets raped by a man, particularly a stranger, then she may get pregnant, yes there are morning after pills, however many women may be morally against this and see it as a form of murder, then it becomes a major moral dilemma to the women. There is no such dilemma if it is a male raped by a women whom is a stranger, as he does not have to make any such choice. in this way, male rape is less serious. Virgin females also report pain in their first intercourse, and sometimes even bleed. Male virgins do not have this problem. The physical pain combined with the emotional could be quite traumatizing- and that being their first time could make it that much worse, and any future sexual act may be hard because of the trauma experienced the first time. male sex drive is higher than females sex drive. http://www.webmd.com... . (this is important later) also, compare these two videos and It is harder for men to be raped because even clear-headed, men consent almost every time. It also proves that woman can get sex almost whenever they want, so why would they go out of their way to rape someone? while men find it hard to find a sexual partner, which, combined with their high libido, may lead to them being so sexually frustrated that they are willing to do anything- even rape.
A Woman Can Rape a Man

Firstly, I agree to your new argument, and understand the position. Your claim that male rape is "much more rare" is a little exaggerated; most statistics you can find will say that 10% of all rape cases have male victims. But this is grossly underestimated as, more often than not, a male rape victim will be mocked or too ashamed to even tell anyone. This is, unfortunately, because we live in a society that often dismisses the rape of men and ridicules them if they speak up. So, based on this, a more accurate estimate of the total rapes per year and proportion of that figure is that roughly 30-40% of all estimated rapes are against men (this is not to say fewer women are raped). My next point is challenging your notion: "while men can get raped, it is...less serious". Most men that are raped are done so under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and often the woman has pressured or intentional caused or forced the man to take drugs. So not only do woman rape men, but they often drug them to do it, which in itself is a crime. Also, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, men that are raped by women are ridiculed, so any emotional trauma is commonly untreated. Often, these victims feel severe fear of women, or other anxieties that any woman may feel after being raped. But women are never left alone after being raped and are supported fully, yet men are separated from society for even suggesting they were raped, causing these emotional symptoms to linger for years after having little to no support (this is not for all cases, some are accepted in often extreme circumstances). For that last point I'm including this : It details some cases of men (or boys) being raped by women. (Word of warning: it contains some strong language)
A Woman Can Rape a Man

While I actually agree totally with my opponent, devils advocate is always fun, however I am asking for a little more wiggle room, my point of view will be that, while men can get raped, it is much more rare and less serious. I would be grateful if my opponent agrees to these changes however, if not I am still willing to argue that a man cannot get raped, even though it is a much harder position. I hope I lose, but that will not stop me from arguing as best as possible. also, if my opponent agrees, 1st round acceptance/ state position 2nd round ALL arguments 3rd round rebuttals only
A Woman Can Rape a Man

My argument: if a woman engages with sexual intercourse, of any kind, with a man that is unable to consent (due to being intoxicated or under age) or is simply just not consenting, it constitutes as rape. This is gender equality; if a man can rape a woman then, equally, a woman can rape a man. Also, this kind of sexual assault is often not taken very seriously and the man is mocked, which is, quite simply, bullying and sexist.
School uniform

In this idea, many kids(especially from private schools) are forced to wear school uniform for a reason. Not only does it make their school look tidy and organised, it also helps the children. It trains the children to get used to what is going to happen later on in life e.g. a Job. If you have an office job, would you want to wear skinny jeans and a vulgar t-shirt? No! You want to look formal. Speaking of vulgar, children could bring vulgar shirts or pants to school, thus enhancing the idea of school uniform. For example, panties or any shirt that has "bad words" on it. The school doesn't try to dehumanise the children into robots, they are trying to help them into a well-rounded person by the way they dress.
School uniform

As someone who has experienced both a school time with and without uniform, I think they are something most schools should have. A school uniforms removes the ability to judge a student on his or her clothes. And the need for parents to spend money on brand clothing, just so their kids can fit in. It forces the student to be creative and express themselves in their work rather than with provocative clothing. It would also cut time in the morning. Instead of choosing clothes you would always know what to wear. Many great minds uses the same clothes to remove the decision making process in the morning so they can come up with greater things during the day.
Health or Wealth

Well, that’s a little disappointing. Anyway, PRO’s question is whether health or wealth comes first. Based on his first round comments, it seems that he is arguing which comes first in importance, not from a temporal point of view. If we follow PRO’s reasoning, it can be said that to be happy, we must have both health and wealth. However, they are not equal. Health is the necessary condition, whereas wealth is the sufficient condition [1]. The necessary is more important than the sufficient. If one is not healthy, the wealth cannot be enjoyed, and there are health issues that cannot be fixed by money, so health is necessarily more important than wealth. [1] http://www.studymode.com...
Health or Wealth

PRO has posed the question, “which come first [health or wealth]? ” I will take the position that health comes first. I offer the following definitions: Health: “The state of being free from illness or injury [1]” Wealth: “An abundance of valuable possessions or money [2]” Sources: [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Battle of sports: Soccer (PRO) vs. Basketball (CON)

My opponent failed to define the terms. Because of this, I will now define them: Battle: any conflict or struggle Sports: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature Soccer: A game played on a rectangular field with net goals at either end in which two teams of 11 players each try to drive a ball into the other's goal by kicking, heading, or using any part of the body except the arms and hands. The goalie is the only player who may touch or move the ball with the arms or hands. Basketball: a game played by two teams of usually five players each on a rectangular court having a raised basket or goal at each end, points being scored by tossing the ball through the opponent's basket. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world only because it was created 43 years earlier, giving it more time to spread. This gives soccer an unfair advantage, making your argument invalid. Also, basketball courts have been set up around most locations in the world. This makes basketball very accessible as well. Also, at the private school West Island College in Calgary, AB, which has one of the most advanced Gyms in Calgary, there are 6 basketball nets, yet no proper soccer nets, making basketball more accessible. To clash with your arguments: (1), I will point out the fouls, out of bounds, and timeouts are also in soccer, making this point invalid. (2) Because of the high score, fans can celebrate for many scores, not just wait around for 1 goal, which makes Basketball more exciting. Every point gives excitement to fans watching or people playing. As well, in soccer, if you are down by a few goals, much hope is given up as goals come rarely. In basketball however, it is possible to score many points in little time, giving fans a game to cheer for till the final buzzer, and even after if there is an attempted buzzer beater. (3) Tricks in basketball are just as exciting (alley-oop from behind the net, dunks, very exciting ball dribbling tricks etc.) I will now state my 3 pillars: 1. Basketball is much more fair: In soccer, the goalkeeper can use their hands, giving them an unfair advantage inside their crease area. In basketball however, all players get the same advantages and disadvantages, making more fair. 2. Basketball referee's in professional are better: Recently, there was a controversial goal assisted by an obvious handball by Thierry Henry of the France national team. It was a miss call by the referee, which, by the way, has not happened in the recent years of professional basketball. I will state and elaborate on my third pillar in my next post.