BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States federal government should legalize soft drugs including marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

Okay well yes the war on drugs used money that could have been spent in other places... but we ar3e not debating weather or not the government spends it's money well. Also there are several websites that state that weed is a gateway drug so if i wanted to do what you are doing and simply go and find those websites nothing you have said has come from your own oppinion you simply stated website quote after website quote so in all honesty this debate seems pointless to me.
The United States federal government should legalize soft drugs including marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

Your argument for legalizing the "softer drugs" is that the drug is "less damaging to the health than a hard drug." However although it is less damaging it is still damaging. It is kinda like tobacco. No it is not as damaging as say Meth but it still causes thousands of deaths each year. There are 47 million smokers in the U.S.A. This is because it is easy to get. A lot of people are completely addicted to tobacco simply because they decided to try it and now cannot quit. I have many friends who have tried numerous times to quit but have been unable. One of these reason is because tobacco is easy to get. The only restriction on it is the under 18 rule. Also by it being illegal it may not deter everyone but it will deter some people. If it is legalized more people will become addicted to it. Also softer drugs usually lead to hard drugs such as speed and Meth. And other thing such as population contribute to crime rate therefor you cannot say there crime rate is lower because of drugs.
The United States federal government should legalize soft drugs including marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

soft drug - A drug that is believed to be nonaddictive and less damaging to the health than a hard drug. Examples of soft drugs include cannabis, mescaline, psilocybin, and LSD. MDMA and caffeine are sometimes included as soft drugs, see above. The term soft drug is most usually applied to cannabis (marijuana or hashish). In 1997, Charles Manson, America's most notorious convicted mass murderer, was caught dealing drugs in California's Corcoran State Prison. Locked in a steel cage, watched by armed guards, and subject to random drug testing and strip searches, Manson was still able to build a flourishing narcotics business. It makes you wonder: If the government can't even keep drugs out of prison, how can it keep them out of an entire nation? The simple answer is: It can't. Not for the lack of effort. In 2001, the federal government spent $18 billion fighting the War on Drugs. More than 19,000 state and local police officers work full-time on drug cases. Despite all of this money and firepower, 82% of high school seniors say that getting marijuana is "fairly" or "very" easy--a number that hasn't budged in 20 years. But the War on Drugs isn't just a failure. It's also a threat to your safety. In 2000, for example, 734,497 Americans were arrested on marijuana-related charges. That same year, only 625,243 violent criminals were arrested for murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault (according to FBI figures). In other words, the War on Drugs is making your family less safe because police spend their time arresting marijuana smokers instead of apprehending brutal thugs. (Arizona Libertarian Party) We spent trillions on the War on Drugs this year alone. That money could be going to education or something else productive. http://www.rense.com...... We could tax drugs. That would be a tremendous amount of money. trials are very lengthy. If there were less cases, then trials would be quicker. The War on Terror suffers from the War on Drugs because we cannot afford both and the War on Drugs distracts from the War on terror. http://www.commondreams.org...... IN THE NETHERLANDS SOFT DRUGS ARE LEGAL. The following points are from: http://www.drugwarfacts.org....... In the Netherlands, where drugs are legal, lifetime soft drug prevalence is halved. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Our incarceration rate is 7 times higher. Drug laws cause violence, crime and higher incarceration. Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List We spend 150 million more Euros than the Netherlands on crime annually. van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control" They're homicide rate is 5 times lower in the Netherlands. Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001,"
Resolved: The Christian god most likely doesn't exist.

Clarification: My opponent challenged me and FF last round. Defense D1: Problem of Evil My opponent seemed to have a problem with my last round by FF. I would like to go over and examine my remarks from the last round. I said last round, "My opponent is right and God can do anything but he is trying to confuse 'can do' with 'will do'. God simply does not have to do something if he so chooses not to. " We study know that God is God and if there is a God he would know beat and regardless how we feel about it, HE is God. There is nothing you can do about it. Though by real study all moral action is used inside the Bible by God. Men that are described in the Bible do many horrible acts. We have acts in Egypt and their plagues that God sent upon them. Well they held the Hebrews captive for hundreds of years (possibly built their pyramids). Though we do not see that. They were given warning after warning from Moses about Gods wrath if they did not let them go. They didn't. God sent plague after plague on Egypt until they allowed the Hebrews to go free. Note* Egypt was warned and did not believe as my opponent did not believe and Egypt was cursed. Further there was many in Egypt who knew the Hebrews and knew their God was real and believed that. Though because they nation of Egypt did not believe the whole nation was cursed. We are responsible for our nation and health of it. Non-believers today not only curse themselves but those who believe also. Egypt let the Hebrews go many times but took it back and was cursed further. Why? Because Egypt was hard-hearted. We have the Canaanites. They were filled with children of the 'Sons of God' by women. There were killers, theifs, and kidnappers. They were international slave traders. Cannibals. They had to be killed or they would cause much death upon the Hebrews. The reasons they deserved to die was because of the death as people they had brought upon the world in their time. People refuse to see these tings and are quick to judge God. They judge God because they will not do as God says. They blame God for that. HA. D2: Contradictions within the Bible There is not any contradictions inside the Bible and that is the sad truth for my opponent. There are many things that are unexplainable for people today because we are mentally confined inside the physical world. Those who know God, I mean Know God, can obtain the knowledge that is sought. To these people it is not faith or belief anymore, it is knowing God exist. The reason they know this is because God works through their lives on a consistent basis to recognize they are in contact with God. You ask how do you know it is God of the Bible? I know it is the God of the Bible because that is were I experience Him the most, when I study the Bible. And that is the God I want in my life. D3: Science proves Bible wrong! True science has never. Shame on you. I will wait for my opponents response. Must ask points for FF. Thank You.
Resolved: The Christian god most likely doesn't exist.

I agree to my opponents preparations though I think we should give some more clarification. Lets define more than likely. More than Likely: something of greater importance seeming like truth, fact, or certainty. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I think we should keep normal round rules- round 1 for acceptance and final round for conclusion(no new arguments). If my opponent agrees then it is settled and let it begin. I await my opponents response.
Capitalism is the enemy ideology of the working class

Debate Structure:This will be con's structure if they choose to use round 1 for debate.Round 1: Main argumentRound 2: Rebuttal to pro's round 2 main argumentRound 3: Defense against Pro's round 3 rebuttals, no new arguments in this roundRound 4: Waive this round by saying something like "I am waiving this round as agreed upon." Otherwise this will be the structure for pro and for con if they choose not to use round 1 for debate:Round 1: Acceptance, agreement on the definition of terms, state your positionRound 2: Main argumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense against rebuttals, no new arguments in this roundDefinition: Capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." [1]If con prefers, I would be willing to change the vote comments to off, and to judge voting in which we each choose 5 judges. If you prefer it that way, say so in the comments.Source:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Aliens are Demons

I saw a title saying "Aliens are Demons", so I decided to go with that. And since you are saying you are tormented by demons, you are straight up ADMITTING you have schizophrenia. Although, your version of schizophrenia appears to be misguided. People with schizophrenia can't tell what is real and what is not. It's the definition of the word. It has nothing to do with demons in the slightest. And no, we can not prove that what schizophrenics see is not real. At least, not physically. What they see is their imagination, and that only. And if by 'academics' you mean religious fanatics that try to prove being gay is a mental disorder, you're very wrong.
Aliens are Demons

Schizophrenia is a clinical term used to describe people who are demon possessed or tormented by demons. Yes, the UFO story was just bait. Anyway, and I probably use that word to much, there is a great amount of evidence to suggest demons. Also a great many academics believe in demons. I think this is amazing. I go in for a debate against UFOs, and by my own error I get someone who wants to debate demons. Exciting! I want to say that we cannot prove that schizophrenics are not seeing something real. Can you bring forth evidence?
Aliens are Demons

The point of this debate is for me to prove that aliens are not demons. Therefore, I'm sticking to that. I don't believe UFOs exist either. I'm going to focus on your experience here. You say that this was not a physical experience, which leads me to believe that this was just a dream. It has nothing to do with demons. You had a weird dream. Everyone does. As for your experience with demons, I don't believe they actually exist based on your evidence. I would like to turn your attention to the definition of schizophrenia. "A severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations." I believe you have some of the traits shown here. Your experience with 'demons' was little more than hallucinations. The shadows you believed you saw were just a figment of your imagination. The gouge marks are another story. You either are delusioned enough to believe these marks were caused by demons, or you caused them yourself. Demons can't be aliens if demons don't exist.
Aliens are Demons

You missed the point (my fault). The point wasn't to prove that aliens are real, because there is a good chance they might be, it was to prove that UFOs are real. I am not trying to shoot down the possibility of life on other planets. Anyway, let me explain. The UFO was not a physical experience, as I was not even conscience (to my knowledge). The only odd thing about the dream was that I had never been exposed to anything of the short. Because I have severe PTSD, I can remember my infancy. I have been plagued by demonic apparitions and strange ailments. I have seen shadows moving in ways that go against light, and gouge marks suddenly appearing on my body, leaving no sensation of pain.
Aliens are Demons

You know, I've never heard this sort of tale before. This is going to be interesting. Now then, let's start with the proof of aliens. There are TRILLIONS of star systems out there, meaning life has to be out there. And that life probably doesn't take the properties of creatures out of an Earth book. That's all there is for aliens, but it's got a lot more going for it than demons. Demons have no proof. Only stories from people. It is agreed among scientists that 'demons' are just nightmares you experience, not an actual force of nature. I have never seen a demon nor have I seen proof of one. I don't believe aliens are demons, as I do not believe in demons, nor do I believe in alien abductions. For my next case, I would request that the instigator tell his story of his alien abduction and demonic activity.
The Government should do more to promote Jewish businesses.

I will be arguing with the following contentions: If Jewish businessmen's stores were marked with a Star of David, it would be an ever-present reminder of the Holocaust, if the government were to mark a store physically it would violate basic principles of property rights, and that this resolution blatantly violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Contention 1: Nazi Germany/Discrimination My opponent has stated that Jewish businessmen are very modest, and therefore would not put such markings on their store themselves. But I doubt that this is the true reason that they do not. Let's look at the largest tragedy in Jewish history, the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were horrifically killed by the Nazi regime. Before sending Jews to ghettos and eventually concentration camps, the Nazis marked every Jewish owned store, not only so that people would avoid it, but so that people would discriminate against the people inside. In Nazi Germany, Jewish store owners recieved death threats from the public sometimes, that never came before the markings were put up. These markings were humiliating and were a sign of "uncleanliness" from the Germans. Not even a century after these travesties were committed, my opponent suggests re-marking the shops of Jews, in EXACTLY (1)(2)(3) the same way as the Nazis, which opened up a stream of threats and discrimination towards those shop owners. Contention 2: If Jewish store owners are too "modest" to mark their store themselves, why should the government be allowed to mark their stores for them? If this resolution were to be passed, as my opponent said, stores that were previously unmarked at the discretion of the owner would now be forcibly marked by the government, but what right does the government have to paint a Star of David on a store? If a man owns a shop, the US government has NO RIGHT; ZERO; NIL; to paint ANYTHING on that store. PERIOD. It is a shop owner's private prerogative to choose whether or not his religious beliefs are identified visibly on his body, home, store, car, and everything else he owns. The government would basically be vandalizing Jewish business owner's stores with unwanted graffiti! Contention 3: This resolution cannot be passed the US as it violates the First Amendment. The very first line of the First Amendment to the US Constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. " This resolution as presented by my opponent is marking Jewish businesses for the purpose of bringing them more business. This blatantly respects the establishment of the Jewish religion and it's place in business, and therefore cannot be passed. Statement of Summation: Therefore, because this resolution: is Naziesque and discriminatory, violates basic property rights, and violates the United States of America's First Amendment, it must be negated. (1) . http://isurvived.org... (2) . http://xroads.virginia.edu... (3) . http://tinyurl.com...
The Government should do more to promote Jewish businesses.

Jewish businessmen are renowned for prioritising good value for money and providing excellent customer service over making profits, but, unfortunately, this unselfish commitment to public service means that the Jewish business community is missing out on extra cash. I'm sure that if they advertised the fact their stores were Jewish owned, the public would make a point of favouring them with their custom more often. The trouble is, as well as not caring about money, Jewish businessmen are very modest. With this in mind, surely it is time for the Government to step in and paint Stars of David on all Jewish-owned store windows and place government notices on the doors reading "THIS BUSINESS IS RUN BY JEWS"? That way, the public would be in a position to make an informed decision on which shops to patronise and which shops to avoid. Thank you.
Taxation is theft

If the government builds a new highway, all citizens have the ability to use it for free. If you bought a product, but did not use it, it would not be theft on the part of the company who charged you. It is the same in government; the people decide how money is spent, and if you do not use it that is not theft. Choosing not to use something you have paid for does not make you a victim of theft. If one form of tax is just, all forms of tax are just, and vice versa. A personal account is money which cannot be used by the community in the same way as private property. All private property is resources which cannot be used by the community, although I admit that "all property is theft" is another debate in itself. Nevertheless, it could easily be said that all property is stolen from the community, which makes taxing it more just than allowing it to remain in the hands of the individual. Tax taking from the community is given back to the community; this is simply a fact. Moreover, once money has been returned, it has not been stolen. It was simply taken and then given back. Even in a situation of two individuals, you would be highly unlikely to prosecute if someone took your wallet for a few seconds, then gave it back to you. This is not theft. In a final conclusion, in most situations, these means would be theft. However, it is vital to remember that this government is democratically elected. The government is not some totally independent organisation throwing money in a hole in the ground. The government is one with the people. The people choose the government. The people choose what taxes are raised. The people choose what the taxes are spent on. This is not theft; it is civilisation.
Taxation is theft

It doesn't matter if you consider government preferable to private companies - a point which could be debated on its own - it does not change the means that they utilize. To say that compulsory tax is the only fair way to fund infrastructure is invalid. If I don't use a new highway, why should I be forced to pay for it? I can and did argue that one form of tax is just and that other forms are theft. Perhaps a 'tax' on land ownership would be more accurately referred to as 'rent'. This is because owning and developing land is using public resources that can no longer be used by the rest of the community. Therefore it makes sense that the possible income provided by the land should be compensated to the community from which the land is being rented. Whatever word we use to describe this kind of arrangement, it is completely valid to argue that this way is just and an earnings tax is theft. So once again, I am arguing only against taxation on earnings. Although this next point is irrelevant to the actual debate, I believe that these taxes can support the integral functions of government, including law enforcement, the military, the legal system, and probably emergency services. However, as I previously mentioned, the ends do not justify the means; the uses of the tax money do not justify the taking of the tax money. If there were really no transfer taking place in tax - because the money is supposedly all reinvested into the community - then what is even the point of taxation? If the money does not go back to the person paying it, then there is definitely a transfer taking place. Even if it did go back to the person paying, the original act of taking the money is not somehow annulled. If I took your money, held it, then gave it back, I still stole money from you originally. Overall, regardless of the uses of tax money, the means used to obtain that money would be tantamount to extortion if committed by anyone other than the supposedly 'representative government'. The fact remains that if I were to decide that I didn't want to pay tax, I do not have that option. That is forcing monetary transfer. That is theft. Thank you for debating with me.
Taxation is theft

Private companies are not a valid alternative to government. A voluntary, community-funded initiative sounds nice, but would not work in practise. It would end up with some people paying more than their share, and some not paying at all yet getting all the same benefits as those who paid. The only fair way to fund infrastructure is a compulsory method where everyone pays according to their means: tax, organised by the government. A government is always preferable to a private company, as the company will be focused on profit, while the government will have the people as its priority. You cannot state that one form of tax is just, and that other forms are theft. Earnings are the most obvious things to tax, as they determine means; it would be easy for someone to have a large amount of land but only a small income. It is also flawed to consider the government "stealing" money from the population. In democracy, the population is the government. In an unelected, despotic government it is possible that tax could be considered unjust, but when the state is representative of the people, and all money is reinvested into the country anyway, there has not been any real transfer. Tax is absolutely necessary for a nation, or society, to function. Things such as law enforcement and military protection simply cannot be left to private companies.
Taxation is theft

The way in which tax money is used makes no difference on whether it is theft or not. Again, if I robbed someone and gave their money to charity, it is still a theft. The issue of infrastructure with small government is solved, not by individuals, but by private companies. The same reasoning was used to argue against freeing slaves, saying that without slaves, nobody would pick the cotton. This is obviously invalid. If there is a demand for it, then construction companies will be able to fulfill demand, paid for by the community (land ownership taxes). Once again, I am not arguing against all tax, only against taxation on earnings. To say that people who disagree should leave the country is does not make sense. There may be a myriad of reasons that could prevent an individual from emigrating. And to say that citizenship is an implicit agreement to the social contract is not valid either. I was not asked if I wanted citizenship or not when I was born. I was made a citizen, and you claim that I have somehow agreed to something. It is not consent if there is no alternative. Speaking again of slavery, no one is entitled to the fruits of another person's labor. To earn a certain amount and have the government take more than half of it makes no sense to me, and should not be excused because the government is elected democratically.