BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Hi & its my pleasure to debate : Before I would come to my arguments , I will rebut what proposition said : 1) "According to the NAP, drugs should be legalized because there is no victim in the "crime". But in murder there is an obvious victim." - but NAP is already rejected by several philosophers as well as majority of the philosophy. On the other hand, it's ironical to think that no victim involved in drug using. The studies already proved that many drugs are harmful for the human body and it will increase plenty of diseases including heart failures and depression. Those people's lives also in danger. so how can you say those people are not victims of harmful drugs ? 2) "Well, does drugs have to be a bad thing?" - indeed it's a bad thing. it was medically proved already that because of drugs, the diseases of human body would increase as well as it has become a threat to your life. So I don't understand that if something become harmful for human life, then how does it categories as a good thing ? Also that 1 in 3 adults clearly destroying their lives. they might not realize at first, but when they use it again and again as drugs are addicting as well as according to proposition there are no limits, they are getting closer to their end. 3) "The legalization of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs" - if you have limited of doing bad things, you will be controlled by above limits. But it is funny to think when all the limits and laws are gone, you will stop doing bad things. Actually what will happen is that because they don't have any laws or regulations, they can produce cheap & more harmful drugs. 4) When I consider the example of cocaine - It does not matter what drug it is. Majority of drugs are harmful for the human body. Just because the prices are lower or higher doesn't give you an idea whether it is good or bad. Whether it is higher or lower what happen is destroy your body. If you lower the prices of marijuana, then both cocaine and marijuana use will increase. also you cant say marijuana is a good medicine. it also has very vast health effects to the body. ( proved on medical reports) 5) Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs.If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "destroy their lives..." - Just because people get decisions on election doesn't mean they made the correct decision. That's my first point. People should be looked after by the government like a father to people. That's why people electing a government. because people cant understand everything regarding their lives and they give their power to government to decide what's best. If you legalize drugs, everyone won't come and do drugs. But no limitations means many people will come & taste it as there are nothing to stop them. Then don't amaze if you see our youth do drugs &lay here & there without doing any work. remember Drugs are addicting
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Hello mister Chathura!Why would I want to legalize murderer? I believe in the NAP (non-aggression principle). According to the NAP, drugs should be legalized because there is no victim in the "crime". But in murder there is an obvious victim."Will society be a good one , If we legalize all the illegal / bad things in the society?" "Even with these rules, there are many people who take drugs and destroy their selves"Well, does drugs have to be a bad thing? 1 in 3 adults have tried drugs once in their lifetime. I don't think that you believe that 1 in 3 adults have "destroyed their lives", do you? If you don't think that, then it means that you are taking an exceptional and smaller case in order to prove that all cases are bad, which is an extremely bad way to prove a point. The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been lower, cocaine would have never been popular. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so high? The answer to that question is that it were illegal. If marijuana would have been legal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were illegal, it got harder to sell, so the drug dealers could set a higher price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive, and potentially more dangerous drug also went up.So my point is, the more money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it gets for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, cheap, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason for so called internet drugs today. If the price would be low, nobody would develop new drugs, because there is no demand for it.People usually say: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!Well, how many people reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would start using it just because it would be legal. Nobody think like this: oh I cant take care of myself, and I don't want to use drugs, so I need the governments laws to take care of me!Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs, you either want to do drugs, or you don't. Simple as that.I want people to seek help if they cant handle drugs themselves. But if they get thrown in prison (where the drug rate is higher than out in the real world), instead of getting medical help, they wont solve their problems.My question for you is: If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "destroy their lives" with drugs or not, why are the same people, through voting, qualified to make good decisions with regards to, war, economics, abortion, the death penalty, international trade, schools, immigration, liberties… and yes ironically, if people should be allowed to do drugs or not?
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Ladies & Gentlemen : Murders are happening these days regularly. so according to proposition side, we should legalize murders. I like to begin the debate by asking a simple question. Will society be a good one , If we legalize all the illegal / bad things in the society ? Moving into my stance on this debate We have serious rules and regulations on drug using these days. Even with these rules, there are many people who take drugs and destroy their selves. So what will happened when we legalize all the drugs? Then the situation will turn from bad to worse. Even the children and the youth will be affected. In this debate I will prove two things which I call as burdens : 1) Our main goal should be to produce a better ethical and moral society 2) By legalizing bad things can not and will not produce a better society
Osu

Or, maybe it was because of Ohio state's team, led by their quarterback. With Braxton Miller out, their chances were below probable, but their second and third string have stepped up and have been the men on the field. Look at the scores, Ohio is fighting against the Big 10 teams for championship, which by the way they won last night. Where is Virginia tech in the Big 10 lineup? Before you debate over a football subject, you should probably watch an actual game and know what you're talking about.
Osu

OSU is not the only team that has the best back up quarterbacks. The quarterbacks for OSU are only shown "good" because they play people in their conference that don't know how to play football. For example, Ohio state vs Rutgers. They beat them 51-17. They only make it up the top 10, by being playing teams that are easy wins. Virginia tech was the only real competition that they faced, and then they lost.
The Philochistos 1973 commemorative debate

I am one of those who have wanted to debate Philocristos for a while, so I took this debate as soon as I saw it. I'm glad for this oppurtunity. Resolution: moral realism is soundIn order to get the definition I find most suited, I will simply define moral realism as the antithesis of moral anti-realism. "Moral anti-realism is the denial of the thesis that moral properties—or facts, objects, relations, events, etc. (whatever categories one is willing to countenance)—exist mind-independently. This could involve either (1) the denial that moral properties exist at all, or (2) the acceptance that they do exist but that existence is (in the relevant sense) mind-dependent." http://plato.stanford.edu...Good luck!
The Philochistos 1973 commemorative debate

I just made my 1973rd forum post, and since I was born in 1973, I thought I'd initiate the Philochristos 1973 commemorative debate. Several people have expressed interest in debating me, so this is their big opportunity, assuming they see this before somebody else does. Please read the rules carefully before accepting. RULES: 1. You pick the topic. It can be on almost any subject you want. I only ask you to be considerate. Although I am quite willing to play devil's advocate if I need to, I request that you not have me defend any resolution such as, "Philochristos' mother was a prostitute" or anything that requires me to insult another person (especially if I care about them), including God, or to betray a confidence, or to engage in gossip. Just be reasonable. I also request that you not make any paradoxical resolutions such as, "Everything Pro says is a lie" or "Pro will win this debate," or anything like that. 2. State the resolution clearly in the first round. It must take the form of a coherent sentence, and not just a word or phrase. 3. If there is any ambiguity at all in the resolution, define your terms and explain the meaning of the resolution as clearly as you can in the first round. Any undefined terms will be open for debate. 3. Since you are going to be Con, you must state the resolution in such a way that you are against it. I will be for it. 4. The burden of proof will be shared. That means I must make the case that the resolution is true, and you must make the case that the resolution is false. It is not enough for either of us to simply refute the other person's arguments. 5. It is your choice whether to post your opening statement in the first round or wait until the second round, in which case I'd be posting my opening first. 6. If you post your opening first, you must post, "This space intentionally left blank" in the last round, and nothing more. 7. You must agree not to solicit votes through private messages or through other means (telephone, facebook, google hangouts, etc.). If there are only 48 hours of voting left, and nobody has voted, you may post a link in the "Post unvoted debates here" thread. http://www.debate.org... No other voting solicitation is allowed. You'll be on your honor. 8. No embedded images/graphics are allowed. All debating must be done with text. 9. All footnotes/endnotes must be placed in the body of your posts. 10. There is a 6000 word limit, and 72 hour limit between posts, and a 10 day voting period. Whoever you are, this is a great opportunity for you to seize an easy win. All you have to do is pick a topic you know a lot about that I don't. And that shouldn't be too hard to do. Good luck!
Democracy is better than Communism

Good Luck.Instigator is PRO and has BoP to support their claim. However they never relate any point back to the topic. Even if each point was right, they never show that "Communism is bad because of X" means that it is worse than democracy. I believe he therefore loses based on topicality.I will also dispute his two core arguments as best as I am able to in 3k char limit."Communism provides absolutely no incentive for people to work"Communism provides lots of incentive. As Cambridge Professor Ha-Joon Chang has explained, money is only one of many motivators for why we work. "The assumption of self-seeking individualism, which is at the heart of free-market economics, has a lot of resonance with our personal experience. We have all been cheated by unscrupulous traders, be it the fruit seller who put some rotten plums at the bottom of the paper bag of the yogurt company that vastly exaggerated the health benefits of its products. We know too many corrupt politicians and lazy bureaucrats to believe that all public servants are solely serving the public.... This is true. However, we also have a lot of evidence - not just anecdotes but true systematic evidence - showing that self-interest is not the only human motivation that matters in our economic life. Self-interest, to be sure, is one of the most important, but we have many other motives - honesty, self-respect, altruism, love, sympathy, faith, sense of duty, solidarity, loyalty, public-spiritedness, patriotism, and so on - that are sometimes even more important than self-seeking as the driver of our behaviours." - 23 Things They Don't Tell you About Capitalism - Ha-Joon ChangWe have all kinds of motivators beyond self-interest.Additionally personal gain is still a motivator under Communism, just a second order motivator. To get everything in Communism requires maintaining the system, which requires people working.Main difference between Socialism and Communism is that the government owns everything in CommunismCommon misconception. Even the Soviet states he is implicitly referring to did not consider themselves communist. The Communist parties were called that because that is what the original major party, the Communist Party of the USSR called itself.The Communist Party of the Soviet Union wasn't known as that until the 1950's previously being known as All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks), Russian Communist Party and originally Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolsheviks). When they added Communist to their name it was because although they admitted they were practicing socialism, communism was the eventual end goal. [1] This also meets the principles Marx and Engels gave when they defined the differences between the two and how they would develop.[2]Therefore the "government owns everything" actually would apply to socialism based on the self-definition of the countries involved, so whatever point this is meant to make is turned.[1] https://goo.gl... [2] https://goo.gl...
Democracy is better than Communism

My first point as to why democracy is far superior to Communism is because Communism provides absolutely no incentive for people to work. If everybody gets exactly the same amount of things in life, then what would be the point of educating yourself, and trying hard at your job or even getting a job? Secondly, the main difference between Socialism and Communism is that the government owns everything in Communism. So, on top of the fact that there are no longer any incentives to work, the government could decide to just take away everything you currently have if they want to.
Chocolate is better than cactus

In western civilized countries, alot of people have never tried cactus. Its just not that popular. Maybe because its like a downgraded version of watermelon. But, chocolate is definitely better because of the chemicals found in chocolate. Phenylethylamine is sometimes called 'the love drug' and is found in chocolate. It arouses feelings that someone is in love, so essentially it makes you happier. Also dark chocolate has been proven to lower blood pressure, help reduce cardiovascular disease and is high in anti oxidants.
NATO should continue to support the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, incluidng through violent force.

"Violence never leads to peace, and can only breed more violence!" rants my opponent one must ask oneself- is that always the case? When Allies invaded Western Germany during the 40's did they breed resentment and hatred that would fester itself a terrible rebuttal against their causes? No one saw a people happy to get rid of a depleted regime and happyy to rebuild their civilzation after decades of mismanagment. Likewise with Afghanistan- a highly unpopular regime was toppled and the people there now adamently support foreign troops and their president (70, and 80 % aprox repectfully). Although it unliky her future is as bright as Germany's surely it only has sovereignty to GAIN from the extra security in the southern regions of the country. Only with security and proper care can Afghanistan hope to sustain herself as a stable nation. You go on to condemn our brave soldiers for disobeying laws of the land but this is untrue. They detachments of milatary are there on the request of the Karzai's - and by extension the citizenry of Afghanistan's- request and grealty appreciated for their efforts for the Afghan people know they cannot acheive sovereignty with the current state of affairs- civil war would ensue- and this is not somehting they want to get any worse. They need time to rebuild and rearm before they will be ready to dismiss the ISAF from their post. You say this war is illegal, and according to the UN the invasion was so, but surely the opinions of democratically elected legislatures in Afghanistan and the West matters more than a few bickering bureacrats from Fiji and Switzerland. This is a local issue, and none of their buisness to intrude, unless it is by request of the Afghan government. Anyways if you read the title closely you will realize this debate was not about the past invasion, but rather about the here and now and what can be done in the present. Whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelvent- we are concerned with what should be done now.
NATO should continue to support the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, incluidng through violent force.

My country, Canada, was one of NATO nations that engaged in the UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan following the newsworthy events of 9/11 and several decades of Taliban oppression. Though all four of our major political parties supported the original incursion the country much apathy has recently been generated on part of the opposition parties, who have determined that they believe the security mission undergone by Dutch, Canadian, American, and British force in no longer necessary and a pull-out should happen. The minority TORY government tried to mitigate the 52% disapproval rating of the mission by appointing a former LIBERAL deputy Prime Minister, John Manley, to head a panel to investigate what should be done about Canadian presence there. After conducting extensive fact-finding mission the panel came to the conclusion that although more NATO powers should step up to the plate and address security matters, that security in the Qandahar region can only be maintained if active military missions are conducted. A civilized nation does not invade a country, overthrow its government, ruin the infrastructure, and than leave, the country still in anarchy. Rather common courtesy and international responsibility should be maintained, mid way through a project is not a time to doubt it, think first and than act! NATO invaded Afghanistan and therefore has the responsibility to rebuild the country so that its struggling government can hope to hold itself together. Mr. Karzai is splendid statesman, but he lacks the efficiency and man power for the police and military to effectively deal with the security problems facing his country. Resolved, NATO should maintain its presence in Afghanistan, including active military fighting.
Spoons are more useful than forks.

Can you cut with a spoon? Sure, but since the edge is rounded instead of straight, the cut is less perfect. The voters should penalize you for eating enchiladas with a spoon. I, despite my best efforts, have never been able to break someone's skin with a spoon. I have, however, bled someone to death using multiple, shallow stabs with a fork. It took 28 hours. Your hands aren't waterproof? Does water flow through them or do they puff up like a sponge? Weird. This is kind of a new argument, but it's also totally easy to eat a liquid with a fork. You just get a balloon, fill it up with the liquid, poke a hole in the balloon with the fork, and suck it out vampire bat style. See? Totally easy.
Spoons are more useful than forks.

Now then, on to the arguments: ~"Useful for what? "~ Useful as eating utensils. ~"Forks can (1) scoop non-liquids, (2) stab, and (3) cut with the side. Spoons can only scoop. "~ Not true. Many spoons are made of metal and have quasi-sharp sides. I myself often eat things such as enchiladas or pancakes with such a type of spoon. ~"But more things can be stabbed than than can be exclusively scooped by spoons. This includes people. "~ As I have demonstrated, spoons can stab as well. While it may be much more convenient to stab a person with a fork, a spoon delivers greater satisfaction. Given its dull edge, it would hurt the person being stabbed much more than a fork would. Granted, it does take more effort to drive said spoon into the flesh, but in the end the person doing the stabbing would be able to walk away knowing that they have put their victim in an intense amount of pain. ~"Any liquid that needs to be scooped can be scooped with a person's hands. "~ Yes, that is true. I could go and eat my soup by scooping it into my hands. But that would entail a great amount of mess seeing as the human hand is not waterproof and I would probably end up spilling the soup onto myself and any other objects close by. ~" But unless you're Edward Scissorhands, you won't be stabbing anything with your fingers anytime soon. "~ Of course I wouldn't. My fingers are much too dull to do that. However, I can use my fingers to instead pick up anything that would have required stabbing. This might cause some mess, but not nearly as much as the soup scenario. After all, a liquid has a greater chance of spilling that a solid does, and I doubt even Johnny Depp could stab and eat a liquid.
Spoons are more useful than forks.

Useful for what? Forks can (1) scoop non-liquids, (2) stab, and (3) cut with the side. Spoons can only scoop. The one thing that spoons beat forks at is scooping liquids. But more things can be stabbed than than can be exclusively scooped by spoons. This includes people. Any liquid that needs to be scooped can be scooped with a person's hands. But unless you're Edward Scissorhands, you won't be stabbing anything with your fingers anytime soon.
On balance of probability, there is a God.

ResolutionOn balance of probability, God exists.Clarification I will not necessarily be arguing for the validity of any particular faith system (unless my partner wants me to); rather, I will show (with logic) that G-d exists.Structure Acceptance Opening arguments First rebuttals Second rebuttals Closing Rules First round is just for acceptance (and a thesis statement). No new arguments in the last round. If you wish to forfeit, then post it! Don't let the time run out. If you troll, I will delete you These will get you an automatic loss: Plagarism Cite all sources either in the debate, a link to a debate, or comments. Ad hominem attacks Forfeiting multiple rounds. Good luck to whoever accepts
We should to get rid of the Federal Reserve.

We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve of America so that the money authority can be rightfully be returned to the American People. The Federal Reserve is not federal at all. It is outside our government. The Federal Reserve loans it's money to the Government at an interest, so we have to pay the money back to them, obviously. But what about the interest that we have to pay back to them? We get the money to pay the Fed back from the Fed of course! It is this vicious cycle of endlessly borrowing money to pay of the debt of the previous money that you borrowed from the same people that will ultimately get us into a situation like the Wiemar Republic or Zimbabwe. Where we are in Hyperinflation. This means that the national currency is worth next to nothing. Also, if you think about it... the money doesn't even exist! If you have to pay off a debt for money, where do you get more money from? Simple, the Fed creates it out of thin air. It's not that hard to do, since 90% of our money is digital. This is not a crazy conspiracy, it's common sense to think about things like this. It has happened before in the Wiemar Republic and Zimbabwe. Thanks in advance to who accepts this debate.