BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun and Bullet are better than Bow and Arrow.

I am not an avid gun supporter; no one I know even owns one. I am just advocating the case of the good old gun and bullet. Gun: bang bang bang bang bang bang. Click click. flip-click. Bang bang bang. .. . Arrow: woosh, woosh, woo--damn, the arrow wont get on. What the? how are you supposed to use one of thes- by this time you have shot an arrow through your instructor who is standing behind you. It all boils down to simple, effective, cheap, and the weapon of today. The gun. If you have read the Odyssey, there is a scene where no one can string Odysseus' bow to win the heart of his faithful wife Penelope. No one can manage to do it, except Odysseus, who had had much practice. I personally have used a bow and arrow, and man is it fun but man is it hard to use and a physical strain. Imagine your local police department carrying around bows and arrows, with little children on the sidewalk calling them "Medieval Men," and the teenagers chuckling and calling them "Legolas Legs," or "Bow-legged bow stringer. " Bow and arrows are clearly outdated; moving out of the way of the more effective. It may not be as effective as a extremely well trained apple-off-the-head bow and Arrow shooter, but it sure does the job and is extremly simple to master. Besides, they have been around for ages, and everyone loves the good old bayonet, right? Thank you for this fun opportunity. I await your rebuttal.
Serotonin replacement injections should be banned by law

Thanks to Brian for finishing this cool debate. 1A. My opponent says that he may want to be gay so he can get into the entertainment industry. This doesn't necessarily respond to my argument that the vast majority of people wont want to change their sexuality. There are sure to be exceptions, but in general, these injections wont be used. Because this was never truly responded to, he can get any of his impacts now. As for getting into the entertainment industry, you say you might want to be gay to get in. OK, so that's a reason to not ban these injections. You could use them to turn gay and become an actor! So why are you against my position? But if that doesn't work, you could always pretend to be gay. Sounds crazy, but hey, it worked for Russell Brand (1). You also mentioned you could become a Jew to get in, so it looks like you've got two options anyway. Next he mentions that its not reasonable to suggest that all gays are bad drivers. I agree, but being a bad driver and wanting to turn straight are two different things. Sexuality, as previously mentioned, is an inherent part of us while being a bad driver is not, and can be changed without injections, so this isn't a good comparison. Furthermore, you claim that gays wont be sponsored as racers, so they would want to turn straight. While it makes sense in theory, it doesn't in application. Evan Darling is gay, yet he is still a Nascar driver (2)! So this isn't really true. 1B. Next, my opponent says my solution will get Tom Cruise and John Travolta thrown out of acting. First I must ask, is this a bad thing? Secondly, your argument supports my side because them getting thrown out would mean that there would be vacancies in the acting industry. You said you wanted to be in entertainment, so with them being kicked out you have an opportunity to replace them. So you should support my plan! 1C. My opponent says that a survival of the fittest scenario wouldn't be fair to fat people and nerds. First, he's never denied that my plan would improve humans as a species, so I am effectively making all of us better. Secondly, there are people that prefer the "large and lovely" guys over the others (3), so there is still plenty of fish in the water for these people. 2A. My opponent claims that scientists haven't reached a definite conclusion about whether losing gayness will also lose their feminine nature. However, I'm sure simple logic can show us that they will. I have yet to see a straight guy wear short shorts, while I have also yet to see a gay guy hunting deer and eating prime rib at the same time. So I'm pretty sure there is a correlation. So in short, I have shown how my opponent's impacts wont happen, and even if they do, that they would be a good thing. So, to improve the human species through Darwinism, and to allow Brian to fulfill his dream of getting into the entertainment industry, vote Con! Thanks for the debate. 1. http://www.icelebz.com... 2. http://www.edgeboston.com... 3. http://www.largeandlovely.com...
Serotonin replacement injections should be banned by law

You all probably said no. " I didn't say ‘no' – that's because I've always wanted to be a rich and famous television personality, but I've never been able to realise my dream because the gays and Jews have got the whole entertainment industry sewn up, and unless you are one of them you can't get your foot on the showbiz ladder. Now, if I was some sort of screaming homo I'd be living in a Beverly Hills mansion by now, but I'm not, which means my only option is to save up to become a Jew. Similarly, it is not reasonable to suggest that all gay men are dangerously incompetent drivers: some of the more skilful mattress-munching motorists might be as good as an average woman behind the wheel of a car – and, conceivably, some homosexual gentlemen might even be good enough to race in Formula 1. However, there's never been a gay F1 driver because nobody would want to sponsor them, which is why an aspiring young racing driver who is "good with colours" would jump at the chance to get injections to cure his homosexuality. My opponent then argued: "Even if a ton of gays turned straight with this treatment that adds serotonin, we can always compensate by extracting serotonin from straight guys! " But that would mean entertainers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta would become straight and then be thrown out of the entertainment industry. .. I can see the merits in that argument but that also means straight men will become gay. Then my opponent wrote: "Even if you don't buy any of that, you can turn this argument. If competition for women goes up, it could in fact turn into a "survival of the fittest", where only the hottest guys are able to get women and reproduce. " Yes, but would that be fair on all men who are fat, ginger or nerdy? I don't think so: they find it hard enough to get any action as it is. Finally, my opponent claimed that once a gay man had been cured, he would no longer take an interest in dressing up in fancy clothes and combing his hair and all that. I'm not so sure: my opponent may be right, but so far, the scientists haven't done enough research in the matter to reach a definite conclusion. No, all in all, I'd say it would be better to stay on the safe side and ban gay men from having serotonin injections. Thank you.
Serotonin replacement injections should be banned by law

Before I begin, thanks Brian for starting this debate. This should be interesting :) First, for the sake of debate I will assume that the injections will work on humans. With that out of the way, lets move to the contentions. 1. Brian's argument is that there are a limited supply of attractive women, so if there are less gays through the injections then competition increases. There are three problems, though. A. First, he assumes the injections will occur, and that gays will be receptive to such a treatment. In other words, that they want to change. However, to evaluate this, lets look at straight people. I ask all straight men and women reading this, do you want to be gay? You all probably said no. This is because sexuality is an inherent part of us. Just like us straight dudes and dudettes are fine with out sexual preferences, gays are the same way. Guys turn them on, so they wont want to change for sexual reasons. Just as we all answered no to if we want to be gay, its sae to assume that if we asked all gays "do you want to be straight" we would get a similar response. They also wont change for stigma reasons. Gays are becoming more and more accepted in society, with a huge movement being brought on for gay marriage. Its unlikely gays want to change to fit in society either, then. Also, its doubtful that we will force the gays to undergo the treatment. Gay rights activists would be all over the place complaining about inhumane procedures. Therefore, even if we develop the treatment, he cant access his argument here because very few people will actually undergo the injection. Therefore the vast majority of gays will remain and competition will stay stable. There's no reason to ban the injections if nobody will get them in the first place. B. Even if a ton of gays turned straight with this treatment that adds serotonin, we can always compensate by extracting serotonin from straight guys! C. Even if you don't buy any of that, you can turn this argument. If competition for women goes up, it could in fact turn into a "survival of the fittest", where only the hottest guys are able to get women and reproduce. I'm sure the women love that. But it would also benefit men because it encourages us to become stronger and better-looking. 2. Brian claims gays will have the inside track to the ladies because they wear makeup and all that. A. But if they turned straight like my opponent indicates, they will cease to wear the makeup, cease to get the fancy haircuts, and cease the lingerie shopping, since that is no longer in their personality. So this impact isn't accessible either. B. Extend my turn from above. Even if they have the inside track, that encourages the always-straight guys to be better, improving us as a species! For these reasons, you cant look to the arguments my opponent has given. Now, I would have given my own arguments, but honestly they were made in attacking his; no reason to ban what wont be used, and Darwinism. Therefore I will leave it at that and hand it over to my opponent.
Serotonin replacement injections should be banned by law

Great news for George Michael, Elton John and Justin Bieber – it seems the cure for male homosexuality is just around the corner. Boffins in China have discovered that a chemical in the brain called serotonin controls sexual preference and that a mutation of the genetic makeup of some males means that they are born lacking the tryptophan hydroxylase 2 gene which is needed to produce serotonin. As a result, these mutants do not have the sexual preference for females that normal males have. However, the Chinese brainboxes found that a preference for females can be "restored" by injecting serotonin into mutants' brains. http://www.bbc.co.uk... But is this medical breakthrough good news for normal men? There only a finite number of girls to go around, and with record-high rates of obesity amongst young women these days, competition for decent-looking women is already extremely fierce. Now, gay men usually take care of their appearances by using male cosmetics and by spending a lot of money on clothes and haircuts and, ironically, this makes them very attractive to women, so, in the future, former gays that have received serotonin replacement treatment could be in the inside lane in the dash for gash. No, serotonin replacement injections, or the "sh1t-stabbers' serum" as it might one day be called, should be banned by law as no good can possibly come of it for the majority of men. Thank you.
The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended.

Contention 1+: ExpenseThe federal government currently spends $23.44 billion dollars per year to fund the War on Drugs [1], and that's not even counting any possible economic gains from people not being imprisoned and turning to a life of crime (statistically more likely to occur when people are jailed even for non-violent offenses [2]) and instead continuing their life contributing to the economy, nor does it include any gains from taxing a newly regulated drug industry in whichever states would have them. Contention 2+: Rights People have a right to their own bodies, and the right to put what they want into their own bodies. Drugs are no exception. The federal government should not be restricting people's rights. It's dangerous once government controls what may or may not go into your brain, for this is a power easily abused. Additionally, the current drug war is unconstitutional. It took the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol [3], but no such amendment currently exists for the prohibition of drugs. Additionally, the 10th Amendment leaves all unenumerated powers to the states [4], leaving them with the responsibility of either prohibiting or regulating the drug industry. Contention 3+: Negative Effects Many people die as a result of the drug war, including even people who wish to use any drugs deemed illegal [5]. The drug war sends drug users and dealers underground, resulting in more organised crime, violence (drug cartels can't use the legal system to settle disputes), corruption, spread of disease, and other social problems [6]. Additionally, the prohibition only encourages smuggling by lowering the legal supply, which leads to an illegal, thus with more risk, cost, and profit, supply. As former federal nartotics officer Michael Levine describes:"I learned that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found U. S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U. S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction program. On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for the drug war, calling it “a sham put on for the American taxpayer” that was actually “good for business” [7]. Conclusion +: The War on Drugs is basically paying billions of dollars illegally to strict the rights of Americans, kill many of them either directly or indirectly, spread social problems, and grant higher profits to drug cartels. That will be all for now. Your turn, 16kadams.1. . http://actionamerica.org...;2. . http://www.mosac.mo.gov...;3. . http://www.law.cornell.edu...;4. . http://tenthamendmentcenter.com...;5. . http://www.drugwarrant.com...; 6. . http://www.bmj.com...7. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Public Policy should be created by officials who are most informed about the issues involved.

I don't think it is always best to assume that anyone who has been "trained" to deal with social issues is automatically the best candidate. Policy is all up to opinion at the end of the day. Just because someone has been "trained" doesn't mean they are best suited for the government. Sometimes, people who don't have as much experience are good for government jobs as well because they have a fresh perspective. When you've been on the inside for so long, it's hard to see anything differently. Also, having experience does not equate to making better laws. I would argue that many of our current politicians have experience but are trying to pass awful laws. Remember when Paul Ryan, a very experienced official, tried to push Trumpcare which would have caused millions of people to lose their healthcare? You forget that government officials are also citizens. The government generally acts similar to the society because the government is part of the society, it is made of up people form society. To try and tell ourselves that somehow the government is independent of society is kind of absurd. "If we allow citizens to create policies we open the door for mob rule, which rejects the minority. Through a representative, the minority has a voice in forming policy." This is actually untrue because right now, minorities usually do not get a say. For example, in red states with blue minorities, those people don't get a real say in their local elections because the red candidate will always win. Also, allowing citizens to run for office (which they do haha, Trump was a citizen, Obama was a citizen) we are not destroying our representative democracy. The government is not inherently better than the society, it is not necessarily going to make laws that don't reflect society. Trump, a citizen, ran and won because a majority of the society liked his message.
Swearing Should Be Illegal in Public Places

Pro's CaseEn-oy acknowledges that because history perceives swearing as something disrespectful, that alone is enough categorize swearing as a misconduct. I don't mind, provided En-oy gives reasonable goals to discourage swearing. Pro argues that in order to discourage such profanity, swearing needs to be illegal from the public sphere. I agree that swearing needs to be discourage but I disagree that it should be illegal in public places.As such, There are huge problems with the methods in order to achieve this goal. One as I said previously, that it neither serves as a realistic nor an idealistic goal because legally, there are too much paperwork and money involved in its execution.Furthermore, there are contradictions within's pro's case. First, en-oy wants to ban swearing in the public sphere yet Pro allows kids under profanity influenced families to run amok. If the objective involves omitting those ideas that are subjective to one's view, such as allowing kids to swear provided their families do the same, then legally, it is useless to implement such a regulation because the law is supposed to be universal and to cater to each individual's needs.Making it subjective blurs the lines for an objective assessment. This makes imposing fines harder because of its subjective nature. En-oy agrees that fines are a better alternative but I have argued that the alternative is one which is flawed in which Pro did not refute my points.Thanks for the debate.
Swearing Should Be Illegal in Public Places

I think if this were ever to become a law it would be something punished with fines. Before this ever became an actual law, it would have to be listed what exact words would be punishable. Without laying it out clearly for people, there would be too much of a problem with not knowing whether one is swearing or not, like you said. Certain words I think would be allowed to slide such as 'crap' and other words that have become acceptable almost anywhere. In response to your point on whether swearing is offensive or violent, I agree that it isn't violent and that it's only offensive. That's exactly the problem with it. There are a lot of offensive things that can't be said about certain people or minority groups which are not allowed and can bring attention from the law. I think swearing should be viewed in the same way as some of those things; certain opinions should be kept to yourself or inside your home, the same as bad words should be. Court would never become an issue because there would be clear lines drawn about what is and isn't appropriate to be said in public. Private property of any kind where the owner has said it's appropriate to swear would not be affected by the law. Any public building could ignore the law if they chose by posting visible signs saying it is permitted by the owner. This could make it possible for people to continue living as they wish as long as they are inside a building where swearing is okay. I don't believe this violates freedom of speech. Swearing is not a certain subject or sentence that people aren't allowed to say; it's a collection of adjectives or nouns. Cutting them from speech would not affect someone's ability to say what they need to say. They can easily use other nouns or adjectives with the same connotations. Lastly, why is it that it's inappropriate to swear around children? If there's nothing wrong with it, we would be able to and they would also be able to. There is clearly something to be said for how 'okay' swearing is. And while kids may hear these words anyway, I know from personal experience that people of all ages are liable to start saying things the more often they hear them. I personally have a harder time not swearing if I've just watched a lot of TV with swearing in it. It's the same with society. The more people hear others swearing, the more likely they are to have trouble with it and do it habitually and without thinking about it. You can compare this to friends. If one friend starts saying some word, swear word or not, the other friend is likely to start saying it too because people are just impressionable.
It's okay for little boys to get fagged out.

I accept the definition of fagging, which is descriptive, not prescriptive and essentially means the same thing as worn out as you can see from the example sentence in con's citation. Being fagged out mentally is good, because it allows the brain to rest, which in turn increases the brains ability to work efficiently and store information as revealed by recent studies. https://www.americanexpress.com... physical exhaustion (being fagged out) is a natural response and symptom of exercise. Exercise reduces your chances of obesity, helps support your immune system, increases lifespan and reduces your chances of suffering from depression, which can lead to suicide. http://www.mayoclinic.org... It is okay for boys to be drained of energy in some instances, so long as it's not a result of underlying health issues, however when a symptom of hard work it is great.
It's okay for little boys to get fagged out.

Worth a shot... Pro did not provide definitions, so I will define fagged: "drained of energy or effectiveness; extremely tired; completely exhausted" (1) The human body needs energy to grow and function, which is especially important for young boys growing up. (2) For this reason it is not okay for boys to be drained of energy and therefore fagged. It is also bad for little boys to be extremely (defined as: "to an extreme degree" (3)) tired (defined as: "depleted of strength or energy"(4)), because this essentially means the same thing. Same as being completely ("to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent" (5)) exhausted ("depleted of energy, force, or strength" (6)). 1-http://www.vocabulary.com... 2-http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu... 3-http://www.vocabulary.com... 4-http://www.vocabulary.com... 5-http://www.vocabulary.com... 6-http://www.vocabulary.com...
It's okay for little boys to get fagged out.

Pro said it cannot be a prescriptive definition, due to synonyms provided. However, looking at the source the same definitions are provided. Even so, a dictionary explains things absent of hyperbole, yet people speak in hyperbole so that can change people's understandings of words. Going off the literal definitions for fagged which describes with words such as extremely and also from the source "depleted of strength and energy" ("depleted" discussed last round). Pro asserts however, that it does not mean to be completely drained, yet every other context of the definition points in the extreme direction and one can easily interpret it that way without it saying "completely". This is why to be fagged is to be dangerously low on energy. As for semantics, one must follow its true description, which in the context of the debate, is an extreme explanation. Also, I used the same source, but only to define different words (not really spamming) and forfeiting a round is really bad conduct.
It's okay for little boys to get fagged out.

The definition provided by my opponent is a descriptive one. What he is doing now is engaging in a logical fallacy known as splitting hairs. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... The term fagging out as is made clear by the definition provided by my opponent and the example sentence under it means simply being worn out, and not to the degree of a medical emergency. Every single one of my arguments were dropped, while my opponent has relied entirely on semantics, and bad ones at that. My opponent has also spammed sources, which should count as a loss of source points and conduct points for him. A 6 point vote for me is certainly appropriate and recommended. We know the definition is descriptive and not prescriptive because of it's numerous examples of what the word means. The first being "drained of energy", which I've shown is good for kids. Notice it doesn't say completely drained, as the word would be meaningless at that point and a mere synonym for death.