BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize all drugs

P1: Even if there is an economic gain, it will make America look bad because we are making our money by supporting something that is wrong. It would be extremely harmful to the reputation of our country if we made our money by encouraging people's drug habits. People already look down on our government for selling/advertising things that are harmful to us (fast food, cigarettes, etc.) Selling drugs would make things even worse because it shows that our government cares more about money than the health of their people. Rather than taking the job of the cartels, we should work harder to stop them. Legalizing drugs would actually cause many people to lose their jobs because it would put an end to the DEA. P2: These killings would still happen, but instead of robbing/murdering dealers for drugs, addicts would rob the stores that sell the drugs. This would greatly increase the chance of robberies. A cheaper price would actually be even worse because it would encourage addicts to buy bigger amounts that could potentially lead them to overdose. If drugs are as easy to buy as alcohol is, it will be even easier for underage teenagers to get their hands on them and ruin their lives before they even start. Yes, smoking cigarettes are harmful and the fact that we still promote it shows that our country is just money hungry and greedy. A waitress who allows a person to have more than three drinks knowing that they will be driving will be responsible if that person gets into an accident and kills himself and other people. Just like the government wil be responsible for the death of all the people who will overdose if all drugs are legal. P3: There is no way to have a "controlled" dosage of heroin or meth. It's not about misuse, it's the drugs themselves that are extremely harmful. Even a small amount of these drugs can easily lead to an addiction, and once you're addicted it's nearly impossible to stop without severe physical distress. People diagnosed with life threatening diseases and people who abuse drugs are NOT the same. The people diagnosed with the diseases had no control over the disease they contracted. It is not their fault , some people are just unfortunate. Look at a child who is diagnosed with Lukemia. Is he the same as a heroin addict who has contracted HIV from sharing a syringe with someone who is infected? No, because the addict was responsible for the disease he got by being irresponsible. It is heartless to say it is just a form of "population control" because there are families who grieve and suffer after the loss of a loved one who suffered from a drug addiction. Not only do the drugs ruin the life of the addict, but it ruins the lives of their families as well. P4: Cigarette companies put loads of harmful, unecessary chemicals in cigarettes as well. Who's to say they won't do the same to drugs? C Legalizing all drugs will be harmful to society and our reputation as a country.
Legalize all drugs

p1: Why wouldn't it boost the economy? Look at the economic increase in Colorado with just marijuana sales. On the first day retail stores reported more than a million dollars in profit in cannabis alone followed by more than 5 million throughout the first week. The drugs can be in the hands of state coffers instead in the hands of dangerous and violent gangs or cartels http://www.mpp.org... p2: Drugs prices would not increase look at the people who buy heroin or cocaine illegally its only manufactured in such small amounts and when disturbed by the dealers they can charge up to a $1,000 or more which is insane people would literally fight each other just to make sure they get their drugs; or worse kill someone right off the street to afford their addiction. Even if it"s taxed in the end taxes pay for the upkeep of the state such as correctional facilities, educational budgets, and state repairs. We all know that smoking cigarettes is harmful and we still promote it anyway same thing with drinking alcohol it"s not like a waitress at a restaurant is going to cut a person off for having three drinks when they know they will be driving in the end. p3: you"re only talking about the non drug users but what about the ones that actually use them last I checked we have the right to do what we want with our bodies even if it might hurt us in the end. Yes all drugs can be bad when they are misused but when they are controlled in the proper way and handled accordingly there will be more order within society from both parties. Even with the health risks of drug users and non drug user"s people die or get diagnosed everyday with some life threatening disease it"s the same thing with the people who abuse their addiction they will their own downfall if that"s the case it will be a form of population control for society. its more dangerous buying drugs illegally off the street then if it were to be controlled and not altered in anyway. most drugs sold on the street are not the real thing but synthetic chemicals designed to give the same affect. http://www.infowars.com... & https://www.unodc.org... C: It would be in the best interest for the people and society if drugs would become legal.
Legalize all drugs

P1: Legalizing all drugs would not make a big difference in the economy because not everyone uses them. If it did positively affect the economy, it wouldn't be a significant improvement. P2: It would actually make the environment a lot more dangerous because many drugs (such as Methamphetamine and Ecstasy ) cause violent, incoherent behavior and even mental illness. This means that the crime rate will actually increase as a result of the legalization of these drugs. http://www.jcsd.org... & http://drugabuse.com... P3: Legalization of all drugs would lead to an increase in drug prices because since they are being distributed by the government, they will be taxed (much like cigarettes). The "black market" will still exist due to drug dealers who will charge better prices than retail stores. Drugs are looked down upon by society, so no one would want to work in a retail store that sells harmful drugs. You are unclear about the kind of protection you mean when you say "protection from governing authorities". P4: Drugs are extremely harmful for the human body. They lead to serious addictions and severe health problems. Heroin for example can cause fatal overdose, high risks of infections such as HIV/AIDS, collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, and liver disease. https://www.dosomething.org... C: All drugs should NOT be legalized.
Legalize all drugs

1)Legalization is the key to a better economy with small restrictions put in place a new and improved life style between drug and non drug users will emerge creating a safe and controlled environment for all citizens. 2)Crime that is involved with illegal drugs would decrease creating a safer community for all individuals. 3)The black market involvement with illegal drugs would be greatly reduced because there would be easier availability which would cause a decrease in drug prices, violent crimes and an increase of retail stores resulting in more job opportunities and revenues. And with the proper regulation there would be more protection from governing authorities. 4)Therefore drugs should become legalized. http://www.bmstahoe.com...
"Statist" should be added to debate.org's list of general political spectrums

Statism is by and large used as a derogatory term, and rightly so. Few if any are going to describe themselves as such (except Italian fascists). There is no "statism" that cannot be adequately coveredd by the term "socialism" (provided) in basic dictionary definition. Fascists would dispute that they are socialists, but the fact remains they are guild socialists. If we want to have the term for self-described ideologies rather than just covering them in the basic facts (which might be the case, greens are also in essence socialist most of the time, and progressives), what we should do is just have an "other" option (perhaps with a box to type it in,), but adding statist to a default list is pointless as no one will pick it. Waste of programmers' time.
"Statist" should be added to debate.org's list of general political spectrums

What is Statism? Statism or Estatism- sometimes dubbed "populism" (though populism is a vaugue term that could refer to many poltical philosophies) this is "big government" type of poltical philosophy that prefers lefttist minded economic policies such as high taxes and more social programs but at the same time adhering to social conservative values and generally supportive of more aggressive foreign policy. Essentially it is the opposite of libertarianism. When editing one's profile on debate.org one question asks what your general spectrum is. They than give you options such as conservative, liberal, progressive, green, labour, socialist, moderate, and libertarian. Yet no statism. Why so? It is a common viewpoint amongst many peoples of the world, and yet is not represtneted here on debate.org, whereas all three other ends of the political sqaure (World's Shortest Political Quiz) are as well as some molds very simliar to the basic blocks. This is my postion. Feel free to challenge my assertions.
Animal Rights

Topic: A just government ought to grant non-human animals some rights. Round One: This is just for acceptance, rules, and definitions. Burdens: Burden of Proof is shared. Pro shows some rights should be granted; Con shows that some rights should not be extended. Provisos: (1) Let"s limit this to non-human, vertebrate members of the Kingdom of Animalia, (2) This is just a discussion in the abstract"do animals have some rights, it"s not about what particular rights the animals have, and (3) when I say some rights, that could mean one or more rights. Rules: No swearing/personal attacks, etc. No new arguments or evidence can be introduced in the final round. Definitions: Just Government - one that respects the human rights of its citizens (see UDHR), is democratic, and liberal (as in tolerant, not oppressive, and evenhanded). A government more specificially is the complex of political institutions and laws, as well as the body of persons comprising the governmental authority, through which the function of governing is carried out. Ought - Expresses moral desirability Grant - to give Right - a entitlement, freedom, or immunity recognized either by law or by morality (how exactly we determine if something is a right is fair game for debate.) I look forward to a great debate!
Beauty pageants for children do more harm than good.

In this final round, I hereby reiterate the arguments I made in last round's rebuttal. My arguments have gone unanswered, therefore my opponent concedes the argument. So vote for me. Even if Pro hadn't conceded, I believe my arguments are more persuasive on the merits, anyhow. So vote for me. I responded to and refuted all of my opponent's assertions. My opponent did not respond to my refutations, thus we can assume that she acquiesces to them and concedes the argument. So vote for me!
Beauty pageants for children do more harm than good.

Parents should love their children no matter what. In the world there is always someone that judges you depending on your appearance. It can be a girl from school thinking you don't dress appropriately to fit in her group or a boy, etc; but then there is your family who you can always go to and not worry that they will judge you. What happens when the parents start pressuring their children to look a certain way or to talk, walk, act, BE a certain way. What do the children think about this pressure coming from their parents to be perfect. The child's parents are basically telling them that they are not perfect and they should change themselves to please others or to please their society. Also, this image the parents are trying to change their children into damages and takes away the child's innocence by fake smiles, eyelashes and appearance. Another problem is that this beauty pageants consume both the parent's and the child's attention and time that they forget about the education of the kid. All of the girls aged eight to ten interviewed by A&E Network were not concerned with any future education. What does that say? Parents prefer spending money on designer clothes than spending them on schools, books, school supplies, etc. What will happen when the kid is eliminated from the pageant or when she is no longer a valid candidate to enter one. The kids trust on their parents to to secure their future is betrayed. There are not many careers that you can follow by being a beauty queen; maybe modeling but there is a very slim chance that a beauty queen can succeed in the modeling business. According to the Better Business Bureau not many beauty pageant competitors land modeling careers when they grow up. Finally, is the pressure to perform on stage and the effects of loosing or just the effects of the pressure of being a certain way. "Being a Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortion in term of body image," said William Pinsof, a clinical psychologist and president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University. The effects of beauty pageants on the mind and body of children is disastrous. Is it really worth it to risk a child's mental and physical state for a beauty pageant? Source: http://www.minorcon.org...
Beauty pageants for children do more harm than good.

I accept this argument, but I reject the condition that in each round each of us has to present a new argument in addition to discussing the previous ones. That seems arbitrary and it should not be mandatory. If anything, we should be required to make every point we can think of in round #2 and then simply discuss those points back and forth for the subsequent rounds so that each idea is given maximum consideration. However, I'm sympathetic to the fact that one of us might think of a new idea in subsequent rounds and want to share it, so I won't argue that each round should be limited in scope to arguments raised in the beginning. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the idea that each round has to present new arguments. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a fan of children's beauty pageants, but I think I can competently represent this "more good than harm" side of the argument. I'll defend the pageants, but don't take me for some kind of "pageant mom."
We should redo the death penalty.

What I'm proposing here is this. We should only focus on mass murdered, serial killers, and persons who torture children. We should have one trail for these individuals who commit these crimes. The death penalty is reach on unanimous 12-member jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were met. Given the carnage in the Florida Parkland shooter here and the callous manner in which the shooter went about causing it, the prosecution would not have much difficulty meeting the burden. So once the jury find this person guilty of these crimes. The death penalty then should be in place immediately. After a week or two he should be sentenced to death by lethal injection. One. It will diminish the cost of the trail dramatically. Second. It will save the taxpayer millions, on the trail and incarnating that person. Third. These cases would be special. Meaning it will only be for these mass murders and persons who torture children. Fourth. It would be a universal law. Meaning the federal government will be hearing it. It would be for all 50 states. Fifth. "Prosecutors can identify at least three such factors here, where Cruz: 1) created a grave risk of death to many people; 2) acted in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 3) committed the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner."(1) Sixth. If the government can start a war and stop a war. Then why can't they step in on serious heinous crimes. Such as mass shooters? Seventh. Why should these mass shooters, or serial killers stay alive? What is the point for them to stay in jail for the rest of their lives? Eighth. Other countries has a more affected way of handling big crime. Like "China has the largest population on Earth with 1.3 billion people; 5,000 executions would mean one in every 260,000 residents."(2) they also use lethal injection. Ninth. "EYE for an EYE" "mean we can punish, or even take revenge upon, someone in the exact same manner they used to harm us" "There are only FOUR places in the King James Bible where the phrase "eye for eye" (or slight variation) occurs (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 5:38)" (3.) Why does the bible get it right? Sources 1. https://www.cnn.com... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com... 3. http://www.biblestudy.org...
Is Islam the right religion

Ok see u next round But please understand that Islam is the religion of Abraham Christianity is a fabrication by Paul Trinity makes no sense If God is 3 distinct persons Then he must have 3 distinct wills So the will of the son would contradict the will of the father If they have the same will they are 1 person not 3 And Jesus never taught trinity Even if I agree the gospels were written by eyewitnesses Then how did they remember exactly what Jesus said years after he "died"? You may say they were inspired But then I could say the Quran fell from the sky So it"s the word of God And since Muhammad saw was a truthful man And since the Quran is a miracle Islam is true alhumdulillah
Is Islam the right religion

Bismillahirahman arahim thanks for the challenge con First off proof Islam is right First off we agree there is a God seeing how your a christian This God must be one The trinity makes no sense it is illogical Who controls the universe? Father son or Ghost? If they all do without conflict they are one person not three To be a person is to have an independent will You say God is one being with three persons If these persons disagree with one another their will be a conflict and a chaos not a cosmos The father would say let it be day in this city The son would say, "no are you crazy it should be night! " So the trinity is impossible You say the bible is proof We don"t believe in the Bible! We believe in what Moses wrote and what Jesus wrote You say over 40 authors wrote the bible? How do you know? If Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament why does the fifth book mention how he died and was buried? None of the manuscripts of the Old Testament date anywhere near the time of Moses There is plenty of time for them to be altered Matthew couldn"t be written by Matthew since he is mentioned in the third person in Matthew 9:9 Furthermore the gospels are written in Greek Jesus and his peasant deciples spoke Aramaic Also the gospels were written after Paul Paul contradicts Jesus and his brother James and the whole Old Testament! Paul was a Christian killer He probably used the formula if you can"t beat them join them technique He destroyed Christianity from within Furthermore we don"t have the original New Testament We have the copies of the copies of the copies and plenty of changes crept in Also the bible is scientifically inaccurate Just read the beginning Was the whole universe created in 6 24 hour days? How can there be light and days with no sun moon and stars? How can plants exist without sunlight? The bible is wrong Islam means submission to the will of God Abraham was a Muslim not a Christian or Jew Muhammad saw was known as truthful even by his arch enemies and never lied in 40 years How can someone who never lied in 40 years just start lying and believe his lies? Muhammad saw is also the most influential person in history How can a crazy man be the most influential person in history? So he wasn"t a liar or lunatic but legit Also Quran mentions embryology 1400 years before microscope You say Muhammad saw wanted to invade byzentines? Source please? Islam is truth God is one not three Worship only one God and believe in his last Prophet Muhammad Mustafa saw amen
Hamburgers are better than hotdogs

However I will counter your argument and then use my own argument. You say that hot dogs are less messy. Well I would assume you meant that due to condiments. Well if you put too much ketchup or mustard on a hot dog then it is just as messy. You also say that hot dogs are not as dry as hamburgers. Well, that does not make it a bad thing, that is a matter of opinion. Also you can get your hamburger cooked in different ways so that it is more moist. Even at a simple restaurant like Red Robin they ask you how you would like your meat. I will start my argument with health. Hamburgers are much more healthy than hot dogs. Hot dogs are commonly made from processed meat that is very bad. This video is how the average hot dog is made. . http://www.youtube.com... This video was on the Science Channel, How its made. While hamburger meat simply comes straight from cows and has little to none modifications. I think that this video just about sums up my opposing argument.
New Federal and State employees should not receive a pension.

Ok... everything you said was true through my poor phrasing of the riddle and your math awesomness (which I do apppriciate myself).Also, you were right about the tricking by the government, no one wants more of that...The point I was trying to get across was that the money upfront would be helpful to the people by getting the money now as opposed to later, and it would be helpful for th government not to spend so much money on pensions....I know it came out strongly that we should trick the people into not taking a pension... Instead, it might be a better option for the people to take the larger salaryas stated before: "... people should be accepting of this because there are many people who unfortunately do not make it to the age of retirement or be able to collect a pension that would break even the amount that was already given upfront."And I did not say there waas a choice between a pension and a larger salary did I??? Also remember i did say that this change was only for new employees, not the currnet ones, the current people working and those retired will keep their slaries...Also remember... some if not most of the government jobs pay really nicely to begin with... just saying...Respectfully, ~LosLambda p.s. sorry for saying 'also remember,' i'm not the best with vocabulary and I am really tired.... insomnia.... NOW BRING IT HOME :D