BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be sold legally in stores

This debate has been one of maturity, and I respect that. I shall close with the following:I thank you for clearing up your most interesting point concerning potential anarchy, in that you meant something of a much lighter note. Though this has been cleared, there is still potential danger in legalization. Primarily in that of a diminishing class. If marijuana were to be legalized, this would increase government spending (a possible positive), increase taxes for citizens (as I previously stated, a most upsetting event); this is all true. However, the most dangerous part is the diminishing of the middle class. If marijuana were to actually be legalized nationwide, the middle class would fall dangerously fast. How, you ask? Allow me to enlighten you.As the taxes for our citizens increase, their budgets decrease. This, while bothersome, is not the fatal blow. The true danger arises when budgets are decreased so much, that middle class citizens lose their homes to unpaid rent, their jobs to drugs on the job, and, in a chain reaction, are socially accepted as lower class. Once this begins, so the domino effect will follow. This, drastically diminishing the lower class, and eroding that which once was the great United States of America.I shall say nothing more. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Let this be settled in the hands of the people.
Marijuana should be sold legally in stores

As my final point, I would like to say that all our taxes are beneficial to the government. We can get even better public services for our taxes, and the government can be freer. When I say we live in a free country, I did not mean to imply that everyone can do whatever they like. We should be able to make our own choices, and when we are over the majority age of 18, you are ultimately responsible for our own actions. Selling marijuana legally would let you make your own actions legally.
Marijuana should be sold legally in stores

The government can surely gain money from this, yes. But what are the citizens gaining? The only things the citizens have to gain from this, in the area of money, is nothing; infact, they lose money. The only reason that the government is gaining money from this, is because it adds to the taxpayer's fees. Upon marijuana being legalized, an increase in tax payments will be required.Addressing your "free country" statement. America isn't completely free. If America was truly free, there would be no government. If there was no government, this would be a libertarian(1) country, where there truly are no boundaries. Though this sounds like a grand idea, it could easily tip us into an abyss of anarchy(2). Laws are set for a reason. Though they seem strange, they are for my safety just as well as yours.________________________________(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com... I ask that you look closely at the synonyms of this word.
Marijuana should be sold legally in stores

I will be the opposition in this debate, reiterating my position throughout. With my opening statement, I would like to state the following: Marijuana is an illegal drug for good reason. The drug gives off curiosity, leading to peer pressure, leading to illegal activity, leading to addiction, leading to disconnection from the world, leading to death. Legalizing it would not make it "uncool". It would simply legalize it, and by doing that, open it to the people, letting those who didn't want to take the illegal risk, now be open to obtaining the drug.
You can't love Jesus and be in a same sex marriage

Yes, and they WILL be put to death. But not in this life. Also, pope Francis speaks on behalf of the catholics, not christians. And if you don't know the difference between those two, you obviously got a lot of research to do. And no, a practicing homosexual CANNOT have a relationship with God. Not in a christian sense. John 1:1 tells us that the word (the bible) is God, meaning not only does the bible condemn homosexuality, but also God himself. And yes, they are born that way, and no, they don't really have a choice, but they DO have a choice of wether they act on it or not. And as soon as they say "I don't want to be like this, I want to be with God" then the lord will help them to grow a new heart and grow out of their old ways. Also, there is a victim, they themselves are the victim. And saying "There's only a few passages on it in the bible" is a hypocritical thing to say, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, are you saying that because its only mentioned a few times means it shouldn't be taken seriously? Thats just outright dumb.
You can't love Jesus and be in a same sex marriage

"Put to death" means to execute someone http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Even if the bible has a few sentences condemning homosexuality, modern stances on the subject prevaile vs the stance on homsexuality 2000+ years ago in the Middle East. Even the Pope agrees that homosexuality isn't a big deal and people who are consenting homosexuals can find God as well http://time.com... There's really no logical reason why someone who's a practicing homosexual can't come in touch with some divine force in the universe simply because they are attracted to someone of the same sex. They're simply born that way and isn't really their fault, and it's a victimless crime. In summary, homosexuality isn't really a huge sin. There's only a few passages on it in the bible and to say that a few sentences should be the basis of telling someone that Christianity will deny them is ridiculous, so ridiculous in fact, the Pope even agrees
You can't love Jesus and be in a same sex marriage

Never in the bible does it tell its followers to kill homosexuals. "They shall surely be put to death" means that if they don't repent they will go to hell. John 11:26 says that "everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." Of course, everyone on earth has died, the only way this makes sense is if hes talking about death in a sense that means separation from god, aka, hell.
You can't love Jesus and be in a same sex marriage

Can anyone who practices Christianity and is a homosexual still be a Christian? Is anyone who doesn't put a homosexual to death a Christian still? Leviticus 18 and 20 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13 The bible was written 2000+ years ago, attitude's towards people behaviour's have changed over time. Most people agree today two consenting adults can have homosexual relationships and still believe in Jesus. And STD's are transmitted by sex in general, not necessarily homosexuality. People have been getting STD's from straight sex for centuries.
You can't love Jesus and be in a same sex marriage

Many gays, lesbians, bis, etc show pride in their sexual orientation, but still claim to be christians, catholics, etc. This contradicts itself because god opposes the prideful (james 4:6) as well as the gays (1 corinthians 6:9-11). And to atheists, homosexuality is also the cause of all stds. Back in the day, they had a thing called 'G.R.I.D.', look it up. Fight me m8
Bullying Should be a Crime

Throughout this debate Pro has persistently failed to address what I have pointed out as the central reason why we cannot making bullying a crime. The term "bullying" is too vague of a term and it can include too many different types of actions. Some actions which we call bullying should be, and often are, crimes. However, so many different actions can fall under the title of "bullying" that there is no practical way to outlaw bullying on the whole. I do not deny that bullying is a problem in society which harms many individuals. We should outlaw certain types of bullying. We should individually make efforts to reducing all forms of bullying. We cannot outlaw bullying as a concept. So many different types of action fall under the title of "bullying" that there is no way to outlaw bullying on the whole.
Bullying Should be a Crime

Firstly, it seems that my opponent has failed to grasp the issue at hand here, and in trying to make a point, has straw-maned the issue. Victims of bullying often suffer from psychological issues even after the bullying has stopped, In fact, what bullying is is simply a form of abuse for its victims. Furthermore, bullying is a leading cause of suicide among young people, with some sources in the UK reporting that at least half of all suicides among young people are related to bullying. (Sources linked below) I will not try to argue morality here, as morality is dependent upon the individual, however, based on objective facts, it is quite clear that bullying causes measurable damage to its victims, and as a result, should be outlawed. Sources: http://www.aaets.org... http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
Bullying Should be a Crime

I"m glad Pro was able to return to this debate. Let"s look at his arguments. Pray said that I have "falsely equivocated simple acts such as someone saying "I don't like you" or making annoying sounds towards someone, with continuously using homophobic or ethnic slurs, sending threats of physical harm, whether they be legitimate or otherwise, or deliberately mistreating other people to elicit an emotional response from them." I have made no equivocation. These acts are different. However, they all fall under the title of "bullying." For instance, an annoying or offensive noise would certainly be a deliberate effort to "elicit and emotional response." That remains the fundamental problem with outlawing bullying. The term covers a broad spectrum of actions. Laws must be concise. We outlaw specific actions, not general ideas. Bullying is not precise enough of a term to outlaw it. Let me explain this with an example that Pro used. Pro advocates outlawing "sending threats of physical harm, whether they be legitimate or otherwise." Okay, this would mean that any threat of harm would be a crime. So in any circumstance when a person says, "I"m going to kill you," that would be a crime. Right off that is problematic since we can all imagine circumstances when such a phrase is meant in jest, but Pro advocates outlawing it even if the threat is not legitimate. But let"s take this farther. What if I don"t say, "I"m going to kill you"? Instead, I could make a menacing expression and point my finger like a gun as if I were going to shoot someone. That would obviously be a threat as well, so that would be illegal. What if I don"t use my hand? Facial expressions and body language can clearly indicate a threat. So that would be a crime. What if I just think angry thoughts? I don"t have much of a poker face. My expressions tend to reveal what I am thinking. So will we outlaw angry thoughts as well? Are we going to have Orwellian-style thought crimes? This helps illustrate the problem with outlawing "bullying." Yes, it is a serious problem in society. However, the term is too vague to make into a crime. Specific actions which fall under the category of bullying could be outlawed, but bullying on the whole is too broad of a concept to pass a law against it.
Bullying Should be a Crime

Now my opponent has falsely equivocated simple acts such as someone saying "I don't like you" or making annoying sounds towards someone, with continuously using homophobic or ethnic slurs, sending threats of physical harm, whether they be legitimate or otherwise, or deliberately mistreating other people to elicit an emotional response from them. Such actions have real effects on the victims that have been objectively measured by outside groups to determine the extent of the issues facing many individuals who are affected by bullying. For example, victims of bullying are roughly two to nine times more likely to commit suicide than non-victims, in fact, a study from Great Britain found that roughly half of all suicides among young people are related to bullying. Another separate study concluded that some of the long-term effects of bullying included lingering feelings of bitterness and anger towards people who were bullies toward other people, decreased social interactions, difficulty trusting new people, and increased social isolation. My opponent argues that bullying is an issue that should be handled by school administrators for younger individuals, and older individuals who partake in such activities should be ridiculed, however, the evidence shows that bullying is a much more serious problem with far reaching implications, and victims of bullying experience negative effects years after such bullying has stopped. It is for these reasons that more serious actions should be taken against bullying, and making it a crime is one of many actions that should be taken to address the problem of bullying.
Bullying Should be a Crime

Pro forfeited, so I will put my argument simply and see if pro returns. "Bullying" is too broad of a term to create specific laws about it. Saying, "I don"t like you" can cause emotional distress. Making an annoying sound towards someone while walking down the street can cause emotional distress. Physically attacking someone to the point that they end up in the hospital can cause distress. The third of these is a crime (assault and battery), but the first two are not. However, they can all be considered "bullying." It is better to keep the laws as they are. Crimes (such as assault, theft, or disturbing the peace) should be treated as crimes. Other forms of "bullying" (such as unkind words) should be handled by the school system and not the legal system. When bullying is done by adults " yes, that happens " then the bully should be ignored or ridiculed for his inability to grow up. I consider all forms of bullying to be immoral acts which should be stopped as much as possible, there is a valid distinction between immoral and illegal actions.
Aliens exist

As it stands Con does not pose a full argument, as they do not have a clear claim, there is no warrant, there is no data and there is no impact. This method of advocacy is known as the Toulmin method[1] was proposed by British Philosopher Stephen Toulmin in his book 'The Uses of Argument[2]; it has since been accepted at large by the debate community as the most effective method of advocacy as it lies out the logical and empirical structure of the argument for the most effective discussion. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... As the Contender in this debate it is not my responsibility to prove the resolution false, but to disprove the Cacon; I am unable to do this so long as Con fails to provide a legitimate argument. So as it stands the vote must go to the Pro for upholding their burden by omission of the Con. The resolution is negated; Back to you Pro!
Aliens exist

Refutation 1: Possibility does not indicate Presence- Postulate 1: My opponent references evidence in favor of is stance, but never actually presents said evidence. Postulate 2: My opponent has yet to prove that aliens exist, but instead that there is a possibility they could exist. Conclusion: My opponent has not met the burden he prescribes himself in the resolution. Refutation 2: Confirmation Bias- Postulate 1: My opponent's comments concerning the 'wow signals' do not recognize other possible explanations. Postulate 2: The Wow signal has not been rerecorded since it's first occurrence[1] Conclusion: My opponent's wow signal argument has no impact and not a reason to vote Pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Refutation 3:Toulmin Method- Postulate 1: There is no warrant to link Pro's data to his claim. Postulate 2: There is no impact from Pro's argument. Conclusion: My opponent has still failed to provide a compelling argument.
Aliens exist

First of all, there is a very very vast universe as you know and hundreds of galaxies and galaxy clusters etc. Scientists say that planets must be in the Goldilocks zone for liquid water to have a living there. There are about 107 exoplanets/extra solar planets that are in the Goldilocks zone. They could have life if they have water just like Gliese 581-c Liquid water is on this planet. Next, Scientists have discovered a signal that seemed unusual for it to be from galaxies and stars etc. It was called the wow signal. It stood out from all the other signals. It was believed that it came from an exoplanet 200 light years away which is closer than most of the other exoplanets. It could have been from intelligent life forms. Also I am new to debate. org so thats why I haven't put alot of info and this is my first debate. I wish you good luck.
There should not be preschool

Concluding Remarks Research shows that 80 percent of an individual’s brain develops within the age of five, ergo, quality education is almost essential in order for a child to reach his/her maximum potential for the many decades of learning to come. Parents sending their children into preschool has made a right choice which does pay off physically and mentally; this had been proven by statistics and research—such as a research conducted by NIEER . Preschool exists today because it gives out these benefits at a low cost and allows children to interact in a safe environment and bound with their peers at early age. Preschool teachers are also instructed to give students heuristic approaches in learning, and assist children to build good social behavior while a parent may not be specifically trained to do so. Parent-child bonds are innate, infants hear muffles of their mother’s voice while inside the womb and are attached to their father within the first year. In other words, parent-child bonds are important, however, 6-8 hours—or any given time—of preschool will not negatively effect that bond, additionally, children will learn to create bonds with their teachers and fellow classmates. For aforementioned reasons, preschool will bring out the best qualities of children and acts as small—and fun—preparation for the endeavor of continuous learning throughout their teen and adult life. Source: (Same as sources from the last round)Thank you, Saxman, for giving me an opportunity to debate with you.
There should not be preschool

I believe that school starts too young. We need a stronger family. Thats where it all starts. In a broken family, sure, its better than nothing. but I learned to read and had basic math from my mom, who has a job of her own, but she invested her time into my brothers and I. Preschool is too great a distraction from a family. I am not the only one to believe this, as if I were, preschool classes would be overflowing. A strong foundation is the best thing. And preschool builds on an immature foundation.
There should not be preschool

Sorry, our computer had a meltdown, so we put it in the refrigerator to cool down. But on the debate side of everything, preschool is too soon. I think that kids should learn the basics of social etiquette from their parents. I don't think that shoving 20 kids into a room with a teacher. Many of the kids are 4-3 years old, and might not even be potty-trained. The best alternative is daycare. And i happen to know someone in the daycare system, and they run it out of their house. she can house by herself around 10 kids. Most of those kids are 1-4 years old. She normally only has 7 kids. But how can a teacher teach anything but colors to 20 kids. In some occasions, the teacher could be in a teachers union, and sometimes, they take advantage of that and do not work as hard. I never went to preschool, and my mother was working at the school, and i tagged along much of the time. So I was at the school when i was 3 years old, and I never once went to preschool. And whatever people say that preschool is helpful to kids, not having preschool is helpful to kids as well. I am an honors student, having a 4.0 average throughout my entire schooling career. Little kids need to bond with their parents before they are shoved in a room with 20 other kids who have no idea how to behave themselves. Preschool is unnecessary, and can even be harmful to a child's social development.
Nurture is much more influential in the upbringing of a human than nature is.

The most accurate measure of one's intelligence we have is the IQ test (intelligence quotient test). Modern psychologists place the heritability of IQ at 0.7-0.8 [1], meaning one's IQ score is between 70-80% genetic, 30-20% due to environment. Already I've established that nature plays a more prominent role than nurture, but to ground this in something more tangible, let's look as what's known as the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project.The Abecedarian Early Intervention Project was a controlled experiment conducted in the 1970's in order to test the benefits (if any) that come with rigorous early childhood education using all of the most modern methods available [2]. The study included over 100 new borns, of which about half were subject to high-quality early intervention education while the other half served as the control group. The study followed up with its participants at ages 3, 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 12, 15, 21, and 30, and what they found was that at each follow-up, the IQ gap between the two groups shrank. By age 21, the IQ difference between the two groups was only a little over 4 points: It's worth noting that psychologist Herman Spitz has noted that a mean IQ difference of similar magnitude to the final difference between the intervention and control groups was apparent already at age six months (note the graph), indicating that "4 1/2 years of massive intervention ended with virtually no effect." [3] Even if the 4.5 IQ point gap was due to the project, a gap that small is not considered to be statistically significant, as the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points [4]. Finally, by age 30, the IQ difference between the two groups was no longer considered significant enough to report.As it turns out, genes express themselves more as we age, meaning that the effects early interventionism on IQ eventually get washed out due to genetic factors, further proving that nature has a greater effect on intelligence than nurture.ConclusionThe science is clear. The vast majority of one's intelligence comes down to genetics, and early intervention studies have failed to show otherwise. In fact, their findings are very much in-line with my position. The resolution has been negated.My opponent has forfeited his first round, so I wanted to keep this round brief to give my opponent a chance to re-bound should he come back. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a full forfeit, but we'll just have to wait and see.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Eastern holistic cognition hindered the development of science in China

{*What I said is not that this cognitive approach, and holistic cognition has nothing to do with holism, fostered certain thoughts and values, which seems highly possible.*} You failed to define or describe this cognitive approach, so I listed the definition of "holistic" and "cognition" and formed the basis of my argument around those terms since you failed to provide definitions. My argument was simply that the philosophy of holism does not hinder scientific progression, nor does it have any direct link to flawed visual perception. You present this argument that describes people who can't identify a turtle in a sea and I find this irrelevant to holism. Nor do I think it's probable that East Asians even have such flawed perception. {*Look up the word holistic in the dictionary, which you have not done to my amazement.*} I provided the definition of "holistic" from an online dictionary in my first argument. -->Conclusion<-- My opponent failed to even present an argument in the third round and has failed to affirm the resolution throughout the debate.