BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should not be legalized

I will be pointing out a few logical fallacies and inconsistencies in your argument, which should make upholding your conclusion difficult. Your first paragraph refers to the "gateway" argument, which says Marijuana naturally leads people to try increasingly lethal drugs. While a general correlation does exist, its important to note that correlation isn"t causation. For instance, nearly all members of violent motorcycle gangs rode bicycles as children. By your logic, that would necessitate the outlawing of bicycles, which would be ludicrous. A congress study also found that, "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." Your second paragraph refers to the danger of legalizing Marijuana; for fear that underage children abuse it. This opens up a slippery slope. Should we ban all types of alcohol, drugs, medicines, knives, guns, and cars, simply because its inevitable that they will be abused by an underage child somewhere? Your third paragraph accurately states that Marijuana is bad for your health. However, so is fast-food, alcohol, tobacco, chlorine in swimming pools, and over-the-counter medicine. Should we illegalize all that as well? The "study" you refer to (4th paragraph), that links Marijuana to crime, is pretty shallow. For one, the researchers didn"t look at whether the offenders in question were also on alcohol at the time of arrest. This is a problem, as alcohol has a strong correlation to violence, which was likely covered up by the researchers focus on Marijuana. Furthermore, Marijuana is by far the most widely used illicit drug, meaning it was statistically expected for a large portion of criminals to have Marijuana in their system. It should also be noted that Marijuana has less of an effect on your mental awareness, then alcohol, and many prescription drugs. Your final paragraph addresses the "slippery slope" argument, warning that legalizing Marijuana could lead to the legalization of other illicit drugs. This is somewhat fallacious, as this argument could be made about anything. Should we illegalize guns, for fear missiles are someday legalized? What about cars and jets? Gay-marriage leading to the acceptance of marrying animals? The list is infinite, and unless you are willing to band ALL of it, then this position is inconsistent. Sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://healthland.time.com...
Marijuana should not be legalized

Nowadays, a lot of people argue if marijuana should be legal or not. In my opinion marijuana should not be legalized under any circumstances because of the following reasons: 1. Marijuana is often used as a stage between "harmless" drugs and much more dangerous. People start from using just marijuana, but they get used to the feeling of being "high" and want something stronger. Marijuana is often an experimental drug. Once people see that this drug is not so strong they decide to try other more harmful drugs. This is the start of a serious addiction. 2. Legalization of marijuana may lead to cases of children smoking this drug. In our society, it is prohibited to smoke or drink if you are underage. However, there are still cases of young teenagers smoking and drinking. This happens because alcohol and cigarettes are not completely prohibited. It is easy to buy them in any store. Therefore, youth can find loopholes such as asking someone older to buy them cigarettes and alcoholic drinks by paying them. If marijuana is legalized, the same might happen with drugs. 3. Although some studies argue, marijuana is proved to seriously damage people's brains, lungs. Using drugs usually leads to depressions and memory loosing. 4. It is proved by researches that biggest part of crimes is committed under drugs, even marijuana. People who smoke marijuana have a feeling that they can do anything. They are not able to think clearly. Their minds are blurry. Therefore, those people can easily commit a crime without even knowing that. 5. Legalization of marijuana may lead to the legalization of much more dangerous drugs. People may see that there is a right to make your own life choices. Some of them can demand legalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine. If one form of drugs is legal, then why not to legalize others? This question will eventually pop up. Therefore, we should never consider legalizing marijuana.
Legalization of Cannabis

I have many reasons why cannabis should be legal, so I guess I'll start with #1 Prohibition has failed The government has tried to use the prospect of prison to stop people for smoking cannabis for over 75 years and yet: cannabis is now used by over 25 million people every year. It is also the biggest cash crop in the U. S. So saying that prohibition has worked in completely ridiculous. #2 If regulated, legalization/regulation would keep it out of the hands of teenagers. As a teenager, I can say first hand that I can get cannabis whenever I want, but getting alcohol/tobacco would be a serious challenge. Also if cannabis is a gateway drug like most anti-cannabis activists say it is, decreasing the use of cannabis in teenagers would also decrease the use of other drugs. #3 legalization would take power away from criminal organizations. cannabis being a big source of profit for gangs and cartels, making cannabis legal would take away alot of power from those organizations. #4 cannabis is non-lethal and is safer than alcohol and tabaco. Overdosing on cannabis is nearly impossible, and it is established scientifically that cannabis is non-toxic to humans. Tabaco smoke unlike cannabis smoke causes alot of harm to the body, and alcohol kills brain cells every time you use it. While cannabis has been shown to stimulate brain cell activity. #5 cannabis does not make people want to commit violent crimes Being a casual cannabis user, I can say from first hand experience that cannabis does not cause you to commit crimes. The only thing it causes you to do is literally nothing. #6 there has never been even one death from cannabis use In order for a human to consume enough cannabis to be fatal, they would have to consume nearly 40,000 times the amount of THC required to intoxicate them. If it takes you 3 'hits' of marijuana to intoxicate you, it would require 120,000 hits to kill you. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to die of a marijuana overdose.
Abortion

I literally just finished closing statements for a similar debate of this manner with my opponent, So let's go for round two. Copy and paste will likely be abused here, A lot. I'll go over some observations before we proceed. First, He states in absolutist terms that abortion should be criminalized in all circumstances, Without exception. In short, This means if I can find even one example where abortion shouldn't be made illegal, The resolution is is proven true. Be wary if he doesn't meet his own self described burden, And begins to make exceptions. Second, He states that this should be done for moral reasons, However, There are several problems with this. First, He doesn't present any real way to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Moral theorists throughout history such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, And John Locke have had different interptations of how to decide what is right or wrong, Whether it be deotonology, Utilitarianism, Or the social contract. In order for my opponent to substantivelly state that abortion is immoral, He must provide some sort of framework. I'll operate under a utilitarian framework, Which is defined as providing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Second, Morality is ill defined in it of itself, as the theories and conceptions of what is right and wrong and differed from person to place to culture to religion to time, And everywhere inbetween, And everyone has a mutually exclusive interpretation of morals, All contradictory to one another (i. E. Prison time v. Chopping arms off for theft). Why should your morals represent the whole? I'll go in depth into why abortion should be continue to be legal, And how we should maintain the status quo in the next round.
Abortion

My stance on this debate (as stated above) is negative, Which, In this case, Means that I believe that abortion is immoral and should become illegal, With no exceptions. Abortion: The intentional ending of a pregnancy. (1) Illegal: not allowed by law. (2) Immoral: morally wrong, Or outside society's standards of acceptable, Honest, And moral behaviour: (3) Please, If you decide to accept this debate, First agree to the definition and understand my stance. If anything is unclear feel free to explain so in the comments. Please do not accept this debate to troll, And use precise language. (1)- https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/abortion (2)- https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/illegal#dataset-cald4 (3)- https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/immoral
Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

Hmm. .. I must admit I was waiting for a response that will get me thinking about the actual content of the argument instead of the usual over concentration on words. In short Con's argumentation method was: - Here is an improperly phrased sentence. I will stop reading here and start refuting. - Explanation about how misguided Pro is. - Logic lesson. What other points? What meaning? What content? This is what I mean when I say no semantics. I said "Logic is of course valid as a means of manipulating symbols and producing logical results. ". You are right. I shouldn't use the word logical because it makes it circular but come on. .. You know what I am saying here, no? And that is what I mean by common sense. . (sigh) We can rephrase it like: "Logic is of course effective as a method of reasoning with which we can reach valid conclusions. ". If you still find this problematic instead of doing the same thing please just think of my argument without that sentence at all and try to refute it. And please make your writing clearly related to my argument and not a general lecture in logical form. Conclusion -------------- Con occupied herself with the refutation of a single phrase from my argument. I have responded to her valid observation by rephrasing my sentence. If my new sentence is unsatisfactory as well, I have invited her to consider my argument without the sentence at all. It will still be sound. The content of Con's first argument demonstrated nothing more than her obvious interest in creative writing and her desire to teach.
Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

The Fool: Well I didn’t notice that it was your first debate or I wouldn’t have taken it. I mean just how you are talking about logic as in the logic of math as being an exclusive topic. Or even to speak of logics in such a way. Mind you that it is the most common recognition. But as far as semantics goes, simply saying no semantics presumes an over simplification of what semantics are. I take it to be the meaning of words or language aka what a language simple refers to. But I already thing you are referring improperly what logic means. The next issue is on common sense. This is a problematic term in that what is common knowledge is not necessary what is correct. Aka it is common to think of science and Philosophy as distinct entities, but it is none the less a false claim, for Natural Science is just and extension of Natural philosophy. This conclusion is a result of confusing that what is called philosophy as all sharing a commonality. Aka Continental, theology, existentialist, and post-modernism are completely distinct from critical, analytical philosophy. But that is not-common knowledge. (At least in the US) I think you mean what I do as in not using semantics to weasel a win from a debate. It is an extreme cowardly form. You are the first person I have met on DDO’ here to understand the purpose of philosophical debate, which is to acquire knowledge from each other not to win the debate. Mega respect for that!!! It must be because you are from the UK. I am from Canada. You will see that the Philosophy in the US is completely corrupt with theology. And most people argue like a political debate in that they don’t seemed concerned about if their argument follows or not but rather the impression it gives to the voters. I am not used to such cut throat ethics yet. En garde mon ami!!!! Principle of Charity is in effect: http://en.wikipedia.org...1-Sematic games are out of the question(if you are not sure of a meaning ask in the comment section)2-Strawmens are serious misconduct.3-You must quote what you are refuting. e.g. (P1 is not a quote nore is the title of an argument)4-Always assume the best interpretation of your opponent.(if you are not sure ask in the comments section)http://philosophy.lander.edu...
Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

Resolved: Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty outside mathematics about things which are not mathematically expressed. Clarification: The debate does not concentrate on mathematics. Mathematical logic is excluded as the only place where we can actually reach a kind of certainty by the application of pure logic. The argument will instead concentrate on the futility of certain 'logical' arguments. Also I would be grateful if we could avoid defying common sense just to win the argument. In this way we can have a discussion from which we can learn something. The burden of proof is with Pro (me). Structure 1. Acceptance/Clarifications 2-4 Argumentation Only join this debate if you are serious about the topic. No Semantics please!
The United States should remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Resolved: The United States should remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.This debate is the first round of Bsh1's DDOlympics Tournament. If Supa would like to add any definitions or change rules or structure, he can PM/comment on the debate and I will update it to reflect his requests.Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Constructive (No rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Case Defense/Closing ArgumentsUseful documents:Pledge of Allegiance"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."http://www.ushistory.org...First Amendment"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."https://www.constituteproject.org...Rules:1. No new arguments in the final round.2. No kritiks of the resolution.3. No counterplans.4. No trolling.5. No semantics.6. No forfeits.7. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance.If any of these rules are violated the offender loses the debate.Thank you and good luck, may the best debater win!
Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination

Ok, so let me start with my rebuttal. "The problem with racial profiling is that it creates a "profile" of a criminal." "Another issue with racial profiling is that it gives people the mindset that only certain types of people commit crimes. That certainly is not true. It causes racial tension in communities. The races that are targeted feel oppressed and unwelcome." Is it that the criminals create a "racial" profile or is it that these "criminals" are being racially discriminated against? That's the question. My answer is these criminals create a "racial" profile. Though my problem with the whole idea "racial" profiling is discriminatory. I beg to differ because these law enforcement tactics are used on all races, ethnic backgrounds, and religions. Did you ever hear about that mosque that got burned down in one of those southern states of the U.S. ? Well, guess what? They caught the criminals who did it through "racial" profiling against christian groups around the area. And it was the people who did it too! "Thus, I still hold the view that racial profiling lets certain criminals go away. I gave a source an example of this. I also think that the meaning of racial profiling has its roots in discrimination as defined in the first round. I don't view that definition as misleading. It accurately represents how racial profiling works. My source from the civil rights page also explains how racial profiling has failed to make the nation safer. http://www.civilrights.org...; Ok, I understand your point of view, but I still don't understand how it is accurate. That is considering this... "The term "profiling" refers to the police practice of viewing certain characteristics as indicators of criminal behavior.4 Profiling is reportedly an established law enforcement practice throughout the nation, having evolved during the past few decades with the incorporation of social science theory and statistical methodology into law enforcement"s crime solving and crime prevention strategies. Although not a panacea, profiling has been shown to be a successful supplement to older and more fundamental policing strategies." So, basically "racial" profiling doesn't discriminate those of any particular race or ethnicity. It just simply, uses key criminal characteristics to fit the crime that was just committed. Whether it'd be a White, Jew, Muslim, Christian, black, hispanic, Asian, and etc. "Racial profiling simply assumes that an individual may more likely be the perpetrator of a crime because their appearance matches the race of a suspect" The term "appearance" refers to the criminal characteristics represented in the crime. Now for my evidence "racial" profiling is accurate. For one, the JFK assassination. They used "racial" profiling in that case and in finding all the domestic and foreign terrorist who conspired against the U.S. through terror accurately. Let's not forget my evidence in round two as well.
Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination

No problem. It's understandable. The problem with racial profiling is that it creates a "profile" of a criminal. The profile also fits countless innocent people. It is discriminatory and unfair for the innocent who outnumber the criminals. Criminals come in many shapes and sizes. That is how racial profiling lets many criminals get away. Those who don't fit the profile slip through the cracks. Many criminals are clever and know the strategy of racial profiling. The kind of racial profiling I'm speaking of was defined in the first round. That is the type of profiling I am speaking out against. Another issue with racial profiling is that it gives people the mindset that only certain types of people commit crimes. That certainly is not true. It causes racial tension in communities. The races that are targeted feel oppressed and unwelcome. Thus, I still hold the view that racial profiling lets certain criminals go away. I gave a source an example of this. I also think that the meaning of racial profiling has its roots in discrimination as defined in the first round. I don't view that definition as misleading. It accurately represents how racial profiling works. My source from the civil rights page also explains how racial profiling has failed to make the nation safer. http://www.civilrights.org...
Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Though, I must say, there are many people who think racial profiling on the basis of their skin color. As far as the first round being for acceptance only, I didn't understand what that meant. I am new to this debating website. Though thank you for being courteous to my novice. Let me start with the fact law enforcement is an equal opportunity work force. For example, the majority of the Baltimore city police department is black, but still black people are mainly being locked up. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... This just goes to prove racial profiling is justifiable. At least the "racial" profiling I know of.. The Broader Definition Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs when a law enforcement officer uses race or ethnicity as ONE of several factors in deciding to stop, question, arrest, and/or search someone. An example of racial profiling under this broader definition would be a police stop based on the confluence of the following factors: " age (young); " dress (hooded sweatshirt, baggy pants, etc.); " time of day (late evening); " geography (in the "wrong" neighborhood); and " race or ethnicity (black or Hispanic).9 Under this broader definition, then, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a factor that, along with an accumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with suspicion and take action. The term "profiling" refers to the police practice of viewing certain characteristics as indicators of criminal behavior.4 Profiling is reportedly an established law enforcement practice throughout the nation, having evolved during the past few decades with the incorporation of social science theory and statistical methodology into law enforcement"s crime solving and crime prevention strategies. Although not a panacea, profiling has been shown to be a successful supplement to older and more fundamental policing strategies. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us... Now, it's obvious the majority goes by the definition according to the ACLU. Though, I believe this is misleading especially when considering my example and info. It seems to me "racial" profiling is more based off of key criminal characteristics based off of a certain culture. This being said, "racial" profiling is perfectly constitutional and helps detain the actual criminals. Racial profiling simply assumes that an individual may more likely be the perpetrator of a crime because their appearance matches the race of a suspect. Just like the more recent event that took place in New York city. Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis attempted to bomb a Federal Reserve building. http://www.nytimes.com...
Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination

I think there has been some misunderstanding. I stated that the first round is acceptance only. Also, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'll define racial profiling from the American Civil Liberties Union: Racial profiling "...refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin."https://www.aclu.org...Ending racial profiling does not mean one cannot report the skin color of a person. That's not what the concept means according to the definition I provided. Ending it means not being able to discriminate against a person for their skin color. After a suspect is caught, one can still describe their skin color and the like. The definition itself includes the act of discrimination. Also, racial profiling allows those who do not "fit the profile" to get away. It allows certain criminal to get away."Racial profiling has undermined some high-profile criminal investigations. Take the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995. In that case, officers initially investigated the bombings with Arab males in mind as suspects. As it turned out, white American men committed the crime."http://racerelations.about.com...Another point to make is that racial profiling is definitely not necessary. "Moreover, because OFL has resulted in no terror-related convictions, the program is also a clear example of how racial profiling uses up valuable law enforcement resources yet fails to make our nation safer.52"You can see more details in depth at this link: http://www.civilrights.org...