BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The best way for the Jacksonville Jaguars to improve is for Florida to legalize weed

2) California only legalized weed for medical purposes only. . http://www.rollingstone.com...3) If I was talking about legalizing medical weed only, I would have structured the resolution to say ". .. .. .. is for Florida to legalize medical weed". .. . But Im actually talking about legalizing weed for recreational use, not just marijuana use, so youre illegal argument isnt even on topic Now for the actual arguments================================================================================================1) Legalizing weed does for some reason correlate with vastly improved football teamsIn November of 2012, Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize Marijuana for recreational use. The two main football teams in those states are the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos. Since they legalized weed for recreational use, The Seattle Seahawks have not lost a single home game (5-0), have not lost a single preseason game (4-0) and have only lost twice since marijuana was legalized (10-2)The Denver Broncos meanwhile have only lost 1 home game since marijuana was legalized in their home state (they have gone 6-1 at home), and have gone 10-1 since marijuana was legalized. Both teams made the playoffs last year when weed was legalized, and both are expected to make a run for the Superbowl again this year. The year before weed was legalized, both teams failed to have a record above .500 with the Broncos going 8-8 and the Seahawks going 7-9. Somehow, legalizing marijuana vastly improves football teams within the state. 2) The Jacksonville Jaguars do not have the money or the intention to go after potential free agents to improve their team. The Jaguars have no intention of signing Tim Tebow or other potential franchise players to improve their team, they do not have the money to compete for big name potential free agents in the coming years, they have tremendously bad luck with their draft picks (always get injured or they just suck), and they are not projected to get any better any time soon. .. .. They actually are expected to go 0-16 and lose by at least 4 touchdowns to the Broncos over the weekend. .. .. .The Jaguars have nothing going for them and they are showing no signs of improving the way most NFL teams try to improve. Therefore, the best way for the Jaguars to improve is for the state of Florida to legalize weed.
"What If" questions need to burn and to never be used.

It is my solid conviction that your arguing points are fairly weak and in paucity when I take a look at the considerably intense topic sentence of this debate. Anyway, to further prove my point more, one obvious practicality of using "What if" in discussion is the fact that you would be able to willingly look beyond what exists at the present time which is very beneficial, especially in the business place which debunks your whole "unprofessional" assertion. These questions when devised methodically bring great contribution to being able to adopt the mindset of moving forward and figuring out ideal success. The American Journal of Pharmaceutial Education perfectly spells out that the effective use of well-crafted questions (such as "What if" ones) "lead to new insights, generate discussion, and promote the comprehensive exploration of subject matter." "What if" questions bear elegant simplicity, yet their power should never be underestimated. Mike Myatt, acclaimed Forbes contributor writes, "Utilizing what if thinking allows you to maximize the present while securing the future. The best leaders know how to attain desired outcomes while remaining discovery driven." I often refer to the written word of others just to furthermore prove the validity behind my argument. In continuation of my point, real achievers should always be open to the many possibilities that a "What if" question might inquire. Considering the free range of possibilities when using "What if" questions gives a person a sense of empowerment and freedom to organize their contemplations without restriction. When you properly utilize something that may seem so basic as asking "What if", it is amazing how much more your capabilities extend in the process. This is indeed not an over appraisal, only an attempted grasp on the power behind considering all of the practicalities in the embodiment of "What if".
"What If" questions need to burn and to never be used.

In what way(s) do "What if" questions strengths thought process. Not only are you not elaborating on this point, but that's not the case, at least for the majority of the time. "What if" questions do more harm than good because it leave too many possibilities in question. I'm a person of "Anything is possible", but when there is such a thing as not going in too deep. While I can agree that "what if " questions strengthens critical thinking, that's about it. However, as far as arguments and debates and discussions go, they're completely not necessary. Lets look at debates. In debates, you can't be using "what if" questions because it'll look unprofessional. You could argue that you can use them for an example, but won't prove your point. "What if" questions only make the debate longer by bringing absolutely nothing to the table.
Resolved: US Politics has become useless.

It is beyond obvious that this debate is useless. The instigator has forfeited 3 rounds and thus there have been no rebuttals to my argument. It is clear that Pro has a strong opinion on this matter, but from what he has written I am unable to fully understand how Pro has formed his position. There are many aspects of the claim "US politics has become useless" that haven't been addressed in this debate, which is partly due to my intellectual inabilities and partly due to my political prejudices that shape my perspective. But without a critical assessment of my evidence and reasoning, it is pointless to continue.
Resolved: US Politics has become useless.

I am looking forward to a very spirited and useful political discussion. To begin, I would like to point out that the Merriam-Webster dictionary has several entries for the word ‘politics' (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The reason is because the word ‘politics' encompasses many diverse aspects of society and can't be easily defined by just one definition. I find it rather suspect that Pro chose one particular definition; one that ostensibly gives Pro an advantage in this debate since Pro only has to argue the uselessness of competing ideas and factions as it pertains to Pro's inexplicit examples of economics and the environment. Second, Pro has posited that the original intent of politics is to guide "public policy for the betterment of society". But who is the final arbiter of what is good for society? What metric can be provided to categorical demonstrate that a public policy is not only bad for society but also misguided? And whose original intent are we discussing? Third, my understanding of Pro's position is that politics, as defined by the competition of competing ideas and factions, no longer satisfies the function of guiding public policy. Pro cites two inchoate unsubstantiated examples: economics and the environment. I think to better establish a point-counterpoint arrangement Pro has to establish a better working definition of both economics and environment with more concrete examples and links to independently verify any given claim. Also, nothing is logical evident without valid premises and I will not accept a claim as ‘common knowledge' without a thorough explanation for how one can come to the same conclusion. Understandably, all debates must be argued within the framework and context of the question or claim being discussed. In this case, the question of whether US politics has become useless is far too vague and subjective to effectively address; further clarifications and definitions are necessary in order for this debate to proceed. I am eagerly awaiting my opponent's thoughtful response.
Resolved: US Politics has become useless.

First, to define: politics is defined by Merriam-Webster as: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) secondly, the operative word, useless: Useless insofar as the original intended purpose of guiding public policy to the better of society The foundation of the affirmative argument is that politics no longer meets the primary definition of the original purpose, of guiding policy to the betterment of human society. For examples, the affirmative need look no further then the following examples: Economy: The policy of economics in the realm of politics is useless insofar as it furthers the benefit of only one portion of society, specifically the upper-class. Tax bases are the primary source for this example, since it is common knowledge and accepted that the greatest source of tax revenue is the middle class, secondly the poor. The rich retain a majority of wealth in the US Environment: even without proper sources, it is logically evident that, because oil companies control most of the wealth, no proper alternative energy gains even a fraction of the funding and tax breaks that oil gains. The affirmative retains the right to provide further examples, and to use further proof to support previous examples. To do so is to maintain fairness, as unless it is questioned, providing extensive evidence is useless until the point of contention. Any points of clarification are open
IQ is mainly genetics

There seems to be a epidemic of people forfeiting debates they start.It has been known for years that Epigenetic mechanisms have been the cause of syndromes associated with mental impairments. This lead to a study on the effect of Epigeetics on Intligence as a whole. The study measured polymorphisms in four DNA methyltransferases (DNMT1, DNMT3A, DNMT3B and DNMT3L) involved in epigenetic marking and related these to childhood and adult general intelligence in a population. The study showed that DNMT3L is strongly linked to both high IQs and Low IQs of children and adults alike.http://www.plosone.org... A scientific team at Caltech has actually developed an artificial neural network using human DNA molecules. The team tested the artificial brain by quizzing it. Remarkably the artificial neural network answered each question correctly. This shows that inteligence is related to DNA.http://gizmodo.com...
IQ is mainly genetics

IQ- An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests designed to assess intelligence. When modern IQ tests are constructed, the mean (average) score within an age group is set to 100 and the standard deviation (SD) to 15.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...Genetics-Genetics deals with the molecular structure and function of genes, and gene behavior in context of a cell or organism (e.g. dominance and epigenetics), patterns of inheritance from parent to offspring, and gene distribution, variation and change in populations.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...R1 is for acceptance. Questions are to be placed in the comments. Please no semantics.
Anarcho capitalism.

Since my opponent didn't get much time to argue I shall cut my argument short to be fair with him.My opponent makes a fallous claim in that the govenrment violates the social contract, but as I have shown there can be no way that there can be a Social Contract unless there is someone to enforce it. That is what the government does. An argument against this would mean that there would be no possible social contract to exist since there is no enforcer and we'll end up with the impact that I had brought up in my last round, which was dropped. I extend all my points across the board.
Anarcho capitalism.

I'm dealing with some personal issues at the moment, (nothing serious, just time consuming) and I won't be able to post my argument for this round. I am by no means quitting and have every intention of making a Comeback in round three. So for now, con can consider himself winning. I will say this, however. Firstly, there has been no greater violator of the so-called " social contract " in history than government. Secondly, the only way a government can "protect" is is by violating all of these rules. It collects taxes, a form of theft. It claims a monopoly on currency production, military, and security. Anyone who attempts to compete with them are met with violence, and possibly death. Anyway, I apologize for this, and would be happy to get more into the specifics next round.
I will not contradict myself.

I got bored and came back. I do not believe you answered my questions. 1) Would I really have been missed? 2) Seriously? 3) Is this site supposed to be designed like the old facebook? 4) Was deleting my facebook account a good thing? 5) I've been listening to the song "Wearing My Rolex" for nearly 7 hours why playing epicmafia, was this a bad idea? 6) I don't like these debates, do you? 7) Damn it I just realized I don't have to post any questions here. [insert random profanity here]
I will not contradict myself.

1) Is this wikipedia article a valid source? http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Cracked pepper? 3) Did you understand that last joke? 4) Why don't you watch Australian TV? 5) How do you like these questions? 6) Would you be happy if I left this site? 7) Do you think that if I spent all summer on this site I would be wasting it? 8) Would the amount of garbage debates that have no purpose on this site decrease? 9) Have you been to epicmafia.com? 10) Would you believe the reason that I am leaving this site is because my boss continues to catch me on this site at work?
I will not contradict myself.

Anyways, your rules hold no weight because there is nothing that gives them weight. 1. No. 2. No. 3. It depends. Driving while drunk and killing someone would feel bad. Overthrowing a corrupt government would feel good. 4. I don't know what questions you're talking about, so I don't know. 5. I like this debate. 6. Yes. 7. I answer the questions in my head individually, but I read all of them through before actually typing anything. 8. Yes, I saw that you moved #7 down to the end. 9. I don't even know what Peggle is. 10. It depends. If the Wikipedia article is well-sourced, then yes. If it has no sources for its claims, then no.
I will not contradict myself.

This question does not count, why don't my rules hold weight? By saying not count I mean does not count in my ten questions. There is nothing saying that my rules don't hold weight until after I made the rule that no more rules can be made. Because I don't break rules I will post my 10 questions. 1) Did you break any rules? 2) Are you a rebel? 3) Does breaking rules feel good? 4) Do you like my questions that I assume you will answer yes to? 5) I don't like this debate, do you? 6) If I were to skip question #7 would you catch it? 8) Did you catch it? 9) Have you ever played Peggle? 10) Do you think wikipedia is a valid source for any debate? 7) Do you read every question before you start answering?
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent claims that he can create rules, because the rules never specified that he couldn't. However, his rules hold no weight. 1. I honestly have no idea what that means, so I have no preference. I really don't care much about cross-country spikes. 2. No, that answer was an honest answer. 3. Yes. 4. No. 5. I just pick one at random. If I have a preference, I only realize it while playing, and it probably changes all of the time, so I might occasionally pick paper over rock. 6. I just pick one at random. If I have a preference, I only realize it while playing, and it probably changes all of the time, so I might occasionally pick rock over scissors. 7. I just pick one at random. If I have a preference, I only realize it while playing, and it probably changes all of the time, so I might occasionally pick paper over scissors. 8. I don't have to answer yes/no for every question, because your rule holds no weight. There is no reason for it to hold weight. I generally prefer to have positive questions that I could answer "yes" to. 9. No. They hold no weight, and are a general waste of time. 10. I would prefer to not have to answer "no."
I will not contradict myself.

This does not count as a question. What is round 5 for? 1) Are the Puma Harambees better cross-country spikes than the Nike Mambas? 2) Was the answer to the last question a total shot in the dark? 3) Are you a totally honest person who doesn't lie? 4) Would you lie for the sake of winning this debate? 5) In a game of rock paper scissors, would you pick paper over rock? 6) In a game of rock paper scissors, would you pick rock over scissors? 7) In a game of rock paper scissors, would you pick paper over scissors? There is no rule against me making a rule so I will in this next question. 8) You have to pick between answering yes or no for the rest of the debate, would you rather pick yes or no? Last rules: I can repeat questions that were asked in previous rounds. Any rule that is already established cannot be changed or repealed. No more rules can be made 9) Are you happy with my rules? 10) Which option didn't you pick for #8?
I will not contradict myself.

These debates are so fun, I just had to start one. Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence

I think that universal background checks are NOT the solution to gun control. I think that the real solution is just to eliminate guns entirely, except for on monitored hunting ranges and with government authorities. There is no real reason to have guns in your house except for protection. Protection from who? Most likely somebody who has a gun. So if we don't have guns, attacks will be a whole lot less likely unless the attacker is seven inches away from you with a knife.
universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence

people like to say criminals don't obey the gun laws so why have them. they don't obey drug law, theft laws, murder laws, or any laws... does that mean we shouldn't have those laws? the fact is, some people will not run and get a gun if they have dont have one because they are denied. if they dont have a gun when they might otherwise commit a crime, a crime has been prevented. if there's any doubt, why not err on the side of caution and pass the background checks?this isn't even controversial. ninety percent of people favor checks. and even seventy percent of NRA members. so anyone i'm arguing with on this is in a big minority. and, aren't we forced to conclude the only reason this doesn't pass, doesn't even get to the floor to vote in congress, mean that they are beholden to the gun lobby, and the likes of the NRA? that's the only way to make sense of it as far as i can see. forty percent of sales do not involve checks. there is plenty of room for improvement here. if we treated guns like cars, and required licenses, checks, permits, etc, people wouldn't even bat an eye or think diferent about it. only when someone moves your cheese and challenges a status quo do people even care.[not that we couldn't do more. the more likely a person is to have a gun, teh more likely tehy are to kill someone. this is common sense. but it's also empirically proven....the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more likely they are to commit crimes. countires with that take away guns have less crime. it's a fact. ]
Epic Rap Battles of DDO: Imabench vs RationalMadman

Your tempo is so sh*tty that it killed Old Yeller, Who taught you to rap, Lil Wayne or Helen Keller? Now I may be a worthless pile of sh*t, But at least im not a bench whose really f*cking racist Youre famous for trolling, but thats about it If you think youre so great then youre really full of sh*t Not surprising since your ego is so freaking massive If it gets any bigger then I see no reason to live But im just some idiot who's not worth your time I'll ponder suicide if I run a stop sign Im always so sad because I hate everything Im the only one I know who actually uses Bing You talk so much that you sound like youre on meth Keep your raps brief or you'll just bore people to death I know when to shut up........ just kidding I really dont But please for the love of God keep your next round short.
Single Gender Schools

"It may be easier for students to participate actively and do well academically at a single gender institution; the real world is not single gender. It may prove difficult for students from single gender schools to adjust to a co-ed work atmosphere after they graduate. "Learning to talk to members of the opposite sex is a very important skill and one that can leave you at a significant disadvantage if you've never had a chance to practice. By experimenting with relationships now when things are less serious, your child will be better at managing and finding them when they leave (in theory anyway). "Girls bring a lot to a school that boys don't and vice versa. If you go to a mixed school you will have a bigger wealth of experiences, and those who do not may feel as though they are 'missing out'. Particularly when you consider that perhaps the 'normal' overall is for schools to be mixed, it's very possible that a child might feel short changed by not going to a mixed school, and of course as a parent the ambition is to ensure that your child is as happy as they can be in their school. "Children are going to have to deal with the opposite sex for the rest of their life, and teaching them how to do so respectfully is important. "It can leave each sex uncomfortable around the opposite sex, or even socially inept. "School also plays an important educational for social interaction. School is typically the place where many young people get to learn and grow about the opposite sex. If that's taken away by a single sex school then the young people are slow to learn about the opposite sex and will have a longer learning curve later on in life.