BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

I'll just go right ahead and start making my arguments; I don't have to wait for Con to begin :) 1. For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters. 2. Similarly, children presumably live with their parents. Therefore, they must typically abide by their parents rules (especially since they have a mental deficiency). As such, if their parents have decided for any number of reasons (including medical or practical as well as moral) that they don't want their autistic children smoking pot, then said children should not be allowed to. 3. Parents with autistic children have been known to give their kids pot for two reasons: to increase appetite, and for social purposes (such as calming anxiety). However, there are healthier alternatives to increasing appetite and calming anxiety, including medical options (other medications) and non-drug induced ways, including meditation, therapy, etc. Additionally, because being autistic involves other complications and medications that may interfere or have a bigger negative affect on people with autism (including the paranoia aspect of marijuana, and the schizophrenic tendencies that tend to emerge after some people smoke), then it's preferable to seek other options. 4. Although the law isn't always a good indicator of what "should" be permissible or legal, the fact remains that recreational marijuana is outlawed in all 50 states. As such, for parents to condone their children consuming illegal drugs would be irresponsible in regard to their impressionable children. 5. Con's only argument has been that there is a low representation of autistic kids in gangs (which is a good thing), and as such they should be given access to buy, sell, and use. However, Con has not yet offered any contentions in favor of these ideals. He has the burden of establishing why this would overall be the best idea. If his points will be based on legalities, I'm prepared to combat it. If the perks he plans to mention are medical, he must show that it's the most useful, practical and overall best medical decision in terms of the problems and effects. If the supposed benefits are economic, then his points should only be considered if I can't offer viable and preferable alternatives. So with that said, I challenge my opponent to put his game face on and come back at me in R2. Good luck, Nails -- this should be fun:)
Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

There is a disproportionately low number of autistic children in gangs. This results in autistic children being underrepresented in the drug trafficking industry. Since we can't easily force gangs to accept autistic children among their ranks, we need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume [1], sell [2], cut for profit [3]. We could appeal to their autistic side with such advertisements as [4]. ====== Sources ====== [1] http://images.ctv.ca... [2] http://www.cnn.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://steelturman.typepad.com... PRO can either post arguments in round 1 or wait for round 2 to post. I will be posting further contentions in round 2.
Should philosophers debate over our purpose

Yet there has been a great amount of advancements in the origin of the universe [1], the ethics of our existence [2], and the overall purpose of each individual humans' lives. Without people like Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Epicurus, John Locke, Zeno of Citium, Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, Confucius, and Rene Descartes, we wouldn't have the knowledge we have now. In fact, most everbody's moralities nowadays are based on the teachings of influencial people such as those listed above. "When people don't understand something their usually afraid of it." This is false, and the fact that it is false proves my point. BECAUSE philosophers have previously always tended to debate our purpose (which we don't fully understand), they are not actually afraid of the subject. This is in fact another reason that philosophers should remain debating our purpose. [1] http://www.hpcisp.com.... [2] http://philosophy.lander.edu... [3] http://listverse.com...
Should philosophers debate over our purpose

We cannot know the reason we are living each and every day unless we know our purpose, so I believe we should take every available step towards knowing the cause for existence. Therefore it is most definitely necessary for philosophers to debate over our purpose. I am not generalizing because I do not think ALL philosophers should be ebating over our purpose; instead it is a choice for the philosopher's job. Don't we all contemplate the issue of our purpose? Since philosophers mostly know more about the topic, it is safe to assume they are good--or even the best--at debating over our purpose and over why we humans are here.
President John F. Kennedy's Assassination was Organized by high ranking Government Officials

"I thought I made it clear through my premise that the government had a clear motive and ran with it." You thought wrong. You gave reasons for your belief that the government had a motive, but the only evidence you provided to show that they "ran with it" were comments made by Jack Ruby, whose credibility is in question. "Before I go on, my opponent did not follow the outline for this debate I put in place above: Round 2 will be for Pro and Con to post their arguments and evidence. Round 3 is for rebuttals to the posted arguments. Save rebuttals for Round 3." Wrong again. Regarding your outline for round two, a rebuttal is an argument, and given that you held the burden of proof, my evidence was your lack of evidence. For round three, well, I'm still rebutting, amn't I? ;) "He/She was supposed to use their round to make the case for the Warren Comission and proove Oswald acted without any conspiracy." Pro bears the burden of proof. "I was supposed to rebuttal his case here and then his closing was to rebuttal my case from above. Without anything to use I can't go on." My opponent seems to have forgotten that I posted a second round? Thanks for the debate.
President John F. Kennedy's Assassination was Organized by high ranking Government Officials

I thought I made it clear through my premise that the government had a clear motive and ran with it. It's not a stretch to point the finger to since he wanted Kennedy dead, has handled a weapon before, and also took care of Oswald before Oswald could talk. There was no need for Ruby to be silenced. Before I go on, my opponent did not follow the outline for this debate I put in place above: "Round 2 will be for Pro and Con to post their arguments and evidence. Round 3 is for rebuttals to the posted arguments. Save rebuttals for Round 3." He/She was supposed to use their round to make the case for the Warren Comission and proove Oswald acted without any conspiracy. My opponent did not do this, in turn making my round for a rebuttal useless. I was supposed to rebuttal his case here and then his closing was to rebuttal my case from above. Without anything to use I can't go on. So for the sake of entertainment I will throw in some more facts to proove my case for multiple shots fired. All the doctors who viewed Kennedy's body in Dallas all confirmed that there was an exit wound from the left back part of his skull. An EXIT wound from the BACK of his head. There is a movie on this link (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com...). Only three points from it though, not the whole thing it's pretty long. 1. The magic bullet. (About 11:00 minutes, watch this segment enough for the single bullet explanation) 2. The exit wounds (3:00-8:10) 3. The transfer of the body at the airport (About 30:00 into the film watch from there) How come the autopsy in Dallas concluded that the wound on his head had an exit wound on the back but in D.C. they decided all those doctors were wrong. Also what prooves the government was in on the whole thing involves the corpse of Kennedy on the plane. It was apparently multilated as shown in the movie very well. Some one altered the wound on the head at some point between dallas and D.C. Conclusion It is not hard to point out that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy. It's not a far-fetched idea, it's not insane or abstract. What is insane is believing that a single bullet made 7 wounds between two people, and remained in pristene condition. What is crazy is that the notion is true that Oswald shot from behind some how creating exit wounds from the back of the head! The video explains these things in depth forgive me for not eloborating more but I have to run short I will be gone for a few days, the video holds the case. It's the truth against tthe Warren Comission folks. My opponent should not try to rebuttal too much since he did this out of sequence and since I will not be able to respond to his/her case then their round should focus on defending the Warren Comission's conclusions. Thank you.
President John F. Kennedy's Assassination was Organized by high ranking Government Officials

In my opinion, my opponent has, as of yet, done nothing to prove his resolution. He tells us that we must break the assassination into three parts in order to understand it fully. I disagree (I said I might as well given the venue). "1. Motive- Why would anyone feel the need to murder President Kennedy?" Motive is only partially relevant to the resolution. Motive brings suspects into the light, who we can then investigate further. I don't think I'll end up arguing against what my opponent has said about motive, because I really don't see the need. "2. Method- How was President Kennedy killed?" Method is completely irrelevant to the resolution. How John F. Kennedy was assassinated offers no evidence as to who gave the order (if there even was an order given). "3. Who did it- Who was the actual shooter and who made the plan." Finally, the only section that really matters. "Jack Ruby was a notorious mobster who would have loved to have seen Kennedy and his brother killed so that his enterprise could expand." This debate is the first place I've heard of this guy, so I looked him up. Wikipedia doesn't really know what to say about him; it has both a "For" and "Against " regarding whether he really was connected. The latter sounded more convincing to me. The fact that it is up for debate calls for you to prove that your belief is the right one. http://en.wikipedia.org... "They promised him immunity as long as they did this for him, he was taken out of any investigations about the assassination, even though he was a witness on the grassy knoll." Have you got evidence for any of this? My opponent has done nothing to prove that "high ranking government officials" were behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is even my opinion, that he has hurted his case. He claims that Jack Ruby was given the contract to silence Oswald, but why didn't they just give him the contract to murder Kennedy? Also, my opponent shows us a video, in which Jack Ruby speaks of how he was following orders from government officials, yet Jack Ruby was not silenced and died over 3 years later of lung cancer. You're welcome.
President John F. Kennedy's Assassination was Organized by high ranking Government Officials

This may offend some, so I want to point out that this is not a debate to bring down America and is designed in no way to challenge patriotism of anyone. Debate Structure: For this debate round 1 is only for opening statements and introductions. Round 2 will be for Pro and Con to post their arguments and evidence. Round 3 is for rebuttals to the posted arguments. Save rebuttals for Round 3. Definitions: I don't think there is a need for any definitions this is all pretty self explanatory, however I figure one word will be used and I think it should be defined: Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. My contention here is that President John F. Kennedy was not murdered by a solitary gunman that had no help. I believe that the Warren Commissions findings are flawed and is a falsified account of the events before the assassination all the way to the event itself. Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. High ranking government agencies and officials plotted the assassination of the president.
more bike lines in NYC

P1- Adding more bike lanes doesn't necessarily mean that bicyclist will be more safe nor does it mean that drivers are going to become more educated. Bicyclist, just like drivers ,openly flaunt traffic regulations without any concerns. During a sting investigation by the NY post on a busy Manhattan intersection they found that at least 24 percent of the more than 7,000 bike riders openly flaunted traffic laws. According to the village voice, "the New York Police Department also issued 13,843 tickets to bike riders through the spring of this year, up from 9,345 over the same period in the previous year, and just 3,708 in 2009. " As you can see, clearly the bicyclist aren't being educated since they aren't following the rules. http://www.bicyclelaw.com... P2- Although Bike lanes have helped traffic move faster that doesn't mean it's making it safer for Bike riders, moving vehicles are still not following traffic laws. Bike riders are now more prone to injury since cars are going at a faster speed. P3- N.Y.C bike lanes doesn't have anything to do with lessening the capacity in the subway systems. Bike lanes didn't have any large affects on the number of subway riders. As a matter of fact, N.Y.C subway rider ship was about 1.7 billion last year, it's the highest since 1949. http://gothamist.com... P4: Adding more bike lanes would impose as a threat to the vehicles on the road. N.Y.C roads are already plagued with horse carriages, moving vehicles, parked vehicles/double parking and public buses. Adding more bike lanes would create a hazard on the road due to the fact that roads are being squeezed in to fit the lanes. Bike lanes aren't designed with the safety of the bicyclists in mind, if that was so more rules would be implemented and enforced. c- We don't need more bike lanes in N.Y.C
more bike lines in NYC

P1- haveing more bicyclist lines is not only safer for our cyclists but also it educacates all street users of bicyclist's rights, and being more careful drivers. "http://www.transalt.org...;P2- more bike lines help the traffic move facter in NYC and lessons the over capacity in the subway system as well as its trains. "http://www.nytimes.com...; C: we need more bike lines in NYC.
more bike lines in NYC

P1: Yes, there have been changes made but the changes simply haven't been effective enough for N.Y.C officials to expand bike lanes. There are several factors that have occurred during studies that say that bike lanes increase speed and lower the number of injuries, it hasn't simply been because of the bike lanes. For this reason, N.Y.C officials should withhold the expansion of lanes until they are absolutely certain that it's because of the bike lanes and not another factor. Pro, you said it yourself, " Any new idea or any new expansion takes time to perfectly work." With this being said, since the bike lanes is a new and innovative idea, why are officials trying to rapidly increase bike lanes. Like you said, they should wait until they see if they work perfectly and are of actual use. You used the examples of the MTA, they didn't simply make more trains and buses hoping that transportation would improve. No, they examined what worked and what didn't. P2: We can both agree that pedestrians,driver and bikers need to be more careful but bike lanes is not the answer. The reason it's not beneficial in the long term is because more problems will arise. If more laws were enforced on the road, bike lanes would not be need all together. Since, this I likely not happening any time soon, a limited amount of bike lanes on large streets is fine as long as N.Y.C officials don't try and keep expanding. P3: The point I was trying to make was that if New Yorkers began using bikes ,as opposed to the subway system, then that would be moving the issue to the roads which would create more issues at hand such as traffic. If you add more of anything onto the road,then it's bound to create some traffic issues. You're right weather does effect all moving vehicles, but it affects bicyclists the most. Since bicyclists are going to be on bike lanes now, they'll have to compete on the slippery roads with cars and injuries will surely happen. P4: You said it yourself, MOST, not ALL. When the expansion of bike lanes occurs, these streets are going to have so many hassles to deal with. I never stated that it's alright for cars to double park, I"m simply stating whats inevitably bound to happen,Cars are eventually going to double park. For example, delivery trucks, whenever they're making disbelieves to stores they're going to have to double park. N.Y.C officials need to come up with answers to scenarios such as these. Bikes lanes do create an issue for motorists because now their road space is getting much smaller and they have to watch out more bicyclists now. I'm glad you found premise 4 funny, that's totally what I was trying to do.... C:We don't need more bike lanes in N.Y.C
more bike lines in NYC

P1 more bike lanes will cause safer streets , law abiding bikers, and more aware drivers. The key to witch you agreed with me here is there have benne changes because of bike lanes, and they have solve some of the issues of the road. Any new law or any expiation takes time to perfectly make it work. For example the MTA when it first started did it have problems did it create new issues I did right it still does but with time we so improvement. A new law a new expansion like more bike lines is like baby you need to give it time to matcher to grow. People need more time to get use to the idea that’s normal. You see you admit that riders have become more safer, laws with cars reducing speed that not only as biker makes me feel safe but even as pedestrian. That tills that drivers are becoming more educated. P2 with you agree that both drivers and bikers and pedestrians need to be more cushiest more responsible. The addition to more bike lanes is precaution a system is safety action for both having distance from speedy cars and not biking on side walk keeping pedestrians safe. If there were no bike lines the probability of upcoming car hitting a bicyclist or bicyclist hitting a pedestrians are high more likely, more bike lines only aid this station. Adding more bike lines only helps NYC citizens its bright smart young and new idea that needs to be taken in action. I don’t see how bike lines create more issues in the future, I think its improvement a precaution and safety futaer. P3 If 10,000 New Yorker's began using bikes instead of the subway systems then that won't be solving the real issue at hand, that would simply be moving the issue somewhere else. I don’t agree with that its like saying adding more train lines and busses with slow down traffic and with make it more crowded. More bike lines does not mean that before bike lines people weren’t using bikes, more bike lines simply provide an alternative to a train or car it does not move the problem it help aid the problem, and its a good health exersize. When weather is bad it effects everybody the cars the trains bike are no different, but what does weather have to do with more bike lines. P4: the addition of bike lines doesn’t really narrower the street most bike lines are on big wide streets and bike lines like 1/3d of car line. And how does it creat less parking space I didn’t know cars can double park. Space is not the issue more bike lines safe life’s that important part. I don’t agree with you. “Bike lanes are creating such as hassle for motorists that some are simply giving up on driving in N.Y.C” really am sorry but that’s just funny. c- We need more bike lanes in N.Y.C
more bike lines in NYC

P1: You stated that more bike lanes will cause safer streets , law abiding bikers, and more aware drivers. I do not find this to be the case. While there have been changes because of bike lanes its effects simply haven't been that effective on the roads and although they have solved some of the issues faced on the road, they've also created new ones as well. Bike riders have become more safer, but not because of the bike lanes but rather because more laws have been implemented aimed at reducing speeding and those laws are being enforced more then ever .The city has cracked down on punishing bicyclists who don't follow the rules on the road as well,bikers are facing greater pressure to abide by the law as well but not because of more bike lanes. P2: If we add more bike lanes then pedestrians and drivers are going to have more to worry about. Pedestrians are now not only going to have to worry about speeding cars when crossing the streets but as well as bike riders that don't obey the law. Drivers on the other hand, are not only going to have to worry about jay walkers but bike riders as well when making turns. You stated that bike lanes are a "young and new idea", if this is so then why are N.Y.C officials trying to add bike lanes in such a quick time? Instead of simply trying to add more and more bike lanes officials should examine if they're truly effective in the long term because they're bound to create more issues in the future. P3: If 10,000 New Yorker's began using bikes instead of the subway systems then that won't be solving the real issue at hand, that would simply be moving the issue somewhere else. Sure, the subway system would be less vacant but then that would be moving the problems onto the roads, the roads would be packed with bike riders. Also, this would only be a temporary solution because it doesn't take into account things such as the climate. Whenever the whether is bad, New Yorker's aren't going to be riding bikes, they'll resort back to trains. P4: Bicyclist are going to be able to drive at the speed they wish but they're going to do it at the expense of motorists and parked vehicles. As I stated before, with the addition of bike lanes comes narrower streets and that not only creates less parking space but less driving space as well. Wider streets means more available space for cares to drive and park. Bike lanes are creating such as hassle for motorists that some are simply giving up on driving in N.Y.C http://www.nytimes.com... c- We don't need more bike lanes in N.Y.C