BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be legalized

I am little sad that this is our last round for we finish our debate so early. Rebuttals1. ) Health risk Con here distorts true facts. It's true that Marijuana goes straightway into brain attaching to brain receptors there. However, it doesn't impair learning and memory. According to study[1], "Minimal evidence of major effects of cannabis on brain structure has been reported,". On the other hand, the damage dealt by Marijuana doesn't come off it's composition but from abnormal use of it. [2] This case applies for alcohol as well if you use it more than it's enough your brain's going to by chronically damaged. Moreover, Marijuana is considered to be less addictive than Alcohol is, although alcohol isn't restricted by law.2. People deserve libertyI am upset of Con's argument in this case. In fact, naming my argument as "laughable" doesn't prove your truth. You should better construct your arguments more properly. First question we must ask is, "where gangs, dealers get money? ". Where they get money for renting children as soldiers, or purchasing money. The answer to this is widespread known - drugs. In our case let's consider drug only as Marijuana because it will clarify my arguments. If Marijuana wouldn't be legalized, those Dealers wouldn't get money because everyone would obtain this product only from credited shops. Yes, there will be black trade but the profit from it will be negligent comparing to situation now. So, in the end, legalizing Marijuana would ease this social problem.3. Keeping marijuana illegal is expensiveI am happy, that we both agreed on the case that restraining Marijuana is expensive. Every step against it requires money. Catching a dealer requires money to pay police, to pay the trial and so on. In jail, it's even worse that wardens allows prisoners to leave or to go on with they business (we all remember al Capone when he set up his business in prison). I thank my opponent for entertaining debate, I hope I refuted all his arguments and that I deserved some votes. I proved that Marijuana is not hurtful and that it cost money all of us to keep it restraining. Legalizing Marijuana would put us forward in the level of living. Bublifuk[1]. http://buelahman.wordpress.com... [2]. http://answers.yahoo.com...[3]http://www.saferchoice.org...
Marijuana should be legalized

I'll cut to the chase, and counter my opponents arguments: 1. Health Risk Marijuana in fact does hurt the body, the brain especially. Marijuana goes straight to the brain, activating setting off cellular reactions in areas called the cannabinoid receptors. This "high" leads to impaired learning and memory, a decrease in the ability to think and solve problems, the senses are dulled, and coordination and perception are impaired. A frequent abuser of marijuana very well may be operating on a much lower intellectual level than they previously were. 2. People deserve liberty People do deserve liberty, but this is a laughable argument at best. Marijuana dealers push their product on young people, making more and more addicts. Marijuana, dulling perceptions and problem solving, can help instigate gang wars and drug related killings. A person whose common sense is shot will not make intellectual decisions, especially when rival dealers are concerned. 3. Keeping marijuana illegal is expensive This argument is true, but the solution is not making marijuana legal. More severe punishments, i. e. , not having to catch dealers "in the act" of selling, would make marijuana sales decrease. Even in jail, prisoners run drug businesses, simply because of paid off, or threatened guards. The prisoners outnumber the guards, and they don't hesitate to exploit that fact. In conclusion, making marijuana illegal would be giving in to demand from punks and gang bangers. The result would be increased demand. Should we make LSD legal too? How about GHB? If liberty extends to anything anyone wants to do, by definition are government is a tyranny. Sources: . http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Pokemon Red/Blue/Green Giovanni is the good guy and Red is really the villan

I believe that Giovanni only dismantled Team Rocket after fighting Red, because he saw the potential Red had to go face to face with Mewtwo to do something that Giovanni knew was impossible for himself. Giovanni was obsessed with trying to fix his mistake in making Mewtwo that he with held his on Pokemon until it was time for them to do his dirty business and maybe he even saw a potential in himself to protect the Pokemon world from people like himself that would harm people and pokemon.
Pokemon Red/Blue/Green Giovanni is the good guy and Red is really the villan

Giovanni was trying to make a pokeball that will capture any Pok"mon which is called the Master Ball. But in his process he was hurting Pok"mon when he was doing it. Red might be stopping Giovanni he also helped Pok"mon. Red also helped Giovanni by beating him in a battle Giovanni dismantled team rocket after the battle. That is why I believe Giovanni was the bad guy
Pokemon Red/Blue/Green Giovanni is the good guy and Red is really the villan

Red may have caught all of the " Pok"mon" as you put it to save them from any harm that could take place, but if you look at the actions of Giovanni he made the ultimate weapon and was proud of his work until one day it broke free, thats when he realized that he was no longer a fun loving Pokemon trainer (heck he was even a gym leader) anymore he was essentially Dr.Frankenstein. Giovanni wanted to do one last thing to save the world from the wrath that Mewtwo had the potential to start, to do this he needed help so he started team rocket to get a cover. Giovanni knew that Mewtwo was a psychic type and what are the weak against? ghost type so he used team rocket to steal the silph scope which can see ghosts that he needed to take down Mewtwo but during the process he was thwarted by a kid named Red and could not get the silph scope just making his plans even harder. Now Giovanni knew that he couldn't catch Mewtwo with just any ordinary pokeball and with the loss of the silph scope he needed something good, thats when he came up with the idea of the master ball. The master ball would catch any Pokemon without fail making it a 100& guarantee when he went face to face with Mewtwo he wouldnt let him go, but that's when Red came in was ultimately stopped Giovanni and team rocket from getting the pokeball. I'm sorry for the long time to post this but I look forward to your rebuttal.
Pokemon Red/Blue/Green Giovanni is the good guy and Red is really the villan

Red is obviously the good guy because he has all the Pok"mon and he dosent want ANYONE hurting any POKEMON Giovanni is catching Pok"mon and SELLING the Pok"mon for money. He just wants Mewtwo for money he also was the one who gave the order to create Mewtwo and he created it with him not knowing if he wants to be made.
The Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain should enjoy charitable status

I am indebted to my opponent for her keen observations on the subject of women's breasts. A it happens, I am, myself,a keen observer of women's breasts - in my capacity as the founder of the Breast Enhancement Society, you understand. Now, to address my opponent's arguments, I accept that pert breasts are attractive, even on less generously-breasted women, but as my opponent concedes, boobs sag over time but big boobs that have lost their firmness are still more attractive than small breasts that have suffered the same fate, unless of course, as a man, you get turned on by the sight of a cocker spaniel's ears. My opponent then points out that over 60% of British girls have huge breasts. This is good news, both for them and their male admirers. But what about those poor girls with diminutive bosoms. Don't you think they feel disadvantaged, inadequate and unworthy of a gentleman's attention? As my opponent pointed out, the focus of a potential suitor's attention lies somewhere beneath neck-level: conversation is a secondary consideration, and, sadly for those unfortunate girls without substantial assets with which to draw a man's attention, she will lose out. What a shame, what crying shame. My opponent then wrote "For health and safety reasons and for the protection of impressionable young men (and older men, and well, all men), surely breast enlargement should not be supported." I should like to point out that enlarged breasts can be adequately supported with bras with reinforced straps. My opponent then stated that "(Men) also throw things down (large breasted women's) cleavage for a laugh," I presume this is a custom peculiar to Chesterfield, as I have not witnessed it elsewhere in England. I have duly made a mental note to visit that locale at the earliest possible opportunity. Finally. my opponent draws our attention to various other good causes, such as the need to enlarge the size of gentleman's 'appendages'. Perhaps my opponent should found a charity to address this perceived problem, but,, in the meantime, I humbly reassert that the Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain should enjoy charitable status. Thank you.
The Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain should enjoy charitable status

Tragically, thousands of unfortunate young women in Britain today are forced to wear padded-bras because nature failed to provide them with the beautiful bouncing boobs that most girls take for granted. There is, of course, a solution: breast enhancement surgery is a safe and widely available operation but, because it is classified as cosmetic surgery, it is not available free of charge on the National Health Service. The cost of breast enhancements at a private clinic can run into thousands of pounds and this means that many flat-chested young women are unable to afford the operation and have to suffer the shame and indignity of having breasts like two fried eggs until they meet a rich man who is willing to pay for the surgery, which may never happen because most men, given the choice, would opt for a girl with a pair of knockers big enough to be usefully deployed in soapy t!t-wanks and other breast-related sexual antics. This terrible injustice has gone on too long now and that's why I have just founded The Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain – an organisation that will fund breast enhancements for those eligible: any woman between 18 and 25 years old who cannot fill a C-cup bra, subject to a personal examination with our experienced breast-assessment consultant*. However, unless the Society achieves charitable status any donations will be subject to tax, thus depriving more women in desperate need of the surgery they deserve, and that's why I am calling for the Charity Commission (1) to duly grant us that status. Thank you. * Me: I've fondled hundreds of breasts over the years so I know what I'm doing. (1) http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...
Death Penalty

For the most part, these are correct, although there are some grey areas, but do not concern yourself with that. One mistake i made is that in some cases the death penalty is not COMPLETELY painless, but i was wanting to make the point that in most cases, it's less painful than a lot of deaths. "The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars".So you are saying that sentencing someone to the death penalty uses to many tax payers dollars, so keeping them in prisons and feeding them three meals a day along with airconditioning and electricity saves money? How many families struggle to feed their families and keep the lights on, while criminals sit here in prisons for 30 years and have everything some families struggle for, for free, and thats fair? And that doesn't waste money?If a person is sentenced to life in prison at age 37, at age 77, on average, it will cost a state more than $4 million dollars. (http://www.phoenix.edu...)I would like an explanation on how the death penalty costs more."Innocent people are too often executed".Please show me cases where people are wrongly executed in the last 20 years or so. The death penalty is not used nearly as much, so i would like some elabortation."The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner".I must have elabortation on this also.Another point i must make, the death penalty is a source of intimidation. If someone kwows the death penalty is strictly enforced, more than likely that person will think twice about committing the crime. Its common sense, if someone knows there are consequences, if a person understands that their life will be taken if they take someone else's life, less crimes will be committed. Now the death penalty is used more and more lightly and criminals know that more than likely nothing too terribly harmful will happen if they were to commit crimes. The justice system is becoming more and more relax and the death penalty is one example. My Dad is a police officer and even he states that the justice department is not punishing criminals the way criminals should be punished.
Death Penalty

I negate the resolution that the death penalty is a fair system of punishment. I negate the resolution based on the following [1]: 1.) The death penalty is applied in an unfair manner against United States citizens. 2.) The death penalty is a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. 3.) Innocent people too often are executed. As I see it, my opponent's points as are as follows: 1.) A murderer should be rightly punished for his actions; the only way to do this is the death penalty. 2.) Death penalty is a painless and suffering-free way to die. 3.) Death penalties give the criminal enough time to get his affairs in order. 4.) There is no justice in allowing the murderer to live. Following confirmation from my opponent that these are his points, I will address them in my next post. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.aclu.org...
Death Penalty

Debate we shall! First of all forgive any blunders for this is my first debate and i just joined the site. Okay, the death penalty, in my opinion is completely fair and its hard for me to understand how someone can believe its not. You will more than likely talk about how some people who would have been sentenced to death ended up changing their lives around and even writing children's books, but does it replace the lives that that person took or is it enough to compensate for whatever crime they committed? The death penalty is more than fair for multiple reasons. For one, lets say someone murders someone else, or even kills multiple people, why shouldn't the killer die also? Death penalty now-a-days is completely painless, the person doesn't feel anything. The people he murdered probably didn't have the luxury of a painless death. On another issue, death penalties take time, the court session and all can go on for years and once someone is sentenced to death they have the luxury of having plenty of time to say their goodbyes. Someone receiving the death penalty is able to straighten their finances, say goodbye to family or friends, and even get saved by a priest in which they would go to heaven (if you're a Christian). The people that died at the hands of the killer did not have that pleasure, they did not have the opportunity to straighten their lives. So if a man can kill another and not die themselves, wheres the justice in that? How is that fair to the family of the ones who are dead? End of this part for me, i must see what you say.
Middle school Chorus is harder than middle schoolband.

At the very most, I will concede the possibility that, in your school, chorus might be harder than band. However, the subject of debate is not limited strictly to your school; and as such, one can not use a single school as the paradigm for the argument. With regards to memorization, then, it must be admitted that not all middle school choruses require the students to sing without music. And as such, we must take into account schools that have marching bands. These bands will not only often have to play their songs from memory, but march along with the entire group, same foot at the same time with the exact same distance in each step, and sometimes have to form complex formations, all while playing their instruments. And even walking while playing an instrument, regardless of whether or not you must stay equal with your surrounding bandmates, can be very difficult, as you must, though in constant variable motion, keep your instrument in exactly the same spot, or risk going horribly out of tune or missing notes altogether--even the slightest change in positioning can have dramatic effects. Furthermore, it is more difficult to memorize a song on an instrument than vocally. While singing requires memorization of the melody (or harmony, or whichever part), it is not as difficult to think of the note and be able to hit it when compared to an instrument, which has to remember not only which notes to be played but exactly what notes they are for the proper fingering. Band members also have to change parts, in way of instruments, which is also more difficult than changing vocal parts. Not only must you switch to something that will have sometimes completely different fingerings, but the change in embouchure can be extremely difficult to compensate. Switching from trumpet to flute, for example, is a drastic change that requires considerable time to readjust, regardless of skill level. Also, switching between instruments may result in a change of clef, which means that respective notes will be in different places on the staff. Additionally, it sometimes occurs that one must play a part on an instrument other than it was intended for--ie, playing a clarinet part on flute--which means that the student will have to transpose the notes while playing, a task that I can assure you, from personal experience, is extremely difficult. There are also many different sections within a band; at the very least, each instrument represents its own section, having different parts from the others, though even these may be broken down into two or three other sections, with a single instrument group having different parts within itself. (Additionally, for your reference, it's "baritone," not "bear-tone")
Middle school Chorus is harder than middle schoolband.

I understand your point i agree both acquire skill and talent but we don't just sit around and sing we too learn everything band learns and more. Chorus is a challenging course. At my school most people in band are easily passing, but many people in chorus are failing. You see I'm not saying band isn't challenging I'm just saying that chorus is more challenging. In chorus you have to also change motion in your lips, mouth, body position, and vocal tone. In chorus you also have to remember your notes and words because you can't bring the music on to the stage also if a person is an alto and wants to be a soprano then it takes time to re just. This also goes for bear-tone and tenor. In chorus there is actually about four parts in mixed and about three in women's. So you are alone in your section, like band, you are on your own because you must depend on yourself and not you section to find the notes because if one person is off key then the whole chorus takes the blame. Like in sports, we are a team and a team is only as strong as its weakest link. So band and chorus are close to the same, but chorus is harder because we must be more advanced in memorization, and also be advanced in tones and melodies just like band. So chorus must be harder than band.
Middle school Chorus is harder than middle schoolband.

I'm going to commit a sin and make an assumption: you have not played in a school band. I find it almost impossible to believe that you have and still believe that all that is required is "multi tasking, tempo, musical terms, rhythm, score study, and analysis." To be blunt, this is a gross misunderstatement. So, let's look at each individual topic you suggest is taught in chorus but not band: musical theory--Simply, musical theory is commonly taught in band as well history--While not always, history is not uncommon. I have had to write full essays about the history of some of the musical compositions we performed. vocal technique--While not necessarily vocal, there is considerable technique required to play an instrument. Much more than simply pressing keys to get a certain note, one must focus also on embouchure, a technique which takes years and years to perfect. vocal production--Producing sound from an instrument is doubtlessly more difficult than producing it vocally. More than just pressing certain keys, one must also focus on having a steady, constant, focused airstream, which can be rather difficult to learn. choral technique--Band members indeed must also learn to play as a group, balancing out various parts and instruments and whatnot. I don't see how one would think otherwise. expressiveness--Playing an instrument definitely requires one to be expressive. dynamics--Not only are dynamics just as important in band, it is much harder to do dynamics well on an instrument. While it may seem that all that would be required is changing air pressure that you produce, you must also account for the change in tone and pitch that will also occur, which means constant adjustment of embouchure. performance--Bands perform, too. Seriously. musical literacy--And to be in band you need to know how to read music, as well as understand all the terminology associated. pitch--Getting a solid pitch is at least as difficult on an instrument. Not only does it require an adjustment of the fingers to press different keys, but a different amount of airflow and, again, embouchure to compensate for pitch and tone alterations. melody--What else do you think people in band play? harmony--People in band have to work just as hard on harmony. Especially at a middle school level, it can be more difficult than you think to be playing one thing while the instrument right next to you is playing something else. Lastly, I don't think that "multitasking" adequately describes the level of difficulty of playing an instrument. Pressing the different keys alone is very challening, as you will often have a single finger being "responsible" for multiple keys, awkward fingerings, coordination, and many remembering alternate fingerings necessary for trills and quickly changing notes. As for the grading rubrict, I'm not getting a whole lot from that. For one, how hard is to to participate in singing? You pay attention and sing, or you screw around and you don't.
Middle school Chorus is harder than middle schoolband.

Middle School Chorus is harder than Middle School Band because according to most middle school chorus teachers must teach their student musical theory, history, vocal technique, vocal production, choral technique, expressiveness, dynamics, tempo, musical terms, performance, musical literacy, rhythm, pitch, melody, harmony, score study, and analysis. That is lot to learn compared to what band has to learn. This is multi tasking, tempo, musical terms, rhythm, score study, and analysis. Chorus learns most of these things plus more. Also both must learn good sportsmanship, for they will compete in competitions. Also to become a good chorus student you must have natural born talent, whereas in band, with lots of practice, you can master in about two or three years. Also you may think getting a 100% in chorus is easy, but that is the hardest part. The teacher's usually grade like this: Sight Singing Tests - 10% Students will have a sight singing tests. The test will include singing by solfege or numbers and in parts. Rhythm Tests - 10% These tests will be given as needed to check that students comprehend basic rhythms. Nine Weeks Test - 10% PARTICIPATION - 70% At the beginning of each nine-week grading period, each student will be given 100 points. This grade is for daily participation. Demerit points will be deducted as listed on the previous page; for example, Not participating---------------6 points Missed dress rehearsal-------------25 points Missed Formal Performance--------------25 points So you see it is hard to keep a good grade in chorus. So chorus is hard. Thus chorus is harder than band.