BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug legalization

"What about people who aren't old enough to buy it from drug stores. They are going to have to get it from somewhere; for instance your a teenager who can't get it, they are going to buy it from someone else - and that dealer is going to make sure those kids come back to him, especially if he has "the good stuff"." By this logic should we ban anything which has an age limit? Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex all have age limits and of course people under age will want to do those things but that is no argument against legalization for responsible adults. "What proof do you have that they are more likely to seek rehabilitation? I would have to kindly disagree with that assumption, if an addict is knows he or she wont face prosecution what makes them any less violent?" I am talking about a case in which an addict feeds his addition because he knows he can't get help because he may be arrested. I am saying that legalizing drugs will take away this specific problem. " I also attached a story of a mother who thought it was smart to give her child and their friends weed, because they were in a safe place. How do you know who will be responsible or not?" How do you know no one can be responsible? And I am not advocating legalizing drugs for children. This would have happened regardless if drugs were legal or not. "You however have not been able to show me adequate proof that legalizing drugs will make people less violent" I cannot adequately show that because drugs are still illegal in the United States. I could show violent crime rates in countries like Holland which have at least decriminalized marijuana but there are several other factors at work and many differences between Holland and the U.S. "what about students who almost have died from not even smoking marijuana." There were over 37,000 alcohol related deaths just last year in the U.S.[1] It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. True one can be harmed by smoking it(same as cigarretes) or have accidents related to intoxicating effects(same as alcohol) but marijuana related deaths every year in the U.S. are much lower than alcohol or cigarrete related deaths. "In the article I have provided students laced brownies with weed selling them to fellow students and sending them to hospitals - this happens when drugs are illegal making them more available to people of a certain age doesn't mean they are going to be more responsible." I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. If the student knew the bud was laced then that is there right to ingest it just as it is one's right to ingest large amounts of alcohol or smoke three packs a day. If they did not know then that just reenforces my point that government regulation of drugs will cause less rates of lacing and that the govt. can regulate what is grown or sold. [1]http://www.cdc.gov...
Drug legalization

I'm not talking about someone lacing their own pot after they buy it. I'm talking about dealers who lace it to get their customers addicted. And who's going to buy off some guy off the street when they can get it from a drug store and be sure it's not laced. People don't buy cigarettes or alcohol off the streets. Why should it be different for something like pot. - What about people who aren't old enough to buy it from drug stores. They are going to have to get it from somewhere; for instance your a teenager who can't get it, they are going to buy it from someone else - and that dealer is going to make sure those kids come back to him, especially if he has "the good stuff". This is the same thing that happens with alcohol. And if an addict knows he/she won't face prosecution for their addiction they are more likely to seek rehabilitation instead of committing violence. -What proof do you have that they are more likely to seek rehabilitation? I would have to kindly disagree with that assumption, if an addict is knows he or she wont face prosecution what makes them any less violent? As you are making the claim that no one can be responsible with drugs it is up to you to prove it. It is also up to you to show why all drugs inherently hurt others. I have given reasons why making drugs does not reduce usage or violence and that legalizing drugs will reduce violence and all you have said is that you beg to differ. You have not refuted my reasoning. - You however have not been able to show me adequate proof that legalizing drugs will make people less violent, and you have also forgot to show me proof that making drugs legal addicts or more likely to seek help. The argument is making drugs legal and you have not stated a specific drug we have been using marijuana for examples, what about students who almost have died from not even smoking marijuana. In the article I have provided students laced brownies with weed selling them to fellow students and sending them to hospitals - this happens when drugs are illegal making them more available to people of a certain age doesn't mean they are going to be more responsible. For example I also attached a story of a mother who thought it was smart to give her child and their friends weed, because they were in a safe place. How do you know who will be responsible or not? http://albany.patch.com... http://www.fox8.com...
Drug legalization

"People lace pot so they can have a high that last longer, just because the government gives it to someone "un-laced" doesn't mean that person isn't going to lace it and re-sell it." I'm not talking about someone lacing their own pot after they buy it. I'm talking about dealers who lace it to get their customers addicted. And who's going to buy off some guy off the street when they can get it from a drug store and be sure it's not laced. People don't buy cigarretes or alcohol off the streets. Why should it be different for something like pot? "When they run out of the supply they are taking which is available to them so easily, they are eventually going to have to find a alternate source to gain more of their drug of choice; even if to them that means violence." This is the same thing that happens with alcohol. And if an addict knows he/she won't face prosecution for their addiction they are more likely to seek rehabilitation instead of commiting violence. "Giving drugs to a drug addict you really think they are going to be responsible in taking those?" As you are making the claim that no one can be responsible with drugs it is up to you to prove it. "Also the government does have the right to tell you what you can put in your body especially if what you are putting in your body can harm others" It is also up to you to show why all drugs inherently hurt others. "So making drugs legal will cut down on violence? I beg to differ." I have given reasons why making drugs does not reduce usage or violence and that legalizing drugs will reduce violence and all you have said is that you beg to differ. You have not refuted my reasoning.
Drug legalization

So making drugs legal will cut down on violence? I beg to differ. Legalizing drugs means that the government can not only bring in revenue from an untapped industry but can regulate it to see that people are not getting their pot laced. - People lace pot so they can have a high that last longer, just because the government gives it to someone "un-laced" doesn't mean that person isn't going to lace it and re-sell it. Also, legalizing drugs means that addicts do not necessarily have to commit crime to feed their habit but can seek help without the fear of prosecution. - They still will have to be in fear, just because they get a few fixes doesn't mean their set. They are eventually going to have to up the dose of whatever they are taking. When they run out of the supply they are taking which is available to them so easily, they are eventually going to have to find a alternate source to gain more of their drug of choice; even if to them that means violence. I argue that taking drugs is the same thing as drinking alcohol. It is up to the individual to use them in a responsible manner and the government has no right to tell a person what they can or cannot put into their own bodies. - You can become addicted to both, but once addicted it is hard for you to quit. Giving drugs to a drug addict you really think they are going to be responsible in taking those? Also the government does have the right to tell you what you can put in your body especially if what you are putting in your body can harm others.
Drug legalization

I argue that drug prohibition has not lead to decreased levels of consumption(http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov......). In fact data shows that overall drug use has only increased over the years. Making drugs illegal has not brought down levels of use and has created a black market for drug-users. Now people have to interact with drug cartels to get their fix. This has lead to increased violence as discrepencies cannot be settled legally but people are left to their own to settle their problems. Legalizing drugs means that the government can not only bring in revenue from an untapped industry but can regulate it to see that people are not getting their pot laced. Also, legalizing drugs means that addicts do not necessarily have to commit crime to feed their habit but can seek help without the fear of prosecution. I argue that taking drugs is the same thing as drinking alcohol. It is up to the individual to use them in a responsible manner and the government has no right to tell a person what they can or cannot put into their own bodies.
Drug legalization

I accept the argument against the legalization of any or all drugs. Definitions: (1) illegal - Prohibited by law. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) drugs - (the full definition from the website) a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication. b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U. S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. 3. Obsolete A chemical or dye. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Drug legalization

I was just in a debate over drug legalization but my opponent forfeited most of the rounds so it wasn't really much of a debate. That's why I figured I would try my luck with another opponent. I will take the pro position for the legalization of all drugs. Con will take the argument against the legalization of any or all drugs. Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing arguments, Voters Definitions: Drug: A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... Legalization: to make lawful or legal http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
Belief in the Christian god is logical.

"Apparently I disagree with such a statement. I feel that belief in the Christian god is rather illogical at best. I ask that my opponent present points on why they feel it is logical. I would also ask that voters vote not on the position they agree with but who did the better debating. I now stand open for my opponents case." I feel that the belief in the Christian God is rather logical, and I will make my case from a socioanthropological point of view. The attributes of the Christian god are mainly omnipotence, omnicience, and unconditional love. It is also an intelligent, purposeful, and willful creator. It is perfectly logical that these ideas would develop because humans worship power, knowledge, love, etc. As intelligent and willful creators, humans create a god who is a similarly intelligent and willful creator. This logically strings from the concept of things creating other things. Ugumoo and Bobo made sticks to kill mammoths with. What made Ugumoo and Bobo? Thus, the belief in a Christian God is very logical. Whether or not it is correct is another story.
Belief in the Christian god is logical.

As this is my last round in this debate I will be briefly touching over my opponents points and offering a brief summary. My opponent begins his round by stating, "The logic (sound reason/judgment) I am referring to is not on the part of the primitive human developing religious ideas. The logic is referring to the anthropologist studying the primitive human." Sadly even through his logic my opponents statement is completely false. He offers an analogy that is also completely false, "It's much like saying "It is logical for stupid people to believe in stupid things"." Why may my voters ask, is this false? Quite simple actually. My opponent has completely and utterly dropped my Santa Clause argument from the round before. The fact is, these "stupid people" do not believe in Santa Clause as belief in him can be seen as illogical. Believing in god is far more illogical as god is of even greater powers than Santa Clause. Thus "stupid people" do not logically believe in God. I would also like the voters to keep 3 more things in mind when voting. 1. My opponent completely dropped my definitions, "Logical- According to or agreeing with the principles of logic. Logic- Of reason or sound judgment. " He thereby concedes them to me and until he can prove his logic somehow follows reason or sound judgment he has lost. 2. The resolution quite clearly states, "is logical" this means we are talking about now, not cavemen. 3. Should my opponent now try to argue arguments that he has previously dropped his arguments should be discarded as I have no chance to respond. Thank you for the debate.
Belief in the Christian god is logical.

I need not reply to most of that, your argument basically hinges on this point: "The main problem with my opponents contention is the fact that he commits the fallacy of composition. In other words my opponent takes logical characteristics of god (power, knowledge, love) and thereby jumps straight to the conclusion that belief in god is logical." The logic (sound reason/judgment) I am referring to is not on the part of the primitive human developing religious ideas. The logic is referring to the anthropologist studying the primitive human. It's much like saying "It is logical for stupid people to believe in stupid things". The logic here is not on the part of the stupid person. It is on the part of me, the observer, saying that stupid people do stupid things. Similarly, I am saying it is logical for humans to believe in the Christian God. The logic here is not on the part of the person believing in god. It is on the part of me, the contender. The examples you provided all show that the beliefs themselves are illogical because they are derived fallaciously. I am saying that it is logical for primitive beings to develop those flawed beliefs given their status and background. Hence, they are not quite relevant to my point.
Government should be laissez faire

i won't deny there is some benefit to a hands off approach. but it's not always the most efficient, and it doesn't always provide what's necessary to society. you still have not responded to my points about the poor earlier. food, health care, perhaps shelter. please refer to my anaologies and points in my first post. you have not argued why the military is anything special for why you'd use the government. police varying by the community in a way already exists, as each community makes its own force. they could make it private, but i dont see how it'd be much cheaper. they could try low balling their pay, but it'd show in poor results from the police, this is per private or public sector. plus there's benefits that when the government does it, they have to adhere to the constitution, like due process and search and seizure laws. you also haven't responded to how we'd regulate and enforce environmental regulations. this almost necessarily involves the government. unless you just let everything go to hell? but hten how is it fair that Joe can pollute everyone else's air and drinking water? i could go on and on with examples. perhaps you are correct in asseting there should be less government invovlement. but that is a far cry from where you are right now in your positions.
Government should be laissez faire

Please excuse my super late reply, my internet is faulty. Also, please be nice. No one is trying to spear you with opinions and/or questioning your intellect so there's no need to be snippy. Its okay to have a strong opinion, but not to be rude about it. When I say Laissez faire, I'm referring mainly to economics. A free market makes the most efficient use of resources, and it avoids people becoming reliant on state support, which encourages creativity and growth. Unrestricted capitalism means that those who make the best decisions about what products and services to offer will flourish, while those who make bad decisions will fail. It's also argued that without government interventions, how resources are used is decided by the way people choose to spend their money, thus increasing efficiency overall. These arguments work on the logic that the combined actions of the public, each acting from self-interest make for more effective economic decisions than a central government can make. Personally, I think that government being completely hands off would be great, but like you've pointed out, basics (like roads) would be crappy and essentially useless. I do think that communities would benefit from their own system of police work, which would vary from group to group. Trade and commerce between groups would be an available option and probably happily used.
Government should be laissez faire

you did not respond to my points about the poor. or the creation and enforcement of environmental regulations and how it's not fair to just let what ever happen happen if people want to pollute our drinking water or our breathing air. about roads, who's going to ensure that the private contactors can make square miles, or a system of roads that makes sense? or when necessary, take over private land? even most hard core conservatives agree to the basics, like roads. pro is just a radical ideologue. you also provide no basis for why national security only. you could argue that mercenaries and private citizens handle it, but you don't. why is that? couldnt similar reasoning for why not be applied elsewhere? like police, or is that something that you also want to just ignore?
Government should be laissez faire

government should take care of basics, like roads, police, etc. they should help those who are not just lazy, but are struggling to make ends meet. this should involve at least food stamps and healthcare. but my main point is that it involve something, and that laisse faire is not the way to go. imagine a world where a man owned everything except a plot of land. there are tons of people who want to branch off but can't. or imagine a world where someone is just placed on the earth and wants to survive. in both cases, why can't they just go pick apples off a tree or plant corn? man has created property rights, and technology to possess it all. natural law says they should be able to. if we are going to deprive people of their rights, we should make up for it in our laws. everytone who is not lazy should have access to a reasonable minimum. roads and such are not so much an igeological thing like caring for the poor. but as a ptratical matter it would be very hard to get the private secto to creates roads, or police, in a coherent way. o things like environmental regulations. it's not fair for some people to be able to poliute so much that it hurt teh rest of us. we need laws and enforcement. which is not laissez faire. i could go on.
As people have become more intelligent, the need for religion in society has declined.

You have some good points. However , there is an error? Firstly have you studied religion? Of so then HOW does it loose its place? You didn't explain this enough. Human beings are too error prone. The more we learn the more mistakes we make and the more prideful we get. We need divine laws sent from God so that we can still know what is truly right and wrong. As time goes by , the definition of right and wrong change , but the divine version of a true religion doesnt. Now , we actually need religion more than ever. We need a God to remind us of what is good and bad , because humanity has reached a dangerous level of pride. As for the mysteries, the point about Christianity is correct because too many things have no logical reasoning. However Islam has a reason for all. Bring me anything about it and I'll Gove you a logical explanation. Look at a nation like Iran. It is definitely economically successful and having known the country I can say that it is very advanced. We need religion still. Society is rotting at a startling rate. Religion has always purified things. You have failed to fully explain your cause. Even in the past , relibgion always came in times of ignorance no difernt from our own. Religion still has a place. If you actually study religion properly you will find reason for it. Unfortunately people are too lazy to care about religion and use this as an excuse.
As people have become more intelligent, the need for religion in society has declined.

Many of the social structures that we use have a religious background, and many of our laws also stem from religious origin. But as humans learn more and more the place for religion in society has disappeared, many religions require believers to accept 'mysteries' or events that have no explanation this is particularly relevant in the Christian faiths. People may find it difficult to believe these mysteries that have not been proven. Many of todays mainstream religions are well established with origins dating back thousands of years. It is safe to say that society has dramatically changed since then making these ancient religions outdated giving them no place in society
Atheism is a belief

I read your debate on "whether or not atheism exists". I thought it was a horrible blow out, in your favor. :) That said, I disagree with your position of atheism as not a faith. Atheism may not be an organized religion, but it is definately a faith. Atheism is "1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God 2) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods " note: **Belief** that there is no God. My sole contention rests on the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. ============== Ex: Can you PROVE that striped elephants don't exist? You'd have to be able to check every place in the universe, and every possible elephant. Even then, it wouldn't be proof, because you may have missed it. And, of course, we don't know whether striped elephants have ever existed in the past. Proving that elephants DO exist simply requires finding 1. You CAN prove that things exist; but you can't PROVE that they don't. You can have reason to doubt, say, a purple elephant -- since that's just not a color critters like that come in; but it's not proof. You can prove you have a pen. Can you prove the pen doesn't think or feel? Well, no. ======================== Because there is no definitive, absolute way to prove that a G-d or gods does not exist, atheism entails (at least, to a very minute degree) an amount of faith. If something has faith, it is a belief.