BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All drugs should be Legalized

Thank you for your response, I will now begin to address the issues with your statements. "Taking hard drugs that many people will take such as heroin or cocaine will be comparable to suicide."Although this may be true, that does not mean it should be illegal. As a matter of fact, taking these drugs does not guarantee that your life will be demolished even though it is likely. Nicotine and Alcoholic substances are currently legal in many nations across the globe and you can over dose while consuming alcohol. When consuming nicotine some evidence suggests that your brain will end up requiring this substance to function efficiently (addiction). Not to mention, according to the definition you presented, this is NOT suicide because you are not intentionally taking your life when consuming drugs. Non the less, this is not a reason as to why some drugs should be illegal. I don't understand how it could be."While drug use is not necessarily suicide, it is comparable to such because eventually, drugs will kill you weather it be lung cancer or overdose."This is not suicide and it does not matter if it is comparable to suicide. Accidentally killing yourself is NOT the equivalent of purposely killing yourself (suicide). Not to mention, the use of drugs does not cause lung cancer unless they are smoked. With this logic cigarettes should also be illegal and currently they are not. I am unsure what to state in order to combat this because it is not a realistic reason to make "some drugs" illegal and other drugs legal. "My point in making this is that the United States has legalized suicide, but not legalized assisted suicide, so in doing this the United States will contradict its own laws."The legalization of assisted suicide and suicide has absolutely nothing to with drug use and you have not provided any sufficient reason as to why these two things are related to drug use. People can overdose on drugs that have been legalized for medical purposes and in doing so would not make you a criminal, even if it did, that would have nothing to do with this debate. It is also not considered assisted suicide. Who would be considered responsible for this assisted suicide? The drug that did it? Would the drug be sent to prison for killing someone? Haha
All drugs should be Legalized

I think that even though america is a free nation, I believe that some things must be regulated. I will take a similar but more extreme thing as an example. Taking hard drugs that many people will take such as heroin or cocaine will be comparable to suicide. The definition of suicide is: "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally." While drug use is not necessarily suicide, it is comparable to such because eventually, drugs will kill you weather it be lung cancer or overdose. My point in making this is that the United States has legalized suicide, but not legalized assisted suicide, so in doing this the United States will contradict its own laws. Thank you
All drugs should be Legalized

Thank you for your cooperation. :) Okay. One country that will be mentioned frequently by me is Portugal. Portugal decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001. I understand that decriminalizing is not the same as making something legal, however, these two things are very similar once you examine the definitions. Definitions of words used: Freedom - the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. "we do have some freedom of choice" Decriminalize - cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal. "a battle to decriminalize drugs" Legalize - make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Now that that has been settled it is time for my argument. To start off for a country to be truly a free country, one must be allowed to do what they wish just as long as it does not harm anyone. If someone's decision is only harming their state of being, that is none of your concern. Of course, you could help them if you wish but if they are unwilling to except your help it would not be right to force them into doing so. By preventing people from consuming what they wish, you are endangering the police force and potential drug addicts or users. This is simply common sense and it would be challenging if you attempted to disprove. I will be putting you into the shoes of a drug addict for my example. You are a heroin addict and your life has been ruined due to this addiction. You are forced to go onto the streets and find someone to give you Heroin. Once you find a person he brings you into a dark alleyway to make the deal. At this point you could easily be mugged by him or a stranger. There's a chance that you could be scammed and lose your money and you couldn't go to the police for help. There are many other possibility's that could happen in this scenario. Cops are endangered during drug busts since they are forced to enter the homes of drug dealers that do not wish to be caught because this would result in jail time. Overall, I think I've made my point there. Unfortunately, I am unable to post graphs so Id like you to inspect the graphs through these links provided. https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net... http://www.samefacts.com...;https://www.transcend.org...http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...http://www.tdpf.org.uk...http://images.mic.com...http://images.mic.com... The bottom two graphs are for Portugal not everywhere. To summarize my current stance, Id like to make sure everyone understands that I believe there should still be slight regulations similar to those of alcohol. Also, making these substances legal does not mean it is a good idea to use them. Cigarettes for example are a legal substance and it is widely known that the health effects are mostly negative. I am eager to read your opinion. :)Where I obtained my information (more graphs can be obtained through these links):http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...http://mic.com...http://www.tdpf.org.uk...https://www.transcend.org...http://www.theburningplatform.com...http://www.samefacts.com...
We should aim to extend people's lives indefinitely

In opposition to your first point that ageing would be prevented, similar to how the Turritopsis Nutricula reverts back to its younger state, there's a slight problem in that the jellyfish only revert their cells in times of crisis (1). Another problem is that the cells in the jellyfish transdifferentiate during the process, meaning if we were to follow their example, there is a huge possibility that our memories would be wiped out during this process (2). This means that your argument that immortality can preserve the greatest minds wouldn't be possible. Their memories would be wiped out, and they would be a completely different person. Also, if we were to modify cells until we were immortal, what is the cost of this? How many experiments would we have to go through? Is it really ethical? In argument to your second argument of colonising different planets, what planet can we colonise on? I agree that NASA are researching into colonising Mars, but the water on Mars isn't drinkable. Also, Mars is VERY cold - typical night time temperatures close to the equator are -70 degrees Celsius (3). We would not be able to survive on other planets without technology permanently bound by our side. Imagine the costs and time to get the suitable technology for everyone alive now to live on Mars, never mind those that will be born! Colonising other planets does not solve the problem of overpopulation. Immortality also means that no new ideas would be brought in (4), because we'll have to limit birth due to overpopulation problems. We would not advance, and we would not evolve. Sources: (1) http://www.mnn.com... (2) http://www.thatsreallypossible.com... (3) http://www.science20.com... (4) http://www.naturalnews.com...
We should aim to extend people's lives indefinitely

If humanity were to extend human lives indefinitely, that would be an astounding feat. We could preserve the greatest minds: scientists, engineers, military generals, etc.Unlike your interpretation of how humans would be like if they were given "immortality," I believe that humans with a largely extended lifespan would experience aging. I, on the other hand, believe that the key to immortality for humanity, or at least the key to extend humanity's lifepan, would be to modify human cells to suspend aging. "Like [the Turritosis nutricula, and bowhead whale], we are built of cells, and some of those cells can be immortal too," (DOC 1)."Another reason I am against this statement is because our planet will not be able to keep up with the demands of everyone. We are already starting to witness the problem of overpopulation, and if people's lives are extended indefinitely, that means that the population is going to continue growing at a rapid pace..." I will not disagree with the belief that humanity is reaching its carrying capacity, and immortality will only increase the pace in which humanity does. However, I do believe that humanity is capable of traveling to different planets, and colonizing there. Programs such as NASA are already researching and working to make this a reality, and if we can preserve the minds of intelligent scientists, we can increase the progress of colonizing on other planets. Extra Notes:The Turritosis Nutricula is a type of jellyfish which is believed to be "immortal." After reaching its mature state, it will revert back to its younger state. The Bowhead Whale has a lifespan of around 120 years.Citations:DOC 1: "The Recipe for Immortaliy," http://discovermagazine.com...
We should aim to extend people's lives indefinitely

I think that we should not aim to extend people's lives indefinitely. In the Oxford English Dictionary, 'indefinitely' is defined as 'for an unlimited period or unspecified period of time'; in this statement, it is stating that we should aim to extend people's for an unlimited amount of time. I am against this statement, as extending people's lives doesn't mean that we stop ageing. We still continue ageing, and this process is prolonged. This means extended suffering, so why should we aim to create more agony for ourselves? Do you really want to extend your life when you're old and frail, unable to do much? One of the main reasons why people want to extend their life is to have more time to do the things they love, however, when you've aged and you're no longer able to do a lot of these things, do you still want to keep living forever? What's the point then? Another reason I am against this statement is because our planet will not be able to keep up with the demands of everyone. We are already starting to witness the problem of overpopulation, and if people's lives are extended indefinitely, that means that the population is going to continue growing at a rapid pace, and it wouldn't drop at all as no one is dying. How would we cope with the demands that this quickly growing population brings? We will run out of resources, including food, energy, space, clean water etc, which can lead to issues such as famine, and many will starve. However, we won't have an end to this suffering; as we are living indefinitely, you will just suffer for eternity.
People under 18 should be able to compete in professional sport.

Most people reach athletic greatness much before the age of 18. If these athletes want to play and have the skills, why stop them? Of course I am not saying we should have twelve year holds playing in the NFL but several athletes have shown that one can be pro before the age of 18. Examples include: Olympic gold medalist soccer player, Mia Hamm. Joined the U.S women's national team at the age of 15. 2x NBA Champion Andrew Bynum of the Los Angeles Lakers. Former NBA MVP(2004), NBA defensive player of the year(2008) NBA champion(2008), and 14 time NBA all star Kevin Garnett. These are just few examples of players playing professionally before the age of 18. There's literally hundreds more. I look forward to hearing my opponents counter arguments.
People under 18 should be able to compete in professional sport.

Professional sport is no place for younger competitors. They are neither physically or mentally ready to enter a world of hard training and competition. Allowing under 18's to compete in professional sport would restrict some children from having a healthy. normal childhood. Also, what kind of image will this be setting. This would mean that children would be competing in games against adults. It would not only be unfair on the young competitors but also would be hard to take seriously. I believe that under 18's should not be able to compete in professional sport due to they are not mature enough, mentally and physically. It takes away their childhood and decreases the amount of authenticity or seriousness of professional competition.
The Existence of God

To begin, I'd like to state that the existence of a god is a positive and thus the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the apologist (this does not have to be empirical, but please make your case) . Furthermore if we approach god from the Judea-Christian perspective (I expect to keep it on those terms, but you may be able to convince me otherwise if you can intrigue me enough with a novel idea) there are various traits that create contradictions; God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous, and omnibenevolent. Some of these traits are self conflicting: An omniscient god would know how to create a problem he could not solve, and an omnipotent god would be able to construct something he could not destroy. An unsolvable problem would render the god not omniscient, but the inability to render the problem would indicate a lack of omniscience from the start. The omnipotence problem follows the same. These traits also create contradictions when merged: An omnipotent god could render himself ignorant or he is not omnipotent. An omniscient god could know evil and how to exploit it, and an omnipotent god could carry through with it, but omnibenevolence would restrict this. Contradictions simply do not exist. Furthermore, a proponent of God would have to deal with the age old problem of evil. For this I'll simply quote Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" I don't think I could put it any better, except to add that the actions of God himself is demonstrably evil. Simply consider the fact that he creates people that he (being omniscient) knows will reject him, that he does nothing to change that (he's omniscient, so he certainly could), and he unjustly punishes them for the crimes he doomed them to commit in the first place. I'd like to reiterate that the existence of any god is a positive claim and that it is up to my opponent to make the case for the existence thereof. I eagerly await a retort containing such a case.
Religion in the Modern Age

This is my first debate as well, good luck! Also for the 3rd round I meant rebuttal not counter-argument. Religion was used for many things throughout history. Primarily it was used to explain the unknown and as a moral compass. It also gave people an identity, a connection with others, and hope. However, in this day and age, all of these things can be given or explained without the use of religion. So really, is there a need for religion? First off, the explanations given by religion are false. Thunder is not created by the beating winds of the Thunderbird, nor the plague a punishment from God. The explanations given by science are fact. Backed by evidence. Indisputable. And no, science is not a religion, it is defined in the dictionary as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". However, one of the problems with religion is that it refuses to change the explanations given to match those backed by science. Often it will actively try to inhibit the spread of knowledge, as can be seen in Muslim communities in the middle east. Even in the states, in the South there are parents that teach their children Creationism when there is evidence of Evolution. Not only is religion no longer required, if abandoned, a large barrier against knowledge would be removed. Second, religion was the primary guide to living a moral life. Now education and our empathy serve as an effective guide to an ethical life. And if those fail, there is the law. Those who live their life guided by only their religion can easily become corrupted. Then they will twist those their scriptures to justify their depravity. As is demonstrated by Islamic extremists. Or, even worse, they will commit immoral acts because their scripture is against an idea then justify it because it's right according to their religion. For example, Christian harassment of homosexuals. Again, it can be said that religion is unnecessary, and again, it can be said that without it there would be improvement. Identity and connection can easily be given without religion. However you could make a decent argument about hope. Hope for a better tomorrow or hope in an afterlife. And it is true that religion can give someone hope. But it is a false hope. There is no guarantee that life will get better just because you believe in a higher being. Or that there is life after death. And people can easily receive hope from other sources. Family, friends, and support groups are just a few sources. Once again religion can be seen as obsolete. You may want to pass this round since you already gave your argument in round 1.
Macro evolution 3

All of the arguments you present in favor of the Earth being less than 10,000 years old all assume that everything is a constant and nothing in space could ever interact with anything on Earth or it's vicinity. We know that things interact and change particular facets about the planet all the time, and your debate seems to be ignoring these things and treating the planet as a closed system, immune to all the hazards of the universe. You also assume, in your star argument for example, that the stars have always been the same size and haven't taken millions of years to form or anything like that, and it comes across like you are presenting that THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE is less than 10,000 years old (but that's just from what I can gather from your argument as I am typing this in my Virtual Space Technology class). You still also haven't tackled your argument about light slowing down or clarified your definition of evolution, so maybe it wasn't the best idea to do a large group debate with all of these people and concentrate on having a single, intelligent debate that doesn't rely on everybody you are debating with bringing up the same points. You're kind of leaving me hanging here...
Macro evolution 3

Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that. " here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old 1. The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out . 2. ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it. 3. ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen 4. ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth. 5. next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ï¿½ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period. Ok well there you go
Macro evolution 3

First of all, there is very little resistance to the idea that Earth is more than 10000 years old, and I would like to hear you justify your reasons for believing Earth to be this young. Secondly, you seem to be seeing macroevolution as the only form of evolution. The title of this debate is 'Macro Evolution', but in it, you seem to ignore microevolution. In almost every scientific study done on the subject, microevolution has been shown to be constantly taking place in the everyday world around us. Are you trying to say that creatures in this world are static and it is impossible for, say, a zebra to be born with longer legs and pass these genes down through its offspring, eventually leading to a population as a whole having longer legs because they are much likely to survive? Because, I mean, that's evolution right there.
Young should go to abroad for higher studies

I have to also concede your point but if i/you don’t have much money so you can take loan for mine/your future and as you know every parent want their children’s good future and they also want their children study in good Education place, many countries has biggest universities and colleges but there are many problems like bad circumstance, politics’ interferer in education system, Electricity problem and many things so can students get good education in all those situation? Of course not, because as you know as a student we have to face a lot of problems so should we face this problem with study? No if any person face this problem so he/she might me mad. Because all this problem interruption in study.And please open this link:http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
Young should go to abroad for higher studies

"If you live in Niger and as you can Niger"s education system is decreasing and you wanted good education so what did you do? Didn"t you go to abroad?" I have to concede your point, but also, try to see it from another point of view: How about if you don't have any money to go to abroad? What will you do? Stop studying? Of course not. If you want quality education, you can get it, even when your country is suffering from economic and academic problems. Thanks for welcoming me. *shake hands*