BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

"It is far harder to take something away from people, then to keep to from them in the first place. Take sweets for instance, if you never give a child sweets, they don't expect them. If you suddenly stop giving a child sweets, they will make a scene." Yes, and that's exactly why the government shouldn't ban neither tobacco nor alcohol. You have already stated the negative effects of recreational marijuana, but you have not yet acknowledged the benefits of it, such as the examples listed in my last argument. Since smoking weed has several benefits and fewer risks, the product itself is more beneficial to society and the economy than it is harmful; meaning it would actually better our country more than worsen it. If anything, weed should replace tobacco entirely for these reasons. https://www.alternet.org... https://www.huffingtonpost.com... "For the majority of people, it does no good." How do you know this for sure; where is your evidence? Ultimately, recreational marijuana is more beneficial to society and the economy than it is harmful, therefore it should be legalized and also replace tobacco. By the way, weed has also been a normal part of our culture for a long period of time too, it just hasn't been legal. https://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to see you acknowledge the benefits of recreational marijuana in your next argument, Con.
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

I am for the full baning of both tobacco and alcohol. The reason they aren't banned is because people have had access to both for such a long time, that by now they see it as a right.It is far harder to take something away from people, then to keep to from them in the first place. Take sweets for instance, if you never give a child sweets, they don't expect them. If you suddenly stop giving a child sweets, they will make a scene.Another example is tobacco and alcohol are like the flu already infecting someone. trying to ban them would be like treating it without access to modern medican. You can try to get rid of it but the person might still die. Keeping weed illegal is like washing your hands, a preventative measure.Consider keeping a focus on cannabis as many do, as damage control. It is way harder to ban tobacco which has been a legal and normal part of our culture for a very long time, being a major reason for colonization, and yet harder to ban alchol which has been in common consumption for thousands of years, then cannabis.For the majority of people, it does no good. In the comments you stated this is about weed recreationally, not medically. Just as perscription drugs like opiods shouldn't be comsumed by everyone, neither should weed.
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

First of all, every item like weed has its risks, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. For instance, cigarettes have many chemicals that can create multiple types of cancer, such as lung cancer, mouth cancer, throat cancer, and many more. Smoking cigarettes also affects other people, and also is highly addictive. https://www.cancer.gov... Yet, smoking cigarettes is still legal. I can make the same point with alcohol too. With these other items that are even more harmful than weed being legal, there is no reason we shouldn't have the right to smoke weed (starting at the age of 19) also. And with its risks, recreational marijuana also has many benefits, such as stopping cancer from spreading, helping/preventing other diseases, and even helping society and the government profitably. http://www.businessinsider.com... In summary, there are already other harmful products legalized, so there is no reason a less harmful, and beneficial, product such as recreational marijuana can't be legalized as well. While having a couple risks, it also can be beneficial in several ways to the human body and America as a whole.
Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.

Weed, as with all drugs, isn't something to mess with. It has many adverse effects to the populations that allow it to sneak in.Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug. https://www.aaafoundation.org...Cannabis is also linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, can cause memory issues, and obstructs learning. These effects are unlikely to be fully reversed when it is quit.https://www.sciencedaily.com...https://www.medicalnewstoday.com...https://www.drugabuse.gov...The physical effects are in many ways similar to that of tobacco.It is addictive as well, meaning that the sellers are taking advantage of consumers.https://www.drugabuse.gov...You may have noticed that most of the effects are primarily problematic for absolents, but I have noticed that the number of teenagers who veiw weed as harmless has increased dramatically since the legalization.Don't play drug russian roulette. Some people will be fine, for others it will ruin your life.Weed usage also happens to be disruptive to other citizens, and it spreads fast. You cannot walk in downtown colorado or denver without running into it.This is especially bad for some disabled people in those areas, like smell sensitive people with sensory processing disorder (SPD is suspected to exist in 10% of the population), or people with asthma.
The Military Draft should be abolished

This debate is for Round 1 of the Official Tier Tournament, hosted by the site's vice president, Bsh1. 1. First round for acceptance 2. No new arguments in the final round. 3. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to define the Military Draft as "a policy allowing the govenment to engage in the compulsory enlistment of citizens into military or naval service; usually employed during times of war." Good luck, Lannan.
The Military Draft should be abolished

Contention 1: Rights and UtilitarianismMy opponent brings up the natural rights that you are given from birth, which John Locke defines as Life, Liberty, and Property. ( . http://www.fee.org...) I agree with Locke, but what Pro forgets to mention to you is that though Locke argued for these rights, he also stated that the government also had a duty to protect it's citizens. By not creating a draft and protecting it's citizens then you could possibly get an invasion from an outside force like the great Mongolian Empire (when it existed) where they would rape and pillage or you would have what occured in China at the rape of Nanking. (. http://www.historyplace.com...) So you see here that without having to abridge some rights then the rights of all can be completely abridged as they were in China. My opponent claims that a voluntary army works better than a conscripted one then it is time for the government to step in and maintain the military. I made this point loud and clear in my last round so please extend it. Contention 2: Draft ends the war quicker. Though Hobbes did advocate for a Monarchy instead of a Democracy his theory is still applicable. This is to help defend it's innocent people back at home in order to keep them safe from the war and to protect their rights from things like the events that occured at Nanking. Pro still does not refute here how it does end the war quicker, but insists to go on a tangent to argue that the draft doesn't support Democratic ideals and attacks Hobbes. Pro has dropped the original argument so please extend this across the board. Contention 3: Draft mixes Society My opponent is mistaken as the benefits still take place during their military tenuer and after they leave. This is to ensure that they are not left behind in the economic world and most of the time the soldier (or whatever branch they join) ends up walking away a lot better then they enter the situation in. ==Conclusion==Pro said with his own words that the BOP is on him and that I only had to win one Contention, this was said at the beginning of his Round 3 argument, in order to win. I have shown how he has dropped several arguments on how the draft is good and his own contention have even failed as I have shown that the government's first duty is to protect the people.
The Military Draft should be abolished

My opponent has taken the initiative to strengthen his position by providing an opening argument even though I have the full BOP. Now, in order to successfully affirm the resolution, I must defend at least one of my opening contentions *and* refute all of Con's contentions. R1) Right to Raise and Maintain a Military The central problem with Con's argument, here, is that the resolution is *not* specific to the United States; thus, quotations from the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions alone are not enough to serve as support for his large claims, such as that the government's power to raise a military "ought to exist without limitation"-- Con must present actual evidence and reasoning to support such assertions. I have provided two reasons to believe that a military draft is unjustified in any circumstance; Con has only showed that a military draft is technically justified according to one specific interpretation of one specific country's constitution. This contention does not negate the resolution at all. R2) Draft ends Wars Quicker Con claims that enforcing a military draft ends wars quicker, supporting this with the examples of the US Civil War and the Vietnam War. In the Civil War example, it is stated that the Union was unable to obtain a sufficient amount of troops until a draft was implemented. However, this observation goes directly against Con's case... it shows that "the people" were largely against going to war, and that by implementing a draft, the government was essentially overriding the majority rule and violating the institution of democracy. Con's own example supports the abolishment of the military draft by indicating that it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of democracy! Con shoots himself in the foot even further with his Vietnam War example, openly admitting that the military draft upset American citizens so much that they initiated the anti-war protests which led to the end of the war. This simply feeds back into the anti-democracy point even more! (i.e. the military draft often goes against the general will of the people). Perhaps the draft does end wars quicker, but the entire point of ending a war quicker is for the greater good of the people, and the anti-democratic nature of the draft ultimately makes it a gross disservice to the people. R3) Draft helps mix Society Con argues that the egalitarian nature of the draft helps eliminate class distinctions in society. However, this egalitarianism only applies on the battlefield; once everyone goes back home, wealth disparities reappear, and class distinctions continue to be a part of society. This is made obvious by the fact that USA still has and always has had noticeable class distinctions, just like any human society. The draft provides no significant demographic benefit. ================================ In conclusion, all three of my opponent's contentions have been refuted (and one of them has even backfired on him). Since Con has not yet addressed either of my contentions, the resolution remains affirmed.
Call of Duty should be banned for children under the age of 17

At this point, you're voting PRO because CON has faild to address a single one of my contentions or my counter-rebbutals. Moreover, his second round consisted of nothing more than a baseless assertion, without any proof or factual backing. He hasn't explained how this proposal would be "unconstitutional"--what part of the Constitution does it violate? And, not to mention, he discusses a blanket ban, but that is *not* what we are debating: we're debating a ban for children under the age of 17. Finally, CON makes an is/ought fallacy. Even if it *were* unconstitutional--and let me be clear once more that we have no reason at all to think that is, and until CON evidences this assertion, we should discard this blanket assertion--that doesn't speak to whether or not it *should* be. Effectively the contention becomes X is Y, so therefore X should be Y--but that demonstrates a bias for the status quo simply by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo. The contention bears no weight and attempts to obfuscate the mere purpose of this debate, which is to discuss whether or not Call of Duty ought to be banned.
Call of Duty should be banned for children under the age of 17

It is true that Call of Duty may be banned, but it doesn't have the ability to give people nightmares. The two main reasons that Call of Duty is rated M is because of strong language and intense violence. It is a fact that people aged from 10 to 12 use these words in everyday life. Many children under the age of 12 play Call of Duty. The intense violence is not natural. For example, many foreign movies have an intense amount of blood, but parents allow children to watch these movies.
Deviance:Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest all fit into this one category

Well to continue on with the meaning of deviation, here's where the argument goes. For those that believe way past a social construct into right and wrong , this would be well understood. Regardless if we're living in a matrix, dreamland or illusion. There are rules that goverern the environment point blank. Those rules and criteria are set in place to give us specified results. Clearly DEVIATING from that will give different results . Here's an illustration with putting on attire or shoes . Putting on either one of these things incorrectly will be a different outcome compared to putting them on correctly . Wearing a shoe backwards and trying to walk is no avail to the foot. The foot ends up being brutalized , damaged and receives neglected care to its deduced intended function and design. Likewise with attempting to wear a buttoned up shirt backwards . Most likely the person has failed to cover their body and upper torso . So when it comes to sexuality and what has been learned of it denotes a criteria . Homosexuality is a deviation in that it counters against the design and function of the intent for heterosexuality's criteria . Pedophilia is a deviation in that it counters against the maturity and ability of two supposed able bodies appropriately for sexuality's criteria. Bestiality is a deviation in that it counters against the design and function of the intent of human heterosexual criteria. Incest is a deviation in that it counters against the design , function and outcome of health an overall welfare for the most part (meaning genetic sequences leading to deformities). All four behaviors are distinct in their subclasses but all are classified in a generic class due to the one common trait of deviance . So this is all based on rules and regulations whether be fabricated, constructed or relative . Social constructs as it were are the way they are due to the criteria they hold to qualify as such . So society is governed by that so on and so forth even making its way to the law of the land.
Deviance:Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest all fit into this one category

So this is just to get a correct understanding to what was submitted in the previous argument . Was that argument illustrating that everything is a social construct and that nothing has a solid foundation? Which would mean nothing truly has a criteria or standard other than what people measure it to be . There's no basis for right or wrong, correct or incorrect , deviation or conformation outside of our 5 senses or whatever how many we possibly possess. Everything is subjective and constructed inside of our consciousness and there's no way to verify outside of that because outside of that we will have no consciousness . We would have no interpretation , experience and or knowledge . We are only as real as we think we are and whatever reality we continue to create within the mind and what it's exposed to. So that would mean my correct understanding wouldn't even truly be a correct understanding . It's all fabricated , isn't that right? One thing is how does one know for sure? How does one know that this realm , space , existence , material composition detected by the consciousness isn't actually a universe govererned fundamentally with principles ? A particular order we must follow to continue to dwell and remain in this consciousness . A set of principles put in place in a rudimentary fashion to maintain our socially constructed interactions and experiences which a lot of individual persons would refer to as being their lives. Maybe you take the stance that social construct is all there is to it which would be subjective . I believe there's more to it than social construct. Is all this the gist of what was mentioned ? In that , calculating on doing this or that is relative and compatible to whatever minds that function with the calculation guideline. The do's and don't s, laws, regulations , the categories that individuals craft are nothing more than what they happen to assemble / make up. Is that where you or "socially interpreted fabricated "you , is that the essence of the concept?
Deviance:Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest all fit into this one category

Now in order for me to properly explain my argument, we need to talk about social constructs. What you are arguing in favor for is the social construct that can make anything fit into any category. Deviance is a category developed by social constructs on what the society thinks is deviant or not. Outside of our human brains, social constructs do not exist and we are nothing. Your monitor is a social construct. This website is a social construct. I am a social construct. And YOU are a social construct. Homosexuality is also a social construct, so we must treat it as such that it does not get wrongly placed in categories with chicken or broccoli, because that's what humans will do. They will use myths to their advantage. However, we know nothing. Outside our conscious there is nothing. Also, I declare breathing a deviance, because breathing is also a social construct.
Deviance:Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest all fit into this one category

Deviance:Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest all fit into this one category. As it has been apart of a lot of controversy, all of these deviances all lumped together. It has been argued that the laws of same sex marriage being passed opens the flood gates, opens pandor's box to all the other forms of incorrectness. Not only will rights be supported for homosexuals in terms of marriage ,etc., but other groups and forms of relationships will be protesting for the same. Claims have already been put forth, that bestiality and the law of marriage between a person and a animal(non-person)has been passed in other nations. The basic premise is that the criteria for romantic, sexual relationships/married couples has dwindled . Once all meaning in particular standards have been cut, there really is no direction for what constitutes or defines something. The rules and criteria are very important for us to separate one thing from another. They help us to stay on track, on objective , on the right way to go so the focus is never lost in which direction we were going in. Everything has an exclusive purpose(s) and once that's tampered with to make it fit some other kind of fashion there's a total breakdown. Please step forward, anyone that see's different, thinks different. Make a case.
There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones

I have two main points:1. Drone Strikes kill innocent civilian lives2. Drones create more terrorists than they kill1. "The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on the 13th of January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the same man who would later become al-Qaeda's leader, this time in Bajaur.R32;Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. But seventy-six innocent children and 29 innocent adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not." [1]"Documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse." [2] My opponent might state that drone strikes help save lives, that they can protect us. But they can't. They take many innocent lives, lives of people who have done nothing wrong. The international community MUST ban armed drones as it is our moral imperative, as humans and citizens of the world, to protect life, and hold it sacred.2. People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone attacks become motivated to join actions against the United States. According to author Jeremy Scahill, the vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today are "people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight.""Drone strikes take out a few bad guys to be sure, but they also kill a large number of innocent civilians. Given Yemen"s tribal structure, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] operative killed by drones." [3] Even if my previous argument is wrong, we still have a moral imperative to ban armed drones, due to the fact that, even if we accomplish the goal of killing a terrorist, we are simply creating more. Whatever impact the con claims we gain from drone strikes, we merely are creating more problems.[1] http://www.theguardian.com...... -Spencer Ackerman (Author)[2] The Intercept, taken fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com......[3] Nabeel Khoury, who was deputy chief of mission in Yemen from 2004 to 2007, taken fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com......
There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones

Definitions - Ought: A moral imperative, ie. saves lives International: Not only the US, but also the rest of the world. Ban: Merriam-Webster defines ban as to forbid people from using Military Use: Of or relating to the army Drones: Merriam-Webster defines drone as an unmanned aircraft or ship. If agreeable, I would like to limit this topic to armed drones, as those are the most debatable and most often used by foreign military's. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6.
There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones

As my points raised in the second round have remained unchallenged, by definition they are considered accepted by omission.A little disappointed as this was challenged, and apart from the first round, there has been no further updates by my opponent.... Unsure if this is due to life, or if the flare for debate has abated temporarily.Regardless, I thank my opponent for the opportunity, the time spent researching to represent the 'other side' of this argument has provided myself with much knowledge that I was not aware of, So for that I am grateful.Thank you, I hope everyone has an excellent weekend :)