BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug categorisation and legalization

You make a good point "Why is it acceptable for tobacco and alcohol to ruin lives, but not meth or cocaine in regulated doses?" I don"t believe that should be acceptable for tobacco and alcohol to destroy lives. They are legal but we are unable to control them and I think the same could happen with meth, cocaine and heroin. Regulated doses? Good luck with that, addicts are very creative with finding ways to get as much as they want. The matter of human rights and a drug addict making an educated decision about using their drug of choice, nice thought but not reality. It is completely an emotional decision, they feel good. I was talking to a friend who was a heroin addict one time and inquired about why he would want to use that drug. His exact words were, "When you shoot up some good heroin your mind has an orgasm." He died in his early twenties of an overdose. Because the truth is that every time it takes a little bit more to give them that feeling they are in love with. I tried to educate him on the evils of heroin but he was in love. To each his own. I agree that rehab is a better course of action than incarceration. I know people who have gone through rehab and have been clean for years now. You mentioned tax revenue and I have a feeling that might be the driving force behind this and not a concern for anybody"s well being,there are billions of dollars in the drug trade. But a drug addict would still have to get the money to buy it and they aren"t going to work for it so they would probably have to steal. I also have a feeling that some of these drug pushers won't take too kindly to you cutting into their profits. I don"t have a problem with medicinal uses but what kind of addiction relief is shooting up crystal meth? Tools for use in the facilitation of creative processes. I had a friend who used to make some far out waterbed frames when he had taken LSD. The problem was you had to be tripping also to want to buy one. I just think that if you can"t be creative with out getting stoned you"re probably just not a creative person.
Drug categorisation and legalization

I was talking about recreational drugs such as cocaine, meth, heroin. I am not an expert on the subject but I have seen several friends and a couple of family members get addicted to these drugs. I do think maybe we should change our method of dealing with them but do not agree with legalizing them. Also I don"t think that all drugs are the same. I was just looking at it from a person who has seen the destruction these three drugs can cause. I should have been more specific about what drugs I am against legalizing. So I am going to say methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine should not be legalized to sell for recreational use.
Drug categorisation and legalization

You said: "We only have to look at the medical and social problems tobacco and alcohol cause to realize we shouldn't legalize any more drugs." 'We only have to look at the medical and social applications [that] aspirin and sugar avail to realize [that] we should legalize all drugs.' In one small assertion you presuppose a number of false premises, not the least of which being that social problems are not necessarily indicative of the function of a substance but rather the context in which is it used. Medical problems are also dependent on pharmacodynamic context, among other factors. Also note that dose can completely reverse the effects of some substances. Secondly, you seem to assert that all drugs are of common nature, have comparable psychological and physical effects, or even act on the same system in the body. It may help you to look into the multitudinous neurotransmitters and accompanying receptors which can be stimulated (or inhibited) by various compounds. Take 5-HT, the serotonin system- these receptors can be partially or fully; agonized or antagonized. Reuptake inhibition is also a notable mode of action (See Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI)). Of these receptors, it is also important to note that there are various subtypes of this receptor, for example, blocking activity at 5HT-2A is shown to give the medicinal effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) without the psychedelic perceptual activity. Perhaps you can see that this is not such a simple issue. I don't really expect a response, but I hope someone out there can learn about how absurd this position is.
Drug categorisation and legalization

Medicinal uses for these drugs are not what I am concerned with. What worries me is people being able to walk into a convenience store buy some crack cocaine and take it home and smoke it, snort, inject it or what ever their preferred method of ingesting it is. Letting drugs win the war. I feel that all of the references to medicinal uses are irrelevant to this debate. I read a few articles about Portugal, starting with the one you referenced, and they did not legalize these drugs they decriminalized the use of them, reduced the charge for possessing small amounts. People are not arrested and incarcerated if they are in possession of drugs but are counseled to go to rehab. If the amount of possession exceeds the specified amount the drugs are confiscated. It is not giving up on the war on drugs but simply changing the strategy and reviews are mixed and statistics are difficult to calculate. http://fullfact.org... http://www.tdpf.org.uk... This is a quote from the person who is the architect of Portugal"s drug policy. Dr Joao Goulao "It is very difficult to identify a causal link between decriminalization by itself and the positive tendencies we've seen " It"s a total package. The biggest effect has been to allow the stigma of drug addiction to fall, to let people speak clearly and to pursue professional help without fear." I actually like this guy because of his experience in working with drug addicts at rehab clinics. Basically what they did in Portugal was to take the responsibility for dealing with drug use away from the Drug Enforcement Agency and give it to the Department of Health. They treat it like an illness instead of a crime. With an illness the goal is to remove or at least neutralize the cause of the disease which in this case is drugs. I feel that the goal for legalizing drugs is to surrender and that would not be a wise move. What we have learned from our experience with tobacco and alcohol, especially alcohol, is that criminalizing it does not work and legalizing it does not work. Maybe the solution lies somewhere in between. Not all people who use alcohol are alcoholics but all people who use methamphetamines are addicts. The addiction rate among cocaine and heroin users is extremely high also. Marijuana is not physically addictive but can be psychologically addictive. http://www.druglibrary.org... There is a difference between doing lab test and seeing what drugs do to people in real life. Since I have personally witnessed the reality of drug addiction I say we don"t surrender to drugs but we do need to change our strategy. A drug free world is a good goal. Maybe we need to figure out what is wrong with our thinking that we need so much false stimulation to function. I do realize there is a valid need for sedation at times. But when a perfectly healthy person just feels the need to get high I question the validity of that need. Thank You for the challenge it has been a pleasure. I did update my earlier comment I am sorry if it misled you.
The Driving Limit Should Be 14+

First off, you state that they are a mature age. Being a 14 year old myself, I don't agree with this. First off the younger the teenager, the more reckless they are. You are able to drive at 14 if a family member has a disability and they need someone to drive them somewhere, its called a hardship licences. But besides that, 14 year olds I would say are too immature compared to 16 year olds. Also you never mentioned any restrictions, if 14 year olds were allowed to drive with other teenagers in the car that would be a total disaster. They would easily distract each other and we all know teenagers get goofy with each other. There is a small percentage of very mature 14 year olds who could focus on the rode with other teens in the car but even without other teens in the car, they still can easily get stressed and frustrated at a young age on the rode. According to cdc.gov it shows... "In 2013, 2,163 teens in the United States ages 16"19 were killed and 243,243 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes.1 That means that six teens ages 16"19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries." The thing is, we are putting very young peoples behind the wheel and teenagers are injured and killed everyday because of this. 14 year olds are still young and we shouldn't put such as young age in a car to drive. Remember no matter how perfect of a drive you are, you can still be hurt in a wreck. "Some people have bad parents who don't even feel like driving their kids to school so the kids just lose education." Well schools for the past generations have developed a magic car called a bus. It transports kids who need to get to school. So this is flawed statement saying they will lose their education if their parents won't drive them to school. They can easily walk to the local school bus stop (or sometimes they stop by your house) and they can get to school on time. So this is not an issue. Lets be honest, there really is not purpose for a 14 year old to have a driver's license unless they have family members who have disability or they need to provide for their families. Which we already have a system for that, as I have stated, a hardship licenses. 16 year old is the age where you start working and getting a job, that is why it is that limit and you start getting a little more busy with college and things along those lines. Sources(s): http://www.cdc.gov... http://auto.howstuffworks.com...
In Retrospect Girls > Guys

My opponent says that God is female. However, it is accepted fact that God is a dude. What about the Sistine Chapel painting? [1] And this painting? [2] They all portray God as an old bearded man. And what about the Holy Trinity? [3] Since Jesus is co-equal to God, and Jesus is a man... then God is a man. My opponent is ignoring thousands of scholars and a thousand years of consensus, that's all it is. My opponent also says that "God inseminated herself...and then sent him to earth to be reconceived". That is a very convoluted way to birth a child! It's much simpler to just inseminate Mary straight up, no literal birthing needed. Occam's razor holds. Let us also remember that Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Zeus and Jupiter were men. Two of the most influential civilizations, the Greeks and Romans, worshiped men! So, men are so awesome that men are worshiped as gods, regardless of cultural or geographic differences. Also, my opponent says that the vagina (just say it!) is the penis's weakness. The penis is obviously not a weapon to be waved around aimlessly. It is a powerful, precise weapon. The long reload time is necessary to contain the power of the penis. My opponent has also ignored masturbation, which does not need a woman to occur. My opponent also seems to misunderstand what I mean by men ruling over women. Until recent times, men were the leaders in the army, the government, and the clergy. And they still mostly are. A relevant xkcd, 898, talks about this [4]. The alt-text is also relevant. However, the alt-text obviously says that the ruler of the world is whoever has enough money to buy ad time on Dora the Explorer. And who has the money? Men. The comic itself is also relevant, as it says that the man controlling the entire nuclear arsenal is actually the engineer who installed the red button. My opponent is saying that the women are like the engineer. There is not a single shred of evidence for this, however! Not a single shred! And again, who are the engineers? Mostly men. And comparisons between gender attractiveness is irrelevant. For some reason, I am unable to see the pictures that she posted, probably due to technical difficulties. However, guys are as fawned over as girls are. I mean, look at Benedict Cumberbatch. [5] I'm a straight guy, but I can totally understand why I would hit that. My opponent is, ironically, not thinking of women at all! Women get attracted to guys too! That awkward slant of skin? That could be a turn-on for a woman! So, women are far from holding down the sexy market. Thus, it is clear that men are the superior sex. Girls are obviously infected with gross cooties. Gross, anti-leadership cooties. [1] (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) [2] (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) [3] (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) [4] http://xkcd.com... [5] http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net...
In Retrospect Girls > Guys

DISCLAIMER: I do not think that men are inherently superior to women, or the reverse. Again, this is for sh*ts and giggles. What you see below isn't representative of my opinion. To be honest, what I say below is grossly misogynistic. According to the Abrahamic religions, Adam and Eve were the first humans. Note that I said "Adam and Eve" and not "Eve and Adam". Also, Eve was just Adam's ribs. Now, it is obvious that God, a divine being, thinks that guys are better than girls. Why should we doubt a divine being? Along with that, consider the majestic penis and the "patriarchy". It shall be clear that men are the superior sex. First, consider the majestic penis. Towering over six inches tall (well, one inch in my case, but I digress), it is a majestic construction of divine origin. It is constructed so that it will stay in a compact place when not used, and rise to its full glory when it is needed. Now, consider its counterpart, the vagina. The vagina's only purpose is to hold the penis, a mere sheath for the majestic sword of Excalibur. What does the vagina has that the penis does not? Nothing, as a vagina is, to use the most true definition, just a hole. Then, the patriarchy. Since almost the beginning of time, men has ruled over women. We've seen this all over the world, regardless of culture or race. Is it a natural course, for men to be better than women? I'm not saying it... but I'm holding up a big neon sign saying it. Is this a misogynistic way of thinking? Yes, but I have to be misogynistic for the purposes of this debate. Again, consider the warriors, the leaders, the priests... all men. Women may say that they actually rule over us because they nag so much, but we only give them lip service in exchange for some other lip service. The inherent superiority of the penis and men's better social standing obviously leads to the fact that boys rule and girls drool. It is merely biological fact, like young earth creationism or unicorns. Or young earth creationist unicorns. However, we cannot get rid of women; our sandwich supply would be greatly compromised. Thank you. DISCLAIMER: I'm not actually misogynistic, I promise! I felt really horrible saying all this stuff. Bla bla bla, my actual opinion is that all genders are inherently equal.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

As well as I have, time for concluding arguments. While I did say I partially agreed with my opponent, I do not think it necessary or resourceful to make such dents in our military budget. Especially since the U.S. has been involved in a large scale war in the middle east for over a decade. The only issue that I do believe you won out on is the wastefulness of the military and some of it's resources like ammunition. I hold my belief that our bases abroad, while fairly costly, does more good than harm. These bases are major support in peace keeping endeavors, and they would also be a huge advantage in actual war efforts. You could mobilize troops from anywhere in the continental U.S. to Japan. I also made a good point in that even mobilizing and sustaining an army is costly. Even more so when you constantly transport them to different areas. I gladly say the same and thank you for being my first opponent.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

Ok, as I agreed to, this round would be used for conclusions and reasons why you won, so no new rebuttals, or arguments. To summarize, the fact that there is much waste in the military indicates that the current defense budget is not completely needed, and we can cut some spending(about 100 billion) if we cracked down on the waste. In addition to this, I argued that the military bases over seas are not needed because we can respond within a week most likely if our allies were attacked. This would save over 100 billion dollars as well. I believe I have won this debate because I have presented how the military is needlessly spending a couple hundred billion dollars every year, which means we can decrease the budget by an amount greater than $100 billion which was my original argument. While I did misinterpret something my opponent said in round 2, the fact still stands that it would save more money to eliminate the over seas bases and instead spend money whenever we need to ship troops. Additionally, my point that our allies are at peace many more years than they are at war is a strong argument for why we don't need to wastefully spend money on military bases in their borders.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

Hold on there pal, I said that it costs around $800,000 dollars to maintain a soldier overseas like in Afghanistan. That 7.8 billion came from that cost, multiplied to the number of troops in the middle east alone. As Bob Dylan said,"Peace is the time it takes to re-load your rifle." Peace doesn't last long. Our troops are stationed in those bases to protect our allies from threats against them, and us. The very moment they are needed, they will be there. In days like these, time is very precious and something we should not waste. But also think of the political disputes. A good example is WW2. Joseph Stalin believed that Churchill and Roosevelt were plotting against him as Allied support was slim and the main of the Europe fighting was left to Russia. (Not exactly an over exaggeration.) So I say yes, cut down on some aspects, but the budget needs to remain above other countries to keep our role in global affairs.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

Yeah, I was wondering what you would disagree with, since you already stated you partially agree. While you say it costs 7.8 billion to ship 800,000 troops, I don't see how that is a logical argument. Think about it: it costs 150 billion EVERY YEAR to maintain those bases, which is nearly 20 times more than the cost of shipping them. For the most part, our allies are at peace for many more years than they are at war. We would be saving a LOT of money in the long-run if we didn't have to maintain our bases over seas and just shipped our soldiers when the need rises to defend an ally. There's really no reason to keep those bases that I see. Sure, our soldiers will be able to respond sooner to a threat if they're already there, but it would only delay them being there by a week maybe. No country has ever been taken over in a week, unless it was some tiny country like Liechtenstein or something.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

I will restate what I said before, I partially agree with you. Especially since this is the first time I have heard of the wasting of bullets on this scale. On the other hand, the bases abroad are obviously for the protection of our allies, where it wold be easier to station troops for use. There are about 800 U.S. military bases all around the world. The majority of which cropped up after WW2 as a means to prevent such a conflict and as a way of policing other nations. You said,"Let those countries defend themselves." If they are our allies, we have a relationship that makes it so we help each other out. (That does not mean they should be doing nothing in return though.) The estimates of how much it costs to ship and keep a soldier overseas is from around $800,000 to $1.2 MILLION per year. If we were to just send them over willy nilly, the cost would insurmountable. There are also an approximate 9800 troops stationed in Afghanistan alone. That multiplied by 800,000 equals $7,840,000,000. Before you lose your mind, do not the that this cost is the lower end and includes, ammunition, protection, weapons, other equipment, food, and water. This would be about the cost to ship troops overseas. My argument is over. Good luck to you.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

First, I wish to point out that there is massive waste that goes on in the military. Trillions of dollars per decade are wasted in the military for bureaucratic nonsense from the pentagon[1], to useless projects[2][3], to the military having to spend everything that is given to them or else they won't be approved for more money. Seriously, I've heard stories where soldiers have to fire all of their bullets before the end of the fiscal year so that they can be approved for new ones, if they instead were able to save those bullets, that would save some money. So, already nearly a hundred billion in military spending can be saved every year if we cut back on wasteful spending. Next, I'll point out the the US military has bases all over the world that require maintenance. There is no good reason for us to be in those other countries for the most part. Let those countries defend themselves. The US spends over $150 billion a year on over-seas bases [4]. We only need bases in the middle east at this point, so we can get rid of a vast majority of the bases we have. There is really no good reason to keep these bases, for they are no necessary for us to protect ourselves which is all we should be worried about. If a war were ever to happen where our ally is declared war upon, we can simply ship our troops over there, and we don't need the bases to be there to be maintained every year. I've basically argued all of my points and I turn this over to my opponent. [1] http://www.usnews.com... [2] http://www.forbes.com... [3] http://www.wwfor.org... [4] http://www.mintpressnews.com...
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

Hello! Good day to you. Let me just start off with a full acceptance to your format. I will just say that this is my first debate. I will say in part that I agree with your position only in certain circumstances. As of right now, we are still in conflict in the Middle East. Seeing as how that is the case, I do not believe any major military spending decreases are needed until the large conflicts are resolved.
The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

Alternatively, if con wishes, they may start their argument in round 1, but you must waive round 4 to keep the arguments even. If you choose to do that, here's what that structure would be for you: Round 1: Main argument Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Conclusion/reasons you believe you won Round 4: Waive this round by saying "I waive this around as agreed upon"
Computers are better then ps4

While the computer has many good qualities, the learning curve is a hard downfall that can make soft core players turn away. There is a reason that PC gamer's are known as "elitiers". It is because the PC gaming is based on a strictly competitive play, and the controls for the PC are not the best, sometimes you have to reach across the keyboard to do an action that would should be very easy to control. The PlayStation controls, on the other hand, are easy to learn and use. The learning curve is not near as steep because there are many more players that are just playing for fun, not for competition. While there are still players on the console that are hard to play against, you can easily just join another game and not have a huge hassle. Yes, the PC can be good for certain things, the console far outdoes it in player base and controls.