BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Controlled legalization of all drugs is good for America.

I don't endorse drug use of any kind, legal or illegal. As horrible as it is; drug abuse is ruining lives, and always has, and always will. Even in the highly controlled environment of federal prisons. Drug use, without abuse, has been proven, based on the oceans of alchol consumed without incident, to be not a problem. My whole point is that fighting the drug war is expensive to taxpayers, ineffective, and also funds violence through the black market for drugs. As an aside, is it better to put people in prison to save them from drug use/abuse?
Controlled legalization of all drugs is good for America.

But, anyways, I don't think that there is such thing as controlled legalization of drugs. There are so many drugs out there, that it is almost impossible to control such an amount of illegal drugs in America. There are about 14.8 million americans that use Marijuana, 2.4 million users of Cocaine, and 731,002 users of Methamphetamine. There are many undercover vendors that supply them, and since there are so much drugs in this country, its almost impossible to control. If drugs are ruining lives, how is it benifical to America? Please post an argument answering that.
Controlled legalization of all drugs is good for America.

If controlled legalization, similar to alchohol, was put into law, Americans would be better off. Based on limited information available, it appears that drug use in America is largely unaffected by the war on drugs. Drug users are plentiful. If only 10% of the money spent on the war was put towards education, there would be less use by an educated consumer. The cost savings, by my research, would reduce the federal budget deficit by 20%. Legalization will eliminate the thrill factor for adults, so usage would drop. Ingredient control, and portion sizes would reduce harm to users. Mexico has legalized small amounts for personal use, and my research shows that drug used has not increased.
I shall put a tariff on any food sent to me by any DDO member

I still feel strongly you should not place tariffs on food stuffs DDO members send you for reasons stated in R1. If you don’t like a particular product, make someone happy and pass it on. It is better to give than receive, isn’t it? Spread some joy around. Tariffs will only lead to unemployment and more sad people in the world; we already have enough people walking around with boo boo faces. Also, didn’t your parents teach you how to be gracious when receiving gifts? Always smile and say thank you. Don’t hurt the feelings of fellow DDOans by rejecting or taxing their gifts; it’s just poor form and bad manners. Rebuttal: On the topic of Canadian bacon; just for arguments sake let’s rename it Canadian ham. You like ham; don’t let to word bacon get in the way. Better now? Now be a good gastronome and try that recipe I sent you. Also, not all bacon around the world is served crunchy. Many Yugoslavs like to eat their cured bacon raw [1]. Oh, and we do have a meeting of the minds on one thing, gummy bears. We have pounds of this wonderful chewy product in our home. Rebuttal: You Tube video: Vomit cake has nothing to do with bacon or tariffs. Rebuttal: Yes, I do have a job and I like it. Not many people can say they like their jobs; hardly pathetic. You don’t have a job and live in your parent’s basement; pitiful. Grammar correction: “I fornicate with people like you”. And sorry, I’m flattered but, I’m have no interest in Canadian bacon bigots. In summary: You have yet to uphold any solid intellection why an imposition of tariffs on food stuffs sent to you would be constructive. I have presented an argument to the contrary without any substantive rebuttal presented by you. (How’s that for vocabulary!) Back to you DAX 1.http://rosemarybaileybrown.blogspot.com...
I shall put a tariff on any food sent to me by any DDO member

Canadian bacon is horrible. Who the hell wants to bite into so called "bacon" and eat something chewy? Bacon should be crunchy. Leave gummy bears chewy, keep bacon crunchy. Fancy words? I can say them too! I DISLIKE your taste in bacon. I RECCOMEND that you change it. Until then, I bid you FAREWELL! My VOCABULARY is better than yours.That's a nice recipy you have there. I have a better one though."After a 12 hour work day dealing with the football fanatic drunk public, I’m a bit punchy, please forgive."\LOL YOU HAVE A JOB!!!! Pathetic! I fornicate people like you! o ya bby gimme summa dat employed diiiiicccchromic acid. wait wut?
I shall put a tariff on any food sent to me by any DDO member

There is no such thing as bad bacon. You do not need to amass funds to defer what you call bad bacon. The bacon you think you don't like is a matter of not knowing how to cook or use it. Don't let ignorance rule your palette. If you need assistance with your bacon peccadilloes just ask, I am an experienced cook in all things bacon. You snapper head! It's blasphemy to have disdain for Canadian bacon. My Canadian heritage cringes at your slight. I am not a heretic traitor of America, I am part of the American melting pot. I do not cower in fear of anyone! I stand tall and large with a hefty vocabulary that does my bidding; I’m no mauviette. And swine? Isn’t this part of the topic you toton! Canadian bacon is more like ham, but it comes from the tender eye of loin and doesn't have the shrinkage of typical American style bacon; no one likes shrinkage, least of all me. Below is a recipe that will change your mind on Canadian bacon. When you try it you will be all likie, likie. Afterwards, then, and only then, I will share my eggs Benedict with Canadian bacon recipe. "1 cup elbow macaroni 6 slices Canadian-style bacon 2 tablespoons margarine 2 1/2 tablespoons all-purpose flour 1 cup canned tomatoes, half-drained 1 cup shredded Cheddar cheese" “Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Add macaroni and cook for 8 to 10 minutes or until al dente; drain. While macaroni is boiling, fry bacon and place on paper towels to drain. Cut into bite size pieces. Melt margarine in a large saucepan over medium low heat. Stir in flour, then tomatoes and wait for sauce to thicken, stirring occasionally. When thickness is to your liking, stir in cheese until it has melted. Stir in cooked macaroni and bacon and heat through. Serve hot.” Big thanks on the jewellery giveaway, but I happened to notice most of it is slush metal. You’d aim to turn my limbs and pieces green, wouldn't you? Thanks for nothing slack wad. After a 12 hour work day dealing with the football fanatic drunk public, I’m a bit punchy, please forgive. http://www.foodterms.com... http://allrecipes.com...
I shall put a tariff on any food sent to me by any DDO member

Hello! I don't disagree WITH THE FACT THAT bacon a good product. However, I need money to set up a system where the good bacon can get to me and the bad bacon can leave me alone. An example of this is the evil menace known as Canadian bacon. Wtf were they thinking? I mean really, surely even Con agrees with me on that one right?...Right? "One of my personal favorites with all its wonderful hamminess is Canadian bacon. The backbone of many a Chinese meal is an air cured bacon with a hint of soy. No Swiss holiday or smorgasbord would be the same without bauchspeck, this splendid birch smoked beauty."YOU TRAITOR! PATHETIC SWINE! THIS IS AMERICA! HOW DARE YOU! CANADIAN BACON IS BLASPHEMY! HERETICS LIKE YOU HAVE NO PLACE IN SOCIETY!(Peepette cowers in fear). I'm sorry buddy, I've just had a long day today. It's ok though, have my jewelry.IS WHAT I WOULD SAY... IF I WAS YOUR MOM! Probably not the jewelry part, though. Jewelry is expensive. Just like recieving bacon is, which is why I need tariffs.vœtë prô
I shall put a tariff on any food sent to me by any DDO member

I can’t urge you strongly enough NOT to place tariffs on the bacon you receive. It will become too expensive to send you this wonderful and versatile pork product. As of 2014, 80% of Americans consumed bacon. Its rate of consumption has risen 1% per year since 2010. You can't dilute these numbers. I think of all the types of bacon you must be receiving. I can just smell it sizzling now. Don’t begrudge your family and friends of all this beautiful product. You know it tastes good. Can you think of a time when someone was ever disappointed when seeing bacon on a plate, baring any religious taboo? Oh, the marvelous types of bacon that must live in your fridge. A German beech wood cold smoked bacon, the simple yet sublime Korean samgyeopsal-gui, the ubiquitous pancetta that makes carbanarra divine and so many more. One of my personal favorites with all its wonderful hamminess is Canadian bacon. The backbone of many a Chinese meal is an air cured bacon with a hint of soy. No Swiss holiday or smorgasbord would be the same without bauchspeck, this splendid birch smoked beauty. Think of all the people you might put out of work from Bacon Freak and Bacon of the Month Clubs. Do you really want to place tariffs that might result in unemployment from pig farmers, curing houses, distribution networks to supermarkets? I think not. There is a greater good to think about. http://www.thedailymeal.com... http://www.baconfreak.com... http://grillingwithrich.com...
Gun Control

Yes, it is true that you have given some relatively convincing statistics but you conveniently left out the other side of the argument. To represent my side, here are some statistics quoted from a website: There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%). Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson"s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents. However, everyone can quote statistics, so now, I will be moving on to the main pointers of my arguments. In present times, it has never been more pressing to impose gun control laws not only in the United States but also in the world. People are becoming increasingly radicalized in today's society, with the rampage of ISIS groups and supporters throughout the world. Maybe the part about removing all radicals from the US is highly improbable but why then. should we provide these radicals with unrestricted access to firearms? Have you ever wondered how easy it is to acquire fire arms in America? With the present gun control "laws" in America, it makes America extremely prone not only to external threats but threats within the nation itself. This is evident from the number of shooting cases happening in recent years. Therefore, doesn't the government's reluctance to impose stricter gun control laws similar to digging our own graves? Sure you may argue that guns are necessary to protect our individual rights, but at what cost? At the cost of a few thousand other lives in America? At the cost of our sovereignty? At the cost of the whole country? Think about it, an individual won't exist without a nation and a the fragile concept of a "nation" can easily be destroyed by the mere spread of radical ideologies and a few more shooting cases. Take Singapore for example. This country has extremely strict gun control laws and yet its crime rate is one of the lowest in the world? This proves that gun control is not an absolute criterion for the safety of individuals as other measures can be put in place. I am proud to propose
Gun Control

The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Thank you
If Donald Trump becomes president he will be able to force Mexico to pay for the wall

Ok, sure, the embargo will have effect, more than what I assumed. But there is some negativity that might occur. First, the wall is going to stop illegal immigrants. What about the ones that want to emigrate and become legal immigrants. How would that work. Also, it isn't the presidents call to embargo a country unless Congress passes it, which I doubt they will. I mean, they will agree that this plan will help control the immigration population, but if Mexico doesn't agree, then he can't do much. It's all Congress that does the work. Donald Trump can't do anything more. And he can't control who is and isn't in Congress. It is up to the states to decide who is the House of Reps and Senate. Donald Trump simply doesn't have the power. That being said, Mexico won't agree with the terms.
If Donald Trump becomes president he will be able to force Mexico to pay for the wall

"Also, it's 180 billion." I am not quite sure what "it" is. Is "it" referring to the wall? Could you provide a source or two if it is? Rebuttal It appears as though you are underestimating the effect that an embargo could bring. Yes, Mexico has other trade partners, but the US is the primary one. 80.6%* of exports out of Mexico are to the US. 48.8%* of imports are from the US, with the next largest import partners being China and Japan with a mere 16.6%* and 4.4%, respectively. Sure, Mexico would still have trade partners, but it would not be enough to maintain their economy. If a trade embargo was placed on Mexico, it would be forced to concede and build the wall. If they didn't, their economy would likely crash and burn. I would also like to correct my price of 10 billion USD to anywhere from 15-25 billion USD (2). 180 billion USD is much too high, though. *Numbers have been updated according to a more valid source (1) (1) https://www.cia.gov... (2) http://www.cnbc.com...
If Donald Trump becomes president he will be able to force Mexico to pay for the wall

The thing is, the embargo won't do much. Sure, it will have an effect, but remember that Mexico has many trade partners, like Canada, Germany, Japan, China, South Korea, Spain, and Brazil. Also, it's 180 billion. I don't care it it is greater than the 10 billion you said, it is wrong. It's called debate, and this is officially in-bound.
If Donald Trump becomes president he will be able to force Mexico to pay for the wall

If Donald Trump becomes president, it will be very easy for him to force Mexico to build/pay for the wall. I'll give one way DT could do this: He could threaten to place a trade embargo on Mexico. The US is one of Mexico's most fruitful trade partners. 78.8% of Mexico's exports are to the US, and 49.1% of Mexico's imports are from the US. The next largest import partner is China with only 16.1%. If a trade embargo were to be placed on Mexico, it would lose its largest trade partner and it's economy would plummet. This is definitely something Mexico would want to prevent from happening. So, if Donald Trump threatened Mexico to pay for and build the wall, saying he would put in place a trade embargo, it would be dumb of Mexico to decline. If would hurt Mexico more to lose their primary trade partner than it would to lose 10 billion dollars (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

Companion, warm and fuzzy feeling generator; you just playing semantics, and a misconceiving set of semantics at that. The term ‘companion should truly just be reserved for the ‘real deal' companionship that only comes from sacs of water (humans) when referring to a human the term companionship is full of meaning. When the word is used though to describe what you get from a dog, it truly means no more than ‘warm and fuzzy generator' that's the peak degree of ‘companionship you get out of an animal. To get anything more requires something as advance as a human. As for the muzzle solution, you have to take it of sometime to feed it. this is not a problem that can be mechanically solved. As for the training solution They are not worth time and resources to put into that. Between the option of taking months of time to train you harmful dog into a non-harmful dog you could have easily just gotten a new one. You don't actually HAVE to let it live either. Its going to die anyway. And fairly soon compared to how long you live. Especially if don't keep it chained up. (gets near the road, car comes, doesn't slow down…) Sending it somewhere else does not change the fact that it will die anyway. And it worsens the condition of dog as far as being violent goes. It's an observed fact by animal shelter owners that dogs that have been given up by former masters are scared by the event for what I can only assume is the rest of their life. You say it is game over but for who? You can continue to play the ‘game' of pretending to have human companionship with another dog just find after the old one is dead. You say that that dog could make some-else happy. Would you rob the animal that has attacked no one from the chance to make that same human happy so that the defected one could ‘try' again. People deserved the best, not the ‘used' stuff. People should invest their money in working dogs that have no history of malfunctioning. I enjoyed this debate as well.
If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

I apologize for being late, and would just quickly like to say something. You have reasonable arguments, and so do I. We seem to have conflicting opinions on the meaning of the word 'dog'. I, having a pet, see it as an companion and a friend, you see it as a kind of meat machine that wags its tail and makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. The debate has somewhat switched from the original topic to something like this : 'Dogs are companions'. If that is what you want to debate about, then fine. I'd be happy to debate that with you. So, lets assume regardless of the way we regard the animal, what should be done in the situation if a dog bites a person. What should be done? And why? 1. Even if it is an 'item' as Pro says, we become attached to such items. We don't want to see them go. And many many dogs could be saved if we use other methods to 'tame the wild beast'. I'll show you two. 1. A muzzle. The dog can't bite anyone with a muzzle on, and wouldn't bite the master. Problem solved, no bloodshed involved. 2. Training. Dogs can be trained. They may not fully recover from their 'bad side' but they learn to curb it, and ignore everyone around them. It can, and has been done several times. 2. You don't actually HAVE to kill the dog. You can put it up for adoption, or to a pound. If they die, it's game over. They don't have another chance of living. However, if they live, then they can be trained and go to a new home. You wouldn't have to do a thing, and the animal has a chance to make someone happy. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It was a very interesting one, and I enjoyed it. Vote Con. Thank you.
If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

You want me to argue about your points and mine with the short 2,000 character limit? challenge accepted. For starters on your points; I can not believe you actually think a dogs companionship even hold a candle to that companionship from a partner or children give. they are not even in the same league and thus cannot be compared as the same. For those that know the companionship that people can provide they would fast say that is REAL companionship and that of a dog is just a fake illusion pretending to be it. Even though that illusion-like companionship is their purpose for us, if they begin to defect they still need put down, then you buy a new one. Any type of attacking nature coming from a dog is the beginning of their of becoming a defect dog. it would not be wise to wait until they deteriorate enough to be bloodthirsty, the kind of dog even Con admitted should be put down. It does not matter how this mind defect is caused, (scared, hungry, territorial) what matters is that it has begun. Dogs may be able to think but not in the same way humans do and thus they don't get the same consideration for why the would kill 'enemies'. Humans are the masters and dogs are to be the servants. my opponent would be mad to argue we should deviate from that status-quo at all, for it would mean considering ourselves equally with those dogs witch we obviously are superior beings to. Dogs are not that different than robots. like Con said we humans have chosen their purpose. with robots we choose the purpose as well as we make them. the only deference is our choice for dogs was limited to what they naturally could be used for. We should not be afraid to put them down thinking it somehow ' a cruel extreme', the dog is but down in a painless fashion and their can be no 'cruel extreme' in the dogs case anyway cause it is after all just a dog. An animal. What you do with animals is good or bad only in the logistical sense, productive or wasteful.
If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

I also thank you for your speedy response. Firstly, against your argument, I don't think that dogs are robots. Saying such a thing would imply that they are 'meat machines' which is of course not true. They are COMPANIONS, in the same way children or a partner would be. Robots are completely different than dogs. Robots are specifically designed for a PURPOSE, while dogs were made by nature, and have be chosen by humans to be companions, and friends. They are sentient creatures, and there is a thought process that happens in the dog's mind before the dog attacks. This reason is mainly because they are SCARED. For example, in a war, if a soldier was scared and surrounded by 'enemies', they would immediately grab and shoot everyone dead. The dog is acting in mainly the same way. The difference - for the human, it's self-defense. The dog - is of course a blood-thirsty killer. (Sarcasm). I also request that my opponent argues about my points, as well as adding their argument afterwards. Thank you.
If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

. http://www.youtube.com... now with the clarification made that 'attacks' does not mean bloodthirsty ripping a person apart, I admit this a much less reasonably arguable position to say we should put down dogs for more miner things. But I believe there is a workable case for the Pro side in this debate, and it may surprise you that to understand it we must first consider our wants in making robots (should we ever make any). I am talking about Asimov's law of Robotics. . http://en.wikipedia.org... You of course wouldn't want any kind of harmful behavior to exist in robots, they are designed (in dogs case trained) to be used for our good. A robot that can harm has deviated from our interest to interest of its own. How does that connect to dog's? well, the truth of the matter is optimally we don't want dogs to disobey any of these three laws either. And as far as a resolution concerned with what we 'should' do what is the optimally desired situation we 'should' peruse. If a dog ever attacks a Human, its breaking the first law. robots that break the law self destruct (see video starting @ 5:35). This is done for our good (we humans). So likewise is this same disposal method needed to handle dogs that break Asimov's laws.