BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plants Should Have the Right to Vote

Resolution: Plants should have the right to vote. [This resolution is focused on the United States, but we are disregarding the the 18 year old minimum voting age]. Resolution defined in less ambiguous terms:Any organism within the kingdom Plantae ought to have the legal entitlement to the ability to make a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice. Rules: 1. Attacking the person, not the argument, is mean and not allowed in this debate (or any, really).2. Semantics aren't allowed, thanks.3. Sources are not required for this debate, so judges please do not count off either side for a lack of sources. Instead we will be using logical steps to prove our points, so use 'which side had better sources' for logic. Will report votes from judges that don't read this rule.4. Forfeiture does not make you lose all of your points (I hate debates that say that if you forfeit you lose automatically, we have lives, you know? ), but I'd appreciate it if you didn't. If I see a judge put 'ff' and nothing else then I am reporting their vote to be removed for not reading the rules of the debate.5. Practicality and implementation are not the core of this debate, so don't argue with those kind of points. We're debating on the ethics and morals of plants voting, not whether or not it will cost the government .51222% of the FDA's budget. My opponent will start in this round but waive the last round. Thanks again, looking forward to this debate.
Recent voter ID laws major purpose is to keep people from voting (details)

I would like to start out by saying that I am honored to debate with Willoweed regardin this topic. Good luck! I will be taking the position that the major purpose of recent voter ID laws is not to keep people who have the right to vote from voting (making the reasonable assumption that Pro isn't trying to force a semantics win by claiming recent voter ID laws stop people who shouldn't be voting from voting). Rebuttals: 1) Although Pro says "However, the fact remains that voter fraud really does not happen.", that is quite simply untrue. The Colorado Secretary of State's office determined that around 5,000 people who were not United States citizens, and therefore not eligible to vote, voted in the 2010 Senate Race. That doesn't really seem like voter fraud not actually happening [1]. 2) Seeing as voter fraud is arguably an issue, state governments might take time out of their day to stop it. Voter fraud cannot be disregarded so quickly. 3) The quote in this argument is taking out of context. Firstly, the state is offering free ID cards, the Republican Governor offered voters without ID cards free rides to state offices to get them last month, and most importantly the AP report actually says the exact opposite of what Pro claims. Statewide, estimations actually show that black and white voters are both being disenfranchised equally by the new voter ID laws, and it therefore cannot be said that blacks are being affected more than whites [2]. 4) Although some DMVs were closed, there are still areas in which the requisite IDs might be obtained. 5) It is true that at least 5,000,000 people showed up to vote and didn't, but according to the New York Times article Pro's source is based upon, many of the errors were clerical, that is, information incorrectly entered in databases, rather than not having the right ID. Furthermore, the article goes on to say that this is roughly equal to the number of voters who were deterred from voting in the 2000 election, which, if nothing else, shows that this is not a result of recent voter ID laws [3]. 6) According to the source Pro provides, 21,000,000 American voters do not have the voter ID required by the most draconian legislation. Unless all 21 million of those voters live in the same area, which would also have to be the strictest area in terms of ID legislation, it is unlikely that number of voters will be disenfranchised [4]. Conclusion: A government might enact laws that cost money and make voting harder in order that voting fraud might not occur. After all, you need to show a valid ID in order to board an airplane, rent a car, cash a check, buy liquor, enter offices buildings in metropolitan areas, and get married, so demonstrating a photo ID in order to vote is not a bizarre and pointless exercise. Sources: 1. http://www.usnews.com... 2. http://www.thesunnews.com... 3. http://www.nytimes.com... 4. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Recent voter ID laws major purpose is to keep people from voting (details)

1)The often said reason for these new voter ID laws is to prevent and to eliminate the problem of voter fraud. However the fact remains that voter fraud really does not happen. For example over a 5 year period the government found only 70 cases of voter fraud. http://www.factcheck.org... 2)So why would state governments take time out of their day to institute voter ID laws when there isn't a problem with voter fraud? Is it because they want to waste a billion dollars every 4 years in order to pay for the ID's? http://www.democrats.org... I doubt that is the reason. 3)Well let's see what a political strategist for the SC senate republican Caucus says about an AP report that voter ID laws are affecting blacks more than whites, his response was, "Nice! [this] proves EXACTLY why we need VOTER ID in SC." http://www.thesunnews.com... https://twitter.com... 4)Want to know what Wisconsin republicans did after they passed a law requiring voters to get special ID from the DMV in order to vote? Well they closed DMV's in heavily Black and democratic neighborhoods. http://wisconsinwave.org... http://www.searchingforchetbaker.com... 5)In 2008 alone at least 5 million people showed up to vote but found that they either did not have the right ID or had been purged from the voter rolls. http://www.opednews.com... 6)How many more people will be unable to vote in 2012 because of new voter laws? Well 21 million American voters currently do not contain the proper voter ID's the new laws require. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Conclusion: The only reason a government would enact laws that waste billions of dollars and makes it so harder for everyone to vote and makes it so millions are unable to vote on election day is because that government wants to keep people from voting.
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

"Umm no, if you don't have an iphone, you can't text other devices that aren't from apple"I wasn't referring to the Nokia. You can purchase much earlier models of the iPhone to be able to do all of the things you have listed. " I love instagram, youtube, and I always have lots of photos."All of that can be done on the previous models of the iPhone - not just the iPhone 5c."A phone could keep me safe and could let me have conversations with my friends and family on a new, updated, full storage, phone."I suggest the iPhone 5 - it's cheaper than the 5c and can do everything you have listed.Conclusion:Pro has dropped the argument about costs, and hasn't provided enough evidence for why she would definitely need the iPhone 5c, because all of the prerequisites she listed are fulfilled by much cheaper devices.
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

Umm no, if you don't have an iphone, you can't text other devices that aren't from apple. And I love instagram, youtube, and I always have lots of photos. I bet you can't even have those on that phone and I bet it doesn't have a lot of storage. And no, I promise you I could ask any of my friends "do you like my new phone" (if i had the nokia) and they would probably say things like: "no, it looks old", or "no, those arent popular'. I don't really care about popularity, thats why I want the 5c instead of the 6 plus. Another reason is that I could be much more safe with a phone than without, plying outside with my friends is not really safe without a phone. A phone could keep me safe and could let me have conversations with my friends and family on a new, updated, full storage, phone.
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

"Because, that phone looks pretty old and crappy."Pro uses subjective opinion as an objective proof... However, opinion from all frame of references are equally valid. It could look "old and crappy" to one, but "sexy, absolutely tantalising, 'OMG I NEED THIS PHONE'" to others. "if my phone died, I could ask someone for a charger"This is an appeal to extremes fallacy."With that Nokia thing, no one would ever have a charger."Bare assertion."they would probably want to talk to me, and I have to have an iPhone to talk to people with an email for Imessage."One can do that without necessarily purchasing an iPhone 5c.
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

Because, that phone looks pretty old and crappy. If I were to get a phone, could it at least be a nice one??! Besides, I would never know how to work the phone. And, I can guarantee that people would make fun of me because I had a stupid phone. It's much more convenient to have an apple device, that's the phone that most people have, so if my phone died, I could ask someone for a charger. With that Nokia thing, no one would ever have a charger. And for my younger friends, or friends with no phone but just an iPad or iPod, they would probably want to talk to me, and I have to have an iPhone to talk to people with an email for Imessage.
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

Pro's argument assumes the following syllogism.P1: Pro needs to be able to communicateP2: The iPhone 5c allows Pro to communicateC: Therefore, Pro should get the iPhone 5cBut... How does this necessarily mean that she needs the iPhone 5c? I mean, if communication is the issue, why wouldn't one purchase a Nokia 3310? It is far cheaper than the iPhone 5c... If one were to buy a used Nokia it would cost one only £13!(1) Approximately £300 less than the iPhone 5c (2).Therefore, Pro should not purchase the iPhone 5c, and purchase the Nokia Brick instead.(1) http://www.amazon.co.uk...(2) http://store.apple.com...
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

OKAY, so I live in New Jersey and I am originally from Georgia. I have my dad and step mom there, also my brother and sister, most of my family, and my friends. It would be nice to actually get to communicate with them. And it is a good way to learn some responsibility. I wouldn't play on it all the time and I wouldn't let it distract me from more important things. I have promised my Mom and stepdad that I will do chores and work for it but they still say no. I really don't get it, all of my friends have one too and they are either 11 or 12. I just think it would actually b nice if I could talk to my family/friends and not have to be at home to do it, and besides, no one wants to carry around an ipad when they are waiting for their aunt, cousin etc to respond to a text or call you back.
I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c

No. You should have chicken tikka masala instead Ingredients:4 tbsp vegetable oil25g butter4 onions, roughly chopped6 tbsp chicken tikka masala paste (use shop-bought or make your own - see recipe, below)2 red peppers, deseeded and cut into chunks8 boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into 2" cm cubes2 x 400g cans chopped tomatoes4 tbsp tomato pur"e2-3 tbsp mango chutney150ml double cream150ml natural yogurtchopped coriander leaves Method:Heat the oil and butter in a large, lidded casserole on the hob, then add the onions and a pinch of salt. Cook for 15-20 mins until soft and golden. Add the paste and peppers, then cook for 5 mins more to cook out the rawness of the spices.Add the chicken and stir well to coat in the paste. Cook for 2 mins, then tip in the tomatoes, pur"e and 200ml water. Cover with a lid and gently simmer for 15 mins, stirring occasionally, until the chicken is cooked through.Remove the lid, stir through the mango chutney, cream and yogurt, then gently warm through. Season, then set aside whatever you want to freeze (see tips, below). Scatter the rest with coriander leaves and serve with basmati rice and naan bread. (1) With the money required to buy said iPhone, one could purchase a more beneficial luxury - chicken tikka masala. Therefore, Pro should not get the iPhone 5c. (1) http://www.bbcgoodfood.com...
The story of Noah's Ark most likely never happend

I believe that the first chapters of bible such as genesis and Exodus are chiefly metaphorical and that God does most things through a natural way not just plopping it into reality. So I think that his might be the answer to your theory about Noah arl, that it was all just a big metaphor or exaggerated. Remember before it was written the bible was passed down orally so many facts could be changed.
The story of Noah's Ark most likely never happend

1. The ark was simply not large enough. The book of Genesis clearly states that Noah was commanded to built an ark of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward", and an entrance on the side. That is not enough room to fit every animal on this boat. 2. None of the sea life would have survived the great flood. There would be salt water mixing with fresh, Ph levels would be crazy, and sea pressure would kill most life in the ocean. 3. There scientifically had to be more than two of each species or else there would be server genetic defects. There has to be at least 50 of one species to hold a stable population. 4. There would be no food for the animals once they got off. The herbivores would have no vegetation to eat and the carnivores could not eat anything either. If they did, an entire species would go extinct. references: ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 279. Jump up ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 280-282. ^ Jump up to: a b Gooder 2005, p. 38. ^ Jump up to: a b Knight 1990, p. 175-176. Jump up ^ Kessler & Deurloo 2004, p. 81. Jump up ^ Bandstra 2009, p. 61, 62. Jump up ^ Bottero (2001:21"22) Jump up ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 282. Jump up ^ McKeown 2008, p. 55. Jump up ^ Avigdor Nebenzahl, Tiku Bachodesh Shofer: Thoughts for Rosh Hashanah, Feldheim Publishers, 1997, p.208 Noah's Ark found? Not so fast Latest Ark finding is a fake Flood of claims for 'Noah's Ark' Dictionary of the Bible Wright, George Henry Bateson. Was Israel ever in Egypt? London: Williams & Norgate, 1895. A friend dared me to create this debate. I happily agreed. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
The story of Noah's Ark most likely never happend

"I believe that the first chapters of bible such as genesis and Exodus are chiefly metaphorical and that God does most things through a natural way not just plopping it into reality. So I think that his might be the answer to your theory about Noah arl, that it was all just a big metaphor or exaggerated. Remember before it was written the bible was passed down orally so many facts could be changed." I already understand this. You should be arguing why you think the story is true. Or else why did you challenge me?
Cannabis should be sold by government-licensed outlets to adults

"1. Production, distribution and sale is in the hands of criminal organisations which may use the profit to finance serious crimes, and in any case deprive the government of revenue"Cannabis is one of the main sources of wealth for the Mexican drug cartels [1], and the death toll of the Mexican drug war may stands at between 60,000 to 100,000. [2][3]"2. Little to no information is made available to the user regarding the composition and potency of the cannabis, and the cannabis may be adulterated with unexpected or harmful substances"Some cannabis has been found to be adulterated with lead [4] and glass [5], while hashish has been contaminated with henna, turpentine, faeces, boot polish and tranquilisers. [6] It is quite obvious that dealers may lack and / or fail to provide accurate information regarding the potency and compositon of the cannabis they are selling."3. Sufferers of disabling medical conditions have restricted access to cannabis, while children are able to freely purchase it."This seems to be a very simple point. Consider an elderly woman confined to a wheelchair who needs cannabis for medicinial purposes such as to treat pain or nausea. [7][8][9] Clearly, she will find it far more difficult to purchase cannabis from the black market than a fourteen year old, as it comes as a surprise to not one person that dealers do not care about the age of their customers.4. It is immoral to punish someone for harmlessly exercising their autonomy, and the illegality of cannabis goes some way to justifying the cruel stigmatisation of users“[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” - J.S. Mill [10][1] http://www.npr.org...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://abcnews.go.com...[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[6] http://ukcia.org...[7] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[9] http://books.google.co.uk...;[10] http://www.iep.utm.edu...;
Cannabis should be sold by government-licensed outlets to adults

The gateway theory is utter nonsense. Our culture, and in fact almost the whole world, perceives cannabis as the "softest" illegal drug, and it is the one which is most available [1] " these factors make it abundantly clear that cannabis will in all likelihood be the first illegal drug taken by an individual, and the fact that other drug use occurs later is nothing to do with cannabis use having occurred first. As the Institute of Medicine states: "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs". [2] Now, you claim that the Netherlands has a drug problem, but I don"t think this is the case at all. When compared to America, the Dutch have a significantly lower prevalence of cannabis usage and the prevalence of heroin usage in the Netherlands is one third of America"s. [3] In any case, I think you can find areas of all major cities where drugs are readily available. Oh, and by the way, what exactly are the problems associated with other drugs? It is interesting that you mention alcohol. Professor David Nutt hypothesises that bringing Dutch-style "coffeeshops" to Britain would reduce alcohol use by 25%, and I believe the reduction would come in the way of reducing excessive drinking by providing an alternative to pubs and clubs. [4] I accept that alcohol does cause a lot of problems, but nonetheless I would be willing to defend its legality, particularly on the grounds of preventing organised crime and the benefits of moderate consumption; however, more to the point, cannabis would not cause similar harm. Cannabis does not cause a hangover nor do its users typically display violent behaviour " quite the opposite, in fact. The long-term 'damage' caused by cannabis is an issue of contention, but it seems that if it does cause damage, it is negligible. Yes, we should legalise another drug. The prohibition of alcohol was a catastrophe; the prohibition of cannabis is simply a catastrophe on a smaller scale. [1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://books.nap.edu... [3] http://www.drugwarfacts.org... [4] http://www.theguardian.com...
Cannabis should be sold by government-licensed outlets to adults

Anyone travelling to Amsterdam on vacation will quickly realise some of the implications of selling weed legally. Several of the downtown districts are awash with ALL of the other drugs which cannabis is a gateway to and the associated problems that they bring. Since Amsterdam is a modern, bustling city in a developed country, there is no reason to believe that any other modern city in another developed country would not end up in the same way. The only legal drug - alcohol - is responsible for enormous financial, social and criminal strain on western society - the British government regularly release statistics related to the cost alcohol incurs on British society: $Billions each year are wasted on their national health service, alcohol related crime and social issues account for over half the total reported cases of abuse and violent crime not to mention lost days at work etc. etc.. Should we really legalise another drug???
Cannabis should be sold by government-licensed outlets to adults

Cannabis causes the greatest harm when it is illegal, and when legal, is beneficial in many ways. Furthermore, the best way to utilise the benefits of the legality of cannabis and further decrease any harm it may cause is to sell it at a low cost and provide labelling detailing the ratios of psychoactive compounds and the concentration of them, with this regulation being carried out by the government. Crucial problems generated by illegality: 1. Production, distribution and sale is in the hands of criminal organisations which may use the profit to finance serious crimes, and in any case deprive the government of revenue 2. Little to no information is made available to the user regarding the composition and potency of the cannabis, and the cannabis may be adulterated with unexpected or harmful substances 3. Sufferers of disabling medical conditions have restricted access to cannabis, while children are able to freely purchase it. 4. It is immoral to punish someone for harmlessly exercising their autonomy, and the illegality of cannabis goes some way to justifying the cruel stigmatisation of users The benefits of legality are mainly the opposite of the complaints above, with the exception of: it is a possibility that establishments similar to the Dutch 'coffeeshops' will reduce excessive consumption of alcohol by providing alternative entertainment. No anarchists please. I wouldn't feel comfortable defending the legitimacy of the government - this debate is focused strictly on cannabis.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

I negate the resolution. Steve Young: 7ï¿½ Pro Bowl selection (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998) 3ï¿½ First-Team All-Pro selection (1992, 1993, 1994) 3ï¿½ Second-Team All-Pro selection (1995, 1997, 1998) 3ï¿½ Super Bowl champion (XXIII, XXIV, XXIX) Super Bowl XXIX MVP 2ï¿½ NFL MVP (1992, 1994) 2ï¿½ PFWA NFL MVP (1992, 1994) 2ï¿½ NEA NFL MVP (1992, 1994) 1992 NFL Offensive Player of the Year 2ï¿½ UPI NFC Player of the Year (1992, 1994) 2ï¿½ Bert Bell Award (1992, 1994) 1983 Davey O'Brien Award San Francisco 49ers #8 retired 2009 NCAA Silver Anniversary Award Records 96.8 career QB Rating 43 career QB Rushing Touchdowns 6 TD passes in a Super Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_football)) Joe Montana: 8ï¿½ Pro Bowl selection (1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993) 3ï¿½ First-Team All-Pro selection (1987, 1989, 1990) 3ï¿½ Second-Team All-Pro selection (1981, 1983, 1984) 4ï¿½ Super Bowl champion (XVI, XIX, XXIII, XXIV) 3ï¿½ Super Bowl MVP (1981, 1984, 1989) 2ï¿½ AP NFL MVP (1989, 1990) 1989 PFWA NFL MVP 1989 NEA NFL MVP 1989 NFL Offensive Player of the Year 1986 NFL Comeback Player of the Year 1981 UPI NFC Player of the Year 1989 Bert Bell Award 1979 Cotton Bowl MVP San Francisco 49ers #16 retired TD-INT 273-139 Yards 40,551 QB Rating 92.3 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Vote neg because I gave sources. And his case had no substance.