BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana is [Fill in Adjective here]

THE 4/20 GREAT DEBATE. Rules are simple: 1. If you accept then you finish the resolution by adding an adjective or adjective-phrase. 2. It cannot be a word/phrase that is nonsensical, unless to be funny. In other words, leave some ground for me to defend. No setting yourself up for an easy, serious semantics argument.3. I will defend your finished resolution.4. Ideally, this is for fun.
We should Nuke the ourselves.

I would first like to apologize for not being able to completely understand English that sounds like a four year old writing his every thought as it comes. But based on what I comprehend from your post, I disagree with you, on just about every point. Firstly regarding illegal immigrants, The matter of the debate was nuking USA, so you would either have to get all of them out or find some bomb that doesnt affect them but affects Americans (good luck doing that). They are humans who are alive so since the propostion is nuking America and they are not of America, they cannot be nuked so you have to explain how you would do this great plan of yours. Secondly, I will respond to the people who you said are bad, showing they are not that bad. The bad feminists you are talking about are those who are extremists, and you know well that they are not the majority. You indicated that not all are bad, and so they are a minority of the population so are not a reason to nuke everybody. Plus, feminism just means equality despite gender so I am unsure how anyone would get that bad, but I concede some idiots might have found a way. The video game banners that you speak of, obviously arent doing a good job because there are millions of games available on the market. I was actually playing video games until I made this post, and if video gamers constituted a majority of the US, that wouldn't happen. Both groups you mentioned now, along with Trump and Miley and none good enough reasons to nuke all of America. I showed the good things America did by pointing out the billion dollar companies such as Apple, Google, Intel, Windows, and so many others that are used WORLDWIDE. I emphasize worldwide becasue that is a reason for the world to keep America, whereas all the reasons you have given me are based on your personal preferences, so it is what you should do.Correct me if I'm not wrong but you are saying we should nuke North Korea? I do not understand what reason you tried to give there, but its something about them having to not nuke America anymore so kill them too. Well, I think you ignored my whole last post and all the entertaining pictures because I said Kim Jung Un's goal is to eat everything, not necessarily kill. So their purpose of eating America is not completed and your logic doesnt follow through. So dear voters, just vote Con and side with me so you do not have to bear the bad grammar of this individual who still hasn't made a case. Since you havent refuted anything I said, we should nuke North Korea, and since I have refuted everything you said we should not nuke America. Hence, you lose unless you give some solid reasons.
We should Nuke the ourselves.

I concede Trump and Miley Cyrus are people who should be eradicated, but have you considered who else you'd be killing too?America is home to a ton of illegal immigrants from Mexico and so you'd be killing them too. These Mexicans are not over weight, nor that bad but our gardeners so what about them. Miley Cyrus and Trump are pretty big problems, but as of late Miley Cyrus seems to actually have shut up, and her last notable stupid act was the Wrecking ball which was in 2013, and right now we are in 2016 so I'd assume we are well past that. And Trump actually wants to make a huge border, and the secret behind it is that the goal of it is to get all the illegal mexicans can go back, and then since only Americans will be in America, you can properly nuke yourselves. Hence, Trump is actually trying to help your cause, and Miley has learnt to shut up a bit so America is not as bad as it could be and should not be nuked.On the other hand, If we nuke North Korea, consider all the possibilities. Kim Jong Un is a fat dumbass who only thinks about eating everything; Just consider these pictures. Not only that, but he was found very pissed on Christmas when he found out what Santa had done. Due to all the pressure and disappointment of not beingable to eat whatever he wants, he has resorted to just nuking everything. However this was when he found that he, along with the rest of the country, are all midgets and so cannot do that. So, Instead of nuking America, I say we go nuke North Korea and end the struggle of Kim Jung Un and the rest of his country who have to deal with him.
We should Nuke the ourselves.

Although the debate topic is we should nuke ourselves, I assume that you are specifically talking about America. I am not American and so do not know why you should nuke yourself, so please do explain. As far as I can see, America has given us a lot of amazing things; such as Hollywood, Google, Apple, and countless other things. What I say we do is nuke North Korea since they cannot keep their mouth shut or stop causing problems. Or China, because theyr'e just so over populated, killing a bunch of them should not really cause that big of a problem. Afterall, they do have a limit on the number of children you can have to control population, so isn't getting rid of all those unwanted people doing them a favor.Basically, Pro has to show why nuke USA of all place, and then show how the benefits outweighs the losses. If he manages to do so despite my attack and criticism of his arguments, vote Pro, but if not then you know where the vote belongs.(P.S. this is a funny debate so I hope you dont go all serious on me; I plan on joking too so we should be all good)
LIFE IS AN ONION

"life is full of ups and downs.. it is a vicious circle..which is full of sorrows and happiness.. when we see onion it is covered with several layers similarly a human life is covered with several roles.. and each role is full of responsiblities which might look good from outer side (like an onion) but as u come across it different phases u start realising the obstacles, hurdles -destiny brings for u.. when we cut onion tears comes out of our eyes.. similarly when someone hurts our feeling or doesn't meet to our expectation we feel depressed and undergo same situation.." A Shrek debate, how fun. :D Onions and Humans are from different Kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae) "life is full of ups and downs.. it is a vicious circle..which is full of sorrows and happiness" An onion is not sentient, nor can it experience emotion. "when we see onion it is covered with several layers similarly a human life is covered with several roles" Onion layers perform the same role, nutrient storage, and the transmission of water and nutrients to other layers. "might look good from outer side (like an onion) but as u come across it different phases u start realising the obstacles, hurdles -destiny brings for u." An onion's different phases are merely about its biological development and with the vagaries of nature; the onion's life is not set in destiny. "when we cut onion tears comes out of our eyes.. similarly when someone hurts our feeling or doesn't meet to our expectation we feel depressed and undergo same situation.." Your analogy is flawed. I."when we cut onion tears comes out of our eyes" Self > action > tears II."when someone hurts our feeling or doesn't meet to our expectation we feel depressed and undergo same situation" Other > action > tears To be analogous the other person would have to cry when they hurt us; or the onion cry when we cut it. So there we have it, the onion is not like us.
LIFE IS AN ONION

life is full of ups and downs.. it is a vicious circle..which is full of sorrows and happiness.. when we see onion it is covered with several layers similarly a human life is covered with several roles.. and each role is full of responsiblities which might look good from outer side (like an onion) but as u come across it different phases u start realising the obstacles, hurdles -destiny brings for u.. when we cut onion tears comes out of our eyes.. similarly when someone hurts our feeling or doesn't meet to our expectation we feel depressed and undergo same situation..
Talent is innate

Some definitions to start:Talent - Aptitude or skill. Innate - Inborn; determined at birthI'm going to make a bold prediction. The winner of the men's 100M Olympic final at London next year will be black. I'm not being racist, I'm just saying that after years and years of watching black people win that particular race (almost continuously since Jesse Owens), I've come to the conclusion that there is some correlation. Both black people and white people train really hard for that race. Both black and white people were brought up racing. But these similar circumstances mean nothing at the Olympics, where inevitably, people from certain races perform much better. For instance, you never really see Asians win that contest. It cannot be just a cultural thing, because many Asian children are brought up to race too. Exactly the same circumstances, very different results. In other words, being black does not make you fast, but some black people have genetic traits that make them faster. An obvious example might be leg length. Long legs give you an innate talent - running fast. I have fairly short legs, so I could train as much as I wanted, but would never win the men's 100M final. So that's a short introduction to my case.
Talent is innate

We are here to discuss what decides the athlete, the artist, and the genius. Often, we assume that these people are born with some sort of gift or trait that give them an advantage over the rest of us. However, I would like to discuss what really determines talent in a person. As Con, I will argue that talent is not innate, that a person's talent is mainly decided by the circumstances they are brought up in. The Burden of Proof is shared in this debate. Pro can decide if he or she wants to begin in round one or just accept and wait until round two. Thank you.
God is Black***

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :) قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
God is Black***

Pro has decided that instead of supporting his assertions, to claim that it is supported and to make more assertions. New assertions: 1) The ether exists. 2) Dualism only exists in creation. 3) All things exist as infinite potential before consolidating from the mind of God into Polarities. 4) Materialism deals with different states of matter. 5) Light, electricity, and magnetism are immaterial. 6) Time only exists as a planetary effect from the Earth and Sun. 7) Humans have only 5 physical senses. These, combined with the 4 previous assertions, have had no support for them proposed by Pro. Since the full BoP is on Pro, I do not have to make any arguments as no argument my opponent has made is backed up. Some of them go completely against science. 1) Retrocausality requires time to actually exist (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 2) Light is material (http://en.wikipedia.org...), electricity is material http://en.wikipedia.org...), magnetism is material (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 3) We actually have more than 5 senses (http://science.howstuffworks.com...). 4) God cannot be material due to the Big Bang creating the material, and God (by the definition of this debate) caused the Big Bang, and therefore cannot be material. Something cannot cause itself (Lawrence Krauss "A Universe from Nothing"). 5) If God is everything then God is nothing due to the net energy of the universe being 0 (http://www.livescience.com...). 6) The Mind, as far as all evidence points to, is part of the brain, and therefore cannot precede all things. My opponent has made assertion after assertion without backing it up. Some of his assertions are clearly, as shown above, wrong.
God is Black***

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم I've already presented "support" for my claim. Factual "support" only comes from Logic, which is divine orderly thinking, which also comes from God, whom is Black. Just as the ether which "supports" every condensation from the mind of God is Black in color. Nothing is arbitrary Your idea of support stems from misunderstanding of universal law. "Dualism" as you've put it only exists in creation. Creation is anything that condenses from the mind of God in the 7 stages I've provided (magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid). All things exist as infinite potential before consolidating from the mind of God into Polarities. ALL condensations, as stated, contain the previous condensation. Therefore, God remains present throughout everything it creates -- wherever that creation goes, also making God omnipresent, which is a necessary attribute of God based on the rules of mental condensation. "Materialism" as you've put it most commonly categorizes with solids, liquids, and gases (which are condensations of the mind of God). Following the rules of condensation stated in my last paragraph and previous post, God is a material being as well. "Immaterialism" as you've put it most commonly categorizes as ether, light, electricity, and magnetism. "Time" is a planetary effect via the Sun. Suns are a density of creation, the most common being that of Light, and since both light and sound rely on Ether to travel (which is also Black), and by following the rules of condensation, then God exists both "in" and "outside " of what we call "space and time". And because is the creator of the Sun, which creates time, then God is everything that was, is, and will ever be. I'll grant your statement about the "Present" to be true for those who exist "outside" of "space and time". Eternity is a difficult concept for anything that is not God, because only God can understand its nature in totality and God is eternal. Everything God creates now becomes restricted to "space and time" once it leaves the Mind of God. But the comprehensive concept of "God" cannot be created because it is eternal - which simply means that which preceded what we call "space and time" Creation itself is a reflection of God's qualities. As it goes with the color Black which is a "visible" representation of the eternal nature of God, containing all things that ever was, is, and will ever be. Human beings have 5 physical senses that process the God data which covers every inch of the Earth and Universe. لا إله إلا الله
God is Black***

Pro has defined God to mean: 1) The creator of all things 2) The eternal essence of all things Now, Pro has also defined God as having the attribute of being "black". This means that Pro has asserted that God is physical/material. This is because the only things in which can have a color are material. Now, if God was real (using the definition provided), then God would necessarily be immaterial seeing as the Big Bang was the point in which all material things came into being. If God is material, then God could not have created all things. If God is immaterial, then God cannot have the attribute of being the color "black". Pro then asserts the attribute of omnipresence to God by saying, " if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates" If this were true, then would God be "black" or "multicolor"? A Panda is considered "black" AND "white", not just black. Pro then claims, "God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally." Which, like almost everything that has been said, is unsupported assertion. *** For the purpose of this debate, I will assume that there is a god (even though I do not agree with that). I will even accept the definition provided from Pro that God is the creator of all things. Now, all other expansions on qualities/attributes of God must be supported. So far, Pro has failed to support these assertions of his: 1) God is material. If this is not an assertion that Pro is making, then it is not logical for God, an immaterial being, to have a color. 2) God is omnipresent. For the accepted definition of God, omnipresence is not a required attribute. Since it is a further assertion, it needs to be backed up. 3) God is everything that ever was, is, and will be. Since, for the purpose of this debate, we have God being creator of the universe, I will be taking the stance that the A-Theory of Time is correct, following the KCA. In A-Theory, the only thing that actually exists is the present. No past, no future. Pro has to now show that there is a past and future, and show that God is everything. 4) The mind precedes all things. This does not need to be the case, and could very easily be considered wrong. Since we are both assuming a god exists for this debate, dualism does seem like a good philosophical position to hold, but that does not mean that the mind is not physical. Pro must back up that claim. *** I look forward to seeing how Pro manages to support these 4 assumptions.
God is Black***

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect. In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles. Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black. And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms. God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally. The mind precedes ALL 7 densities of creation in the order of: magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid. Each condensation contains the previous condensation. Therefore, If all creation stems from the Mind of God, then God literally remains present throughout all densities of creation. Even "material" or what you call "human" لا إله إلا الله
Scabs must not benefit from collective bargaining deals

"...their primary concern is making as much money as they possibly can - and any problem that harms their profits must be resolved at all costs" Exactly, this is a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem. The employer suffers a loss due to weakened (or halted) production, the employee suffers a loss due a direct period of non-payment. It is therefore in the interest of both parties to resolve the situation and move forward with a balanced perspective and in the end the argument should be resolved on capitalist principles. "However, our suffering wouldn't have been so bad if the bosses hadn't had access to scab labour to ..." Here is the crux of the problem, emotional arguments on both sides put aside, we have essentially a negotiation and in any negotiation the optimal balance will be achieved when both parties have equal leverage (ability to lose and potential to gain) [1] Before unions the employer had a imbalance of leverage and thus negotiations went in their favor frequently and workers were frankly abused - both pro and con are in agreement on this point. However, the contention comes over supplementary (scab) labor. Imagine a senario where the employer can not use non-union labor, where there can be no forced legislation to return to work, there is now a imbalance of power in favor of the employee not the employer who now has no leverage in the face of a strike. "In conclusion, because scabs make it more difficult for workers to press home their demands for fair pay and working conditions, they should not benefit from any collective bargaining deals that they did not support." This is true, no contention, they do weaken the position of the union, but this is necessary to retain a balanced negotiation and prevent an abusive situation. The employer has just as much right as the employee to maintain an equal balance of power. First, unions are not supposed to be about personal power, they are supposed to be about creating a fair and just working system for the employees, by attempting sanctions against "scab" labor they are in fact regressing to the abusive employers that forced the creation of unions and segmenting employees into those that are rewarded and those that are not, i.e., a caste system. Second, the supplementary labor are just workers trying to make a living the same as the union employees, they are not evil villains, they are just trying to work and support their families, same as everyone else - it is not like "scab" is their career, often they were union workers who are now out of a job and have no other choice. They are part of the system and need to be integrated into it and further segmenting the factions into an us against them also prevents successful negotiations[2] [1] Negotiation Genius, Deepak Malhotra and Max. H. Bazerman [2] Getting past no, Negotiating in Difficult Situations, William Ury
Scabs must not benefit from collective bargaining deals

Stamp for his rebuttals and would like to address each of the three points he raised in turn, as follows: Firstly, the primary objective of strikes is not to cause harm or inconvenience to customers, although this is often unavoidable, rather they aim to hit employers where it hurts them most: their profits. Businesses and their shareholders do not care about people's wellbeing unless those people can afford to pay for their goods or services – businesses are not charities and their primary concern is making as much money as they possibly can - and any problem that harms their profits must be resolved at all costs; that is why strikes in the private sector can be so effective. Secondly, no employee is forced to take part in a strike if they do not wish to, or even be a member of the union. Furthermore, all union members must be balloted on any proposed industrial action and a strike can only be called if the majority of union members support it. That is democracy in action, and in a democracy a minority of dissidents must accept the will of the majority, although they are permitted to put their alternative view forward at any time. Should an employee decide not to support strike action, and kick his fellow workers in the teeth by crossing the picket lines, he cannot reasonably expect to benefit from better pay and conditions agreed in return for the strike being called off – he has made the wrong call and must, therefore, suffer the consequences. Finally, I would like to address the issue of the financial hardship strikers and their families endure during a strike. This is something I had personal experience of as a child: my father was a shipyard worker when the Conservative Prime Minister at the time, the notorious and much-reviled, bitch-troll from Hell: Margaret "the milk-snatcher" Thatcher launched a spiteful and vindictive attack on the Labour-voting working classes of Britain by decimating the country's heavy industries - and families such as mine, who struggled to make ends meet at the best of times, suffered enormously when the main bread-winner was on strike. However, our suffering wouldn't have been so bad if the bosses hadn't had access to scab labour to weaken the resolve of the strikers and to dilute the industrial action's impact on their profits. Of course the scabs would have suffered if they joined the strike, but if they weren't prepared to make that sacrifice, they could hardly complain if their wages were cut and their working hours increased, or if they lost their jobs completely because the strike action failed due to a lack of solidarity. In conclusion, because scabs make it more difficult for workers to press home their demands for fair pay and working conditions, they should not benefit from any collective bargaining deals that they did not support. Thank you.