BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
de criminalize marijuana

Since PRO has only written a small amount (out of 8,000 characters allowed) CON will attempt to address every point. 1. PRO states that wikipedia isn't a good source. I would say that it is a very good source, because each statement is referenced with an original source. The crash of Amtrack 94 is common knowledge and not disputed that it happened at all. .. so I thought a simple source would be sufficient. Nevertheless CON will provide an additional source: the New York Times: . http://www.nytimes.com... 2. My opponent freely admits that marijuana can be bad. His quote "And sure the use of it can be bad in situations like that". and also his other quote "and im sure there is more". My opponent freely admits that marijuana can be dangerous and have devastating results. Logically, it would not make sense to make something legal that can have those disastrous and LETHAL consequences. Laws are made to protect the public. 3. My opponent's main argument consists in COMPARING how bad marijuana is compared to alcohol or tobacco. The thing is. .. is that those two substances are SEPARATE ISSUES if they should be legal or not. We, however are debating about marijuana. Which has been admitted by both PRO and CON that it can be bad. 4. But for argument's sake let's compare and analyze the 3 substances. Logically if all 3 are dangerous then all 3 should be criminalized. There is NO arguments presented by PRO for making marijuana (or the other 2 substances LEGAL) therefore Marijuana should remain illegal. [and perhaps the other 2 should be criminalized also, but again. .. that is a separate issue] 5. I will now also expound on another of my opponent's ideas and his statement: "i fight for it because out of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, cannabis is by far the safest" My opponent is arguing for marijuana to be legal because it is not AS BAD as other things. That is like arguing: Out of heroine, crack, and PCP. .. PCP is the safest. .. therefore PCP should be legal. In this example it can be clearly seen that PCP should still be illegal. .. even though it is compared with more dangerous things! another idea: It is safer to play Russian Roulette with 1 bullet only, rather than with 2 bullets or 3 bullets. .. therefore you should play Russian Roulette. .. but only with one bullet. .. because it is safer! 6. My opponent tries to also claim that because cannabis doesn't kill people directly that it is safe. Yet as we can clearly see the danger of it, is that it takes people out of control, which causes dangerous situations. .. which can result in deaths. This point my opponent freely acknowledges. Therefore the DIRECT link of using the substance and the danger associated with it lead directly to the conclusion that it should be illegal. 7. The positive uses my opponent lists are not worth people dying for. Clearly the value of human life is more important than some fabric or paper. The resolution is negated.
DACA's Removal and Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration

First off I'd like to speak on why DACA's removal was called for by the Trump Administration. The Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals [DACA] was an abusive flexing of the Executive Power during the Obama Administration. DACA is a completely unconstitutional "easy way out" for Illegal Immigrant Children who were brought here, well, illegally. One thing I would like to get across, is that I am not against Immigration at all! However, if an Immigrant wished to come into the United States of America they must come into this country fairly and legally! That being said, I recognize that Children (under the age of 18) usually to almost always have no control over the fact that they are immigrating, nevermind it being legal. My problem with DACA is it allows those under the age of 31 (who came here since 2013) to stay here as well. My main problem with DACA is the fact that it was never meant to be a path to citizenship. All DACA did was allow those that were [unconstitutionally] protected by it to be able to get credit cards, drivers licenses and, open bank accounts and more things. They were also able to stay in the Country without the proper immigration work legally. I think I would support DACA if it had been modified. Here is what the DACA plan should have for me to support it: 1.) Those below the age of 18 are protected by the DACA plan if they were brought here below the age of 18 [Illegally]. 2.) Once you reach the age of 18 you have five years to begin pursuing citizenship. 3.) You must have a near perfect to perfect criminal record (almost no infractions). And a few more things that would be just common sense. Back to you!
Soup Kitchens should be promoted.

First of all , I congratulate the government for going against his own word in the comment he posted of this debate regarding the content of Round 3 . First of all , I apologize for using the term 'government' as I have taken part in too many verbal debates . And yes , I took in mind when you say that we should not implement the tax. And fulfil is British spelling as I have been taught through British Education here in Malaysia. First of all , the pro today said that my views were parallel to a politician . Thank you for the compliment . If you examine the content of this debate closely , The Pro is seen as a politician because he manipulates my most fundamental point He said I didn't have A way of implementation. I did . People can invest through the government. I would just like to address one or two points said by pro . You said that banning soup kitchens sends a wrong message to society . Again , you manipulate my words and the topic today . The topic is Should Soup Kitchens be promoted . I'm not saying it should be banned and I never will but there is a better approach in the form of education . And when you say police would be patrolling the area , you should have clarified that under your scope of the debate . Think about it . Majority of the homeless are well deserving of their places . How often do you see someone in the streets who lost all his money through robbery ? Almost never . The hard fact of life is that you can't please everyone . All we can do is we give people CHANCES in schools . And if they can't help themselves , it's not our duty to help them . It's not wrong , but it's not advised . Thanks to Pro for participating .
Soup Kitchens should be promoted.

Soup kitchens are voluntary initiatives taken up by charitable organizations and charities that serve to feed those who have next to nothing. Why are they so important?1. They provide a "safety net" that ensures that people who go broke and lose their jobs don't starve to death.a) Anyone can lose everything; its a possibility that cannot be ruled out due to the chaos of market economies. Even if you consider yourself financially stable, the stability is conditional on many things such as the success if your employer or the growth/shrinkage rate of the industry you work in.2. By feeding the hungry, they keep the peace.a) Hungry, broke people have no concern for morality or the law; they are out of homeostasis, and like any animal out of homeostasis, their number 1 priority will be to get fed. They will kill for a meal, and once you've begun a life of crime, it's natural to continue with it.3. They allow entities to aid the needy and therefore fulfill their religious/moral/existential goals.a) As long as there are needy people, those motivated to help them are in the right. If soup kitchens are discouraged, the masses will change their moral compass, and helping the poor will be seen as an immoral act. Because helping others is moral, people should be encouraged to it in any way they see fit. Soups kitchens should be promoted as one of their options. Conclusion It is the right of an entity (be it an individual or an organization) to behave charitably. Charitable behavior is helpful to society because without it, those at the bottom would suffer greatly and will be more liable to turn against society. It is not necessary that soup kitchens should be funded by the government, so those that are unwilling to participate in charity are not losing anything.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

The causes of causes of war due to virtues other than anger are IRRELEVANT because if we pass judgment on those wars using anger, it has then been transformed into something else. Once anger is reasoned with, for example the examination of the causes of war, it is no longer anger. Anger does not guide our moral motivations. Instead it makes us reckless and unable to make informed decisions. We take action before evaluating the morality of something because it rushes our response to a situation. Our impulses are not always guided by ideals of right and wrong but can be twisted to serve purposes like greed. If we focus only on anger we do not truly understand the right and wrong of a situation because we are focused only on our own feelings and not the consequences of our actions. Those consequences may ultimately be immoral when examined by another and reflect poorly on our own moral judgment. Our anger does nothing to make us moral people. It makes us impulsive and judgmental without time for reflection.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS IRRELEVANT that some wars may be entered into based on issues of morality, because at some point morality always comes up in war. In all wars, men intend to either kill or inflict injury upon the opposing side. In addition, innocent citizens may be affected by the conflict. So IT IS THE CASE that the issue of morality comes up in all wars. Anger does not always make men reckless; if a proper middle ground is found than anger can be a crucial emotion that can benefit the individual. Anger has several manifestations and some of those do not always include bad tempers. If a proper middle ground can be found than it can boost the motivation of the individual and therefore, serve as a moral motivator.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

While IT IS POSSIBLE that war may be entered into based on issues of morality, it IS NOT NECESSARILY the case. The motivations to go to war may be based on virtues other than anger, such as hatred. Anger does nothing to inform the morality of such actions before or after the fact. Anger may instead make the situation worse by inflating tempers and inciting further violence. Seneca argues that anger can make men reckless and in deeds of war this my make the situation worse. A middle ground or a good temper will still do nothing to prevent acts of immorality, rendering it useless except after the fact at which time the damage has already been done.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

You have made the statement, ""since deeds of war may not have any relation to issues of morality." This IS NOT THE CASE. Any issue dealing with deeds of war must have some relation to issues of morality. In addition, anger is useful once you find the middle ground between calmness and bad-tempered. As we see in the case of strength and health, exercise either excessive or defective destroys the strength. Similarly, too much or too little anger can be detrimental. However, if you are able to find the appropriate middle ground, anger will be useful. You say anger is vile and unsteady, but you must treat anger as if it is one of the rank in file, not as your commander. Of all the things that come to us by nature we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity; but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them. It is from the same causes and the same means that every virtue is both produced and destroyed, and similarly every art; for it is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre-players are produced.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS IRRELEVANT that anger may stimulate the mind for deeds of war since deeds of war may may not have any relation to issues of morality. The link between anger and morality in the presented argument is tenuous. While anger may be a virtue in itself, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW that anger can be a good moral motivation. We may learn moral virtues through habit but to make anger habitual does not make one a moral person. it is possible that anger can instead influence us to make bad decisions. Anger can interfere with other motivations that do guide our moral judgments. Seneca argues that anger, like drunkenness, fear and other conditions are vile and unsteady. Because of this they cannot be moral motivations but instead are weaknesses. In addition, to pass moral judgment we cannot use anger to assess a situation because we may ourselves be guilty of the same misdeeds. Seneca argues that we cannot pass judgment on the rule of law alone because this forgoes the many other possible forms of guilt. To truly make a moral judgment against another we must consider our own actions independent of anger.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

Aristotle claims that anger is a useful attribute. He defines anger as a desire accompanied by pain, and says that it must always be felt towards some particular individual, and not men in general. Anger is also attended by a certain pleasure because the thoughts dwell upon the act of vengeance, and the images then called up cause pleasure. He also argues that anger stimulates the mind for deeds of war and enables men to be keener fighters. In addition, Aristotle claims that the two types of virtues, intellectual and moral, are developed through teaching and habit, respectively. He argues that anger can be a good moral motivation as follows: (1)Virtue can be either intellectual or moral in nature, with the intellectual being developed through teaching, requiring experience and time, and the moral being developed through habit. (2)Some men become self-restrained while others become irascible due to their tendency to behave in either manner; these characteristics become, through habit, part of each mans moral virtue. (3)The kinds of activities we undertake define our character, and thus our virtues, by encouraging us towards one kind of behavior over another. (4)Virtues are destroyed by excess and defect and are preserved by the mean. (5)The desirable amount of anger is the mean between too much anger and too little anger and is considered good-tempered. (6)The good-tempered man is praised because he tends to be unperturbed and not led by passion but is angry in the way the rule dictates. (7)Those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools unlikely to defend themselves. (8)Anger has several manifestations, the worst being called bad-tempered which cannot be appeased until they inflict vengeance or punishment. (9)We idealize good temper and oppose excess more strongly than we oppose deficiency since bad tempered people are worse to live with. (10)Acceptable factors for one"s anger can only be decided according to th
belief is unresonable

R1:"you see color.. not understand, your thoughts dosnt determine colortheir observations have the weight that its their experience unarguablyi see the sky is blue, no doubt about that"This argument had made a large contradiction. Firstly, Pro states " your thoughts dosnt determine color" yet right at the end of the argument he says "i see the sky is blue, no doubt about that". Yet how could one have no doubt the sky is blue without some form of thought. Because he essentially states here and in previous arguments that logic is objective. Yet states that "logic=log i see". Observations are subjective, yet how can logic be objective if it is based off of something that is subjective.R2: "the sky being blue is an objective statement.. i dont determine that it is just red all of a sudden"How could one come to the conlcusion that the sky is blue without looking up at the sky and observing it's colour? And what about a colour blind person who says the sky is grey? They made the same observation as you, yet came to different conclusions. Belief is required to come to the conclusion and remain at that position.R3: "there is no your and my logic, logic is necessety of motion"Rebuttal 1 applies to this statement.R4: "are you saying 1+1 dosnt equal 2?reality is real, you are the one having to prove it is not, while that is impossible"Firstly, I've never said that 1+1 doesn't equal 2, neither did I imply that. Secondly, Pro had asserted a positive statement, and instigated the debate, as well as asserting the first claim, hence the Burden of Proof was on Pro during the debate. However, I never suggested that reality is not real, but Pro is shifting the burden of proof on me with a statement I never made.
belief is unresonable

you see color.. not understand, your thoughts dosnt determine colortheir observations have the weight that its their experience unarguablyi see the sky is blue, no doubt about thatthere is no your and my logic, logic is necessety of motionthe sky being blue is an objective statement.. i dont determine that it is just red all of a suddenare you saying 1+1 dosnt equal 2?reality is real, you are the one having to prove it is not, while that is impossible
belief is unresonable

R1: "but how would a guy argue the sky is grey if he dosnt know blue to begin with? faulty premise, unless he sees black and white and i dont know that is possible"That is why I made reference the the third person with "above average" colour perception, meaning that he could comprehend colours that the former to people couldn't. That being said, since neither of the first two people would be able to understand the colour that the third person could see, then what weight does the observations of the first two people have? And what if the majority of the population was colour blind , and scientists came to the agreement that the sky is gray. That was an observation, if the population then decided to follow your logic of "logic=log i see" then would that not mean the sky is gray? Or that arguing otherwise was illogical? Since a person's own observations are naturally, narrow, subjective and prone to error. Then it would make little sense to follow one's own observation as the absolute truth without some element of belief being involved.R2: "errors dosnt exist in realitymath is absolute based on reality.. therfore i know you will only have 2 stones in your hand picking 2 up and not adding additionally...belief is religious, theismi am saying belief is unresonable.. i dont have to believe true or truth, matter is true no belief involved"Once more this argument is followed with no evidence or reason behind it, it is just a bare assertion followed with no evedience. As mentioned previously, Math and other logical systems are based on postualates and axioms that require belief. Science is based off of observation, which also requires belief. How can one be sure that the matter that they observe is true? Since observation is subjective and limitied, it would make little since to view one's observations as true without some form of belief involved.
belief is unresonable

it would be true to the individual observation of the sky, same if all 3 has different colour shades on, they see that color..but how would a guy argue the sky is grey if he dosnt know blue to begin with? faulty premise, unless he sees black and white and i dont know that is possibleerrors dosnt exist in realitymath is absolute based on reality.. therfore i know you will only have 2 stones in your hand picking 2 up and not adding additionally...belief is religious, theismi am saying belief is unresonable.. i dont have to believe true or truth, matter is true no belief involved
belief is unresonable

Rebuttals.R1: "belief is illogical, imaginary.. there is no logic in fantasylogic=log i seeMath is considered true based on absolutes and logic, i know where you are, if you pick up 2 rocks you will not have 3 in your hand without additional adding, if this is not the case math is useless"All of what you've just stated are observations. Observation is defined as "a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed." (Source: https://www.google.ca... )To base logic off of observation requires belief, the belief that your observations are correct or carry more weight than the other persons observations. For example, if there were three people, one was colour blind, the other had average colour perception, and the other had above human perception and one said "the sky is grey" the other says "the sky is blue" and the third said "the sky is not blue" who would be the correct one? All of them are basing their conclusions off their own observations. Human observation is inherently narrow, limited and prone to error. As mentioned previously, math and Logic are both based on postulates, and postulates require belief. I've already given my evidence and reasoning for that. However, Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof in showing how math is based on "absolutes" or how belief equals to imaginary, he only gave bare assertions.R2: "i am not here to argue what belief is but that because i dont need to believe certain things in the bible, say the bible says, all birds are green, is it correct? similarily, if i claims there are rocks, i do not have to believe that, i have knowledge of that, it dosnt make me a christian to accept that there are rocks"The original resolution of he debate was on belief in general, not just religious beliefs. Even assuming that the debate is originally about religious belief it does not stray from the fact that Christianity is not the only religion, and arguing that Christian belief is unreasonable fails to prove that religious belief is unreasonable. Hence this argument is irrelevant. Even if this proves Christian belief is unreasonable, it fails to prove that religious belief in general is unreasonable.
belief is unresonable

belief=theism=religionbelief=be lie, as i dont know is true=doubt=false=imaginaryi am not here to argue what belief is but that because i dont need to believe certain things in the bible, say the bible says, all birds are green, is it correct? similarily, if i claims there are rocks, i do not have to believe that, i have knowledge of that, it dosnt make me a christian to accept that there are rocksknow=true, not can bebelief is a blind man seeing, or a can with emotion attached to it..belief is illogical, imaginary.. there is no logic in fantasylogic=log i seemath is considered true based on absolutes and logic, i know where you are, if you pick up 2 rocks you will not have 3 in your hand without additional adding, if this is not the case math is useless
Should there be a class in school just for religion.

I, pro, will take the position in convincing the con that religion classes should be taken. Well, some people with different religions such as Jahova's Witnesses can't participate in American activities, such as birthdays, the U.S. Pledge, holidays, and others because of their religion. In most high schools, there are people who bring in things because of holidays or traditions, but the person with the specific religion can attend the activity because of his heritage. If there was a religion class, it can restrict holidays or birthdays so the person with the certain heritage won't miss out on any specific American activities. I rest my case.