BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drugs must be made legal

People take strange risks for charity I agree but not taking drugs. You also said that you provided a list below of ten crazy things people do for charity, I saw no such thing. The only physical efforts to take a Drug for the average person are (supposing the Drug in the container is on the ground) 1: To pick it up 2: To open the container 4: To put it in your mouth (the drug) 5: To swallow it. And anyway those would be efforts so tiny, I do not call them efforts. Some of the drugs you can inhale, but the effort would be similar. If you were to climb the nearest mountain however, it would take weeks of preparation. Let us say that you just came up to the nearest mountain however (not really very logical) the effort alone would be 1: Get on the nearest rock 2: Climb from rock to rock with full determination that would be hard work to push your body up (with no tools) 3: Get sore wounded feet as climbing and it would take huge amounts of effort to deal with that. The result of death would be dying in two different ways. Those who climb mountains for charity all would wear protective suit. 2. My point is that alcohol is less dangerous than drugs so why ban it ? Your point is to prove that alcohol is much more dangerous than drugs but that is not true, Reasons: * It is used for personal entertainment * The reason all the Americans were annoyed about alcohol being taken away was because it was much less dangerous than Drugs * It would take weeks (depending on how much you take) for alcohol to kill you whereas drugs would take hours or days to say how strong it is. And if drugs were made legal I fail to see how it would stop drug dealers from thriving. They would just sell much more dangerous drugs for the once the people have the smaller drugs (that I will come to) they want more. If the government were to allow drugs to be made they would have to make sure that the factories would make tiny quantities otherwise they would not doing their duty. Why I disagree is because if an accident happens in the factory it could result in some ones death. Besides what does it matter whether the government gives you drugs and you die or if some drug dealer gives it to you. 3. I never agreed to your point about putting whatever substances in our system. The point was that people do not just put substances into their system, they give money to drug dealers as well. I look forward to hearing you in the next argument Back to you pro
Drugs must be made legal

Thank you for your reply. 1."Since when did the speed of something that can kill you matter" If your point is to suggest that I think that the speed makes the Drugs more dangerous, you are on the right track but have not thought about it carefully the certain types of drugs known to this world are: Cannabis, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, Hallucinogen, Methamphetamine and many others that I shall not name for now. The speed of how it kills you is to show how much more powerful it is. Now I shall explain why less people take Drugs to alcohol and tobacco: *This person does not know where the black market is *This person knows about the risk of taking drugs *This person is not depressed or in need of company *This person does not want to break the law *This person is scared about what it is like taking drugs *This person is a teacher and is teaching about the danger of drugs *This person has had drug problems in the past and does not want to take them *This person has a loved one taking drugs and is sad about it and is trying to help them People who are depressed are known to take drugs such as Methamphetamine which is known for mental health cure but is also known to be highly dangerous. Tobacco and alcohol are much less dangerous than drugs and that is why they have been banned. I hope I have answered your first point. 2. Why would people take drugs for charity? My point was that people took huge risks that involve huge amounts of effort like climbing cliffs or mountains where as taking heroin is effortless (although some people would be scared to take it). My point about such a great corruption in America about alcohol being made illegal is that alcohol is not nearly as dangerous as drugs and that is why everyone at the time were so annoyed about it. Drugs are more dangerous and thus should not be made legal. 3. "We have the right to put whatever we like within our bodies" We have the right to do whatever we like with our bodies? The government of each country has to make sure that its citizens have a right to live and try to stop suicides. But you are right saying that we can do whatever we want putting in substances in our bodies but in this point you forget the idea that it would involve giving money to drug dealers. If the people take drugs it is for either curiosity or depression unaware that it would actually kill them (or not thinking about it) is that it is the government's duty to make sure that this does not happen. The government should help these poor people who feel a need to take drugs.
Black Lives Matter

I suspect a buggy site is more likely than a conspiracy against you, Especially since there are people posting far more objectionable opinions expressed in much less civil and reasoned language than you have. Perhaps you could try asking for advice in the forums, Or try using a different browser or device to post with. In any case, I have no intention of silencing you, And I'd rather you not direct your frustration with this website's functionality at me. I don't think any supporter of BLM wants the world to believe "there is a white cop lurking behind every street corner waiting to kill you if you're black". Do you have any reference for this? I would also like if you would respond to my other points, Although I certainly understand if you are too frustrated with this website to do so. You have really have had a rough time with posting problems in this debate, And you have my sympathies.
Black Lives Matter

I have posted several arguments. And they keep getting deleted. This website and or its members do not want to hear the truth about such a ridiculous group of individuals and are afraid of the truth. -- Please pay attention to the NUMBER the actual NUMBER of people. 1 out of 2 is 50% but the NUMBER is still one. Same principle when dealing with such nonsense narratives. 13 unarmed black people get shot so far in 2018 and you guys want the world to believe there is a white cop lurking behind every street corner waiting to kill you if you're black. It isn't true. this will probably get erased like my other 30 attempts to post. It isn't fair to people who want to know the REAL truth.
Black Lives Matter

Regarding #1, Black people make up 13% of the US population and 31% of people killed by police. I'd consider having your people overrepresented almost 3x among people killed by police pretty alarming. Although there are likely many reasons for this, Psych research suggests that implicit racial bias against blacks plays a significant role. Specifically, They found that their sample of non-Black university students were more likely to misidentify non-guns as guns when primed with a Black face rather than a White face. #2 I would like to see a source for, Since I haven't heard of this happening. #3 I'm not sure how those two things are contradictory? BLM wants races to be equal, Currently they are not equal, And the race with more institutional power is more likely to be able to make things more equal. I feel that fighting any form of prejudice naturally involves convincing the group with more institutional power to do things to level the playing field. #4 I agree that this is a problem. I have noticed a lot of leftist circles are quite hostile to cisgender men, And this especially hurts cis men who are dis-privileged in other ways, Such as black men, Disabled men, Etc. Which is ironic, Because the issue of police violence specifically targets black men disproportionately over all other race/gender combinations. I think it's important for BLM to affirm black people of all genders, And unfortunately, This doesn't always happen.
Black Lives Matter

Is Black Lives Matter furthering the black community for good or bad? I believe it is bad for the Black community. In the course of the debate I would like to bring out one main point; Black Lives Matter has presented untrue facts to the black community and angered it's supporters of every race. Rules: 1. Stay on Topic 2. Address the points clearly. Then make new points AFTER you address mine. 3. Do not make other points in the last round. Last round should be summation. 4. Do not take the opportunity to knit pick at spelling or grammar. People obviously type fast sometimes. It's normal. 1. Black Lives Matter believes in institutionalized "state-sanctioned" violence and anti-black racism from white police officers. Specifically in cases where facts have been sketchy and played in the media as outright racism. Several Black Lives Matter supporters that are involved with the organization have stated that blacks are being killed by police at alarming rates. Not true. 2. People who identify themselves with the organization have been caught telling white supporters to get in the back of lines at protests. This creates a segregated environment. Do you think this brings people of all races together? 3. BLM claims to want to be equal but they need white people to give them things to do it (List of Demands) These two facts end up distancing people from a cause they claim to 4. What I am most concerned about is that BLM does not affirm the Black father. They do however, Affirm, Queer, Transgender, Black women and everyone else except specifically stating the Black father. "We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, Misogyny, And environments in which men are centered. " THIS IS THE CLOSEST THEY GET --- "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, Especially our children, To the degree that mothers, Parents, And children are comfortable. " For BLM to ignore this issue, Which is possibly THE BIGGEST issue within the Black Community (lack of fathers/73% born out of wedlock, Roughly 60% raised by single mothers) is absolutely staggering. Especially when this statistic is related to delinquency, Drop out rates, Crime, Recidivism, Graduating from high school, Etc. Do you think by not mentioning this issue, BLM is being a good voice for our community? All this does NOT assist in making lives for black people any better. What it does do, With AMAZING help from the media is anger it's supporters and it furthers a racial divide, Which goes back to the overarching point, That it is overall bad for the black community. Even if you think some of it is good. . . . If you want to bring people together you don't segregate people. You disavow any one that disrupts peace with violence against police officers in the name of your organization and you understand racism is not an institution issue. It is a person to person issue.
Grammar, spelling and punctuation should be taken into consideration when voting upon a debate.

First I will address your points: 1)Lets assume that you are right that "If a debater wants to be taken seriously [or respected]…they should use good grammar, etc." So, debaters with poor grammar, etc. don't want to be taken seriously. How does that impact the judges voting? If the debater is debating well, what does it matter if she does not want to be taken seriously? A parallel case: If a boxer is holding his own or winning in a boxing match, what does it matter if he wants to be taken seriously? The only relevant factor is the punches made in the ring. 2)How is grammar, etc. the criteria for presenting arguments in a respectable manner? Who decided that and on what authority? Why should capitalization change the respectability of a good point? More importantly, what role does respectability play in a judge's decision? 3)Your mention of members with English as a second language is noted but irrelevant. My underlying point is this: How does anything you said mean that a judge's decision should be based on grammar? You talk about respectability and being taken seriously but make no attempt at explaining how these relate to judge decision. At this point in the debate you have not made ANY connection to how grammar should affect judge decision. My offense: 4)i. The purpose of grammar, punctuation, and spelling is clarity. Ultimately these are all near-arbitrary norms set by society. They are only important insofar as they are useful. They are only useful insofar as the preserve clarity. If grammar, etc. has no impact on the clarity of an expression, then it is irrelevant. ii. CLARITY should be taken into account when a judge votes. Clarity is relevant to the debate because it is a part of how well the debater expresses and defends his position. Clarity is an indicator of style and skill. Grammar, etc. are only relevant with relation to clarity. 5) The only considerations a judge should have is the quality and skill of the points being made. The point of debate is to beat an opponent in argument. The only thing the judge needs to do is see which debater better defended his position.
Grammar, spelling and punctuation should be taken into consideration when voting upon a debate.

If a debater wants to be taken seriously on this site, they should have respect for the voters and use good grammar, proper spelling and punctuation. Sentences that start with lower-case letters tell me that the debater does not wish to be respected, as s/he doesn't have to respect to present their arguments in a respectful and respectable manner. Debate.org has members that know English as their second language. I've noticed that some of these users put users that speak English as a first language to shame in more debates.
Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability.

Thank you for the response. My opponent said that pressure actually helps children to learn and become more prepared for future work places, this may be true but is irrelevant. The resulution says: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. So the fact that pressure produced by these tests can help prepare one for a future career is irrelevant becuase it does not prove that these tests appropriately represent a student's academic ability. My opponent also said that he agreed that debate was an academic pursuit and was not on the test. I agree that english,history, and writting skills can compliment one's debating. However, that does not mean that these things are equivellant to it. Once again I thank my opponent for allowing me to test this resolution. I don't know if I already said this but I will be debating this in a few months, so all feedback is appreciated! I strongly urge a CON ballot.
Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability.

I am aware that this topic may not be overtly captivating but this is an upcomming topic of mine so I decided to gt some practice on it. Before I begin I would like to lay down a few rules: ------------------------------------------------------------ I want to keep this debate fairly brief for this purpose I have set the character max. to 5,000 Please do not except this debate unless you plan to respond PLEASE give me feed back, not inherently on what occurs in this debate but on additional arguments for Pro or Con if you would like to post the link to some good evidence please do that as well. Of coarse this is optional but I really would appreciate it. And with that my opening speech: Point 1. The pressure. Standardized testing creates an environment in which hinders children from being able to truly do there best. Standardized testing creates an enormous amount of pressure on kids to do well because they know that a large part of there future could be depending on these tests. In addition these test often cost money in order to take. In lower in come communities often families break there backs in order to raise enough money to purchase such tests for there children. In these cases not only is your future dependent on these tests but you are worried that you will fail thus putting $100 or so dollars that your family worked hard to earn to waste. Point 2 lack of subjects: One might say that debate is an academic pursuit and I would agree that it is. A child may be very good in debate but do poorly in math, science, language, and history. Standardized testing does not include debate so the childs one good skill would be ignored however he would do poorly on the other fields and then essentially be deemed "unintelligent. "
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

As i apologize to my opponent for mixing playstation home with playstation plus. Again, i do not know that an xbox does have an avatar because i dont HAVE an xbox. Im on the playstation side, remember? And the youtube link that you put up does not have anything to do with an xbox. But a video does show up of a drunken man getting punched in the face. Interesting... And why do you think the person faked the incident? Just for attention? Just for random answers? He obviously didnt just get it from his brain. Your acting like an Xbox never fails to shut on, or have any problems within. Again as you can read the whole complaint, http://forums.xbox.com... Interesting debate. I would like to challenge you in a similar argument as this.
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

You said that there is party chat on Playstation Plus, which costs $50 per month. "There is a party chat at playstation plus also". I added these things called "LINKS" they are the proof. Here is the same link again to prove that it costs $50 a year for Playstation Pro, which is the only way for you to get party chat. http://us.playstation.com... Here is also my proof that the Slim is a 360 http://www.xbox.com... It is a standard console. Surprisingly, if you did some research, it is pretty obvious that the Xbox 360 does have an avatar. Do you want proof? here you go http://live.xbox.com... Here is a video to show that the average xbox 360 start up is less that 40 seconds. http://www.youtube.com... h?v=-kO1Udf2EGg Your last argument simply showed a singul person's trouble with a 360. Can you prove that that happened. Just a random person is not a very reliable source.
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

'Wait its called an XBOX 360 SLIM! I think that counts as a 360, just another model of the 360' You think it counts as a 360? You cant 'think' when your debating. You need proof. Not just an opinion. Would you like to prove that party chat on playstation plus cost $50 a year? Even if it did, its still much cheaper than $60. P.S. Play station plus comes $50 with exclusive games. Not party chat. You can also talk to people worldwide on playstation HOME. Comes with avatars also. I bet the Xbox doesnt. Oh and let me show you a big complaint of an Xbox SLIM user. 'The Symptoms and steps taken by me: -360 takes a significant amount of time between the startup screen and the Dashboard appearing on screen - Over 40 Seconds -Instead of the Dashboard loading, I am presented with the 'Create New Profile', 'Recover Profile' Screen. -I instead select 'Skip Sign-In' and proceed to 'System Settings' and then 'Storage'. -360 can apparently detect the installed 250GB Hard Drive. However it is reading as Unformatted. -Using a Sandisk Xbox 360 16GB USB Drive, I am able to recover my Gamer Profile. -Upon selecting 'Storage' within 'System Settings' once more whilst in my Gamer Profile, the Xbox 360 Freezes until I hold down the Guide Button on the Xbox 360 Controller and the 'Turn Off Console' option appears. Cancelling this option, the 'Storage' Screen loads and the USB Drive is detected by the Xbox 360 but the 250GB Hard Drive remains 'Unformatted' -Now, I did purchase a replacement 250GB Hard Drive and that seems to be working fine. The issue however is with the data that should still be on the Faulty 'Unformatted' Hard Drive. In particular, Save Game Data for the 'Mass Effect' Series. With Mass Effect 3 so close to release now, I'd hate to have lost my Commander Shepard that I've been using since the series began over 4 years ago.' Sources: 1.http://us.playstation.com... 2.http://forums.xbox.com...
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

Wait its called an XBOX 360 SLIM! I think that counts as a 360, just another model of the 360. You said that there is party chat on Playstation Plus, which costs $50 for a year. You also said party chat is free on Playstation. That just doesn't add up. Sure, there may be some people getting their accounts hacked on Xbox Live (not 77million). However, There probably have been between 4-5million. That is about 5-6% of Playstation. Do the math Sources: http://us.playstation.com... http://www.weegy.com...
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

Now go on google, and you'll see dozens and dozens of people asking how to fix their scratched up xbox. As so you cant see many involving PS3. Oh and your talking about xbox slim, read the title, 'Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3. There is a party chat at playstation plus also. Doesnt make a difference? Oh and why would you pay 60$ a year for a party chat since you can talk to your friends for free through the Ps3? There has been gamers caught in an xbox fraud, and many people are reporting to having their accounts hacked on the Xbox. Sources : 1.http://www.ehow.com... 2.http://www.joystiq.com... 3.http://www.thesun.co.uk...
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

Xbox has much more to offer than just Halo. There is Forza, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, and the new Minecraft game. I have had 2 xbox 360s (original Elite, and new slim) and neither has ever crapped out. There is also the kinect, which is much superior in uses and technology to the PS3's "Move" Can you back up that the xbox gets double the scratches? Also, the new Xbox Slim has a wireless adapter built in. And as of online, you get what you pay for. The xbox online community is larger and has better gammerzones (family online, casual, or pro). Then there is the party chat system for Xbox. You can freely talk to your friends no matter what game you are playing (except for some Call of Duty game modes). Can't get that on Playstation. I would say that the Party chat alone is worth the $60 per year (also the amount of a single game) No offense, but it sounds to me like the 360 is for people with more friends. But let's not forget the the personal information that was stolen from the 77 million PSN accounts Durring the 2011 PS3 hacking. Haven't seen that on box live. Sources: http://www.gizmag.com...
Xbox 360 (including live) is better than PS3

Challenge accepted :D! When it comes to the consoles, games are what matter. Yes Xbox has Halo, their flagship game but PS3 is no stranger to exclusives. Games like Uncharted, God Of War III, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet and Grand Turismo 5 are all PS3 exclusives and are easily the top games of the year. I definitely pick PS3, because personally, because I want my console to work, the 360 fails with it's nightmare red rings of death in normal conditions, and well, the PS3 can't be killed under even the most extreme gaming conditions. 360 is now using a lost HD format, while PS3 comes loaded with Blu-ray, and a whole lot more cool stuff. Heres how well to put it ... Ps3 = blu-ray, no scratches unless your and idiot that just throws your games on the floor. 360 = double the scratches because microsoft rushed the 360. Plus the Ps3 is waaaay cheaper than the Xbox / 360. Built in Wireless Adapter: Xbox 360~no, PS3~yes Able to play multiplayer: Xbox 360~not without gold membership, PS3~free all around. Sources : 1.http://answers.yahoo.com... 2.http://www.gamesthirst.com... 3.http://www.entertainment-and-technology.com...