BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug legalization

Starting right off the bat. You say, "While I do not doubt that the legalization of drugs would cause at a least a temporary increase in use, there is no reason to believe this would dramatically impact substance abuse levels." That's just simply not true. For example, look at cigarettes, they are everywhere. This is from the Department of Health and Human Services, "Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related." We have already seen that things get out of hand when it comes to "drugs". To your second point, "The vast majority of drug-related deaths in America are not the result of overdoses or drug-induced violence, but instead violence associated with the illegal black market that is forced into existence through prohibition." Saying that we should let people do mind altering drugs in order for violence to drop is not a good reason to me to let people do harmful things to there bodies and ultimately killing themselves..ending up with a higher death rate then the violence cause by the "Black Market". Again almost half a MILLION people die from cigarettes in the US alone every year! You will be ultimately killing more people by supplying drugs to them. Your last argument is about the financial cost of legalizing these drugs. Well you say that the price would fall on these drugs. Which would only allow people to get more of them and use more frequently. Even if you think personally you can control yourself on certain drugs, not everyone can and you need to think of society as a whole. You also say that the government could then tax the drugs and use the money for people with "substance abuse problems". We ALREADY spend money to help people with these substance abuse problems. Lets not make it even more wide spread by legalizing drugs. In summary, legalizing drugs would hurt society as a whole, kill more people, cost more money to help with substance control, and screw up a GREAT, GREAT country.
Drug legalization

When one looks at the current policies in the US with regards to drugs, the only possible rationalization for them is that they lower the level of recreational drug use. While I do not doubt that the legalization of drugs would cause at a least a temporary increase in use, there is no reason to believe this would dramatically impact substance abuse levels. After all, for most Americans who fit the drug using demographic, the supposed lack of availability of drugs has never inhibited their usage. If it is established that the only benefits of prohibition are less use, it can be seen that that benefit is far outweighed by the potential benefits of a legal market for recreational drugs. The vast majority of drug-related deaths in America are not the result of overdoses or drug-induced violence, but instead violence associated with the illegal black market that is forced into existence through prohibition. This violence would cease to exist should black market forces lose their monopoly of the drug trade. With no legal route to resolve conflicts, violence is the inevitable result. If companies could legally sell recreational drugs to adults, there would be no market for street dealers and other criminal drug-related activities. A cost-benefit analysis of the reasoning provided above shows the following: IF ...problems resulting from increased use of recreational drugs < problems resolved by more than halving drug-related deaths in addition to the elimination of black market criminality... THEN it would ultimately be beneficial to legalize recreational drugs. In addition to removing the criminal element behind the drug trade, legalizing drugs would make it easier for drug users to avoid overdosing as a legal market would provide a stable supply of drugs and keep the purity of drugs regulated. This would further reduce drug-related deaths by making overdoses far less likely. Furthermore, legalizing drugs would allow the government to tax them. By ending the monopoly that criminal gangs have over the distribution of drugs, their price would fall and the incredibly cheap production of certain drugs would provide ample opportunity for the government to heavily tax them and use the revenue to help out those with substance abuse problems. In addition, no longer would the government need to spend billions of dollars fighting the "war on drugs". No longer would the government need to imprison anyone on drug related charges on a large scale, thus saving room for violent criminals.
The Mona Lisa is in fact smiling!

While I understand that emotion can be conveyed through art, people in the actual artwork are left with the look that the artist gave them, therefore, no emotion. It's also pretty tough to even call it a smile. It could very well just be a small grin, or maybe a nervous twitch, but to be so overzealous as to say that she is IN FACT smiling, is foolhardy. Da Vinci is the only one that knew if she were smiling or not... Thank You. -BBE
The Mona Lisa is in fact smiling!

Just like to reiterate my main points, A picture is an inanimate object, it is devoid of emotion, devoid of the ability to smile. Also, the Mona Lisa, has been under scrutiny with a conspiracy theory that Da Vinci is in fact the Mona Lisa. There are many variables, because the girl in the picture might not be the one they called the Mona Lisa, it was one of about 4 girls that it could have been.
because it can be, it is not

what about cakeless fools do you thGod doesn"t exist because science explains the cosmos without him. Even if a finely-tuned cosmos and/or complex life suggest a first cause/designer, there"s too much pain and suffering in the world to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. The Judeo-Christian Bible is myth and legend. A moral life doesn"t require God, anyway. ink that u are over smart no u not because it can be so
Is it always better to be original than to imitate or use the ideas of others

Imitation can never be useful for example.One of the people who refused to imitate others or move with the flow was Steve Jobs .When Jobs first joined the famous company Apple he refused to imitate others and thought of creating something new. Another example of a person who achieved success in his search of something new.is the famous billionaire Bill Gates.Gates wanted to create something new so he quit his university and formed his own business .Later time proved that Gates decision was totally correct since he achieved great success .If Gates hade chose to complete his regular life he would probably have achieved nothing ,but his quest for being unlike others earned him great success .
Is it always better to be original than to imitate or use the ideas of others

My opponent has not given any opening arguments, therefore I will proceed with mine. To begin, I would like to provide a few definitions that I believe we can both agree with. I will define “original” as synonyms to “unique,” namely, something completely free from outside influence or imitation. I will define the adjective “better” as something that is more beneficial, efficient, or generally more desirable than something else. For this debate, my opponent will need to demonstrate that it is always better to avoid imitation. I need to demonstrate that in some cases imitation can be more efficient or desirable. There are innumerable examples of how imitation is good, efficient, and beneficial to society. Indeed, every new generation depends on imitation in order to learn essential skills. For example, instead of inventing new languages every school year, we teach young children to imitate letters and sounds that have existed for hundreds of years. It is more efficient to keep old language systems that work well than to continually invent new ones. In another example, most countries around the world imitate the Gregorian calendar, despite having numerous culturally original calendars to choose from. This makes international commerce and communication much more efficient, because everyone around the world has the same concept of time. Sometimes other peoples' ideas turn out to be correct, and we would be ignorant to reject them just for the sake of originality. Imitation also helps creativity in some cases. Every musician, artist, and author has other people who “influence” them. Imitating something interesting from another artist often sparks new and better forms of old ideas. For example, Salvador Dali and Andy Warhol created new renditions of the Mona Lisa, which are still considered important works of art even though they are based on an older painting. Similarly, in music, hearing old songs or rhythms often sparks ideas for new ones. This is commonly referred to as “inspiration,” but it is not originality - it is influenced by already existing ideas. In conclusion, I have shown that there are numerous instances where imitating good ideas can be more beneficial and efficient than making up something completely new. The burden for Pro in the next round will be to both refute my claims and present a case for why originality is always better.
Is it always better to be original than to imitate or use the ideas of others

I fully agree that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates achieved success through innovation and originality. However, Pro's burden of proof, as stated in their Round 3 entry and the topic title, is to show that it is ALWAYS better to be original and NEVER useful to imitate. Giving two examples of successful innovators falls far short of this mark. No one would disagree that refusing to imitate others can sometimes lead to success. However, if I can demonstrate that using other people's ideas can also sometimes lead to success, then my opponent's position is impossible to defend. I believe I gave such a demonstration in Round 2, but I will proceed with additional examples to strengthen my case. Imitating other people's ideas helps avoid monopolies. If we could never copy each other and improve upon designs, we would only have one type of car, shoe, television, lawn mower, and ice cream to choose from. Having choices between different types of similar things helps drive competition, innovation, and lower prices. Even Pro's example of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is not entirely accurate - they both started computer companies - different versions of the same idea. As a result, we can now choose between Apple software and Microsoft software. Without being able to copy and modify other people's ideas, we could not have the choices we enjoy today. Another example is scientific or mathematical theory. We use other people's ideas in these areas all the time. We calculate right triangle legs using Pythagorean's Theorem. We use Newton's laws to make calculations in physics and calculus. The list goes on and on. We use these people's ideas because they happen to be right. To say that we should never use someone else's idea is to suggest that we should avoid all non-original ideas, even if they are useful and true. Finally, imitating others and using their ideas can inspire social change. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. used many of Gandhi's ideas and strategies while leading the American Civil Rights movement. Should MLK have avoided Ghandi's ideas simply because he didn't think of them first? Once again, I do not need to show that it is always good to imitate. I simply need to show that it is sometimes beneficial and necessary, and I believe I have done that. Pro must refute every one of these examples in order to convincingly argue how it is never good to use old ideas.
Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

Good points. Again I must reinstate that fact that it is what the people who watch the shows see in the reoprting that determines the reliability of a news source. News is bound for altercations, as it is simply what it appears to be, new. If all news was accurate there would be no need for political slander and controversy, as there would be no need for speculation. In closing, I would like to say that one must view Fox News as nothing more that it is, a news agency, and any ineptitudes, without proper support, and assume its just speculative news reporting, and nothing more.
Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

Tell me how are FOX news viewers supposed to interpret a debate that fox showed of Obama, only they used an Obama impersonator to substitute for Obama? http://elections.americablog.com... How are viewers supposed to interpret Fox news editing a discussion with John Stewart? http://mediamatters.org... How are views supposed to interpret Fox news lying about the age of someone in order to make it look like they were being statutory raped? How are they supposed to interpret Fox news editing a video to make it look like Biden said the economy was strong in 2009? How are the supposed to interpret Fox news editing a video to make it look like Obama said he wants health care to be exactly like in the UK? How are they supposed to interpret Fox news claiming the VA didn't provide vets with health care cause they wanted them to die? How are they supposed to interpret Fox news lying about the size of Obamas budget? How are the supposed to interpret Fox news lying and claiming that people were being arrested for praying? How are viewser supposed to interpret Fox news photo shopping images in order to smear another news organization? http://www.spitefulcritic.com... http://foxnewslies.net... ^Here's a list of thousands of Fox news lies Not all the sources I listed simply tested for ignorance of Fox news viewers, some of them tested how accurate reporting on fox news was. For example source 5 found that Fox reported lies about the Mosque controversy leading to its viewers developing misinformation. Source 4 found that Foxes editing team purposely made it so its news casting had to report misleading information about climate change which lead to its viewers being misinformed on the issue. Source 3 finds that 90% of the guest on Fox news are republicans. It also shows Fox news memos that tell its reporters to spread misinformation. Also former Fox news employees have come out and said that their bosses made them report on the pro-republicans side only and told them not to report accurately or show the other side. One example of one of these employees is Reina. The reason Fox news viewers are so misinformed isn't because people who watch Fox news are so stupid that they interpret reports inaccurately it is because Fox news reports are inaccurate in themselves and Fox news make sure that the interpretations can only be one sided.
Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

There have been over 5 research studies that show that the simple act of watching fox news makes one more misinformed and ignorant. I will post each one. Here is the problem with your post. One cannot assume that it is FOX that is causing these statistics to exist in its viewers. There are countless other stimuli that could create these ideas in the viewer. Because the audience of Fox News interprets what the report says a certain way does not put it at responsibility for what they think. The news shows obligations are to mention certain stories being vocalized in the media at that certain time, and if people interpret what the see as fact, that's is the responsibility of the viewer and not the channel. Political commentary may be bias towards one party, but that is essentially the essence of a democratic political system. One can't simply place statistics on a certain demographic because that is simply what they are, a demographic. Unless there is complete 100%'s then it can't be completely bias, and the skewed mindset would have the be based on the stupidity (or lack thereof) of the viewer.
Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

--I will mean political propaganda --by spreads I mean broadcasts it --By Fox news I mean its shows. There have been over 5 research studies that show that the simple act of watching fox news makes one more misinformed and ignorant. I will post each one. 1)http://thinkprogress.org... ^More exposure to news outlets results in a better understanding of policies. However the opposite is true of FOX news; more Exposure to FOX news results in more misinformation. For example: 1) 91% of FOX news viewers believed that "The Stimulus" caused job losses 2) 72% believe that the "new health care law" will expand the deficit. 3) 72% believe that the economy is getting worse from 2009-2010. 4) 60% believe that most scientists do not agree with man-made-climate-change. 5) 63% believe that "The Stimulus" did not contain any tax cuts. 6) 49% believed that their own taxes have increased. 7) 56% believed that the "Auto-bail out" occurred under Obama. 8) 63% are not clear that Obama is a US citizen. 9) 38% think most republicans voted against TARP. 2)http://thinkprogress.org... ^Study shows that FOX news viewers maintain false ideas about the health care bill due to FOX news false reporting. 1) 72% believe that the health care plan gives illegal immigrants health care 2) 79% believe health reform will lead to a government takeover 3) 69% think it will spend government money on abortions. 4) 75% believe it will allow the government to deny seniors health care. 3)http://www.sourcewatch.org... ^Fox news viewers believed several inaccurate statements about the Iraq war. 1) 57% believe that Iraq supported Al-Qaida. 2) 69% believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. 3) 22% believed that WMD's were found in Iraq. 4)http://woods.stanford.edu... ^Another study finds the same conclusion as the first ones. Fox news viewers are 30% more likely to think the world has not been warming. Fox news viewers re 30% more likely to think global warming is non-man made. Fox news viewers are 50% more likely to think addressing climate change will hurt the economy. 5)http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu... ^Fox news viewers were 66% more likely to hear lies about the Mosque due to watching fox broadcasts. 6)http://politicalwire.com... ^And yet another study finds the same conclusions.
Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

I'm sure it'll be a fun one to debate. I will use this round to accept my position as con in this argument. Before we begin I would like to know: - What specific mode of propaganda is being referred to? (Political propaganda, religious propaganda, etc. ) - Also, by spreads, do you mean it simply broadcasts this "propaganda" that negates from the item being broadcasted against or that it creates scenarios that put what ever is being represented in better scenarios than the latter (or both). By your definition of propaganda it would be harm but in the social sense it can be a metonymy, meaning to portray something better than actually is. -Do you mean Fox News in it's entirety or the content of its shows. I say this as more of a technical question because technically a channel in and of itself cannot be bias or "spread propaganda", and rather the content of its programming does.
Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

My opponent can either make the first arguments or accept and let me argue first. However if he makes his/her arguments first he/she will not be allowed to argue in the last round in order to ensure we both have the same number of rounds. Definitions: Reliable 1. To be depended on for accuracy and honesty Propaganda 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
The Iraq War

I ask everyone who views this to have an open mind. I understand the Iraq War is among the unpopular wars in American history, only behind Vietnam, so please view and vote on what you read, not what you think. With that said, I will be debating that the Iraq War was good and just, and one of the most noble undertakings in human history. (Note I said one of the most, not the most, so please don't start listing wars).
Yoshi is a Pokemon.

A few people joke about catching Yoshi in a Pokeball and whatnot. But is it possible that Yoshi is actually a Pokemon?Definitions:Yoshi; Mario's trusty dinosaur friend. He has his own Yoshi's Island game series.Pokemon; Creatures from the Pokemon franchise.Rules:1. BoP is on Pro (me). If I fail to show that Yoshi could be a Pokemon, Con will win.2. Voters must examine both sides' arguments, and make a sufficient RFD. This will be an actual debate.3. The forfeit glitch is active. If you can't make an argument, simply say so, instead of letting the time run out. If a side does forfeit, the other side automatically wins.4. Like I said before, this isn't going to be a troll debate. No trolling of any sort is allowed.5. Before you say anything, the Super Mario World cartoon is not cannon, and doesn't count as a source.6. When suggesting a side's source is faulty, you must point out why it is.7. First round is acceptance only.So I'm going to start my research now, as well as crafting the theory. Who wants to try to prove me wrong?
Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral

I reassure my opponent that I am not confused in any way and I understand what I have and will say. Suicide in and of itself is wrong. You were given a life and expected to make the best of it, and if one chooses to commit suicide it is cowardly. Also not to insult or belittle anything you have said so far but I find that your Model of Morality has little or nothing to do with the initial statement: "Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral". So I will adress that statement and that statement only (but I also willn't consider outside factors as was requested by the opponent), the definitions and code of moralitiy, in my opinion, are redundant. So I again say, termination of one's own life for betterment of one's own experience is contradictory and is immoral because you come to experience on this Earth, you are to make the best of the experience and not to allow oneself into any situation in which suicide would be a legitimate choice. Lastly, the words termination, cessation, and other fancy words used to substitute the word suicide (and also suicide in and of itself.
Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral

As the opposing party (and other viewers) may be confused about the definitions provided, I will clarify what is to be considered and what should be dissociated. Suicide necessitates the utter cessation of life and everything that entails. In life, there are many things that are related to morality, and so by ending life, moral worth changes and the person’s morality itself may also change. Simultaneously, the person’s death may have effects on the world for the better or worse – however, that is not being assessed. The Pro party is expected to attempt to prove that of the infinite scenarios in which suicide may occur to any person (not limited to humans and existing forms of life; see definition) within the described criteria, there exists a constant: that the person is morally more favourable for his/her/its actions, as according to the moral code provided. The Con party is expected to attempt to produce any number of valid scenarios in which a person committing suicide under the described criteria is morally not more favourable for his/her/its actions, as according to the moral code provided. Any confusion may have been a result of the moral code, as some aspects of it do not apply to this debate specifically because of restrictions noted in the topic and definitions. However, I assure that there exist arguments for both sides of this debate. I will again allow the Con party to create an argument, as was intended. Should the other party choose not to during this round, regardless of reason, I will proceed to begin my own.