BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing marijuana

1.The plain fact of this matter is marijuana has a chemical in it called Tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC. All forms of marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive). In other words, they change how the brain works. A lot of other chemicals are found in marijuana, too — about 400 of them, some of which are carcinogenic. These drugs effects the brain and alter its functionality, By legalizing this drug we are making it more available to the people this cannot happen proving as much with comparison to smoking cigarettes. Approximately 80 percent of adult smokers started smoking before age 18 according to EhealthMD.com. See this through other legal drugs we can count that marijuana will be the same and given and smoked before legal age. The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning. 2. With these effects on the brain our kids would find difficulty in school and retaining information to the subjects being taught in classes. Which most likely cause grades to drop, remediation, and drop outs. By legalizing it we are allowing them to get their hands on these drugs more easily. All they would need is to find a person with the age of 21 like they do now with alcohol and cigarettes to buy them some. We are putting deadly drugs out on the streets, for our children to get a hold of these drugs more easily. As well Heavy Marijuana users are more likely than non-users to be diagnosed with schizophrenia later in life. A recent study found that people, who had used marijuana more than 50 times before the age of 18, had a threefold increased risk of developing schizophrenia later in life. Heavy marijuana use impairs young people's ability to concentrate and retain information. As well as Marijuana is addictive. More teens are in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined. With all these effects and the very high possibility of teens getting their hands on it even more when we legalize it we are allowing these drugs to get to them. Most teens do a drug for only a few reasons one would be peer pressure doing drugs would make them seem cool and to fit into a group they would do drugs. Another would be attention as teens will act out for attention and do drugs and other things. And stress, teens are put through a lot of stress and will do drugs to ease tension however this will not benefit them in the end. 3.I must negate this bill because allowing this drug to be legalized will allow teens and underage people to get a hold of these drugs more easily than they are now and marijuana's effects on teens will cause them to drop out of school or fail classes as well as all the other facts I have given. I urge congress to negate this bill.
War in Afghanistan

1st they said that i was copying points from that site they stated, whether this is true or not, i do admit i copied those points from that site most of my points are not from that site. 2nd they said that Afghanistan is a breeding ground for terrorits: This is true BUT why send combat troops to a war that is impossible to win. We are fighting a war that we cannot win. All guerrilla wars we have entered, we lost. Remember vietnam, so many troops were killed, why repeat this? We DID kill more vietcong and North Troops than we lost but the numbers lost were so daunting that we just had to pull out. WE CANNOT WIN A WAR WHERE PEOPLE DRESSED AS CITIZENS BLOW THEMSELVES UP. To win such a war is to eliminate everyone including citizens. I don't think so. In the few cases that al- Qaeda has confronted us in a WWII style firefight we have won, but when its just car bombs and landmines? how do we win? The pro has stated in a refutation that the president has promised to crack down on inside government corruption and that he won re-election thanks to a democratic vote: we all know that in such an unstable country that things happen. Things like rigged elecions? According to ABC and CBS news, (which was on TV so i cannot provide a web site source) Afghanistan has had multiple reports of violence because of this election, more specifically, "if you don't vote for him, i kill you. " and similar. So how can we trust a country that is a "breeding ground" for terrorists as the pro has said AND has an unstable government? Therefore the pro has contradicted itself by saying that its full of terrorists and that it has a stable voting system. Next i would like to say that the pro has stated that the government has said that there werent WMD's in afghanistan, that is FALSE, in an old recording by CNN news, Former President George Bush CLEARLY states that "Al Qaeda may have weapons of mass destruction" and AL QAEDA IS IN AFHGANISTAN! !! so if you cannot put two and two together here it is: AL QAEDA HAS WMD's AND THEIR IN AFGHANISTAN, PERIOD. Next i would like to address that the pro has stated that 20,119 "is indeed a sad number" but " a pretty low death rate" in comparison to other wars. Well, even 100 deaths over a false war, EVEN ONE DEATH OVER A FALSE WAR IS A CRIME. We sent an army where special forces, and tactical forces would have done better. To win a war against an invisible enemy, we must become invisible, and with an army, we are CLEARLY not invisible. I will refute more of my opponent's points in my later speeches. bottom line is: WE SENT AN ARMY WHEN OTHER FORCES WERE NEEDED, AND IT'S TOO LATE TO BACK OUT NOW -------------------------------------- Thank You
War in Afghanistan

Than You opponent for joining this debate: now Proposition I.Casualties a.20,119 people have been killed in Afghanistan i.this number includes 11,152 Afghan Troops ii.7,589 Afghan Civilians Killed iii.746 US soldiers killed iv.551 other soldiers killed v.75 contractors vi.and 6 Journalists! (according to icasualties.org) b.Why should we keep fighting this war started on the false notion that there were weapons of mass destruction there? That was the only reason, BUT THERE WERENT so why are we still there II.Military a.Remember history. The British Afghan wars and the Soviet occupation of the 1980s should be a warning against military involvement in a country whose tribal tensions make it almost ungovernable. b.There is no longer the opportunity that there was in 2002 and 2003 to build a stable democracy. Overtures have already been made to moderate factions of the Taliban about a power-sharing agreement. The West should focus its energies on devising a diplomatic solution, rather than an unachievable military victory. c.President Hamid Karzai has proved a weak ruler far too tolerant of corruption in his narco-state. d.An even greater problem is the small number of national contingents ready to undertake offensive operations in the rebellious south - America's 'surge' of 17,000 troops is not being matched by Europe. Lacking the will to put sufficient boots on the ground, Nato should get out of Afghanistan before the alliance is irreparably damaged. e.The policy of eradicating opium poppy crops, without providing a feasible alternative, has alienated the farmers, who then look to the Taliban for financial support. f.The policy of eradicating opium poppy crops, without providing a feasible alternative, has alienated the farmers, who then look to the Taliban for financial support. g.The continued military mission is costing billions at a time when Western economies are suffering. We simply can't afford to remain fighting in Afghanistan. h.Western 'occupation' of Afghanistan, particularly when it involves civilian casualties, is a powerful recruiting agent for Islamic extremists in Pakistan, and thereby increases the terrorist threat to countries such as Britain.
Stop and Frisk (NYC)

The very premise of Stop and frisk is based on a concept of utilizing statistical data to target likely criminal elements in a society. In other words, people who frankly "appear like they might be criminally involved" and or part of a "criminal culture". Which despite overt racial tones- it should be hard to dispute that a Criminal culture does indeed exist. As officer Richard Valdemar wrote in his piece 'criminal culture' which presents several axioms of such a culture. (article can be found here: http://alturl.com... ). Opposition to stop and frisk is essentially saying that our law officers should have the ability to use their discretion to stop and search suspicious people on the streets. Police officers need a degree of latitude to do their job and the laws on the books should not be geared to make that harder on them. Profiling mind you is not just about race, but it is undeniably and sadly factored in. Profiling is also about the kind of clothes worn, speech mannerisms, music and more. If a reasonable person would look at some one and say to them selves 'what a punk' than why should cops not have the ability to stop such a suspicious person? Some one wearing obvious gang symbols- Why should Police not have the ability to stop some one who makes their affiliation with criminals so open? Stop and frisk is a tool in the belts of Police forces seeking to prevent crimes. potenially catching criminals before a crime can be enacted by intercepting illegal weapons or substances.
Tryndamere better than Master Yi

I would like to argue that Master Yi (Yi) is better than Tryndamere (Trynd). Rebuttals 1. Skill You argue that since Trynd takes more skill, he is better. However, now wouldn't that mean Yi is a better champion? That means that newer players can have a chance to succeed with a mechanically less challenging champion? Besides this argument about skill means next to nothing since Trynd just has to spin and yell and auto attack, with the add bonus of invincibility for 5 seconds. Both take less skill and the difference is null compared to that of a Draven or Vayne, whose positioning and fragility makes them real high-risk high-reward champions to play. 2. Trynd is relevant behind while Yi isn't Pro's whole arguments hinges on his personal opinion and shows no real reason why Trynd is always useful. Master Yi has a better wave clear that resets with auto attack than the expensive to build, critical strike. Master Yi's passive gives him a bonus attack useful for split pushing. Their comparative ultimate allows Yi to clean up fights and destroy turrets extremely fast, while the Trynd just tanks for five seconds before fleeing since he has poor stats. Yi can also be more flexible with his build while Trynd has to build full crit to be relevant, which is also more expensive, putting an already behind Trynd, further behind. Arguments I'm going to use the rebuttals as arguments itself. 3. Yi is a better pick in general While they both have the same counters in general, Master Yi needs a hard disable to get countered, while any disable can mess up a Tryndamere's whole game. Source http://www.champion... select.net/champions/tryndamere http://www.champion... select.net/champ/masteryi
Tryndamere better than Master Yi

Tryndamere is less of a pubstomper than Master Yi and actually takes skill and thought into killing your opponents. Master Yi, on the other hand, just presses R and Q's the entire team and gets an easy pentakill. However, if the player messes up, Master Yi would be useless for the rest of the game except at killing 0/15/10 enemy support Janna. Master Yi is a hit or miss but Tryndamere will always be useful and brings more stuff to the table for the whole team and transitions in the one of the best MADCs in LoL.
Virtual Gaming

If you have evidence of any kind of gaming device that connects directly to the user's brain, please present it. Current Virtual Reality interfaces that you are likely thinking of would be something akin to the Oculus Rift system. Interfaces such as these are not hardwired into the brain, but rather display dual images via the headset to simulate real vision. From personal experience, I can say that the experience is incredibly efficient, and that I have never suffered any ill side-effects from the use of the device. Besides myself, there has not been any official side-effect(s) reported from Oculus use that would not be associated from gaming in general. Theoretically speaking that if there were to be a system developed that would link directly to the brain, side effects would be similar to those caused by implants used within the medical field. Side effects would include temporary dizziness, temporary nausea [1], and a possible slowing of beta waves [2]. However, users would no longer experience the dizziness and/or nausea after acclimation to the system [1], and in the case of slowed beta waves, it could easily be remedied by the use of biofeedback systems to train the user to have more control over their own brain waves [3]. [1] http://www.technologyreview.com... [2] http://www.wired.com... [3] http://www.brainwavetraining.com...
Virtual Gaming

Glad to accept this topic. I'll assume that we are able to make arguments for the first round, as it has not been stated otherwise. Before we begin, however, in terms of who is providing funding, are we talking about public funding (i.e. From local/state/Federal funds) or private funding? I ask as, generally, virtual (video) games are produced by privately owned companies (Eidos, Electronic Arts, etc). In any case, I'll provide arguments for the terms of both public and private funding here in the first round. In the time that I have spent searching thus far, I am unable to find an example of a government-funded video game. The government, remember, is the entity responsible for the upkeep of the public works that you mentioned above (Streets and schools). Therefore, money is not being subtracted from the funds for road and school upkeep/construction. In terms of the private sector, the government does not necessarily mandate how, and on what, the company will spend. While the government possesses the right to regulate business to promote public health and safety (Ex. The FDA requiring safety labels for medicine), it cannot order private companies to allocate funds for the construction and upkeep of public works, as these PUBLIC works are under governmental jurisdiction. As for the outlawing of video games, you are talking about the illegalization of a business sector that (As of October, 2013) is worth about $93 billion [1]. Into 2015, this value is projected to grow to more than $111 billion. Making such a large industry illegal is ludicrous, not only because of its size, but because of the potential sales tax revenue that the government could gain. Sales tax revenue that would then be able to be used, possibly, for several public works. Such as streets and schools. Let's do some quick math: The estimated value of the video game industry in 2014 is projected at about $101 billion. From the chart in my first source, value from consoles is at about $49 billion, and we'll assume that this is from sales. Using the average state sales tax for 2014 of 5.48 percent [2], we can calculate that about $2,685,200,000 in taxes is generated that the government then receives. Once again, this is money that can be used for the construction and maintenance of public works such as streets and schools. [1] http://www.gartner.com... [2] http://www.bankrate.com...
Otto Graham v. Johnny Unitas

I would like to sincerely thank ASB for a solid debate, and hope that we may do it again very soon. With that said, I will conclude my debate with just a few rebuttals, and will not use any new arguments for fairness' sake. My opponent claims that the Graham proved the equality of the AFL to the NFL, simply by winning a single game against the Packers. This phenomenon is often referred to as a fluke, or an upset victory. This happens everyday and in every sport, but in no way affirms my opponent's position. I quote my opponent:" When we compare these two players to a seventeen year stat line, Unitas threw way more passes but had less touchdowns, more interceptions, an inferior QB Rating, and passing percentage, and also had a 132 yrd avantage over Graham." My opponent has tried to intentionally deceive the readers by stating that Graham threw more touchdown passes. After carefully reviewing the statistics, Graham threw 174 TD's and Unitas threw for 290. Unitas played for 17 years and Graham played for 10. I am pretty sure that longevity is a VERY important trait for any athlete and is not to be undervalued by inflating stat lines. After all, I could argue that Barry Sanders was the best running back of all time, but his shortened career will forever taint his legacy, as perhaps Otto Graham's will as well. My final quote from my opponent should wrap this debate up: "Therefore it is clear that the only reason why Unitas is higher ranking than Graham is because Unitas played longer, played two-way football, and played in the NFL every single year." Do I need to elaborate on this at all? These are all concrete reasons why a player would be considered "better." I agree with my opponent that these are important qualities that clearly separated Unitas as a superior football player, and therefore I must urge a vote for Johnny Unitas of the Baltimore Colts. He clearly stood out from all other quarterbacks of his time, and is still celebrated by fans all over the country. Thanks again to my opponent, and to the readers for your time, and I hope everyone had as much fun as I did.
Otto Graham v. Johnny Unitas

Round 2: Otto Graham had a 57-13-1 (.810) record in the NFL league which is the best percentage of all NFL quarterbacks to play the game. Otto Graham has never failed to win a championship in his 10 years of football. He won championships in both the NFL and the AFL. Otto Graham proved that the AFL is just as competitive in the NFL by beating the Packer franchise 27-0 in a game where people thought that the Packers would crush the Browns. Otto Graham won more championships than any quarterback in history in just 10 seasons. Round 3: Winning is not everything, it is the only thing, Graham won in both the NFL and the AFL. Graham played seven seasons less than Unitas. When we compare these two players to a seventeen year stat line, Unitas threw way more passes but had less touchdowns, more interceptions, an inferior QB Rating, and passing percentage, and also had a 132 yrd avantage over Graham. According to the statistics used in round 3, Unitas threw 724 passes to get that 132yrd advantage. Therefore it is clear that the only reason why Unitas is higher ranking than Graham is because Unitas played longer, played two-way football, and played in the NFL every single year. Otto Graham, won every championship in the NFL and AFL. Of course the NFL championships are an equivalent to the Super Bowl today for the Super Bowls of now were not introduced until later. In the end, I would rather take a quarterback who won every championship rather it be the AFL or NFL than a quarterback that can play two-way football and won sometimes. Winning is not everything, it is the only thing.
Otto Graham v. Johnny Unitas

It made some good points on which I would like to elaborate. I will show the stats my opponent used: Pass attempts: Graham 2,626(1.7)= 4,462.2, Unitas= 5,186 Pass completions: Graham 1,464(1.7)=2,488.8, Unitas=2,830 Percentage: Graham =55.8%, Unitas=54.6% Touchdowns/Interceptions: Graham 174(1.7)-135(1.7)= 295.8- 229.5, Unitas =290-253 Passing Yards: Graham 23,584(1.7)=40,092.8, Unitas= 40,239 QB Ratings: Graham= 86.6, Unitas= 81.2 Unitas' numbers are clearly superior to Graham's except efficiency, but efficiency is not the most important aspect for a player. This brings me to the main purpose for showing these stats. These players played in different leagues for a reason. It is the same reason that there are alternate football leagues to this day, and that reason is that some players are not NFL ready. Unitas put up superior numbers in a superior league, and is regarded in the top of his class in that league. Basically, my opponent is arguing that a quarterback in the CFL with identical numbers to an NFL quarterback, is equal in talent as well. This is not the case, so, I must negate the resolution that Graham was even on the same level as Unitas, let alone the better player. All other arguments are moot, and so it stands, Johnny Unitas was a superior quarterback, when compared to Otto Graham.
Otto Graham v. Johnny Unitas

Winning is not everything, it’s the only thing. Players will be remembered more for their winning than statistics. Otto Graham had played only 10 seasons in the game of football, this is seven less than that of Johnny Unitas. To compare these players closer, math, is the instrument that I will use. Since Unitas played 17 seasons to Otto’s 10, I will multiply Graham’s stats by (1.7). Notice, that this is not an approach to say this is what it would have looked like if Graham played 17 seasons. This is only to compare the two hall of famer’s careers in football. Pass attempts: Graham 2,626(1.7)= 4,462.2, Unitas= 5,186 Pass completions: Graham 1,464(1.7)=2,488.8, Unitas=2,830 Percentage: Graham =55.8%, Unitas=54.6% Touchdowns/Interceptions: Graham 174(1.7)-135(1.7)= 295.8- 229.5, Unitas =290-253 Passing Yards: Graham 23,584(1.7)=40,092.8, Unitas= 40,239 QB Ratings: Graham= 86.6, Unitas= 81.2 This proves that while Unitas took more risks than Graham, this was why he was able to throw more yards. Otto was more efficient. Efficient: capable of achieving the desired result with the minimum use of resources, time, and effort. Efficiency is paramount in a great quarterback. According to the new stats, he passed for almost the same amount of yardage with less throws, more touchdowns, less interceptions, a better QB Rating, and a better passing percentage. Unfortunately my man that I am debating for does not play two-way football like Unitas did. There is a reason to agree that Unitas is placed higher in history than Graham because Unitas played way more years. That Unitas played in the legitimate NFL his whole entire career while Graham had to prove that his team belonged in the league. Or that Unitas played two- way ball like the most versatile player ever… Sammy Baugh. In the end, I’d rather go with the sure victory than some victories carrying me through. Unitas won championships, but who in their right mind would turn down winning every single season. Winning isn’t everything… it’s the only thing.