BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

The Federal Government has the power to legalize the industrial use of hemp. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is known as the "Necessary and Proper Clause." It gives Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the duties of the legislative branch. It is also known as the "elastic clause" because it stretches the power of Congress. My opponent continues to say that the United States Federal Government does not have the power to do this, but this is completely untrue. The necessary and proper clause can undermine federalism. So the states have no say. When the congress uses the necessary and proper clause to stretch its powers the states have no choice, but to abide by it. My opponent says that I have shown no express power, but not only does the congress not need an express power for the necessary and proper clause (because the clause stretches its power) but there are express powers that legalization of hemp can fit under. The first express power that hemp can fit under is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." By making hemp legal we are giving researches and scientist time to discover thing that hemp could be used for such as alternative energies. Second express power that hemp can fit under is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." As I have said before we import hemp from other counties. Congress can regulate this, we can easily grow this in America but instead we depend on other counties to grow the hemp for use. So even though for the clause I pointed doesn't need this express power because it stretches the powers of congress, but I just pointed two ways we can pass this plan under the express powers. My opponent has says nothing against hemp other than my resolution is failed. As I have shown the Federal Government does have the power to do this.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

The Federal Government (USFG)has no power to legalize the industrial use of hemp. My opponent claims that USFG has that power under the Incidental Powers provision of the Constitution. The Incidental Powers provision simply gives Congress power to introduce such legislation as is necessary for the proper exercise of the powers it expressely has under the Constitution. Thus for example, the power to legislate with respect of postal services carries with it the incidental power to provide for a system of criminal santctions related to postal matters and a system of enforcement of those sanctions. But the subject matter is still related to an express power. My opponent has not showed any express power that USFG could rely on in this way. In fact no such power exists. My opponent is not correct as to how the Control Substances Act was enacted. The Control Substances Act was enacted pursuant to the International Treaties power (Art 6) (http://www.newswithviews.com...). The US became a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and thus it gained the power to prohibit those drugs so as to give effect to the Convention. The Convention empowered USFG to legislate to prohibit drugs as a part of international law. However, it does not empower USFG to legislate to allow industrial production of hemp for non-drug use. The reason for this is in the wording of the Convention itself. I quote: Art 28, Section 2:"This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes." (http://en.wikisource.org...) To simplify this, the Convention is about drugs. It is not about industrial and non-drug use about plants some parts of which are also capable of being used as drugs. The Convention does not empower its members to either pohibit nor allow the manufacture of cannabis that is done solely for industrial and non-drug use use. USFG has no other power to allow such use. All it can do is decriminilize it on the federal level. That is, USFG could make an exemption in the Control Substances Act that would result in commercial production of Hemp for industrial purposes (non-drug related) not being a criminal offence. This would not, however, legalize industrial hemp in the USA because there are State laws against it and this area of constitutional power lies with the States. (see http://www.drug-rehabs.org..., http://www.canorml.org... as examples). To conclude, the USFG cannot legalize industrial hemp becuase that power is a State power. Since it cannot do it, it cannot carry a social or moral obligation to do it and therefore any argument that it "should" is not and cannot be correct.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

The Federal Government does have the power to do this; I have two points. First the theories of the argument are ok, but let's look at the argument itself. If this argument is true than why is it that we have federal laws prohibiting the use of some narcotics such as cocaine? I'll tell you why in my second point. My second point is that there is still a way that the Federal Government can do this; it's called the Necessary-and-Proper clause. The Necessary-and-Proper Clause is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18: " The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' This is how Federal Laws are enacted. There is still a way that this plan can get passed because it's something that would drastically help the economy, help the agricultural industry, provide alternative fuels, and will even cut down on deforestation. My opponent said it himself, hemp has a lot of advantages, so this is necessary for the federal government to enact so that we can cut down on costs of energy and the government would be spending less money. The advantages of making hemp legal are a benefit for our country, and necessary for our economy. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

The Federal Governent does not have the power to legalize Industrial Hemp. The powers of Congress are enumerated in the First Article of the US Constitution (specifically Section 8 of the Article). The powers are: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (http://en.wikipedia.org...) There is no power under this article which could be applied to passing an Act to legalize Industrial Hemp. My opponent has raised separation of power as a mechanism by which (he claims) the Federal Government could have the power to legalize Industrial Hemp. I contend this is not correct. The Federal Goverment does indeed consist of three branches. Broadly speaking the position is as follows: 1. The Legislature is there to make law within the powers conferred on it by the Constitution. 2. The Executive is there to enforce the laws. 3. The Judiciary is there to resolve disputes and interpret laws as made by the Legislature. Separation of power has nothing to do with the issue in question. Any power to legalize industrial hemp rests with the States and not with the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government has no power to legalize Industrial Hemp, it canno be said to have any obligation (social or moral to do so). Hence, it is incorrect to say that it "should legalize Industrial Hemp". I will not address the second part of my opponent's argument. I'm sure there are many benefits of Industrial Hemp. There are probably also some disadvantages. However, I have no need to argue these. My opponent's resolution cannot stand as there is no power for the Federal Government to do what he asks of it.
Control ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRESSION don't accept HUMAN EXTINCTION

Granted there will always be reasons for scientific research to be monitored or if necessary controlled by an overseeing body. Some research may violate basic human or animal rights, such as the experiments rumoured to be conducted by the Nazi's, while there is also the risk that research such as that of the atomic bomb could be potential dangerous to the citizens living around it. However, in the case of artificial intelligence research I do not believe such 'handholding' is necessary. While the implications of this reseach may be frightening to some, it promises to play such a significant role in the next chapter of humanities technological development that to have it controlled by a government and influenced for that governments own selfish purposes would be a slap in the face to hardworking scientists. Finally, I cannot agree with my opponents outlandish claim that AI will come to represent the next stage of human evolution, although I look forward to her arguments on this matter.
Control ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRESSION don't accept HUMAN EXTINCTION

Scientists, human rights groups and even the UN are worried about the threat that AI poses to humanity in this AI explosion. I do not believe that we should accept the 'robo-sapien' as the next step in human evolution. Natural progression suggests change will come but survival instincts suggest we should put controls in an attempt to keep progress in human hands. I am not one to support a nanny state nor restrain scientific progress usually but this AI explosion will affect all our lives in the near future in devastating ways. I wrote this article because more people should be aware, discuss and debate these issues. What are your opinions on controlling progression? http://clamorbox.blogspot.co.uk...
Video games are not useless in today's society.

I would also like to note that I will be calling my opponent "Con". Con says that popular games today have no moral values to teach. Although this may be true, it does not mean that they have absolutely no value. Many games have values to teach that aren't about morals. Con says that video games have adverse effects on kids. There are studies that say that it does cause violence, there are studies that point to video games making no difference in emotion of the player, and there are some studies that point to video games calming players down. There is yet to be a consensus among the professional field on this subject, so you can't really put forth something like this as fact. (Sources: . http://www.webpronews.com..., . http://seattletimes.com...)Now for my argumentsMany video game players use videos games as a way of relaxingThere are many cases where people with busy schedules use video games to escape the harsh realizations of reality. Many video games are made specifically to relax the player. Some examples are Flower, LittleBigPlanet, and Braid. (I have played all of these games and can attest to them being relaxing, as can many others who have played them. ) Spas offer the same relaxation for incredibly more, and for only a small amount of time of relaxation. Video games increase hand-eye coordination. Many studies show that this is true, like ‘Extensive video-game experience alters cortical networks for complex visuomotor transformations’ by Granek, Gorbet and Sergio. Published by York University, Centre for Vision Research, 2010. , and this link: . http://www.medicalnewstoday.com.... There has not been much opposition to this fact yet. The harder video games also create a sense of accomplishment for the player once they are defeated.
Hilary Clinton is a better president than Donald Trump

Donald Rrunp is the only legitimate cantidate running for president. His tax policy will tax the middle class less, Hillary wants to tax the middle class more. Trump wants to keep illegal immigrants out and vet migrants to ensure ISIS members don't come over, whereas Hillary accepts funding from the same people who provide logistical and material support for ISIS. Trump is a financial genius, and the experience Hillary has is letting a rapist off the hook and destabilizing the entire Middle East to the point jihadis groups can run free with no repercussions. Trump wants to put an end to jihadist.
Creationism

I have no way to strictly prove that God did not create the earth, but I can show why God is not a necessary entity. Notice that we are not discussing the origin of the universe; God may have created the universe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. At some point after the universe was formed, it was filled with gas and dust. Through the force of gravity, this gas and dust collected itself together into bigger and bigger clumps. The clumps eventually got big enough to begin nuclear fusion, and the first stars were born. As stars lived and died, more dust was kicked up, and began to orbit stars. One of these such stars was the sun. As dust orbited the sun, it clumped together to form planets. Earth was one of those planets. I have now showed how Earth could have originated without any divine intervention. Resolution negated.
Creationism

Since my opponent has not specified, we will debate the resolution "God created the earth." He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that God created the earth. Since it is not possible for me to disprove that God created the earth without my opponent first providing evidence, he has the burden of proof. God: A conscious being that exists outside of the universe and is responsible for the creation of the universe; especially the Christian God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and responsible for committing all deeds as described in the Bible. Since my opponent has burden of proof, I will allow him to make the first argument.
mdma vs. alcohol

As expected, my opponent has not posted anything essentially causing her to forfeit this debate in its entirety. She hasn't set up a clear resolution, she hasn't made any initial arguments and she hasn't responded in the second round. Because it's generally considered bad conduct to post any new arguments in the third round, she technically cannot post anything -- meaning she will not have made any contribution to this discussion. Although I could have done a much better job explaining why MDMA is safer than alcohol, I still made a handful of arguments - none of which have been refuted thus far. I expect my opponent to forfeit the final round as well which is why I won't elaborate further at this point.
mdma vs. alcohol

Thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Admittedly I waited until the last second to post, so I'll just be making a few brief points in this round. I contend that alcohol is worse than Ecstasy (MDMA). First and foremost, alcohol is responsible for a lot more deaths. Cumulatively, 2,601 deaths associated with MDMA were reported in a 5 year span [1]. That's about 520 per year. Meanwhile, seven metropolitan areas reported no deaths at all involving club drugs [2]. On the other hand, there are over 14,400 deaths each year pertaining to alcohol's effect on the liver, and 23,200 deaths each year pertaining to alcohol use *excluding* homicides and accidents which would inevitably add significantly on to the number [3]. That means alcohol is responsible for a lot more than 72 times the deaths per year that occur from MDMA. Now, one might assume that this is because more people use alcohol than MDMA and that's true. However, the reality is that the effects of MDMA are simply less harmful. For one thing, the primary way people die from MDMA use is over-heating as their body temperature rises from ingesting the drug. It should be noted, though, that alcohol presents the same problem, and that this can be easily avoided which is why it's so rare. Moreover MDMA most definitely changes the way you perceive reality, but it doesn't completely inhibit you from it like alcohol does. People don't "black out" from Ecstasy, get into maniacal drunk and violent rages, kill people in driving accidents, etc. Instead the most common reaction is one feeling empathy, sexual or friendly [4]. Simply put (again I'm running short on time, though my opponent can elaborate and I will definitely respond) the effects of both short term and long term alcohol abuse seem not only more dangerous but more prevalent. More importantly, alcohol is significantly more addictive [5], meaning the likelihood of experiencing any of these negative impacts is heightened after consuming alcohol vs. consuming Ecstasy. Dependence on a drug is not a good thing - another point in favor of MDMA. At this point I won't get into how MDMA was and in some cases still is used therapeutically, and all of the positives associated with said drug. I'll also avoid talking about (for now) the ways in which the dangers and harms of said drug are highly exaggerated and/or flat out lies. Essentially I'll wait and see what my opponent offers in favor of alcohol being less harmful, because I don't want to waste my time if this debate isn't going to go anywhere. [1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies, "The DAWN Report: Club Drugs" (Rockville, MD: December 2000), p. 1. [2] http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.healthguidance.org... [5] http://drugwarfacts.org...
Bullying is good as it creates a stronger person

Bullying is good as it creates a stronger person out of the person being bullied. A person grows a thicker skin, can handle criticism and does not shy away from conflict in the future after being bullied. It makes a person become a fighter and want to eventually challenge the bully and bring him down. otherwise the rest of the people are just sissies and cry babies that are afraid and wimpy and can't handle and stand up to adversity. Bullying prepares you for adult life where in the workforce there are bullies everywhere and you need to rise above it or be demoted to the broom closet. The strong always come out on top and the whinny babies end up working minimum wage jobs because they can't handle the pressure. it's for this reason why bullying is good and should always be practiced. Bullying shapes you for the future and builds character and resilience and makes a person a warrior and builds strong character. The ones that can't handle bullying are just emotional, wimpy limp wristed gimps who can't survive in this fast paced no holds barred world. Bullying provides that early character building exercise. Are you going to stand up to the bully or cower like a sissy in the corner crying. Bullying is good
Altruism is really a form of egoism

I argue that altruism is really a form of egoism. Before I begin my argument I will first define the definitions of both egoism and altruism. Altruism 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives. Egoism a. The ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest. b. The ethical belief that self-interest is the just and proper motive for all human conduct. 2. Excessive preoccupation with one's own well-being and interests, usually accompanied by an inflated sense of self-importance. 3. Egotism; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit. I believe that altruistic behavior is a manifestation of egoism in that the desire to help other people, especially in the case where such assistance is not requested of the person giving it, rests solely on that person's self perceived moral righteousness. The fact that this perception is entirely self-actualized suggests that the desire to help others is egoistic rather than altruistic. Where self interest comes into play is that all people desire to be seen in a good moral light and one's desire to help others would best serve that self interest. Another example of altruism serving self interest is guilt associated with living a privileged life. The giving of time/money/resources to those less fortunate can help stem this guilt, again serving the self interest of the person.
People on this site fap to BOP's, resolutions and tautologies all day.

I'm a psychic. The person that will argue will say something about BOP, resolution, allude to a tautology, while saying thank you for no apparent reason except to condescend, then when the voting happens, the people just look at the smallest of things, completely missing the point, because I have thus proven that everyone on this site are terrible debaters that are here to troll and belittle people with absolutely no tendency to stipulate actual issues of this world - can't detect clever satire.
Abortion

Actually, what you fail to realize is that the fetus cannot live on its own without its mother's body. Therefore, rather than just removing it and letting it die a slower death, they use techniques to speed up the process. The act is not murder...is it murder to help a cancer patient who is terminally ill to end his or her life? No, that's not murder, and neither is this. Argument debunked. The right to life is NOT more sacred than the right to bodily autonomy has I have proven already with the kidney example and with the water example as well. (Which is far less "sacred" than bodily autonomy.) In other words, like I said, if you aren't even forced to give a man dying of thirst water, then the "right to life" is really not that sacred at all. Argument debunked (Again). Who cares if they will be more unwanted kids? This shows CLEAR lack of reasoning abilities; ignoring evidence which disagrees with your point and only focusing on evidence which agrees with your point. Rather than come up with a pre-determined conclusion and then throw out evidence which doesn't agree with it, try using the evidence to guide you to a conclusion. Abortion is not murder as I have proven multiple times. Instead of ignoring evidence which doesn't agree with your point, try taking the entire situation into account. Your view will evolve to the correct view once you take off your biased glasses and consider all of the evidence instead of just focusing on the evidence which supports your view.