BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism

Still your facts are flawed. . I This is somewhat of an off topic argument but still, wikipedia is a perfectly legitimate source. You cannot prove it is wrong, facts are facts. . II The fact of the matter is all your argument is based around on is that my facts are incorrect. You attempt to provide sources but they really don't prove your points at all, so really arguing sources is stupid quite frankly. . III Yes, if you want no crime you need to oppress the population. Life is not perfect but still I would choose no crime over government invasion of private life. That is a philosophical argument though, and the other thing is it is impossible to say that humans need freedom of speech, private lives, etc. etc. Why is all that neccassary? It can end up costing lives and promoting black markets. Communism does none of that because a market is not neccasary, it is about power to the people. In Cuba,Russia,China etc. etc. the Communist were put into power by the people. . IV I never said that the government was involved with human trafficking you actually just added to my argument :D I said without a larger police force and army human trafficking is harder to control. . V Capitalist countries fall apart all the time? And the USSR played a massive role in the economy it was a superpower. At certain points it had more money than the US and was perfectly well off, It was pressured by its argument with China and multiple sanctions and trade embargo's. CONCLUSION While my opponent makes good points he simply cannot refute the fact about low crime rates in communist countries and some of his arguments on the validity of my sources is flatly wrong. I urge a vote pro! Vote for safety and the well being of your family!
Jimmy Graham is a better tight end than Rob Gronkowski

Well played. Yes I agree Rob Gronkowski is a consistent threat in the Patriots passing game, No I do not believe he is CURRENTLY better then Jimmy Graham. The problem with Rob Gronkowski or just (GRONK) was his lack in the super bowl performance (postseason) and his current injury status. You can't just claim Gronk being better then Graham when Gronk only scored a total of 3 TD's in the Patriots postseason run. Now I know yes you can say, but 3 TD's thats 1 a game, sadly he scored all 3 against the DENVER BRONCOS which we all know that game was a blowout and Denver's defense was a joke. His performance after that playoff game was just awful. Reason being well, better defensive teams. He did NOTHING i repeat NOTHING against the Ravens not even scoring any touchdowns, he only put up 4 receptions. The Ravens had him on lockdown, when up against the Giants it was much worse. Yes, i know he was slighty injured that game, but lets be real New England knew that injury of his was serious and basically used him as a decoy that whole super bowl game. His stats were like 2 receptions for 20 yards. Now I will say he did score 17 touchdowns last season for the NE Patriots, but remember Jimmy Graham did score 11 touchdowns putting him behind Gronk for most TD's scored from a tight end it wasn't like Graham wasn't putting up numbers. Gronk and Grahams numbers for YARDS are so close it's like a difference of 17 yards. Graham also in the Saints postseason run put up just as many TD's as Gronk did in the SPAN of 2 games. Graham also had longer yard receptions then Gronk did in the postseason.
Jimmy Graham is a better tight end than Rob Gronkowski

Rob Gronkowski has been a consistent threat in the New England passing game for almost all of 2011. Yes, he came to a slow start but as the season progressed and Tom Brady realized his tight ends talent. Gronkowski also led the NFL in receiving yards for tight ends in 2011 with 1372 yards. As well as this he led the NFL in receiving touchdowns for tight ends with 17.
Marijuana should be legal.

My Refutations"The amount of harmful effects are very, very small. Legalizing cannabis will create millions of new jobs in the United States as well. Have you ever thought about how bad alcohol and tobacco are for people, yet they are not illegal? Tobacco is a drug as well, and it kills millions of people each year."Its important to remember that tobacco is less potent than marijuana. Marijuana is much stronger than tobacco and several studies have found that the smoke actually hurts the immune system. The main chemical in marijuana, THC, actually weakens the immune system in people. How can this be a good thing? Oh and by the way, alcohol can actually be healthy for you in low doses for several reasons, so alcohol can actually be good for you. Marijuana on the other hand is bad for you in big or small doses. Due to the fact marijuana hurts T-cells, and weakens the lungs, risk of lung infections raise for those using marijuana. Any amount of marijuana increases the risk of heart attack (it raises heart rate), and in the long-term causes birth defects. [1,2]"Legalizing cannabis will improve our economy greatly, creating millions of new jobs and letting people out of jail. Marijuana is a very common crime and there are hundreds of thousands of people in jails because of using or distributing the drug. When there are horrible people out in the world, killers, rapists, robbers, insane criminals, the marijuana users get put away instead?!" What? WHAT? It won't improve our economy. Tobacco does not improve the economy, but like I said before, it is not as potent as marijuana and that is why tobacco is legal and marijuana is not. Because Marijuana is worse, it will cause even less economic growth. Tobacco causes -2% GDP in the entire world. Can you imagine what would happen if marijuana became legal in the entire world? It would be a disaster to the global economy. [3]My CaseEffects of LegalizationIn the Netherlands, where drugs are legal, crime has rapidly increased. Because marijuana increases the inability to think properly, it increases crime. Most criminals even test positive for drugs anyway. Increased use of marijuana increases the use of other drugs which could even be more harmful. In the case of marijuana and cocaine:“....a 10-percent decrease in the price of marijuana would increase the prevalence of cocaine use by 4.4 to 4.9 percent.”So in the end, marijuana would be a bad thing to legalize. [4]Sources1. http://www.sarnia.com...2. http://www.heritage.org...3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...4. http://www.rand.org...
Marijuana should be legal.

Marijuana should be legal. The amount of harmful effects are very, very small. Legalizing cannabis will create millions of new jobs in the United States as well. Have you ever thought about how bad alcohol and tobacco are for people, yet they are not illegal? Tobacco is a drug as well, and it kills millions of people each year. There is not a single reported instance of someone dying from overdosing or using marijuana. Marijuana can affect ones motor skills, problem solving and driving ability but then again, so can alcohol. Cannabis even has its health benefits, like stress relief, sleeping help, muscle pain relief, and people who don't eat enough will eat more with marijuana. There are many, MANY common misconceptions on marijuana, and one is that it kills brain cells. There is no scientific evidence supporting this theory though. Legalizing cannabis will improve our economy greatly, creating millions of new jobs and letting people out of jail. Marijuana is a very common crime and there are hundreds of thousands of people in jails because of using or distributing the drug. When there are horrible people out in the world, killers, rapists, robbers, insane criminals, the marijuana users get put away instead?! Police officers pay too much attention to drugs being sold and used rather than what actually matters. Marijuana being legalized would be an excellent way to improve our economy and peoples' health.
Evolution is a Truth

Yes, as you pointed out I did use the words "Evolution is a truth", and so from that I will continue to argue from that point. Evolution is a truth for the mere matter that science have observed it, and that it is an actual thing going on in our world. Evolution states from definition that it is the process at which species are diversified over time. Through this definition we can see it is a TRUTH in society and our world today through the process at which we can see by example of bacteria growing stronger and becoming immune to certain antibiotics as the antibiotics are not yet strong enough to kill off the genetically different bacteria. It is also seen today in the fact that some of our organs are removed as they are no longer necessary for survival. Through these things I hope that people can see that Evolution is a truth as by its definition it is in the world. You also said that this goes against the scientific theory though I was merely showing how to me, evolution is something real and physical by the way I used "truth" in context. By the context I used, it shows I was thinking that evolution was truthfully and REALISTICALLY seen in society and NOT that it requires no further explanation. To me evolution, as it seems to me can be proven with realistically and factual means. I also by the way I said: "no further explanation," showed I was talking about my opinion on the IDEA of evolution. The scientific method is merely saying how when you discover something to be true or factual that it brings up more questions. These questions are what you are saying "I said" require no more research, which is false. I was talking about evolution (the main "first" question), and how because I take it as true, these questions have sprung up and do require more research done to further prove the existence of evolution and the ancestry we have with other species. In conclusion my first argument was not saying that evolution should be framed up and nothing else has to be done to it, but rather saying itself has been proven as true and that the questions that it brings up can still be answered for further research
Evolution is a Truth

Let me start off by saying that I am not an "opponent" of Evolution as a scientific theory. I am a Catholic, and the Catholic Church is certainly not in any way opposed to it either. I do have something to debate with you, however. You said, "...evolution is a TRUTH that demands NO FURTHER EXPLANATION" These are your words, and I am afraid you are going to have to eat them. I am not even certain why you used the word "truth" so loosely. Matters of "truth" are usually reserved for philosophy, theology, and law, whereas the Theory of Evolution deals primarily in Biology and Chemistry and other "hard sciences". You use it in a way that contradicts the very model and framework of a Scientific Theory, which is what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is. Science can ONLY use the evidence that is currently available, and it CHANGES with new evidence and new data. So by your statement, you believe that there should be no more research, "NO FURTHER EXPLANATION", with regard to the Theory of Evolution. So all of the Evolutionary Biologists should just call it quits? They have no further questions to ask or answer based on their on going studies?! That is ironically un-scientific.
Evolution is a Truth

Truth: The quality or state of being true -Webster Dictionary True: Being within state of actual state of affairs -Webster Dictionary Maybe use common sense before blindly debating what you perceive is wrong. Truth at the most basic definition, which would allow you to deduce the statement quickly, was used to show how evolution is an actual state that is concurrent with modern day and is in our ecosystem and was involved with life on Earth. "You have yet to give a definition of "truth" outside of your own whimsical and clumsy definition, and you cannot stand by the "needs no further explanation" consistently. R2 you said you did not say it, and now you are saying it means that science dictates getting new information all of the time, and somehow that goes along with 'needs no further explanation'." No, I have given a definition to truth in R2 as I stated it was: the state of being true, as also said in the webster dictionary. Although I have used definitions pertaining to the debate you seem to enjoy bringing up my incompetence in the field of this, which is completely hypocritical and maybe if you were confused, you should given definitions rather than just saying I'm wrong. "If something requires NO FURTHER EXPLANATION it means that everything that can be said, or needs to be said, has been said. THINGS IN SCIENCE are constantly getting new explanations via new data and new experiments. I could not take what you originally said any other way." Maybe you misread my evidence provided in R2 but when I say "No further explanation" I say it is REAL and it is something that happened which is provided through context in the first round when I said that the topic of evolution is real. Thats why its a theory like gravity, this is something that is real, you can say gravity requires no further explanation, which maybe you can understand, its real. I think scientifically and therefore am open for further discoveries but evolution did happen. To further nail down what I was saying and get this thought to you: I said NO FURTHER EXPLANATION because we have enough evidence to prove evolution happened, its done, its real and its in our world today. "Some claim evolution is just a theory. As if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it"s also a soaring spiritual experience." - Neil de Grasse Tyson (astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium)
Evolution is a Truth

You seem very aggressive in your ways of arguing and debating in general. You seem to think that pointing out my improper use of words is relative to the topic at hand. Maybe before attacking my argument, first consider that fact that a mere debate is something in which we share our opinions and not on which we attack each other on there improper ways of speaking. You also seem very hung up on the way I used truth and how it can confuse others. I think you need to interpret that I merely used "truth" to say that it is real. There is no further explanation in the terms that I misused the word truth fir maybe if you read the rest of my argument you could understand how "truth" was not used in a biological or scientific stance but rather on the real and actual definition that normal people can understand it to be TRUE. Also if you have any inkling on how to debate you should note that you should of not accepted my challenge, rather have supported my claim for you seem to be with evolution and also seem to be attacking my ways of speaking rather than attacking the points I make. You are very un-scientific in the fact you say evolution is different in all sciences. I think you should read up on the fact that evolution in biology, botany, genetics, and other sciences is accepted as the diversifying of species over time and through DNA changes and mutations. Also "no further explanation" is not representing that we should stop changing our idea on evolution. I can say God requires no further explanation to exist yet still change my opinion on the topic if new data is seen. The earth was once thought to be flat and that was true for them. Later we discovered it to be round and spherical, does that make it false in there time? Yes, but with the information they had at the time without any other points to show it was spherical, the argument was held to be true by the limited knowledge they had. In conclusion, you are bent in your ways of arguing and seem to be more attacking me and supporting the claim which I was hoping someone AGAINST evolution would take.
vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

Okay, this should be fun. First, on the Affirmative side: EXTEND EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I HAVE MADE My opponent has dropped all of my arguments and since we ARE debating LD, you flow these all through. This means that you MUST vote affirmative at this point because it is against the rules for him to argue my points after dropping them. It is the negative's burden simply to prove the affirmative's case wrong. He can no longer do this. I always try to give some lenience and tell my opponent how they can win at this point, but quite frankly, they can't. (Since we agreed for LD debate rules) I have great consideration to just drop what I think were negative points, but I will TRY and attack what he has said so far. PLEASE NOTE: THE NEGATIVE IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY NEW ARGUMENTS AND/OR EXPAND HIS CONTENTIONS IN HIS LAST SPEECH. He starts off with: "This person [vigilante] might have taken this path for various reasons that usually include revenge, passion, or compulsion. Regardless for why they are doing it, they have absolutely no jurisdiction, code, rules, or any restrictions to follow. .. " You reject his first "point" for three reasons: 1) All vigilantes will follow a code. The same code every one of us follows, our moral guidelines. It is unfair and untrue to state that a vigilante acts randomly or without morals 2) Even if you didn't believe that, the definition that MY OPPONENT PROVIDED states a vigilante takes a law into there own hands. This means that vigilantes are ONLY vigilantes when the are enforcing a law, which is a guideline that was already set up in society. Furthermore, a vigilante, by definition, is no different then a police officer, since they follow the same guidelines. 3) If a person IS hurt, or abused or whatever my opponent implies in his first point, vigilantes are no more responsible for it than a police officer is when he (or she) hurts a person when arresting them. A human being is a human being, guidelines don't ever physically stop you from doing something. This alone removes the ground from the negative. His "main point" is "trust": "Can we trust a vigilante? By the definition of a vigilante, no we cannot. A person who is a vigilante can cause good and yet they can cause havoc. Therefore, their intentions are unpredictable. That makes it dangerous for the community since vigilantes cannot be trusted. " We can turn this argument: 1) The negative states that we only can't affirm because of the definition of the vigilante. He only compares them to police officers! I've already said this but I will say it again: A VIGILANTE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE THEY: FOLLOW THE SAME GUIDELINES, ENFORCE THE LAW AND ARE AS AUTONOMOUS AND SPONTANEOUS AS A POLICE OFFICER. Just because a person is an officer does NOT mean that they will never over-enforce the law or commit an immoral act.
vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

.. . Now, I will proceed with my opening statement. .. . I will be presenting the side CON, which is against the justification of vigilantism when the government fails to enforce the law. The main subject we are discussing is vigilantism. The term vigilantism refers to someone who is a "vigilante". vigilante: someone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. A vigilante is an ordinary civilian who attains the idea that they will enforce the law. This person might have taken this path for various reasons that usually include revenge, passion, or compulsion. Regardless for why they are doing it, they have absolutely no jurisdiction, code, rules, or any restrictions to follow. As for a police officer, they have a jurisdiction and code to follow and enforce the law by any means necessary. For what ever they might do, they are authorized to do it, for they are trained and knowledgeable of the law. Vigilantes are not authorized and, chances are, not aware of the dangers it can cause. My main point here is trust. Can we trust a vigilante? By the definition of a vigilante, no we cannot. A person who is a vigilante can cause good and yet they can cause havoc. Therefore, their intentions are unpredictable. That makes it dangerous for the community since vigilantes cannot be trusted. I will proceed with contentions and observations with more specific detail as well as my resolution and conclusion in the third round. .. .. .
vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

.. . I will be presenting the side CON, which is against the justification of vigilantism when the government fails to enforce the law. The main subject we are discussing is vigilantism. The term vigilantism refers to someone who is a "vigilante". vigilante: someone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. A vigilante is an ordinary civilian who attains the idea that they will enforce the law. This person might have taken this path for various reasons that usually include revenge, passion, or compulsion. Regardless for why they are doing it, they have absolutely no jurisdiction, code, rules, or any restrictions to follow. As for a police officer, they have a jurisdiction and code to follow and enforce the law by any means necessary. For what ever they might do, they are authorized to do it, for they are trained and knowledgeable of the law. Vigilantes are not authorized and, chances are, not aware of the dangers it can cause. My main point here is trust. Can we trust a vigilante? By the definition of a vigilante, no we cannot. A person who is a vigilante can cause good and yet they can cause havoc. Therefore, their intentions are unpredictable. That makes it dangerous for the community since vigilantes cannot be trusted. I will provide more evidence in the second round. .. . Now, my opponent will proceed with his opening statement for why he is PRO. .. .
Chris Paul is the best point guard in the NBA

You are either a very biased Thunder fan, or you know nothing about basketball. "Westbrook averages his stats despite playing along-side the best player in the NBA." First off LeBron James is hands down the best player in the NBA. Playing with Durant does not take away from Westbrook, if anything it helps him. Durant was the best scorer in the league, this means Westbrook should have had a lot of easy assists. He only averaged 6.9. "While Chris Paul is the undiputed leader of his team, Russell Westbrook has to play alongside one of the best players in the NBA, which lowers his stats." As I stated earlier this should only help his assists. In basketball defenses focus in on the best player on the opposing team. With teams constantly paying attention to Durant that frees up Westbrook to play more 1 0n 1. The only thing that would make sense about your arguement is if Durant took a significant amount of shots away from Westbrook. Last tear he still shot 17.2 shots per game. Durant shot only 3.6 more shots than Westbrook at 20.8. If Chris Paul shot 17.2 times per game he would be on track to score about 22 points per game, about equal to Westbrook's 21.8. "Westbrook averages more Points and Rebounds, 2 of the main categories stat-wise. He also averages more made free throws, more offensive rebounds, and less fouls despite playing fewer minutes than Chris Paul [1] [2]." Paul not only is better than Westbrook in 2 categories but he leads the league in 2 categories, assists and steals, arguably the most important categories for point guards. I already showed that Westbrook scores more, but also shoots more with lower field goal percentages. He makes more free throws but shoots a lower percentage. So if people want to vote for Westbrook because he averages 1.4 more rebounds than Paul then go right ahead. Paul has not played his best in the playoffs, but this year was messed up because of the Sterling scandal. Last year in the playoofs Westbrook's field goal percentage went down to 42%. His 3 point percentage went down to 28%. So he basically just shot more in the playoffs but his percentages went down. Also his turnovers went up to 4.4