BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should The YMCA quit and let OYB comeback #yes or #no

I disagree as the YMCA is a verry charieable organization of which it is that of a non-profit while the OYB isn't. The OYB can come back anytime it wants the simple matter of the fact is that more people go to the Y than the OYB, because they prefer the Y more. It's simply Social Darwinism as the organizationsn people don't want anymore vanish because no one wants them. The Y has done great things like giving back to charity and helping with disabled veterans. We've seen the Y do things like voluneteer events where they help give back to the local communities. (. http://www.ymca.net...)
Cuban Missile Crisis Role Play

The United States finds this meeting of the UN assembly to be of utmost importance to the future and stability of the world as we know it. Now, we all have seen the ravages of war, the ravages of ideologies, and the ravages of the pursuit of power. The United States is content with sharing the economic sphere of the world, and we have no intention of disturbing the layer of peace that has befallen us here at the UN. We have made great strides to protect that peace despite the current states of Berlin and Cuba. Now it is time though for this assembly to recognize the importance of taking action to maintain that peace, to maintain the status quo, and to maintain our posterity. There is no question that in this age of nuclear warfare, there will be no speedy passage to a satisfactory ending. However, the United Stats requests this matter be given the utmost urgency before it degenerates to a most egregious situation. Recent intelligence confirms that missiles capable of immeasurable destruction have been transferred to the island of Cuba. It is no well-kept secret that Cuba has granted permissions to the Soviet Union, however the United States was willing to tolerate this. We were willing to tolerate totalitarian regimes, we were willing to tolerate this new influence within the Western hemisphere, yet our tolerance runs thin when our very people are in danger. The placing of missiles on the island of Cuba is a direct provocation to the United States, and threatens to violate the stability that has kept our countries, our people, and our United Nations stable. Catastrophe may be averted however, and this is what I plan to discuss today. The United States demands the immediate removal of the missiles from Cuba in a time period spanning no more than six months. If the Soviet Union continues to persist with this nuclear armament on the outskirts of the people of the United States, there will be no option left but for the United States to retaliate with an armament of missile sites in Turkey and within the Pacific. We have been willing to entertain peace talks with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries for we believe that peace is paramount to preserving our stable globe in this age of nuclear technology. While we will continue to forbear from engaging in another world war, the people of the United States wish to make their intention clear and concise. Mr. Zorin, if the administration of your country refuses to disarm the missile sites on Cuba there will be no recourse for future prevention of a catastrophic war. If your country refuses to disarm the missile sites on Cuba, it will be interpreted as a direct threat on the safety of the American people. If your country refuses to disarm the missile sites on Cuba, and if any detection of a missile launch is received from our intelligence, there will be only one option that will immediately be available. The retaliation by United States missiles against the Soviet Union itself. I will ask you again Mr. Zorin, will the administration of your country disarm the missile sites on Cuba? Yes or no, do not wait for the translation Mr. Zorin, yes or no!
Cuban Missile Crisis Role Play

This would be a historic role playing debate where I would play Valerian Zorin – USSR Ambassador to the UN speaking for Khrushchev and the Soviets. My opponent would play Adlai Stevenson – US Ambassador to the UN for the Kennedy administration. The rules would be that we would both remain in character and we are speaking to the UN assembly with U Thant as the UN Secretary General. We will remain in character throughout the debate including the comment section. If absolutely necessary brackets can be used to comment outside of character "[]". This is largely based on rhetoric at the time, so sources are less important than the content and style. Things unfolded throughout the 13 day period, but there will be some lenience in the time line within the debate periods. Some of this logistically can be discussed prior to the debate beginning, or via PM/profile comments during the debate. I will not enter the role until the debate challenge has been met, so in comments i will engage normally until it begins. The second part of this round will require the US ambassador to post resolution and argument of protest regarding the placing of nuclear missiles on the Island of Cuba. Further logistical questions regarding this debate can be sent to me via PM, or on my comment board. The actual event took 13 days, but we will condense this to 4 rounds. I'm kind of experimenting with this debate. This is meant to be fun.
Marijuana Legalization

I have highlighted many reasons why Marijuana should be legalized 1. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco My opponent highlighted two general reasons to support his claim that marijuana should be illegal: a. Health impacts b. Driving intoxicated under the influence My opponent didn't dispute my claim that marijuana is less harmful and less addictive than alcohol or tobacco. This demonstrates that my opponent's main reason to support his claim is not sufficient to justify banning marijuana. My opponent however argues that what makes marijuana more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco is that people who consume marijuana, even as little as smoking 1 or 2 grams of marijuana, won't be able to drive. Alcohol on the other hand can take a drink or two and still be able to drive. My opponent argument doesn't justify prohibiting marijuana. There's no reason to believe that marijuana users can't respect and not drive under the influence. A study shows that "even a strong smoked cannabis dose will affect driving skills for only a few hours" [1]. 2. Prohibition ruins innocent lives unnecessarily My opponent argues that reform is needed, and it would solve this problem. While reform is better than nothing, but as I mentioned earlier, even if an arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it will always remain on someone's record making it harder for them to land a new job. The New York Times reports "From 2001 to 2010, the police made more than 8.2 million marijuana arrests; almost nine in 10 were for possession alone. In 2011, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes put together" [3]. 3. Prohibition wastes a staggering amount of resources and tax payers' money I've shown previously that "Each year, enforcing laws on possession costs more than $3.6 billion" [3]. 4. Prohibition doesn't help reduce use 19% of Americans smoked marijuana in 2012 alone [2]! Prohibition clearly didn't prevent Americans from smoking. I argue that there are better ways to reduce use. 5. Legalizing marijuana would cut cartel profits I've shown previously that legalizing marijuana would cut Cartel profits by up to 30% [4]. My opponent argues that the Cartel will definitely not give up and try different thing, such as distributing cocaine, meth…etc. I don't disagree that the Cartel would do whatever they can to keep profit, but marijuana legalization will have a major impact, and you can't just ignore it. 6. Prohibition infringes on the religious freedom of Rastafaris. This is simply a fact. My opponent only attempted at justifying it… but I don't see any reason why Rastadaris should be denied their freedom. I ask the reader to carefully consider the evidence and conclude that marijuana should be legalized. Thank you. [1] . http://www.canorml.org... [2] . http://www.drugabuse.gov... [3] . http://www.nytimes.com... [4] . http://www.insightcrime.org...
Marijuana Legalization

In my opening argument, I've highlighted at least six reasons to contend that marijuana should be legalized. 1. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco My opponent didn't disagree that alcohol or tobacco can be harmful (in fact more harmful that marijuana), but he claims that we shouldn't be "releasing another harmful substance to the public". The point that I was making is to argue that just because something is unhealthy or harmful, this isn't sufficient justification to make it illegal. Yet, health reasons were the main reasons he used in his opening argument to justify prohibiting it. My opponent has to demonstrate that marijuana is very dangerous and very addicting to warrant prohibiting it. Marijuana fits neither of those claims. My opponent also claimed that driving under the influence of marijuana is more dangerous. This argument is similar to saying that people shouldn't drink altogether because they can end up driving under the influence… or people should be banned from texting altogether because they could potentially text and drive… I don't disagree that driving while being "high" is a crime, but that doesn't justify banning marijuana altogether. The only way this claim would be reasonable if you can show that the marijuana causes people to drive! I think you can agree that this is unreasonable. 2. Prohibition ruins innocent lives unnecessarily My opponent didn't argue my claim. This is a significant point that shouldn't be ignored. 3. Prohibition wastes a staggering amount of resources and tax payers' money My opponent again didn't argue my claim. I ask the reader to consider if the blunder of all this money is worth it. 4. Prohibition doesn't help reduce use My opponent argued that the rate of use has gone up. The good news is that the trend has gone down among teens [1]. Even if my opponent was able to refute this argument, he has to justify that the increase is so significant that it warrants banning marijuana altogether. Since you mentioned Colorado, let's see what happened in Colorado since legalizations: [2] a. It generated about $1 billion in sales b. A police officer muses "We found there hasn't been much of a change of anything. Basically, officers aren't seeing much of a change in how they do police work. " c. Thousands of jobs have been created d. State collected $60 millions in tax revenue 5. Legalizing marijuana would cut cartel profits My opponent argued that legalization "would be a significant economic opportunity for drug dealers". I've provided evidence to the contrary. I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for his claim. 6. Prohibition infringes on the religious freedom of Rastafaris My opponent stated that "there is already a court precedent that would prevent outlawing marijuana use to be considered as religious infringement". While the source he mentioned refers to peyote, not marijuana, that doesn't change the fact that certain religions are being oppressed. So the question I ask my opponent would be "Is it all worth it? " [1] . http://www.usnews.com... [2] . http://www.cbc.ca...
Marijuana Legalization

I am very impressed with your argument, it is very well thought out and put together. To continue my stance, The rate of use has gone up in Colorado since its legalization. http://www.denverpost.com... Also, as far as religious oppression of Rastafarians goes, there is already a court precedent that would prevent outlawing marijuana use to be considered as religious infringement. As long as the law applies to everyone, it is legal to ban the use of marijuana. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990) it was ruled by the US Supreme Court that because Oregon's drug laws applied to everyone, they were acceptable; which applies to all state drug laws. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, the legalization would be a significant economic opportunity for drug dealers. As possession would not be illegal, it would be more convenient to purchase marijuana from a drug dealer untaxed than it would be to buy it for extra at the store. To continue that thought, the easy access given by the state would make it easier for it to get into the hands of minors. Lastly, the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal shouldn't determine whether marijuana should be. I do not deny that alcohol and tobacco can be harmful, but releasing another harmful substance to the public will in no way change that nor have a positive effect. It is simply adding another harmful substance into the mix. Marijuana is more intoxicating than alcohol and tobacco. Upon having a drink, the vast majority of humans will be under the legal limit and be able to drive. Upon "smoking a bowl" of marijuana, one will be intoxicated, or "high". Tobacco does not have intoxicating factors like alcohol or marijuana. It does not take a single drink to get drunk, yet it takes one joint or bowl to get high. Giving the public access to this would increase the number of intoxicated drivers because it is adding another variable to the equation. For example, if X is drinkers and Y is intoxicated drivers, we have X=Y. If we legalize marijuana, then we would have X Z=Y. It would be dangerous and unfair to the American people to legalize marijuana. http://dui.drivinglaws.org... http://www.ibtimes.com...
Marijuana Legalization

I believe that marijuana should not be legalized for many reasons. The first reason I would like to convey is that the health risks for marijuana outweigh the benefits. Marijuana use has been proven to weaken the immune system, increase risk for pneumonia and lung infection as well as causing psychosis in users that has resulted in death. Long term smoking of marijuana has even been linked to lung cancer. In addition to this, it demotes learning abilities days after use in students and the legalization would increase the number of intoxicated drivers on the road. http://www.usatoday.com...
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible (Cont.debate)

In the case of gods existence, the theist must admit that god had only itself to use. A perfect being that makes imperfect beings, is doing so with the fullest of intention taking away our choice to be imperfect in whatever way we have been designed, and placed.This subject will be allowed to touch on Morality, Free Will, Souls, Heaven, and ofcourse God.1st) Acceptance 2nd) Continued from closing arguments of prior debate............5th) Closing resolutions
Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

i quoted right at the get go that we pay 17% of our GDP, while single payer countries pay 10%. this is a well established fact, and as i said, i quoted it right at the get go. i also quoted the first link that gives all kinds of similar facts, and then some. i await con to actually read my initial argument and actually do a little research on this. the reason we don't do it as a country, is mostly because because we are ignorant, and also because we don't like socialism. the research as i've quoted is pretty solid in the savings that would occur... i defy you to show otherwise.
Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

we spend more per capita, and get less health care results back... than any other country in the world: http://cthealth.server101.com... -we spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare, while single payer countries spend 10%. that 7% represents a lot of money, a trillion dollars. -the savings come from a decrease in administrative costs: insurance companies are a middleman that serves no real purpose other than spending 30% of revenue on administrative costs and profit, costs that could be just as easily streamlined by the government down to less than 5% or so. (medicare for example requires 3% for administration). -our GDP is 14 trillion, our national debt is close to there. 1 trillion dollars a year, enough to boost our economy significantly, or eliminate our debt if we wanted (political football as to how that would be done), or at the end of the day simply keep more money our pocket. -if the government did it right (big if, granted), it would be a self contained system (no taxes other than from those who want to join), we would not coerce people to join, and/or they could utilize 'supplemental insurance' in addition to the government's system and get more options. they wouldn't have to wait in lines then, which aren't that long to begin with. (two weeks max for most standard procedures, short for emergencies etc, and with many insurance companies worse than many single payer systems... and most citizens in single payer countries do not envy us). -insurance companies could even still exist (they may need to retain the current regulations to cover some preexisting conditions by law, so as to prevent them from skimming off a bunch of healthy people from government plans, to ensure the pool is sufficient to cover everyone in it to a reasonable extent--the most difficult aspect of allowing insurance companies to still exist, the government's power here and the overall give and take here, is huge). -there could be limits on the amount of care which is essentially what insurance companies already do and people understand as a necessity (eg, a 200k policy) (there would be no need for 'death panels'). the copays, premiums (or taxes), carrots and sticks, could be done so as to ensure people don't abuse the system (as they do with so many insurance plans already) -"Why I (an economically right leaning libertarian) Prefer French Health Care" (not directly on point, but interesting and relevant, with decent commentary following) http://pnhp.org... full article: http://reason.com... "For a dozen years now I've led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife's native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I'll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now" .
Guns kill people!

Usually when I think of gun control I think of good target practise. You know never missing your target because you have good "control" over your fire arm. However many liberal democrats these days mean something completely different when they say, "gun control". It has been said by many of the left minded individuals of this country that, "Guns kill people." Now I realise that not all left wingers feel this way but a large percentage of the true liberals in this country do. They believe that banning guns will suddenly make people be nice to each other. That crimes will go down and that murder and suicide rates will plummet. When I hear these arguments the first thing that comes to my mind is "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" No I am not necessarily talking about Bill Clinton. Ha-ha. What I am talking about is lies or propaganda that the anti gun left wants you to believe to get you to vote for them, to get you to vote anti-gun. I on the otherhand strongly believe that Guns do NOT kill people and banning things has never worked in this country and it never will! That goes for guns too. Banning Guns will not solve anything and it certainly will not stop PEOPLE from killing people. Which is what I believe the true problem is. In this debate I would like to go head to head with any liberal or moderate conservative who believes that guns kill people so I can prove to them and my readers that their argument is very flaw full and pointless.
Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

1. Racial dating preferences are based on sexual preferences.Agreed.2. Sexual preferences, and thus racial dating preferences, are matters of subjective taste.Agreed.3. Subjective taste is entirely detached from any presumptions on superiority and inferiority.This is false. A person cannot prefer something unless he values his preference more than he values his other options. What does it mean to have a preference? To have a preference is to have "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others." [1] If you like one thing more than another, do you consider them to be equal? Yes? Then why do you prefer one? Isn't it a contradiction to say, "These are equal, but one is more desiable than the other"? How can one be more desirable if you consider both to be equal? If they're equal, you shouldn't have a preference one way or the other.Subjective taste are not detatched from presumptions of superiority and inferiority. The fact that one is more liked than the other...means that one is subjectively superior to the other. Otherwise, preference woldn't exist. How could it? If two things are perceived as being equal, there's nothing about one which makes it more desirable than the other.From last time, I would like for Con to answer this question: ""If a person believes two things are equal, how can he perceive one as being more desirable?" ---citations---1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

I feel quite unsatisfied in Pro's addressal of my premises. I thus wish to restate them.1. Racial dating preferences are based on sexual preferences.2. Sexual preferences, and thus racial dating preferences, are matters of subjective taste.3. Subjective taste is entirely detached from any presumptions on superiority and inferiority.C1: Racial dating preferences are entirely detached from any judgement on the superiority or inferiority of any race (just as sexual orientation does not entail sexism).C2: Racial dating preferences are not racist.The crux of the debate rests on P.2. Pro believes that by having racial dating preferences, you treat races unequally. His argument is quite easily dismantled. First, as agreed, "equality" means that no race is inherently inferior or superior to another. Pro uses the analogy of bottled water. If we prefer one bottled water over another, Pro says, we're treating them unequally. In the same way, he states that those with racial dating preferences treat people of different races as unequal. If they were equal, he says, a non-racist person would treat them the same. As stated, this is quite easily rebutted, and does not connect with my argument. It has never been contended by Pro that subjectivity cannot entail notions of superiority and inferiority, only personal taste. Since "equality" has to do with superiority and inferiority, any time we treat a race as no better or worse than any other, we're not being racist. Racial dating preferences are subjective, thus do not make any judgements on superiority, and thus, do not assume that races are unequal. The exception would be when someone actually believes his prefered race(s) is/are better than the others, factually speaking. But this is merely an exception and doesn't bring any dispute to my arguent.To summarize, being racist means assuming that one or more races is inherently superior to the others. Notions of superioty are not within the bounds of subjective taste. Racial dating preferences are subjective taste. Therefore, racial dating preferences are not racist. No normal person who is sexually attracted to one race more than others would say that that race is actually superior. He'd acknowledge that it's just his personal preference, and others have their preferences. None are right or wrong. That's why they're called "preferences". Pro even goes so far as to say pretty much everyone is sexist. I'm glad Pro is consistent--since I believe his argument entails this--but it's simply fallacious. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with inequality. That view point is wrong for pretty much the same reasons explained above. Moreover, if sexual preference entails sexism all straight people are sexist against their own sex, which is prima facie absurd.