BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing the Coca plant

My opponent has failed to prove WHY we should legalize the coca plant, only WHY NOT. Because my opponent has the burden of proof and has failed to provide any proof Con wins this debate. If you legalize the coca plant, sure the average person would not be able to make enough of it. But people in groups will start coca farms where they can legally grow the coca and produce cocaine illegally. Because there is not enough space I will conclude with this: Pro has not refuted any points: Con wins
Legalizing the Coca plant

I meant the plant its self dost get you high like weed I do not mean cocaine should be legal just the plant its self Because the process is so long that in America most people would rather make weed. It takes days to make coca into cocaine There are so many different chemicals involved in making it that the average person would only be able to make enough for himself . Also it takes a large amount to get enough to sell. It also has herbal and medicinal uses. I realize I need more SPACE!!!!!!
Legalizing the Coca plant

===Refutations=== "he process to turn it into cocaine is very long and hard" It may be long and hard (pffft) but it can still be used to produce a very illegal drug. "takes a large amount to get enough to sell." It is still possible to sell though. People could have more than one plant you realize. "t doesn't get you high ,like weed does" It has been scientifically proven [2] that cocaine is much more damaging to the brain. It is extremely addictive and much more dangerous. No space left!
Arena of Valor is better than Mobile legends

While its true that mobile has lags, Its worth it in my opinion, Because you get better content in the long run, And they can always fix the lag problem. And while valor has those amazing superhero's, They don't have the appeal that mobile has, Because as I previously mentioned mobile is better for beginners. And it overall just appeals to everything a gamer wants, Good in depth graphics, Easy to control actions, And ability to connect with other players, The lag is just a minor set back.
Arena of Valor is better than Mobile legends

You right Mobile legends do perform an challenge in the game with the old characters, However it still not fair that they reduced and given the once powerful heroes such as Lesley and Lyle more weaker. Also not only with that, The classes of champions you can play is not fair also. The tanks are out coasted by the rest of the heroes you can play unlike arena of valor. Tanks are very useless in the game play. You don't need one, Because all you need is damage, Unlike arena of valor. Each hero's weakness and strength's are balanced and its more possible to tank. It may be harder than mobile legends at times, But the heroes are balanced. It's difference if you have an tank or not unlike mobile. Also not to mention that Mobile legends has very bad lags. I don't get the lags as bad in Arena of Valor, But in Mobile. I can hardly control the hero and the connection is good. Also the system of Mobile legends is flawed also. It's getting bad, Because when you're connecting it says that you left the game even know I still on it and then it takes points off. Arena do not have frequent connection issues that bad as Mobile. Also the last the argument is that Arena of Valor has Batman, Superman, And Wonder woman, Which is awesome. These is why Arena of Valor is better. Thanks for debating!
Arena of Valor is better than Mobile legends

It's true that the characters that you get, Soon become weak, But doesn't that introduce a bit of a challenge for you to overcome. This aspect of the game makes you think, It makes you want to strive to be better. As for the game modes, I think sometimes in order to overcome and persevere you need to become familiar with the game first, And even though there is not a variety of game modes, Its still has other aspects that make it great such as, It is a good game for people who are new to this game genre to play in order to get the basics. It's easy to play, And its easy to level up, Which in turn unlocks more game content, Which keeps the attention of the users, And isn't that what every game tries to do.
Arena of Valor is better than Mobile legends

You right it has more downloads and more likes. However Mobile legends is spread around the world and arena of valor is usually spread around Europe and us so not many of them heard of them. anyways about the heroes in Mobile Legends. Every Month you get a new hero in the game, And they at first become very strong and op. However soon they become more weaker and some are useless because new heroes are being introduced so quickly. Also Arena of Valor has more game modes than Mobile Legends. You can go solo by your self and fight one V's one or u can go team of 3, Or classic. Not to mention it has hook wars on weekends which to me, I think it's very fun.
Arena of Valor is better than Mobile legends

Arena of valor may look better but in reality once you get past over all looks its no where in the same league as mobile legends. Sure the graphics may look better, But the sad truth is that these high graphics slow down gameplay significantly. When it comes to looks, Arena of valor beats mobile legends, But that's about as far as its winning streak goes because not everything is about anesthetics. When it comes to user satisfaction, Mobile legends is the victor, In fact I would say that it is had more downloads and plays then arena of valor. And the popular a game is, Tends to mean people like more. Mobile legends also has more variety as far as character selection and map and it even has more updates which keep users interested. Arena of valor's popularity has dropped drastcly since mobile legends has come out, The better game wins.
Is Pepsi better than coke

I will give multiple reasons why I believe Coke is better. 1. The Coca-Cola company has stood a greater test of time, Coca-Cola has has been around for over 130 years [1], Pepsi only 123 years. [2] 2. An arguably healthier drink, both drinks are not the drink someone should drink for losing weight. However, if one is to choose one over another then Coca-Cola is the better choice. Coke only has 140 calories, Pepsi has 150. [3] 3. The earning from each company shows off what the people prefer, which one is better. Coca-Cola company makes much more then Pepsi, Coke is ranked #4, Pepsi is ranked #29 by Forbes. [4] 4. Coke had the awesomeness to put names on their bottles! [5] Apart from my opponents admitting that Coke loves animals like Polar Bears, they also love Christmas with the Santa Clause bottles! [6] For these reasons, I feel I've proven Coca-Cola's superiority over Pepsi. Please vote con, thanks! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.forbes.com... [5]https://www.google.com... [6] https://www.google.com...
Is Pepsi better than coke

Pepsi is better than coke because Pepsi has a less amount of sweetness,coke has more sweetness even if it tastes less sweet (don't believe me? See Google).Also Pepsi Has emoji's on it's labels,Unlike coke with polar bears.And most importantly for 90's fans,Pepsi brought back crystal Pepsi (It's first clear soda).Coke however didn't bring back it's 90's drink called Coke II (The ripoff of New Coke).That is how pepsi can be better than coke
Should we reconcile Cresent(Muslim) and Cross(Catholic/Christian)

CAUSE THEY HAVE SUPER-DIFFERENT BELIEFS LIKE; In Islam:"it is says that killing is pleased by Allah because all those people that had been killed will go to the kingdom of Allah" But in christian/catholic: "Thou shalt not kill" Second, Ramadan Shall Catholic/Christian will attend Ramadan? Or Should Islam must participate Holy Week?
It will be beneficial for a country if citizens can to do ANYTHING they want so long as...

But those are different, like that;s racism and hatred towards other religion, so are you saying that giving equal freedom to other races is about the same as legalizing marijuana? Heck no, racism and hatred to other religion needs to be gone because it's taking about human rights, but you can't compare those to marijuana. Think about it, if illegal marijuana is like racism they had in the 1900s, it would be legalized and free to use right now. But like what I said before, we're not perfect and temptation is always following us, so we would do something evil with marijuana and other things that won't hurt anyone if you do it by yourself.
It will be beneficial for a country if citizens can to do ANYTHING they want so long as...

Imagine this scenario: 1) September 2017- UK makes it illegal to claim "Islam is an evil religion, Muhammad was a terrorist" online, and it is considered hate speech/trolling 2) September 2018 By now 1000+ people in Jail for speaking their mind about Islam 3) September 2019- Many of those jailed are released from Jail and begin to protest and act violently against Muslims. Some of them jailed were also famous people like Nelson Mandela. A civil war erupts. Civil disturbances and rioting everywhere. Imagine this scenario: 1) If you are black you must ride on the back of a bus, if you ride in the front you go to jail (this was a law in the usa in the 1960's) 2) Many people protested and many were put in Jail. This almost led to civil wars. Do you not see how many scenarios there have been throughout history were victimless crimes have led to brutal wars and violence?
It will be beneficial for a country if citizens can to do ANYTHING they want so long as...

AND THAT'S HOW HUMANITY CORRUPTED. You see, we are not perfect, we get devoured by temptations, we make mistakes and we do stupid stuff. Even if those rules don't affect others, temptation and greediness and other bad factors will come and make use corrupt. People are still doing bad even with these rules so how can limiting the rules and laws make things any better? It's like an communist country, if the leader is perfect and the leader is great and smart, the country will develop fast and strong than other countries, but if the leader is greedy and corrupted, the whole country will be corrupted. We are like that corrupted leader, even if we get the stuff we want, we still want more, we're greedy, we want to rule, if more laws are destroyed, the society will be destroyed too. Think about it, US government gave people freedom to own personal guns and what do many people do? Shoot and murder. This happens everywhere too. Look at other countries who doesn't allow personal guns, there's barely any murder by guns, bank robbery and stuff. That's just an example. Now think about what will happen if the government let people grow weeds and boos in their home, instead of just smoking it alone without any people around, temptation will control us and make us do bad stuff with them, that's even happening right now, some people are putting drugs inside school food and restaurants and stuff, what will happen if they legalize the big trouble? More trouble will come. We're corrupt, we can't control stuff, we're sinners, even if it's a law to not do stuff, people do it because they're crazy, and there would be more crazy people if you delete all those laws.
It will be beneficial for a country if citizens can to do ANYTHING they want so long as...

I think a law should be passed to allow a person to do whatever they want so long as... 1) It doesn't harm anyone (humans) or anything (e.g companies, animals, society, economy e.t.c) 2) Offending someone or hurting someones feelings through free speech or an action does not count as "harm" in my definition 3) i.e there are no victims And I propose such a law would be beneficial for the country. I say this on the grounds that if such a law was applied then there would no longer be ANYONE going to jail for victim less crimes, which leads to injustice and bitterness, which could lead to civil war and hate. (imprisoning mandela and martin luther king for a victimless crime almost lead to civil war. Victimless crimes almost always cause divisions and problems like this) Some victimless crimes which lead people to prison these days are: 1) Growing a Marijuana plant in your garden (illegal in many countries) 2) Smoking Marijuana in your own home with nobody around (illegal in many countries) 3) Using tinted windows (crime in some EU countries) 4) Living in your car when homeless (considered a crime in USA) 5) Not wearing a headscarf (crime in many Muslim countries) e.t.c To summarise I feel all victim less crimes should be made legal and this would be beneficial for the country and its citizens. I am open minded and want to know if my stance is wrong through a debate. **I would like to debate someone who supports punishing those who commit what I perceive as victimless crimes**
The Connecticut Shooting Premeditated

"People don't just wake up one day and decide 10 days from Christmas to hurt children. " Evidence for statement = zero"His classmates said he was a "loner" he was always fidgety in class. " ADHD is not grounds to claim someone's moment of supposed insanity was premeditated. "His own brother even said he was emotionally damaged. " Just because someone was emotionally scarred is not evidence that they planned a mass murder. "I also think he was so desperate to not be forgotten he thought no one will forget this. He also believed he wasn't in control of his own life so he wanted to dictate others lives. " You cannot claim objective knowledge of subjective content.
Affirmative action should not continue

If you don't get a job just because you are white than you are paying for passed injustices 3. I'm half pensylvania Dutch mennonite. I have Amish ancestry to and I've been to Germany. I know that but everyone said Dutch so it kind of stuck. Anti white racism is more common than you think. It's less likely to be reported on by the liberal media. Kevin Shiflet was an 8 year old white boy whose throat was slit by a black man as he played on his yard. He killer hated white people and that's why he did it. Zemir begic was killed in December as revenge for mike brown by a group of black and Hispanic teens. David santucci was killed after the Zimmerman verdict as revenge for like brown. In Wisconsin white kids were made to wear white wrist bands to symbolize white privilege. 6 Since ferguson is mostly black they have to have a white police force? And since America is 70% white we should have a white president by that logic. Most cops are nice people who choose that job because they want to save people. White Cops save many black lives a year. You can't assume they're all evil because of 100 black people killed by cops a year. Remember black people aren't the only people who will need cops help. I don't want to be put in danger by having a less qualified person help me when I need it because someone in Missouri diesnt like white cops. Black people are more likely to commit crime because they live in poorer areas and therefor are more likely to be in prison. 8 In august Ralph weems was attacked by a group of black men outside a Missisippi Waffle House as revenge for mike brown. Still he is in a rehab facility with a traumatic brain injury. Imagine if he (once he's able to work) were to not get ores be he of affirmative action. 9 affirmative action should be based on socioeconomics. A rich black person will have an easier toe getting into college than a poor white person whose suffered from things like diseases, dissabilities ect. Assuming because one person is white and one person is black the white had an easier life is making a preconceived notion. Racism against blacks exists for sure and so does racism against whites. My opponent doesn't seek to grasp any of thin formation I gave him. Please vote for me.
Affirmative action should not continue

1. How do you describe the action of not hiring someone just because they're white despite being more qualified than their black counter part? Discrimination 2 doing something about racism doesn't have to mean letting someone discriminate against me. I can help end racism which I know exists using ways that don't discriminate against me. 4 your right. Genocide is worse. 6 it's not my fault slavery happened. I have ancestors who fought to end slavery. Why should I suffer for what they risked their lives to end? What if I'm a poor white person and I'm applying to a job but a rich black person whose had an easier life gets it instead of me. I don't want to suffer because of what someone who happened to be the same race as me did 50 years ago. What if my ancestors weren't even here during slavery? 7 that situation still could happen and while doing something to make up for racism your discriminating against someone who actually suffered from it. 8. There are many different white cultures. There's the Scandinavians in Minnesota, the Cajuns in Louisiana, the pensylvania Dutch in pensylvania... All of which are different with distinct cultures and history. Just because the southern white culture (generally) benefited from racism doesn't mean the russian immigrant in NYC has to pay for it. That's clumping all whites in a group. My grandparents and their siblings for example suffered from racism as they were in nazi camps. The didn't benefit from it. 10. Cops same thing. Not all white cops are racist and want to kill the first black person they see. Many White cops protect black and Hispanic people and risk their lives doing it. If you are in a situation where a rapist is in your house and your calling 911 who do you want to come ? The best, strongest and most well trained cop or the pretty good cop. 11 imagine being a white person who was paralyzed in an anti white hate crime and than being discriminated against again. All those facts are true because black people tend to live in poorer neighborhoods . Black young men make up 3% of the population and commit 50% of the murderers (fbi) and black teenage boys are 9 times more likely to rob , 6 times more likely to tape and 3 times more likely to kill than white teen boys. That's why they are more likely to be tried As adults. They are more likely to do crimes that makes them deserve to be tried as adults. Not all black men are criminals and I don't want to lump them into a category. The fact about high schools offering chem courses is misleading. Mostly black and mostly Latino schools usually are more poor and schools with lower income students are less likely to offer those kinds of sunjects. There are plenty of poor white people and rich black people. Affirmative action was necessary years ago but now things have changed.
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

1. The Resolution: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Is not a debate on Moral Nihilism which states the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. We can define Moral's as what one would find to be good or bad based on Religion or depending on your perspective. 2. Morality is usually drawn from a religious source. HOWEVER that does NOT necessarily mean that an nonreligious person CANNOT have a moral compass. Take for Example Abraham Lincoln "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. " -Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly enough Abraham Lincoln was a Religious person. He didn't want you to think that his morals came directly from his religion. Where does one draw the line for anything? The boundary of a State, Property Lines, Boundaries of Countries? Some boundaries are obtained through much fighting and war. However, many lines are drawn on the principle of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a Human Value that says that no matter the Danger, no matter the statistics, if anything produces a GREAT amount of Happiness, we as a populous have a right to obtain happiness. 3. How can one justify sources of Morality? Why is Batman a good guy? Why do we fight in wars? We say Batman is a good guy because he protects people from having infringement of his/her rights. We say that Batman is a Good Guy even though by all technicalities he is a vigilante simply because he does what our nation justifies as right. 4. How is killing one person preventing conflict? I understand the purpose of Foreign Policy. The debate is the Morality of what the Foreign Policy tool is. Just because the law says that something is 'Okay' doesn't mean it's morally justified. For Instance. For Seventy Eight years after the Constitution was Ratified it was LEGAL to have a slave in the United States. It took until nearly 1968 for discrimination laws that had been passed for almost 100 YEARS to be enforced. The law said it was justified for an individual to own a person, now, just because the law said that it was justified, was it really moral? Answer that. Also Answer these questions: Are you Aware of what the sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights States? Have you ever told a joke? if yes: When telling this joke did you credit the person who made it up? If yes: Do you do so with all of Your jokes? If no: So you have never told a joke? Do you agree with the statement that "Its easier to learn from your own mistakes than those of others? if yes: So you would agree that if you sawed your arm off you would then know not to saw off your other arm? Are you aware of Isoroku Yamamoto's role in WWII? if yes: Are you aware that he was targeted and killed? if no: Are you aware of what happened at Pearl Harbor? Are you aware that World War II was not ended after his death? Are you aware of the freedom of Press? Are you aware of the term "Unalienable Rights"? If you say it's okay to target and kill someone, doesn't that mean you are granting permission to kill?
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

I shall refute your points in round two.I shall ask you some questions, please answer all otherwise you forfeit this debate as they relate to it strongly. Why is Moral Nihilism incorrect? If it is/isn't incorrect then from where do we draw morality? What justifications do you have for this source of morality? If Forein policy is largely to prevent conflict between nations then why is targetting a conflict instigator immoral? Thank you.
There is no such things as viruses

Even the medical text books say that viruses are non-living organisms. Quote from text book - Viruses can only replicate themselves by infecting a host cell and therefore cannot reproduce on their own. ... They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms. The concept of a virus is an illogical assumption based false data. Disease occurrence is far more easy to explain using vitamin deficiency, inappropriate foods and toxic substances as the causative agents. It has been proven that gut bacteria leak into the blood stream due to inflammation caused by eating inappropriate foods such as grain, dairy and sugar. Because bacteria are present in the blood stream when somebody is sick has been used as evidence in the past that bacteria is the cause of disease. This is a false assumption. The true cause being the inappropriate foods which caused the gut to become leaky which allowed the bacteria to enter the blood stream. Thus, bacteria are only a secondary phase of the infection process. Thus, the medical system will jump into action and try to kill the bacteria in the blood stream as a means of curing the illness. They will give you antibiotic which will kill all the bacteria in your gut and blood stream. This is the equivalent of dropping an atomic bomb on a city as a means of fixing the local crime problem. The only cure for any illness is either fasting or changing your diet to a more natural one which doesn't include sugar, alcohol, caffeine, grain or dairy. "Germs are the result of a disease, not the cause of it" - (Antoine Bechamp)