BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should not be legalized

//The legalization of any drug may cause major problems in our society.// It is upon you to fufill the BoP to prove why. //When a doctor proscribes a drug it is for medical uses, but is sometimes used to get high.// Point being? //The patients that want to use marijuana to get high may crack the system and not need to go see a doctor.// Other drugs may be used for this as well. What, exactly, is your point? //The drugs may find there way into our schools and cause a more major drug problems in our schools.// Fatty foods are just as addictive and harmful, if not more, than marijuana. Not only this, but it has already contaminated our population with it's unhealthy benefits. Should we ban fatty foods? Also, it is still up to you to prove how marijuana is harmful for any of your arguments to hold sway. //If we do not want an increase of drug issues in our society Marijuana should not be legalized.// Again, what is your point? You have not proven how Marijuana is harmful, why it should be illegalized, or pretty much anything to make any of your arguments hold weight. In conclusion, I hope my opponent starts to take this site seriously. It is not a site where you can come and just post useless drivel and expect to win. This is a serious debate site where we try to have debates of quality. If my opponent cannot do this, I suggest he leave until he can do so. Otherwise, he won't be able to win any debates fairly. Resolution negated.
A socity that is controlled by the millitary would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness

I never once claimed "that any society that is controlled by the military will always be lawful and have unity." I understand that people are individuals. Your points concerning Germany are true for that example. However, I never once stated how this government would operate and therefore you have taken assumptions on both the form of governance for this theoretical country/society and the sociology/ psychology of the people of this nonexistent state. My stance was that " A society that is controlled by a military force would have a high degree of unity because of military principles and organization." You claimed in your closing that the original point of debate was that "any society that is controlled by the military will always be lawful and have unity", which demonstrates that you do not grasp the topic fully. I draw this from your use of will. As I stated above, people are individuals and always will be and all people are different so it will, by definition, be an impossibility to have a society that "will always ..... have unity." I believe that you have not fulfilled your stance as the opposition because you have made only assumptions and have not provided enough subjective information to declare victory.
A socity that is controlled by the millitary would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness

A military society would have less of all ills that plague man such as murder, theft, rape, and others if military principles were completely integrated into the society. This is due to the the fact that military tradition and expectations include complete control of ones self at all times. To support this claim, I point towards military drill and other training exercises that are designed to strengthen and intensify ones discipline and moral courage. These rigorous training programs include drown proofing, simulated combat, and other demanding programs. Values such as honor, courage, and commitment, which are the USN and USMC three core values, would instill a sense of all three and other character traits which would increase the moral resolve of the men and women who are trained to respect these values. I await your response with glee.
A socity that is controlled by the millitary would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness

A society that is controlled by a military force would have a high degree of unity because of military principles and organization. Individuals would have a place in society which would cause less social problems to higher equality. This theoretical society would have full protections of civil rights for all individuals and have checks and balances. I will not go into these because it would be off topic. The ideal of lawfulness would come from the implementation and enforcement of the UCMJ and MCM.
The 1990's Cowboys were a better team than the 2000's Patriots

Though I will close with saying that the New England Patriots won 3 Super Bowls while in an era in the NFL know for their parity and the fast paced and constantly moving free agent market. They also did it with low key players such as Troy Brown and David Patten. They defeated the Greatest Show On Turf which propelled them to being the of the 2000's and showed themselves to be one of the NFL's premier franchises.
The 1990's Cowboys were a better team than the 2000's Patriots

The Patriots did not need a last second Adam Vinatieri kick to win Super Bowl 39. The Patriots play in an era with much more parity than that of the 90's. From 2000-2011 the only team in the NFC to return to the Super Bowl was the New York Giants, I think that speaks to the level of parity of today. Also, look at who the New England Patriots defeated in their first Super Bowl, "The Greatest Show on Turf". They are widely considered as one of the greatest offenses in NFL history with stars such as Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, and Isaac Bruce. The Patriots were tremendous 14 point under dogs in Super Bowl 36, because they were facing the defending champs and they did it with a 6th round back up QB in Tom Brady. The way they achieved their Super Bowl wins and their consistency in the decade shows why the Patriots are considered one of the NFL's primer franchises.
The 1990's Cowboys were a better team than the 2000's Patriots

All of the Patriots super bowl victories were won by a field goal. Adam Vinatieri was the reason they won all of those games. However the Cowboys won all of there super bowls by double digits. They not only won 3 out of 4 super bowls but they dominated there opponents. Also, the Cowboys made it to the NFC championship game in 1994, so they almost made it back and that would of been 4 straight years. On the other side the Patriots didn't even make it to the playoffs the season following their first super bowl victory of the three. Double digit super bowl victories and the only year they didn't make the super bowl they made it to the conference championship, i think that is more impressive than the patriots dynasty.
The 1990's Cowboys were a better team than the 2000's Patriots

First, I would like say that I do respect and admire what the Cowboys did in the early 1900's and their dynasty. The Patriots did lose Super Bowl 42, but that was their fourth super bowl appearance in the six years, one more than the Cowboys of the early 90's. The Dallas Cowboys did have many impressive and highly decorated players in NFL history, but the Patriots did not have many premier players at the time of their first Super Bowl. New England did not have a true star on offense in their first super bowls and the comparison of Troy Brown to Michael Irving is not one that should be made. Also, having the NFL's all-time leading rusher in Emmitt Smith must have been nice for the Cowboys. The Patriots are famous for forming "the Patriot Way" in their Super Bowl success and that is " Team mindset, work ethic, and versatility". Sources : http://www.boston.com...
The 1990's Cowboys were a better team than the 2000's Patriots

The Cowboys won 3 super bowls in 4 years in the early 1990's. They didn't just win these super bowls, they dominated them. They were also undefeated in the super bowls that they played in during the 90's. The same can't be said for the New England Patriots who lost one of there super bowls to the New York Giants. The Cowboys also had a lot of hall of famers on this team including Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irving and Deion Sanders. The Cowboys were a great all around team and it showed in their 52-17 win over the Bills in Super Bowl XXVII
Summer Vacation should/shouldn't be banned

"kids are failing there classes due to lac of remembering because kids are not doing work over the summer nor sports they are playing VIDEOGAMES more and morethis results in lac of sleep which can get rid of brain cells permanatley"There is complete lack of evidence here. To say that kids are failing their classes due to a lack of memory implies that this is true for all children (in America I suppose?) , which it is only true for 30%[1]. Or it can mean that kids who are failing are doing this due to gaming, which you have no evidence for. 91% of American children are gamers [2], and I have already stated only 30% of American children fail to graduate. Again you have no evidence that video games cause lack of sleep, and brain cells do actually regenerate.[3][4]Banning summer vacation is only ruining the entertainment of those who try hard, as well as ruining a common incentive to do so for some. The situation isn't serious enough to ban vacation, which will affect those who try.Sources:[1] http://psychcentral.com...[2] http://news.cnet.com...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://biology.about.com...
Pro Will not Win this Debate

yes, a really horrible ugli one too! In contrast i is horrible! (Based on this source: http://htwins.net... ) Seriously, i used the same editing source to say me is awesome! Vote con. :( In conclusion, in my conclusion I shalt tell you to vote con (again?!) because....because...because I wanna be the wionner. HORAH! Because of also, I have horribe conduc t, spellin, sources, grammer, and rUn-ON sentences wuch as this oneee. I oculdhave forfeited but I didnt becuz I was too lazy to forfeit. Go figurfe. GG anyways. (no idea what it stands for)
Pro Will not Win this Debate

Oh my, such strong words!! You see, this guy is super experienced, being a 44 year old weirdo. His vocab. is much much stronger, havin graduated from college and POST DOCTORIAL!!! Meanwhile I am stuck in high school. Yes, it is true, I is stuck in freshman year, poor me. I couldnt come up with mighty insultin words like he did, forced to come up with lamee-lame (is that a word?) "censoring marks". As you can see my inexperience and poor vocab words along with bad conduct, poor research sources & badbad bad bad bad spelin, results, in, my , great, grande, defeet!
Pro Will not Win this Debate

See? My opponent is so xperienced he can make an amazing argument using another foreign language while I only can---- ONLY FIVE MINUTES LEFT???? CURSE YOU OPPONENT, you're a ********* **** * * ** * ** * ** ** **** ** ******* oh no, I don't have good conduct! Looks like I have to erase it...But I cannot....running...out...of.time.... trying to amk a godoa rgumentsa here buta epically failing no gotta...click...submit bottoan....dog junmpserighseorpgag iseorghnon ahrwohs e ARGHGHGHHG **** *** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ******* TOo bad. Looks like I won't win, conduct wise!!
Pro Will not Win this Debate

Pro ε^3;ναι πολa3; ευγενικa2;ς, αλλ^0; δεν ε^3;μαι ακa2;μη και την απa2;σπαση επιχε^3;ρημ^0; μου στα αγγλικ^0;. Αυτa2; ε^3;ναι το πa4;ς αυτa2; ε^3;ναι λυπηρa2;. Αυτa2; ε^3;ναι κ^0;ποιο ε^3;δος σπαστ^0; ελληνικ^0;, ^2; κ^0;τι τ^1;τοιο. Θα χ^0;σω αυτ^2; τη συζ^2;τηση. Ψηφοφορ^3;α Pro.
Pro Will not Win this Debate

My spelin is really badddd, da onli reasoon that I waspurrfect was was becus I usd spell-check. i am lazi and dont have time, so tis round, no psel chekc 4 me. :( I triedto find a sourcee forree me credibilty, and here: . http://htwins.net... . but its not credibly ata ll, so I lose at sourcers. srsly, all the sitE does is say meisawesome and post it's websit variasions on the website wbsit. I'm rly busy so im likely to forfeit the next round. This is sad.
Pro Will not Win this Debate

I am pro. I do not think I will win this debate because of my inexperience and young age. (I will not reveal my real age but I will say I cannot legally drive yet). Do you, con, accept the challenge to support the opinion that I, pro, in fact, WILL win this debate? It's going to be hard for you, because i have no self-confidence, the most important thing in a competition or debate. Ah, poor me! I will say here even now: I already give up. Vote con. :( Let us hope con has very good self-confidence to win this debate!
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!

I can certainly see where you are coming form. I find it interesting how you brought up pregnancies that occur due to rape. While this is an unimaginable pain and one I hope never to experience only 1% of abortions are caused from that. So, while that is a really good conversation to have I would prefer to look at the other 99%. (maybe we can discuss this in a later round, it's just that it's such a huge topic that I want to start off by looking at the majority of abortions) As for your point on nature can do it, why can't the mother: There is a huge difference between nature and humans. In my opinion I believe life starts at conception and so when you bring that up here's what comes to mind: Nature also kills full grown adults, 4 year olds, and 16 year olds, so if nature can kill them, why can't we? I belive that the life of the fetus is just as valid as any other life. I understand that there is a lot of debate surrounding when life begins and I would be happy to hear your opinion.
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!

I personally believe it is within the woman's right. The baby does mature throughout that time in the womb. However, a woman has the possibility of a miscarriage throughout all of these events. Yes, this is nature, and the woman has no choice in the matter. But, if nature is able to take that baby's life for that period of time, why wouldn't the woman be able to do that? If the woman was attacked in any way to cause a baby to begin forming inside of her, against her will, do you think she should be forced to give birth to a child she had no will to birth and no want to have in the first place? What about teens, or people living without the proper income to care for those children? Would you rather the child grow up in an environment where they were struggling and unable to receive the proper care, and the mother struggling to care for herself and further her own life at the same time? A woman deserves to assess her situation and make her own decision over what goes on within her body.
I'm Pro-Life, change my mind!

I'm Pro-Life change my mind! I know that when debating this topic the actual question is, "When does life begin?" Here's what I'll say on the matter: At 4 weeks the backbone, spinal column, and nervous system are nearly completely formed. At 5 weeks the baby has, while not fully developed, all of its internal organs. At 6 weeks they have a heartbeat seperate to that of their mother. At 7 weeks they have hands and feet. They have facial features including a mouth and tongue. At 8 weeks brain waves are first detected. At 10 weeks the heart has completely developed and is equal to that of a newborn. At 12 weeks the vocal cords are fully developed and the baby is able to and does make little cries. At this time they are also fully exposed to pain. So, is it a baby or a fetus. I say baby.
Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools

We already have catholic and private schools - usually those schools require their students to wear uniforms to attend that certain school. Then we have public schools - which do not require uniforms. At the current state we are in, everyone has the CHOICE if they want to go to a private school and wear a uniform or go to a public school and don't. Ammendment 1 grants every american citizen the following freedoms: Speech, Press, and Religion. People dress to represent themselves as a person. Their clothing tells peers who they are through expression. How someone dresses is their freedom of speech, because they are speaking of themselves through their clothing. If all schools required students to wear uniforms - then our younger generation will have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. This is against the law and is not allowed - or puts a good name upon our country in question - USA. At least where we are at the moment, students have the CHOICE if they want to go to a school that requires them to wear a uniform or not. They CHOOSE if they accept the fact that if they go to a spacific school, then they may not have all of their rights while atttending. Where we are now is fair, everyone have freedom of choice, and the choise of what to do with their rights; and that is what being an american citizen is all about. Even if schools did want to require their students to wear uniforms - where would they get the money to buy such uniforms on manufacture them? You see, if this were reality then it would be a MAJOR financial, and constitution violation and issue.
"A" is the first letter of the English alphabet.

Actually if we look at this direct quote: "In the year 1011, a monk named Byrhtfer recorded the traditional order of the Old English alphabet.[1] He listed the 24 letters of the Latin alphabet first (including ampersand), then 5 additional English letters, starting with the Tironian note ond (R66;), an insular symbol for and" we can see the english alphabet starts with the tironian note ond, and because my opponent did not state whether he meant the old or modern english alphabet, I will go with the original alphabet (the old one). This proves "A" is in fact not the first letter of the english alphabet
Marijuana Legalization

"There is a lot of solid proof that marijuana is a gateway drug."First off, the evidence of there even being such a thing as a gateway drug is scant at best. Secondly, a study from the University of Pittsburgh found that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. http://scienceblog.com..."They are going to start out stealing from a small store and gradually stepping up from there"This is the point. A lot of people have shoplifted small items. Hardly any have gone on to rob banks. Just because lower level precedes higher level, it doesn't mean that one causes another."medical marijuana isn't what this debate is about. Were focusing on recreational use." Read my argument again. I focused on benefits of legalizing for RECREATIONAL use. One benefit is that there would be no more issue with those using it as medicine. Legalizing marijuana leads to legalizing hemp which leads to helping the environment. This and recycling are not mutually exclusive.
Marijuana Legalization

There is a lot of solid proof that marijuana is a gateway drug. And its not that its the drug that makes you want to just go try heroin. its the fact that it is a small stepping stone the leads to the next drug of choice. think about someone who robs banks. They most likely don't just wake up one day and go rob a bank. They are going to start out stealing from a small store and gradually stepping up from there. So there is no question that marijuana is a gateway drug.Your argument about medical marijuana isn't what this debate is about. Were focusing on recreational use.While hemp products may be one good thing that comes from the marketing side of the marijuana industry, There are many other things that can be done to help the environment such as recycling. Marijuana legalization has a good amount of pros but several very powerful cons, which I will discuss in my closing argument.P.S. I apologize for the character limit, I meant to make it 2000 characters
Marijuana Legalization

Gateway drug?There is really no such thing. Plenty of people use marijuana and nothing else. Use of marijuana does not imply that those users will move on to harder drugs.Addiction?Marijuana is not physically addictive. As far as mental addiction goes, this can happen with ANYTHING. This includes things that aren't drugs (e.g. gambling). Mental addiction of anything is not an argument, since it would eliminate too many things from society.Benefits of legalizing marijuanaIf marijuana were legalized for recreational use, this means there would no longer be any restrictions on growing hemp. There are many products that can be formed from hemp. One of which is paper. By legalizing pot, we legalize hemp. Then using it to make paper, we actually help the environment.Furthermore, we don't have to worry about ethics with medical marijuana if it is legal for recreational use. Cancer patients IN ANY STATE can freely use weed to alleviate nausea, and gain an appetite. The pros outweigh the cons.
Marijuana Legalization

i do agree with your statement about people using marijuana regardless of it being legal or not. But there are also people that dont use marijuana now because of their jobs or morals against breaking the law. So there is no question that if marijuana were to become legal there would be a substantial increase in users.Even though the short term affects of the drug may seem harmless, its the long term affects that negatively influence peoples lives. Lets just look at the fact that it is proven to be a gateway to other drugs, while some people will argue that it is not. It is still proven to open up peoples curiosity to harder drugs and their effects. Another belief that many users of marijuana have is that it is not addicting, this however is also proven to be false. In the year 2004 over 200,000 people seaked help for their addiction to marijuana. The mental addiction to this drug can be crushing, causing people to be unmotivated and lazy.
Marijuana Legalization

First off, as you say "a lot of people use this drug everyday." This is bound to remain the same, whether or not marijuana is legalized. A lot of people use it now, and will continue to do so. If it were legalized, those that do not use marijuana would not suddenly become marijuana users. It may be viewed as stress relief to some, but it is much more than that. It is a safer recreational drug than alcohol. It is a drug that no one has ever overdosed on, and it doesn't have the hangover effects that people get from alcohol. The period of prohibition was considered a mistake. It was decided by many that alcohol should be kept legal. From this, it only follows that marijuana should also be legal. Something less dangerous than a LEGAL drug, should also be legal. There are other benefits as well that I will discuss in the next round, due to the 1,000 character limit restraint.
The second amendment should be repealed

1. .. The second amendment: the second amendment of the United States constitution, stating "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Repealed: Removed from the constitution using the existing legal means 3. The affirmative has fiat power to enact the resolution (no "this could never happen" argumentation) 4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, etc.
The second amendment should be repealed

all of my sources were in the debate comment section, as is the norm on this platform. In short, the debate is now over. There are no new arguments that can be made, and most of my argumentation has been dropped from the debate. My warranted analysis, the magnitude of the issue, and the full solvency I maintain all encourage a firm vote for the Affirmative today. For the readers of this debate, Remember the last speech cannot per the terms of the debate contain new arguments. This is to ensure no participant can have their argument escape scrutiny by posting arguments that cannot be refuted. Today, I have clearly demonstrated that the second amendment should be repealed, both due to the fact that my demonstrated benefits have not been refuted, as well as the fact there are no clear demonstrated harms from the negation Vote Affirmative