BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Drug Enforcement Agency should be abolished.

Thank you for posting. I am in firm negation to the resolution: "The Drug Enforcement Agency should be abolished." I offer the following definitions for clarification during this debate: Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Abolished: formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution). To avoid turning this into a "marijuana (and other illegal drugs) should be legalized debate" I offer the following framework: If the affirmative (pro) can show the most benefits of abolishing the DEA, they should win the round. If I, the negation (con) can show the most harms, or lack of benefits of abolishing the DEA, I should win this round. Moreover, both teams should keep their arguments to the point, without straying from the resolution in order to win the round. Point One: The DEA is a significant part of the United States economy. Currently, the DEA employs 11,053 workers. (1) If the Drug Enforcement Agency were abolished, 11,053 jobs would be lost, it would be considered a "mass layoff" by the BLS. (2)This is unnessisary. Point Two: The DEA is effective in stopping drug problems. A quote from James White: " It is false that "the fight against drug use" cannot be "won." It can be won. The use of illegal drugs is falling in the USA, and use of cocaine & similar drugs is down. 95% of Americans do not use illegal drugs. So we (the DEA) have been effective." The New York Times provides an excellent example of the DEA's effectiveness. (3) We must look at the DEA as a preventative program,as there is a direct link to substance abuse and suicide.(4) I reserve the right to bring up more points throughout this debate. I will now go over my opponents case: He said: "The war on drugs has not, and will not, be won." I have proven this wrong in my second point, with a quote from James White. He had no warrant for that statement, therefore, I should win the point. His second contention, "Since the DEA has been started they have spent over 1 trillion dollars on this "war on drugs." A lack of the DEA would result in A) Many lost jobs, and B) a higher suicide rate, as I have proven that there is a direct link to substance abuse and suicide, and have proven that the DEA is successful in preventing these. I have defeated his two points and provided two benefits of the DEA. I urge you to vote in negation today. Thank you. Citations: (1) http://www.justice.gov... (2) http://www.bls.gov... (3)http://www.nytimes.com... (4) http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...
A Perfect Being Can Exist

The Rules: No swearing. No slander. No insult to character. The Debate Format: The opponent will immediately begin with a rebuttal, and it will be counter-arguments and rebuttals from then on. My Argument1. A perfect being exists.2. The perfect being has free will. The ability to be evil or good. 3. The perfect being creates outside of itself, the universe. Because the perfect being has free will, His creation too has the potential for free will within it. Both the perfect being and His creation are separate entities, separate beings. Same perfection, different nature. 4. The universe is perfect, and is made up of perfect parts. Just because there exists evil, doesn't mean the universe is imperfect. It means the opposite, as God has free will, so must His creation. Just because there is a dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space, doesn't mean the creation is imperfect. On the contrary, they are perfect necessities to the creation. What defines perfect is subjective, where one sees imperfection, I see perfection, and can argue such. The parts individually are not the being that is the universe, but the parts collectively are the being that is the universe. 5. Therefore because the Creator and the creation are both perfect, and the creation has perfect parts (including the potential for free will), they are both logically consistent with each other.In order for Con to give a rebuttal, he must show how the parts within creation are not perfect. And the creation is its own entity, being, so to compare the perfect being to just a part of the perfect creation, exluding the rest, would require Con to show how it is logical to take a part and call it the whole.Example: I remove the leg off of a chair and call the leg a chair. (This is not logical, for it is no longer the chair. It is something new all-together.)Example: You're doing an autopsy, and the family of the deceased asks to see the body, you cut off the foot and bring it to them and say that's the body.Example: A Muslim goes to a Christian and asks what God is in the Trinity. The Christian says that God is the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit, and the Father, and the Son is who God is.
Anne Coulter is a Neo-Nazi.

Sir, you bite your own argumentation on hate. You obviosuly show your immesnse dislike for Ms. Coulter by comparing her to one of the sickest evils to ever crawl from the black pit of humanity. However, I will humor you. Just because one shows hate does not make them a Nazi. For example, the KKK is not the Nazi Party. Yes, they do have similr beliefs, but truly to be a Nazi you have to uphold a fascist belief. Ms. Coulter, while in my opinion a biggot, does not match this charcteristic required to be a fascist. She is very much a supporter of the American ideal of a Republic. My next point here is on groupswho hate Jews who would never be considered pure by the Nazi's, and in fact were merely used by Adolph Hitler as convientent allies. Islamic extremists call for, much as Hitler did, the erradication of the Jewish race. However, they are not Nazi's. They are radical, Muslim terrorists. Other groups like Cryps and Bloods promote and demonstrate hate for one another. This does not make them Nazi's. I can brng up countless other examples of deep passionate hatred between ethnic, social, and political groups, however, I think these will suffice for now. The Nazi party, the true Nazi party, i not about simply hatetred. The bigotry is used as a political scapegoat in order to achieve power. See as how Anne Coulter has no strive to do anything more than write books and bash the Left I can once again assert that your claim is purely founded on opinion, and opinion sir is NOT a jutifiable argument in debate. Opinion typically, is dervided from one's pathos, or emotions. Aristotle, the father of debate, rhetoric, and argumentation, insists pathos be avoided greatly because they don't demonstrate truth, they merely appeal to a demographic's feelings, not their ethos or logos, ethics or logic, which is what debate is and should be about. Finally on your point about Anne's blonde hair ad blue eyes. This is not a qualifier to be a Nazi. One, I know many blonde, blue eyed people who would shrink at the thought of ever causing harm to anyone based on racial bigotry. Second, Adolph Hitler, the father of the Nazi party, merely used it as a rallying point and general description for his Aryan race, which is funny because Hitler was Austrian and the Aryan's hail from the MiddleEast. Unless you are going to respond with actual, fact based evidence, I would suggest not responding to this because opinions only matter in debatewhen you have the evidence to support them.
Anne Coulter is a Neo-Nazi.

It's not bad rhetoric if it's the truth. If Hillary Clinton supports Universal Health Care, that doesn't make her a communist, it makes her a socialist, which doesn't even come close to communism. Debates are formatted on opinion, so they all count. Let me tell you why she is a Nazi. 1. She talks about and promotes hate, anger and violence. 2. She wishes to "Purify" the Jews...hmmm sounds like a Holocaust eh? 3. She hates Catholics 4. She hates Gays 5. She gains money and power through hatred. 6. She writes books about how to hate, and why we should. 7. She is blonde, and blue eyed, and can barely speak english. I'm talking about her horrible voice. Hehe I shouldn't have to give you a pic, because maybe she is an undercover Nazi, who, if she presented herself that way, might be killed. Her way of presentation, and her lack of passion are all signs of a Neo-Nazi.
Anne Coulter is a Neo-Nazi.

Sorry, but that's just bad rhetoric. Saying Anne Coulter is a Neo-Nazi because she hates the Left and several other groups doesn't make her one in just the same way Hillary Clinton's support for universal health care doesn't make her a communist. Unless you can show me a picture (an actual picture) of Anne Coulter at a Nazi Rally with an SS armband than you really have little ground other than speculation and opinion to stand on.
Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

For crossfire, I will be asking my opponent some questions. 1. You say that the Afghans that are killed during fighting are probably Taliban supporters because otherwise the would run away. I would like to see your evidence for this conclusion. In addition, I would like to ask you how anyone could run away from IED's and suicide bombers, which are the Taliban's main weapon, or nearly invisible unmanned aircraft, which is NATO's main weapon. 2. 400 civilians killed per year is a really low number? What if that happened in your country? 3. What is the difference between Afghans killed by NATO and Afghans killed by the US Army? Legally, they are one and the same, since the United States commands NATO. 4. You say that corruption in the Afghan government is caused by warlords. Where's your source for that? 5. As I've mentioned before, NATO carries out a lot of air strikes on the Afghan people. You say that NATO is there to pacify a large population. How do we pacify a large population by bombing them? 6. How does NATO help people move towards equal rights if warlords and lawlessness is coming back, as my opponent points out in his argument about corruption? 7. If Taliban propaganda was not supported by reality, would it influence anyone? 8. What does your second contention (US can't fight war on terror alone) have anything to do with the resolution (NATO improving Afghan lives)? I will be awaiting my opponent's response.
Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

I will open with two short points of clarification regarding my opponent's contentions, because I believe he has heavily misconstrued what actually happens on the ground to give voters a false impression. Clarifications 1) Afghanistan is not like the US. Nato and Taliban forces are not concentrated in civilian centers. Most Afghanis live in rural districts, there are no NATO bases in any cities that the Taliban will strike at, and the few civilians killed during fighting with the Taliban were probably Taliban supporters because otherwise they would have run away (not very hard in the rocky Afghani countryside). Taliban prefer to hide away from civilian centers for strategic reasons. ~400 civilians per year is actually a really low figure, and includes civilians not killed in combat by NATO troops, for instance, by the United States Army. Compare that figure to the thousands of civilians who die every year in the conflict of Palestine and Israel. 2) The Afghani government is corrupt because it is not controlled centrally from Kabul. Votes need to pass through multiple warlords who ultimately hold control over all government affairs. Some have used this for their own personal gain or to commit crimes. The Kabul government is too weak to deal with this problem of corruption themselves. Even with the NATO troops the situation is really poor. Without the NATO troops the problem would only get worse. My opponent fails to recognise what the real problem here is. The problem is that nobody can do anything about the corruption, until the war on terror is won and attention can turn to stabilising the country. Contentions: 1) NATO troops come not just from the United States but many other countries. They help pacify the large population who dislike the United States because of Taliban propoganda. They help the not just the country but the people transition from the mindset of those living under a theocracy, where many more human rights were infringed upon by the way (ie what rights did women have under the Taliban rule), to a more just and equal state. Removing them would not remove the large United States army presence, indeed the United States would send MORE troops to make up for the lost NATO troops. This would cause the tensions to boil up again because the effects of Taliban propoganda are not completely undone. 2) The United States cannot fight the war on terror by itself. They need the support of strong allies. Terrorism through Afghanistan is not a problem unique to the states (think of the London train bombings) thus all Western states have a stake in finishing the war off. It is not fair to make the United States do all the work. Besides, it vindicates the "World Police" view of the United States.
school food bans

A ban is a prohibition on all products. If people ban guns in the US , people could still get guns in. That does not mean there is a ban. A ban would represent consequences for having the product in said location. So yes a school could just verbally and officially declare a ban even if it is not effective. Again my adversary is arguing about the effect of the ban which is not the res. The res is about whether a ban *can* happen, and it easily could just by them saying there is a ban.
school food bans

My adversary has failed to understand the resolution The resolution is *can* schools enforce this ban, not should they. Can means is there a possibility or is it reasonable to assume that this ban can be enforced. Schools most definitely can enforce the ban by doing full on checks as students walk in to school, or doing scans as they walk through detectors. It would take two seconds to do this. They could also just say it's banned, and not worry about checking for it as much. Issuing a ban does not mean the ban will be effective either My adversary is trying to debate whether they should issue a ban, not whether they can. They most certainly can issue a ban.
Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.

Rebuttal 1My opponet says that it will lower crime, and boost the economy, that's the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. First regarding crime. Just because you legalize something won't lower crime. All you are doing is not calling it a crime anymore. We might as well legalize breaking and entering and grand theft auto, this way everyone will have a car and we'll have less crime. It's absurd. Second, the economy will not get a boost. Imagine how many lazy people there will be. They won't be able to work, because they're completely stoned. Pot heads barely have the energy to get off the couch to do anything. And third, medicinal purposes, so instead of finding the chemical or whatever it is in marijuana that helps people get better, why not just extract that or synthesize it and give that to people who need it... not smoke pot. What saddens me is how much time is wasted on debating this topic. It's no where near as important and so many other things. You want to lower crime, stop doing drugs. There will be no more drug dealers if you educate people to not use but stay away. You want to help the economy, don't throw your money away on drugs. Buy good things for your body, like healthy foods. Which then leads to medicinal purposes, eat well, live well, stay healthy, use money to make better medicine. This whole argument is to justify the unhealthy, addictive, lazy pot smokers so that they don't get arrested or feel guilty that they are stupid enough to smoke marijuana.
Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.

Rebuttal 1... I just said a) marijuana possession rates would go down (obviously) because it would be legal. b) laws for marijuana possession in states that allow it are very strict, helping police to enforce them. Argument 2... The legal sale of Marijuana would generate tax Revenue that can be used to support schools and other government projects. For example on January 2014, Colorado has legalized marijuana and Taken in $53 Million in Tax Revenue, on top of $16 Million from Medicinal Marijuana. Also, that was only the state of Colorado where the population is 5.356 million, just imagine if the state of California which population is 38.8 million, seven times Colorado. Imagine how much money in tax revenue they would get and how they could make the environment a better place, building houses, dams, schools and other infrastructure.
Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.

Legalizing marijuana will make crime rates much much worse kids will be growing it asking friends or strangers for it more then they do now yes Marijuana may make good money but look at the risks that follows more crime rates kids getting a hold of this drug. Marijuana should only be allowed medically not recreationally if you don't have a condition that you need Marijuana then you don't need it plain and simple.
Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.

The first argument to our debate is the fact that many marijuana arrests are made unjustly and the criminalization of marijuana possession wastes law enforcement resources that could be used to fight violent crime. According to a report released by the Drug Policy Alliance in 2012, one million of the NYPDs police hours had been spent making 440,000 marijuana possession arrests in New York City from the years 2002-2012. These hours should be devoted instead to more serious, violent crimes. Jesse Wegman says ". . . The toll (of Marijuana) can be measured in dollars " billions of which are thrown away each year in the aggressive enforcement of pointless laws. It can be measured in years " whether wasted behind bars or stolen from a child who grows up fatherless. And it can be measured in lives " those damaged if not destroyed by the shockingly harsh consequences that can follow even the most minor offenses." This quote shows that the arrests can make large impacts on both the economy and lives of those arrested and their family and friends. Bernard Noble, father of seven, was a trucker stopped in New Orleans in October 2010. He had two previous, non-violent offenses, and was found with a small amount of marijuana in his pocket. He was sentenced to thirteen years in prison. He'll see his children again though when they"re all grown. Too bad for Jeff Mizanskey, who was arrested in Missouri during 1993 for unknowingly participating in the purchase of a five pound brick of marijuana. With two previous, non-violent offenses, he is now living out life in prison without parole. The only way he'll ever see his child, Chris, again, is if he visits him behind bars. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, Caucasians use illegal marijuana at a higher rate. But sorry, if you are an African American living in Wisconsin, you"re six times more likely to be arrested under marijuana charges. So oops, let"s spend millions on non-violent crime, and then go and arrest people discriminatorily and then allocate unjust and unfair sentences.
Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.

Like i said in my first speech it may bring more money but there are risks that follow i gotta ask the voters Do you wanna get a phone call from the Juvnile detention center saying your child was caught with marijauna? Do you want to gamble children's education? Do you want your child not to beable to support themselves because there high all the time and have minor in possestion on them?
Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.

There was pretty much no argument there... I think it was supposed to be about medicinal purposes, but Cannabis has over 80 cannabinoids that help people. That's all besides the fact though because this debate is specifically about recreational marijuana (it's in the issue statement). Can I just point out the fact that prohibition *never* works. The United States prohibited alcohol for 13 years (1920-1933), and people drank through the entire thing. This is something I hold near and dear to my heart, being a Wisconsinite where they teach us specifically how stupid it was during social studies classes. So now, we've been in the War on Drugs for almost 40 years. Seems a little silly, doesn't it?
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

First Off I'm not sure what your problem is with Trump but What I'm going to say is leave it alone, that bogus Website has no proof or doesn't provide any Evidence he Raped a child as if he would commit such a ludicrous Crime, he may Cheat people out of their money and make fun of them but that just comes from being a Wealthy Superior entrepreneur. Last Fact why would a person trying to become the president would have raped a Child anyway????
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

Give me a Break, Trump may be a Jerk but he is a Wealthy businessman who is smarter than that, he would never commit a crime such as Rape. If he was to commit a Crime it would most likely involve money but never nothing Sexual. The Man is Controversial get over it everything little bad thing he says or does Fox news eats it up and exposes it like he's a Murderer, any Republican would say the same thing...oh yeah i'll reason with ya and provide evidence... Okay from the video you just Watched it States the Imaginary Woman Trump raped was named Jane Doe so that means the person doesn't exist also following up on the Case Trumps ex-wife Ivana Claims Trump used to abused and batter her but that has nothing to do with Rape.
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

"Your Character has everything to Do with this Debate your using a Past act that Trump did before he was Well Known that Raping a Child!!! What the Heck Trump would never do anything such as that. Your Digging up Dirt on him that is in the past also people make up websites on him all the Time example: http://www.snopes.com...; "BartMarlowsI have provided evidence, you have provided conjecture. Yes, some people do spread lies, nevertheless these allegations against Trump seem credible.
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

First the alleged event happened in 1994, long before Mr. Trump became a presidential candidate. Second, you have almost all unsubstantiated claims. While I provide evidence. [2]"that bogus Website" BartMarlowsYou never explain why huffingtonpost is a bogus website. This is a bare assertion fallacy [3], true only because you claim it is true. "First Off I'm not sure what your problem is with Trump but What I'm going to say is leave it alone" BartMarlowsThis is a subtle ad hominem attack. You are attacking my character as opposed to my argument. [4]Thanks for debating. Sources.2. https://www.scribd.com...3. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...4. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports

Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd or EverlastingMomentResolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks, semantics4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384.5.Thanks.