BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug Legalization

Thanks to the opponent for his response, although I was prepared for a much better rebuttal. Also the opponent didn't put forward any contentions, and his rebuttal was towards only a minimum part of my fully thought out contentions. Yes It's true that alcohol is not a highly addictive as heroin, so wouldn't that mean that there would be more heroin users? This is incorrect because there are way more alcohol users then heroin rather then the other way around. Like I have stated before with valid evidence 23% of adults drink alcohol at a hazardous level, while a 2004 research shows that there is only a 1.3% users of heroin within the United States.[1] Now the opponent may believe that because of the Legalization of heroin or other drugs will increase the numbers of heroin, weed, cocaine etc. users but this is incorrect. Just like I have proved within my first contention "ADDICTION." "That is still one fourth of the united states being strung out about 100% of the time."The percentage of heroin users is 1.3% I highly doubt that number of heroin users with the actions of legalization will increase to a 23%. But even if it did there would be a vast amount of drugs users wether the drugs are illegal or not. For drugs are easily accessible, I can say this from personal experience. In my neighborhood you can buy weed as easy as you can buy gum. Therefor I can conclude that we should have the right to buy such drugs, without the persecution of the police etc. For this just increases the dangerous situations for the seller and buyer. Not only for the seller and buyer, but all of there surroundings. The best solution to this Drug War is to simply end it and legalize drugs. "With your freedom of choice, you can't choose to do something that would bring harm to yourself."I hate the usage of the word can't, the definition of freedom of choice is to have the liberty of doing as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Therefor yes with freedom of choice, I can do what I like even if it does harm oneself. So does this mean the usage of cars should be illegal as well? Car emissions kill 30,000 humans beings within the United States.[2] Does this mean the freedom of driving a car should be deprived from us because it harms oneself? This is impossible to believe, that because something harms oneself it should become illegal. If it was because of this mostly every single right would be deprived from us. Remember these words a person should be the ruler of his/her own life, he/she should shape his/her own future and not anyone else. Since the opponent didn't rebut most of my contentions such as; "HYPOCRISY" and "ECONOMY" and he poorly rebutted my other two contentions, I believe all my contentions still stand firm. I again thank the opponent for his rebuttals I hope his next rebuts are a bit stronger, good luck. [1] http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com...[2] http://www.whatifpeace.com...
Drug Legalization

Although you are a great master of debate, and your points are eloquent and well thought-out, I seem to find a few issues. Let's say we legalize drugs. As you say with a perfectly legal drug such as alcohol "23% of adults within the U.S. drink enough alcohol that can harm them or there surroundings." First, alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as heroin and crack, and second, let's say that all the drugs cap off at 23% use rate. Let's say that the same 23% is using these drugs (best case scenario for you) that is still one fourth of the united states being strung out about 100% of the time. Now I can not deny that legal drugs are bad for you, but there is no evidence that with mass heroin use the death toll would not be higher than cigarettes or alcohol. With your freedom of choice, you can't choose to do something that would bring harm to yourself. I understand it's the same thing with ciggs and drinking, but those should be illegal as well.
Drug Legalization

Hello to all I am here today to challenge anyone which would like to prove the resolution which will be stated in just a moment to be incorrect. I wish good luck to the opponent.Side Note: Due to personal reasons the actual and first debate I created was not possible to be completed therefor I have created another one. Please I hope the opponent will have the same enthusiasm I do for this debate and will finish it as well. ~+~+ Resolution ~+~+ Drugs should be legalized. Side Note: By drugs I mean all types of drugs. Such as weed, heroin, cocaine etc. ~+~+ Definitions ~+~+ Drugs: a substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. Legalized: Make something that was previously illegal permissible by law. ~=~= Regulations ~+~+ First round will be for acceptance, second and third round will be for the purpose of presenting contentions and rebuttals to the opponents contentions, fourth round will be for final statements and final rebuttals. No new contentions in round four only reinforcement to previous contentions will be permitted. Side Note: If the opponent has a problem with the rules he/she can leave me a comment in the comment's section and see if we can come to an agreement.
What do u think about the mission to colonize mars

Even though the earth destroys itself, we are helping it destroy itself by polluting, global warming, and creating (in part) more greenhouse gases. Anyway, back on track. You'd need millions of space stations, each one costing millions of dollars. There would be too much money spent and you also need many millions of space rockets, costing more debt for every country. Also, who will pay all of the cost? Even if everyone pools in all of their money, we still won't have enough. Moving to Mars is pretty much useless, but could be possible for a few hundred or thousand people.
The United States needs to accept more refugees

First of all the USA is stretched thin and they don't have the man power or resource to be every where in the world. That is the purpose of the UNITED NATIONS it is there job to deal with other nations and the problems of the world. The UN Charter sets out four main purposes: Maintaining worldwide peace and security. Developing relations among nations. Fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems.http://study.com... It is not the USA place to be the police state nor the global superpower of the world the USA isn't equipped to deal with all the worlds problems their is no point of the UN if it isn't going to do its job. Like I said your argument has merit but your directing it at the wrong country. Instead of the USA being provider the UN is suppose to be the provider for Syria in the time of crisis and need.
The United States needs to accept more refugees

You say that Syrians should fight ISIS instead of fleeing but I would like to point out that half of the refugees are children [1]. No one should expect children to take up arms and fight ISIS, especially when 8 out of 10 already show signs of PTSD [1]. This is a humanitarian crisis. If you think that the adults should be fighting then at least help out the millions of displaced kids. [1] http://www.pbs.org...
The United States needs to accept more refugees

Well Donald Trump thinks differently and he isn't going to allow them to come to the USA. We are at war with Muslim radical jihadist that desire the destruction of the USA. What your saying has merit but unless there is a screening process to screen all the people coming in then they aren't going to let them in. My point is that the USA isn't a police state and the worlds protector. If the Syrians want freedom they need to turn around and fight ISIS and president Bashar Al Assad. Until they can establish freedom. In other word if the USA was invaded by North Korea or China or Russian of the ISLAMIC STATE I will take up arms and fight for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I love this nation and I don't care what people say or think about the USA. I love the USA and will die for this nation. I think that the Syrians should do the same for their country instead of running they should fight for their nation and for freedom.
The United States needs to accept more refugees

I don't think we should take on all 6.6 million people, either. My argument is that the US should accept more than it is already. The United States took in a total of about 12,000 Syrian refugees so far in 2016 [1] but that is not sufficient as many smaller countries have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees. A main argument against the settling of refugees is worries about ties to ISIS. However, most refugees are people fleeing ISIS and the damage it has done. They also must go through an extreme vetting process with four seperate government agencies before being accepted [2] In the United States "only about a dozen " a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees " have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian." [3] It should also be mentioned that 94% of terrorist attacks in the US since 1980 weren't by Muslims [4]. So, no, let's not accept 6.6 million people, but we could do a little better. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The United States needs to accept more refugees

It's estimated that 400,000 people have died in Syria due to the war and life expectancy has dropped 14 years [1], prompting the displacement of 6.6 million people (including millions of children) and an addition 4.8 million who have fled the country out of fear for their lives [2]. I am arguing that the United States must accept more refugees. [1]http://www.nytimes.com... [2]syrianrefugees.eu/
I believe the NFL should allow players to play

I've hunted Ruffed Grouse's. And in that video, the bird comes up at 1:40, he shoots until 1:44. Giving him 4 seconds. (I think he could've got 1 more shot off.) The AVG NFL play is 5-8 seconds. Meaning about 1 seconds for the snap, 3 for the QB to throw the ball. Well that's 4, so after he throws it, the ball could be in the air for about a second, so that's 5. Then the defender and run collide sometimes withing a split second. You also said when someone is coming at you it's a natural reaction to slow down which gives you a couple of seconds? I never realized holding yourself back a little gave a couple of seconds to the runner. If anything it's less than a second and just so you can protect yourself. But that's actually what the runner/receiver does, not the defender. The defender's usually don't slow down at all, that's why they are bang bang plays. It's the runners or receivers that slow down. Also, you were going very far off topic. This is about NFL hits, not hunting. I will say though, I don't know how having a dog puts you at a disadvantage at anything except for having to walk and pick your dead bird up. Having a dog doesn't make it easier to shoot the bird.
I believe the NFL should allow players to play

Well, my 3rd argument is still valid and you still need to refute it. If you didn't mean for it to be taken literally, you should have said so in your opening statements, or you should have made a different title. I know that the fines may be inconsistent, but they still exist. I agree that those different fines may be unfair, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. The infractions and punishments just need a clearer definition. First of all, have you ever been hunting in general let alone bird hunting? I honestly want this answered. I also want you to tell me if you've ever been trap shooting. Also, you generally stop running momentarily when someone is charging at you. It's a natural reaction. When something like that happens you freeze up momentarily. Therefore, you must pause and slow down. This means that you have a couple of seconds of time. More than enough to process the situation. Now, with hunting you are NOT prepared and ready. You could walk through a field a mile long and see nothing, or you could go through a 1/4 mile long field and kick a hundred birds up. You could still hit nothing. You stand in a ready position, and have no idea when a bird will fly up. You are most certainly NOT ready. And yes, the safety can be turned off while bringing up the gun. You still have to line up the sights and get on the bird. Both of those have to be done in order. You can't do therm simultaneously. And I can follow a bird through the air for 10 seconds if I want. I can only kill that bird in the first one or two. Watch the video to see a pheasant hunt. http://www.youtube.com... With the pheasant video, you just need to watch the first few seconds. That guy has a dog, which is more than me, and he STILL missed. You're supposed to have a dog when pheasant hunting for the best results. I don't. I'm at a disadvantage and I can still get a shot off. I will give you stats for Doves since I can't find a video that actually shows the bird. The location of the hunters is much more predictable. For doves, the average hunter fires 7-9 shots for every dove they bag[1]. Clearly, it's not that easy. They are getting paid millions unnecessarily. That money can go to much better use. Now, yes it is a physical game, but that's not a reason to allow all hits. Like I said before, rather than eliminate the punishments, they should make clear definitions of what hits are infractions, and what the punishment is for the infraction. With all this confusion stuff, once again, just clear up infractions and punishments. It eliminates the hesitation and the confusion, but keeps the safety factor. Now, I live in PA, and still hate the Eagles with a burning passion, and I can defend my reasoning for this. Dropped Points ------------------ All points my opponent made The safety factor [1] http://www.chron.com... I await a response.
I believe the NFL should allow players to play

The title of my argument was obviously a metaphor and wasn't meant to be taken literally. So your 3rd argument is invalid. I meant "play" as in let them play the game without having to worry about all these different fines and inconsistent penalties. And by inconsistent I mean, sometimes they won't call an obviously illegal hit by the NFL rules, and sometimes they do. They fine players who got into a brawl 25k, but fine players who simply hit someone on the helmet unintentionally 75k. For your argument about you having less time to react hunting than NFL players do, I disagree. If running back is running towards you, and you're running at them to make the tackle, and suddenly they duck and you hit them in the head, that is a split second. Hunting however, you are usually prepared and ready, the safety takes less than a second to turn off and can be done wile raising the gun and you can follow the birds in the air for about 3 seconds. So I disagree with you there. Also, players are paid millions of dollars to play a game. The game involves physicality and the chance of being injured. Wile I agree that some hits are obviously unnecessary and and completely inappropriate, they are making this into a game that players are starting to hesitate before tackling a player with the fear of an enormous fine in the back of their minds. Example, I was watching the Eagles game today (Yes I am an Eagles fan and yes we came back and won!) and Brent Celek caught a 65 yard TD. Well that wouldn't have resulted in a touchdown most likely if that safety wasn't worried about a fine and didn't hold up and just helplessly fall to the ground. Another example, Eagles game against the Colts, 2 Eagles defenders hit Austin Collie and the FS Kurt Coleman was penalized 15 yards. Review showed no foul play. He wasn't fined either. These new rules are confusing the refs so sometimes they don't even know what is illegal and what's not. Countless of times I've heard announcers say that. Yes if the player leads with his helmet deliberately, then he deserves some sort of punishment. But if it's obviously just a boom boom play, then give them a break. These plays can change a game so much. Like the Bears game when Suh was penalized for unnecessary roughness on Jay Cutler, there was nothing wrong with that play and further review showed that, but the Bears went on a kicked a field goal because that penalty kept their drive alive. Waiting for response.
I believe the NFL should allow players to play

We NFL fans are all aware of the fines players are being handed, and the penalties they are being given for "illegal" hits. I believe they should allow the players to play the game without these. If a play smacks a QB's helmet, it's a 15 yard penalty. What is the point of them having one if they can't be touched there? "leading with your helmet" What would you like them to lead with? You're head is that the top of your body and when someone is running at you and you need to take them down, and you have limited time to think, you are going to lead with your head. The NFL is ruining the sport. Goddell is trying way to hard. People won't watch, and rating are going to go down. People watch the game for the hits, and it's turning into a flag football league. I suggest only giving fines if it's blatant. Penalties should be re viewable. Also the fines should consist of a lot less money than they do now.
Theism is the default position

My opponent's entire argument is based on the fallacious claim that we are all born lacking disbelief.Take a mother away from her baby and you will see it cry in disbelief. It has no faith in anything but the mother. It refuses to drink milk form anything but her breast for it disbelieves the value of the capability of anything but her to nurture it. It relents the touch of any but the mother, apart from perhaps a familiar figure that it has spent much time disbelieving and finally been ebbed away at to believe in and trust. In fact, until the baby leaves the womb it's happily ignorant, thinking the only purpose of its life is to kick around in jelly for the pure hell of it. Then it's born and it screams, like any atheist and blasphemer would scream if they met a god that they had devoted their life to doubting and mocking. So, as far as babies go, they have a lot of disbelief.Babies can't even fully make out faces for the majority of their first year of life[http://www.babycentre.co.uk...], they probably doubted that things would ever get less blurry and disbelieved in any sense other than taste since that is pretty much the only sense it's going to be using for most of its life to make sense of things.[http://moms.popsugar.com...]I am going to use the example of a baby with a mother that's a twin as the perfect example of why theism is not the default position. Observe the YouTube video I posted. Until that baby had met the twin, it had disbelief that anyone other than that woman in red was its mother (or the woman in brown, it doesn't matter which was the real mother for my argument). The point is that by the end of the video this baby had reverted to its womb-like mentality that nothing at all exists and that perhaps it really had no mother at all and they were all equally unlikely. This is exactly how an atheist views gods. It clings onto one god hoping that the love and affection this one god gives is confirmation that it is the real one, until it realises that all gods are, in fact, just as likely to be the real one and in actuality disbelief is the only rational position it can ever fall to without taking an all-out gamble (gambling is certainly a learned habit and a very dangerous addiction, rather than an innate natural way of life[http://www.cam.ac.uk...])And to answer the question as to why Justin Bieber is still alive is very simple, he is alive because he is a fighter. He is the selected alpha male of the next generation of human beings and shall grow to have sex with more women than Genghis Khan and take his place in the warrior spirit hall of fame.Please observe the second video for very educational song lyrics.http://www.youtube.com...;
Theism is the default position

Theism is the lack of a disbelief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no disbeliefs at all. All babies are born Theists. That's why it's the default position. The only way to be an Atheist is to learn what a God is and choose to disbelieve in it. That means you must BECOME an Atheist from the default position of being a Theist. Nobody is born an Atheist. If you lose your disbelief in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being a Theist. It's that simple.
Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy in debating.

Appealing to Emotion: When an argument is made that appeals to the subjective bias of the reader in order to persuade them to one side of the debate regardless of objective reasoning. Logical Fallacy (in context of debating): Misconduct, construing valid evidence in a way that deceives the reader from what is otherwise true. This debate must be purely concept-based. No use of external sources or videos is allowed as I am fully aware that they are bias towards Pro being correct. This is irrelevant as appeal to popular opinion is a fallacy of its own. Whether the whole world other than myself believes the resolution to be true or not is irrelevant, thus using sources is very pointless and non-constructive to this debate and if my opponent chooses to do so then they do not deserve the 'reliable sources' vote as this wasn't supposed to be based on external sources.
Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy in debating.

I thought Pro was going to open with his debate but as they say, bird poop happens...Anyway, let me get onto the crux of my opening round.Essentially appeals to emotion are just a weapon in the arsenal of a debater. They are not logically fallacious in the slightest. What is logically fallacious, as I'm sure Pro will agree, is if one creates a straw man argument and attacks that to get an easy win, or says that because many people believe something that it must be true. While straw man arguing and appeal to majority influence work very well in real life arguments, face-to-face, in the context of debating they are blatant violations and go against the moral code of the debater.Here is how I see the moral code of the debater:1) I shall bend logic as far as I wish, without breaking its boundaries, in order to win.2) I shall never knowingly lie to the audience, nor my opponent if what I am saying is provably untrue.3) I shall not plagiarise unless there is simply no other way to word such an eloquent argument and shall cite this if my plagiarism goes for more than two sentences. Now, I can't be bothered to actually justify this code and this code is not the foundation of my debate but what you notice is that appealing to emotion doesn't directly violate any of those three values that I would consider important in a debater.Moving onwards, one is left to ponder over what exactly Pro could raise as a valid point now to win this debate. The answer lies in the definition of what 'deception' truly is.The reason I didn't define this in round one is that the exact wording of what deceiving the audience, in a debate, is will become the entire debate (or so I predict). Thus, I leave it to my opponent to offer his own definition of deception and to prove that to sway the opponent to one side or another by pointing out that one side has aspects that are emotionally more appealing is fallacious in the logical sense.It is the readers' responsibility to become immune to emotional appeal, not the writer's responsibility to mercifully fail to brainwash the judges and audience on which their success as a debater relies.
Health is more important than Education.

Right, sorry. I didnt state clearly my argument and it wasnt really about what you just said. What i meant is: in worldly problems we face today which one should we put more emphasis on: education or health? And by health i mean living a healthy lifestyle, being free from illness, being able to be healthy enough to do things freely. (P.s this is my first time and i didnt know the format needed so i dont know if i should start the argument first or whatnot). thank you for partcipaing