BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fallacy Debate: Marijuana should be smoked regularly by adults in the United States.

Thank you for starting this debate. I am sure that it is going to be very enjoyable. Here are some reasons why adults in the United States should not smoke marijuana regularly: 1. I said so. 2. Every person who has smoked marijuana in the United States so far has been a criminal, so smoking marijuana regularly would turn all of America into criminals. 3. Barack Obama said so, and he is always right, because he promises hope and change. 4. If all adults in the United States didn't smoke, then they'd all give that money to charity, because that is what Jesus would do. 5. If all adults in the United States didn't smoke, whatever they bought otherwise would be taxed, which transfers money to government, and we all know that government is the best place for money to be kept, because acer said so here (. http://www.debate.org...), and acer is a straight-A student who built a robot, so all things he says should be accepted without question. 6. If all adults in the United States did smoke, the policemen would be forced to arrest themselves, and criminals would run mad on the streets robbing everything every hard-working American ever owned in our proud history. 7. Marijuana sounds funny. Let's look at my opponent's arguments: All of my opponent's arguments are unreliable, because he is an atheist, and all atheists are immoral. He argues that polls are reliable, but they are not, because the Founding Fathers limited the power of the common man with the Electoral College, so they think that the common man is an idiot. Therefore, the poll is an argument against legalization of marijuana. My opponent's relatives must also be unreliable, because they are related to an atheist. Everyone knows that marijuana's sole purpose of evolution was an attempt to remove all humans from the face of the Earth to save the whale. Don't be so ridiculous. My opponent cites a story about his friend, Jill. However, Jill is a character from a storybook (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(song)), and all storybook characters are silly, so Jill is silly, and her story cannot be trusted. My opponent calls me crazy. However, one has to be crazy to call somebody else crazy. Therefore, my opponent is crazy, and cannot be trusted. My opponent compares eating to smoking marijuana, but there is obviously a tremendous difference, because "eating" starts with "e," and "smoking" starts with "s. " My opponent has exaggerated before, as seen here: . http://www.google.com... Therefore, he must be exaggerating now, and all things he says cannot be trusted. I have shown my opponent to be completely unreliable, so anything he says must the tossed out, no questions asked. I have shown why only an idiot would smoke marijuana, ever, so don't be an idiot.
Fallacy Debate: Marijuana should be smoked regularly by adults in the United States.

Inspired by http://www.debate.org... Each person must argue the resolution to the best of their ability. But the catch is, each person must use as many logical fallacies as possible. The arguments vote should be given to the person with the best balance between persuasiveness and fallaciousness. To my opponent, please do not argue semantics or attempt to weasel out of the spirit of the debate. Since sources are irrelevant, the sources vote should be defaulted to the winner of the arguments/fallacies. Now to get on with the arguments. ======== It is vital that we legalize marijuana for the welfare of society. According to this poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), 52% of Americans want to legalize it, while only 37% are opposed. The choice is clear. If we do not begin marijuana on a regular basis, the only alternative is to inflict great suffering on every man, woman and child across the nation. According to my uncle, who is a widely known medical doctor, marijuana has great health benefits. My great uncle, a world-renowned university professor, concurs. He believes that everyone should smoke marijuana in order to enrich their lives. Marijuana is made from the cannabis plant. Plants have evolved side by side with humans; human bodies are designed to be able to use them. So you see, smoking marijuana is a very natural process. Let me give an example. I had a friend named Jill. She was unhappy with her job and had become very depressed. So her doctor prescribed a daily smoking of marijuana. In no time, she felt much better. Marijuana is great. Everyone knows it. The health benefits have been proven in laboratories time and time again. It would be absurd to even try to argue that marijuana is harmful. My opponent must be crazy to accept this debate. Someone who does not smoke marijuana every day is comparable to someone who does not eat every day. It's just not healthy. What kind of person could advocate that sort of lifestyle? Marijuana is great, everyone knows it. That much is undeniable. My opponent is going to have a hard time breaking down my impenetrable arguments based on flawless reasoning.
United States actions in foreign countries.

dang lol I keep doing that. Saying Iraq instead of Iran. I of course meant Iran in both instances so my bad on that. Well I fully enjoyed debating with you. Good times and you gave me a lot to think on while arguing with you. I do feel like this came down to a conflict of beliefs rather then a battle of the facts so I don't think we will get to many voters on this but it was still fun none the less. Their really isn't anything to add in my final round since everything that could be said has already been said.
United States actions in foreign countries.

Well, I'm glad we've gotten past anarchy and the NSA, and that this debate has gone relatively peacefully. On to the MD! Yes, I understand that countries get angry at the US, and I understand that other countries themselves do things politically unethical just like the big Eagle, my argument being that someone should bring down the hammer on these governments for their actions. And if it led to the destruction of their militaries, all the better. But that's a debate for another day. Now, as for the UN, I fully believe that it should have the power to end and prevent conflicts between the members of the union. They entered the organization knowing there would be some limitations on power, and yet there is no actual punishment inflicted upon those who infringe upon other countries! The UN is essentially a congress of multiple nations, like the EU is to Europe, or to a lesser extent the United States to what were the British colonies. The UN should have the powers associated with such a congress, one of which is, again, the ability to punish it's individual states for crimes, of which the United States has committed many. Of course, they should NOT have this sort of power over non-members of the UN, which would make the organization as bad as it's members. As for boundaries, people can live and grow within them and go to the extremes to ensure they never overpopulate (culling off parts of the populace when it grew too large, etc. ), interact with other countries on the most limited basis such as trade, or have no borders and learn and grow as a species, like we're supposed to. Nothing is perfect, but all of the presented options are better than what we have now. Also, you said Iraq again. Also, perhaps I should have clarified my position on the MB. We should not support a civil war. We should depose the MB, because that appears to be what the United States wants, and what the people of Egypt want. But we should not allow the slaughter of their members because of what their representative has done or what he could have done, nor should we allow for a military takeover. A junta can end worse than a dictatorship, or simply spiral back into one.
United States actions in foreign countries.

Hello again everyone. So you are an anarchist. That is totally fine as everyone is free to choose for themselves and I mean no disrespect towards them. I just don't find their philosophies to be very reasonable or realistic, IMHO. I feel as if this debate has moved from comparing facts and into the realm of my beliefs vs your beliefs and your opinions vs my opinions and that just really isn't the most progressive thing we could be doing. For instance your ideas on humanitarian aid to me are... inconsiderate. That is your opinion though and mine is that we should help the less fortunate. There's really no sure way to decide who is right and who is wrong here. So I think its just best for us to move on from there. Once again we come to the MD lol. You know other countries do get angry with the US when we do such things. They speak out against us and they do what they can in UN council to get us to either stop or lessen what we can do. I'm guessing what you want is for places like Russia or China or the UK to invade the US for what we do but how can they do that when they are doing the exact same thing? Why would they do it since it would end in the destruction of their militaries. And why would (for the most of them) they act out against one of their largest allies? And the UN's job isn't so much to "settle these disputes without violence, and to stop them from happening in the first place?" but to lessen these issues and try and resolve them as swiftly and peacefully as possible. Its completely unrealistic to think that they could completely stop or prevent wars and such from happening. So they do what they can. I get what you are saying about the boundaries thing. Its just that it isn't realistic either way. If we have boundaries we cant just close our gates off to the rest of the world. How else will we ever learn to grow and cooperate and one day hopefully achieve that world peace thing everyone dreams so much about. Especially with the growth of our population and the increase in peoples needs like medicine and food, international trade and cooperation is really the only way our species can grow and develop. And getting rid of boundaries and just all getting along just isn't really achievable. Unrealistic. I knew you were kidding about the kill Obama thing lol, but I'm pretty sure the NSA is watching this. So watch yourself :) Just noticed the spot where I said Iraq instead of Iraq. My bad. I feel like enough has been said on this subject, and so anything further would just be a repeat of previous rounds. And lastly Egypt. I disagree with your idea that we should have been on the MBs side instead of the military. Yes this was an event of military overthrow of a democratic leader but it was done to preserve democracy and to end the reign of a man who was becoming a tyrant. It was done in the interest of the people by the will of the people. And they are taking all steps to end the military rule and reelect a democratically chosen ruler. Saying we should have sided with a tyrannical group just because they were chosen democratically is kinda foolish in my opinion. Well that's all I have time for.
United States actions in foreign countries.

I refuse to begin with a fancy introduction, so I begin with this. Not long ago, the Syrian government began using chemical weapons attacks against the rebels. Nothing much wrong with that. It's still killing innocents, but what can you do? The major controversy was the government was using the weaponry on their own defenseless citizens. Still not much wrong with that, if it wins your war. But people worldwide, average citizens or diehard humanitarians were infuriated. Not much later, President Barack Obama (who I have no personal problem against) presented the idea of military action against Syria. MILITARY. ACTION. Not only is this a case of public opinion influencing politicians, but it's completely unethical, and hypocritical. The Monroe Doctrine decreed that any and all European countries attempting to colonize the Americas would be treated as hostile, and dealt with as such. However, this rule does not seem to apply to the United States itself. For example. In Iran, 1953, United States forces allied with the British military to overthrow the democratically elected government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Why? Because Mohammad Mossadegh planned to nationalize Iran's petrol industry, which threatened the gas company BP's business (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company at the time). My question is this: Why should America (or any other country) be allowed to interfere in foreign countries? Not only was this a complete violation of the natural rights of the Iranians and their country as a whole, the country was ruled under a democratic government, something America has sworn to "protect". Apparently as long as it suits our interests.
How Much Wood Could a Woodchuck Chuck if a Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood

A woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, we do not know how much it would be capable of chucking. Therefore, we can not give a certain number, such as 584 pounds. We do not know how much time the woodchuck has to chuck the wood, how fast it can chuck or into how many pieces the wood would be chucked. Heck, we don't even know if a woodchuck can chuck wood!
How Much Wood Could a Woodchuck Chuck if a Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood

If a woodchuck could chuck wood, a woodchuck could obviously chuck 584 pounds of wood. First, a woodchuck can chuck wood, or else the woodchuck would never have been named woodchuck, rather, it would've been called chuck... or wood. Now, a woodchuck can chuck 584 pounds of wood because when entered into a cell phone, woodchuck equals 966,324,825. The square root of this number is 31,085.765633164, which can be rounded up to 31,085.76563317. This number divided by 2 and then added to .22 equals 15,543.102816585. If the number 15 is taken away, (because no one likes 15) then one gets 543.102816585, which can then be added to 40.897183415 to get 584. As you can see, this flawless logic shows that if a woodchuck could chuck wood, it would chuck 584 pounds of wood.
Donald Trump will most likely run for president in 2020

I have given several sources for why Trump is doing his campaign for brand building. I'm not saying he did it ONLY for brand recognition, but brand recognition is part of it. His losing the sponsors is probably bad for him, but that happened in the past--there's nothing he can do about that now. That was perhaps a bad business decision, but it was still a business decision. The reason he did said those bad things about Mexicans is not that he hates Mexicans (thought he might), but to show off his power--to show that he can say whatever he wants and get away with it. That is part of the Trump brand--in-your-face (perhaps tacky), obtrusive "winning." My opponent did not respond to my percentage analysis, which puts Trump's likelihood of re-election at well below 15%. I'm running out of time unfortunately, but my analysis stands.
Pineapple Pizza

Ok so we are debating just the personal preference of pineapple on a standard pizza. I agree it is not for everyone but I disagree. I like the sweet taste to balance the overwhelming taste of the sauce. There are many pallets. I agree the juice can be a problem but if they are strained properly the juice will seal in the pineapple instead of in the pizza. There are many good combinations in my opinion of fruits,vegetables,and meats that compliment each other. The first thing you have to remember is cheese and sauce are toppings and can be change like everything else. If you like chicken/barbecue you can try cherry/ham/avocado sauce. It sounds like your not a sweet type pallet. So it is understandable you wouldn't like pineapple on a pizza. The main point comes down to what you like and how its prepared. This has become less of a debate and more of a desiccation but that is fine.
Pineapple Pizza

You are right about the definition of pizza, and I do know that there are dessert pizzas, but I am not saying that no fruit should ever be put on a pizza. I enjoy dessert pizzas, actually. "Pineapple pizza" isn't just pineapple on flatbread that is baked, though. The pineapples are mixed with ham, baked on top of cheese, all on top of a layer of marinara sauce(aka "pizza sauce"). It isn't exactly classified as a dessert pizza. I just have a feeling of disagreement towards certain fruits mixed with certain ingredients. Personally, I just don't like the texture or the juiciness of the baked pineapple when eating pizza. The juice of the pineapple just doesn't go well with the melted cheese and marinara, in my opinion. Oh, and by the way, I agree. peppers are gross.
Pineapple Pizza

First off I love pizza to. All type's are good(except peppers, hate peppers). The issue here is firstly how you define a pizza. You have your classics like pepperoni,meat lovers,supreme,and yes ham and pineapple. But are you saying no fruit should ever be put on a pizza? There is a whole category called desert pizzas. Almost all of them have a fruit as a main ingredient. A pizza is defined as a yeast flatbread with one or more toppings. Its a lot like a sandwich(lots of ways to make it). So is this debate going to be about no fruit on pizza, or no fruit and certain ingredients on the same pizza.
Pineapple Pizza

Although many people seem to like pineapples on top of a pizza, I am definitely not for it. As a 'pizza purist', as some would say, I enjoy the regular savory pizzas(with an exception of barbecue chicken of course), and I just can't seem to wrap my mind around the idea of a fruit on a pizza. Don't get me wrong, I love pineapple. It's my 2nd favorite fruit. But I just can't get myself to enjoy those two things I love put together into a combination.
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

Hey there! I am more interested in your comments made about god not being "the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims" than I am in the topic that more people have died in the name of God than any other name, so I will be responding to what you asked a response for at the end of your original argument. I also want to provide some few articles and or videos that will talk about some of the points you made against the existence of God. I am a Christian, so I will be speaking specifically in that context. the first thing I want to talk about is the point you made, "there is no god. None, not one, no god, never was." In my opinion, that is not sufficient evidence that God does not exist. I could say, if you exist, find me and give me $5. I also want to make the point that you would say that God is evil if he did exist. But this video is a brief clip that I would love for you to watch and comment on that discusses the existence of God without using the Bible, along with how God could possibly be a good God. I would love to hear your feedback and opinions on this! https://youtu.be... I also want to briefly address the comment you used from George Carlin's message, "religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man... living in the sky." I will use another video clip to talk through that. https://youtu.be... The last topic I would like to discuss is when you made the comment, "if there is a god, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened." I want to briefly show another video clip that will talk about God hearing our prayers and again, I would love your feedback and opinions on this topic as well! https://youtu.be... I am enthusiastically awaiting your response! The topic I am most excited to hear back from is just on the existence of God which is roughly the first 3 or 4 minutes of the first video! Thanks!!
"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

Here's a portion of George Carlin's famous skit and he's 100% correct. I can't use all of the skit because there's far too many curse words. When it comes to B.S., big-time, major league B.S., you have to stand in awe, in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest B.S. story ever told. Think about it. religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man... living in the sky... who watches everything you do... every minute of every day... And the invisible man has a special list of TEN things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!.......... But He loves you!!! He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good B.S. story... Holy BEEP!continuing... And for those of you who look to The bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no god. None, not one, no god, never was." In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a god, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a god, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my b---s hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!So your job as Con is to prove that god is NOT "the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims"