BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places.

Thanks for responding! First off, weed and pot are the same thing, and tobacco is smoked in public, weed isn't. As for crack, that is an illegal drug is not common in public, while tobacco is. Next, you claim that "Tobacco smoke doesn't linger as long as pro thinks." Tobacco smoke lingers for 4 hours, (link above) so citation needed. Your next point is a strawman argument; I never said adults would have to smoke in their house, only not in public. And what is a V.S Evil argument? I'm trying to make sure I don't die of cancer because someone is smoking while I am on the sidewalk, or at an amusement park. You then claim that 660,000 workers will he laid off. Citation needed. As I've shown before, eliminating the 156,000,000,000 spend on healthcare in the US alone for healthcare (link above) will easily outweigh any damage to the tobacco industry. "In Conclusion, trying to take away Smoking in ALL public places(I re-assert my point) is overstepping certain bounds, and by doing so you will cause riots, boycotts, and anger in many loyal citizens, who by the way are not harming anyone by smoking" First off, how do you know riots will take place? We are not banning smoking, only making sure innocent people won't die. Next, there is no legal right to smoke. But have you heard of a crime called manslaughter? Definition of manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder. Again, second hand smoke kills 600,000 plus people per year. Smokers killed them, without malice, so that is manslaughter. And unlike smoking, you do not have a right to commit manslaughter. No matter how you frame it, when you smoke on the sidewalk, you are killing everybody around you. I see you dropped my environment argument. To conclude, I will do some math. An estimated 42,000 Americans die every year from secondhand smoke every year. 600,000 people die from second hand smoke worldwide every year. It is clear that if we ban smoking in public, thousands of lives will be saved. Now for money. You state that the tobacco industry is worth 30 billion in America. But, smoking costs us 300,000,000,000 dollars per year in costs. Secondhand smoke costs us 150,000,000,000 per year. These costs dwarf the pluses of smoking. Obviously we need to do something, so why not ban smoking in public? Good luck! Links: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com... http://www.cdc.gov...
Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places.

It is well known that Smoking isn't the best of things for your body, but if you wanted to have a good V.S. Evil argument (as you clearly are trying to make this argument) than you should try to debate something such as Abortion, or Legal Marijuana. Tobacco is not nearly as hazardous as crack, weed, pot, or just about any other drug for that matter. In addition, all adults should have the right to harm themselves (to a certain extent) if they so choose, just as long as it does not harm others.Despite Pro's Mis-guided argument, smoking in OPEN public places has not been shown to have any lasting effects, as the Cigarette smoke does not linger as long as pro may think, and in addition, forcing smokers to smoke at home home will dramatically increase deaths from second-hand smoking, as an A.C. unit is far inferior to the wind and general openness of the outdoors. If your idea (Which by the way, Violates rights and contradicts both law and common sense) is to be put into action, both children and adults will die from the smoke that cannot be cleared from inside a house.In addition to the lives killed by your half-thought plan, 660,000 American workers will be left jobless, as the Tobacco industry will sharply decline. Even more workers will get laid off from convenient stores, and pubs.In Conclusion, trying to take away Smoking in ALL public places(I re-assert my point) is overstepping certain bounds, and by doing so you will cause riots, boycotts, and anger in many loyal citizens, who by the way are not harming anyone by smoking.
Exchange-Traded Funds should be prioritized in investing rather than stock.

I. My opponents whole argument is plagiarizedCheck it out. I always research on investopedia and PDF traders, before talking economicshttp://www.investopedia.com...II. Stocks have more projected trade valueSimple. Stocks are more traded, and have more projected value. Therefore, we should build upon Nasdaq instead of funding small traded ETFS.I was planning on writing my infamous long picture arguments, but 500 characters. Cheers!
Exchange-Traded Funds should be prioritized in investing rather than stock.

Define ETF:A security that tracks an index, a commodity or a basket of assets like an index fund, but trades like a stock on an exchange. ETFs experience price changes throughout the day as they are bought and sold. By owning an ETF, you get the diversification of an index fund as well as the ability to sell short, buy on margin and purchase as little as one share. Another advantage is that the expense ratios for most ETFs are lower than those of the average mutual fund.
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's

Yes and the egg would be useless without the sperm whats your point? Its still 50/50 either way you look at it. True. The purpose of Roe v. Wade was to test to see if abortion should be legal. However, it also settled another very important decision. What if there is a disagreement between the parents? Then the right automatically makes it the woman. Um so what? he argued to the supreme court that a woman should have the right to have an abortion however im sure he did not intend for it to be ruled as where the male partner has no say in the choice of aborting it or not since it is apart of him sorry the law makers were near sighted to see that men want a say in if their child should be aborted or not. The point I was trying to make is, do you really think that a man is going to vote for a law that is sexist against his own gender? No. Objection! no source and two my point is it gives all the rights to the women the men should have a say in something that is 50% his. Hey, you never used sources to back up your points either. And if you really need me to link to dictionary. com the definition of sexism, here is the link! . http://dictionary.reference.com...The full definiton according to dictionary. com is the following:discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. Discrimination based on sex. I would like to state you are a male you have no idea what being pregnant is like either , but not only pregnancy is a stressful event so is abortion. While it is true that I am a male, I have the utmost respect for women and, especially, for those that are with child. My opponent has admitted that a pregnacy is stressful. I will also agree that abortion is stressful. It is even more stressful when there is strife and disagreement. Again you are a male just like me you don't know what its like either so stop preaching like you do, secondly it is sick its part of the male yet we don't get a say in stopping an abortion because hey maybe we wanna child maybe we offer to take care of it just wait to have it and we will take it. Argument almost makes me laugh. Again, I will point out that the woman automatically has the right to make the final decision because it is in her body. Her body, her right. I will assirt that if there is a disagreement, why shouldn't it go to the woman? She's the one with child! I urge members to vote for con as my opponent shown horrifying conduct and has dropped an entire argument. My opponent dropped his whole child support contention when I shown him that there are cases where women pay child support and when I agreed that women should pay child support.
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's

1. RR1) while it was the male sperm that fertilized the egg, the sperm would be useless without the egg. Yes and the egg would be useless without the sperm whats your point? Its still 50/50 either way you look at it. 2.In any sense, it was a MAN that argued the case for Roe! The people who were on the bench at the time, were also men! Um so what? he argued to the supreme court that a woman should have the right to have an abortion however im sure he did not intend for it to be ruled as where the male partner has no say in the choice of aborting it or not since it is apart of him sorry the law makers were near sighted to see that men want a say in if their child should be aborted or not. 3.I would point out what the word sexist or sexism means. To be sexist means that you feel your gender is superior over another gender. Row v. Wade was not a case on which gender was superior. Objection! no source and two my point is it gives all the rights to the women the men should have a say in something that is 50% his. 1.RC2) and in the 5% cases where the father wins, the mother should also be requiered to pay child support. The usually do pay however it is know that in most cases men pay more than women 2.R to hypothetical response) as stated earlier, I believe the woman, in some cases, should pay child support, and in some case, they do. no because usually the women gets the child so he would have to pay even with no job. 3.If there is a disagreement between the parents, that right to make the final decision automatically goes to the mother, if my opponent had any idea what it was like to be pregnant, he would understand. I would like to state you are a male you have no idea what being pregnant is like either , but not only pregnancy is a stressful event so is abortion.. C4) while it may be 50/50, it is still in the woman, and thus part of her body. Therefore, what right does a ,an have to say what happens to her body? My opponent called this argument "sick" yet if my opponent understood what it was like to be pregnant and having a disagreement, he would understand why the right for the final decision goes to the mother. Again you are a male just like me you don't know what its like either so stop preaching like you do, secondly it is sick its part of the male yet we don't get a say in stopping an abortion because hey maybe we wanna child maybe we offer to take care of it just wait to have it and we will take it.
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's

He has accused ,e of things that are completely and utterly are not true. If I remember correctly, I clearly stated that I was highly pro life. RR1) while it was the male sperm that fertilized the egg, the sperm would be useless without the egg. I am not, in any since, a bigot. I am highly HIGHLY offended that you even dare to claim that I am a bigot. In any sense, it was a MAN that argued the case for Roe! The people who were on the bench at the time, were also men! I would point out what the word sexist or sexism means. To be sexist means that you feel your gender is superior over another gender. Row v. Wade was not a case on which gender was superior. RC2) and in the 5% cases where the father wins, the mother should also be requiered to pay child support. R to hypothetical response) as stated earlier, I believe the woman, in some cases, should pay child support, and in some case, they do. If there is a disagreement between the parents, that right to make the final decision automatically goes to the mother, if my opponent had any idea what it was like to be pregnant, he would understand. RC4) while it may be 50/50, it is still in the woman, and thus part of her body. Therefore, what right does a ,an have to say what happens to her body? My opponent called this argument "sick" yet if my opponent understood what it was like to be pregnant and having a disagreement, he would understand why the right for the final decision goes to the mother. I am somewhat sorry I took this debate.
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's

Hello to my opponent id like you ask you to number points makes it easier to attack and defend for both sides. So since i have to waste letters by doing this do it next time please. My opponents case 1. my opponent's main arguments is that it gives women all the rights and forgets the male rights. Yet, my question to my opponent, is what right does the male have in determining something that belongs to the woman? Objection, one could argue that just because its in her body does not mean it completely belongs to her, it was the males sperm that fertalized it making it also apart of him. To just go out and say oh yeah half its DNA is yours but no its not yours? Thats just bigotry. 2. If a woman chooses to have the baby, that baby requires support from both parents. Therefore, it is logical that the baby recieves support from his/her father. Yes, but in 95% of custody cases the mother wins, meaning men get the shaft and most of the time always have to pay child support. They also calculate mens child support higher than womens. 3. 99% of pregnacies are due to consentual sex. I ask my opponent, what if there was a case where a woman was unemployed and the father was employed. Shouldn't the mother have the right to get support from the father? Thats a hypothical, the thing about those is i can say what if its reverse he has no job, she does? but this is not my arguments the point of this debate is not just child support its why do men have to pay child support and take repsonsiblity but have no say in stopping abortion? 4.It is not a one-sided ruling. The fact of the matter is what belongs to the woman is the woman's right. ................................................. oh im sorry i was kind thinking how sick this statement is, The man's sperm makes that baby without it you wouldn't have it. Its a part of him not 100% female's its a 50/50 why don't we have 50/50 rights? Last time a check females don't asexually reproduce, it does not fully belong to them and to not allow a man the right to stop and abortion is wrong because when it comes to money oh its our responsiblity but when it comes to what happens to that embryo we don't? its hypocritical and sexist.
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's

Before I begin, I would like to immediately point out that I believe abortion is wrong, but I do not believe Roe v. Wade is sexist. My opponent's main arguments is that it gives women all the rights and forgets the male rights. Yet, my question to my opponent, is what right does the male have in determining something that belongs to the woman? A woman has the choice of whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Her body - her choice. There have been plenty of suits to stop an abortion. They have all failed. When a man can get pregnant, he will have the right to choose whether to carry the pregnancy to term. If a woman chooses to have the baby, that baby requires support from both parents. Therefore, it is logical that the baby recieves support from his/her father.99% of pregnacies are due to consentual sex. I ask my opponent, what if there was a case where a woman was unemployed and the father was employed. Shouldn't the mother have the right to get support from the father? It is not a one-sided ruling. The fact of the matter is what belongs to the woman is the woman's right.
Roe Vs Wade is sexist and leans only towards the female's

1. My main argument is ROW gives women all the rights and forgets the male's rights yet the male would have to pay child support if it is conceived. It gives the male the resonsiblitiy without a say in the aborting of a pregnancy. What if the male wants the child and it is partly his but the women wants an abortion right now we males couldn't do anything to keep our child in this situation. How ever if the man doesn't want the child and the female does then he must pay child support? this is a one sided ruling.
Evolution is not science.

The theory of Evolution is a religon. We have been programmed to think that this theory is suposedly the blueprint of science, but I will show you that by using their OWN rules and guidelines that evolution is a religon and improabable. 1) Take the SCIENTIFIC METHOD for example; One of the very first steps is observation. Has anyone observed a dead fish become a fossil? No. The amount of evidence collected to prove evolution (skeletons) is enough to barely fit inside of a human casket. Where is the half lizard half bird skeleton that supposedly evolved to survive? 2) Okay- Lets take a watch. Break it up into little pieces, put it in a bag, and shake it up. A thousand years goes by, and its still jumbled. A million years goes by, and a few pieces come together. A BILLION years goes by. A few more. 14 BILLION YEARS GOES BY. BOOM! a watch. Sound probable? WellI will stop here for now. COME AND PROVE ME WRONG.
Torture by state agents, in certain circumstances, is necessary and valid.

My contention (and I play my own devil's advocate here) is that the torture of select people at certain times - and these may only appear every decade or even century - can be justified on a number of grounds. Whilst the practice is most often reprehensible, it is not definitively so. Indeed, the preservation of good - or at least relatively preferable - societies can be said to depend on the ability to commit violence to the bodies of individuals so as to garner information about hostile criminal and/or military activities or persons (and therefore, torture is necessary and valid). My first debate. ---- Definition of torture is 'to purposefully subject a person to pain', with the assumption that the larger part of the state-agent's motivation for doing so is instrumental, rather than 'pathological' or for pleasure. Necessary in the sense that the torturing society plausibly views its own existence as threatened, if only putatively, by the to-be-tortured or her/his cohorts (and, given the torturing-societies relative merits, therefore valid). Each of these are up for dispute. Lastly, as stated, my first debate, so comments or criticism on any aspect of challenge very gratefully accepted.
Anarcho-capitalism would be a more humanitarian form of social organization than Anarcho-communism

Labor notes are another solution is labor note each note represents a promise of labor to be done for the person who gives them out, of course he can't be forced to do the work, but if he continues to shirk his promises his notes lose value, this is also a solution to the incentive problem. Another solution is barter, including what is called non personal barter, where I leave a hat, and say I want some bread, someone gives bread and the mediator calls me and I take the bread. I concede social ostracism Community can be a stronger incentive than profit, look at the Spanish Militias, they profited little but sacrificed much for their communities, or the English Cooperatives of the early 1900s (c) Their are people who love mechanics, no one loves digging ditches. The solution for the second part would be to divide the machines in to, one part makes basics, food clothing, ETC the second part is idle until it is programmed for an individuals use, so say a general CD factory where the person can choose what game they want programmed, doing a better job than the price mechanism, which deals with groups not individuals. Basics- food, shelter, education, health care. In capitalism if you can't afford a house you don't have money, in communism you just have to take land and build a house on it. Another way is shown by the I Won't Pay Moment where people are given free things by public service workers, in communism this would be how everything worked all the time. Yes but it would be humanitarian, because they would be under the thumb of a boss, and thus not care about his product
Anarcho-capitalism would be a more humanitarian form of social organization than Anarcho-communism

Price mechanism: using consensus democracy it would possible to avoid the calculation problem, this video explains it well starting at 4:50-8:00, I'm sorry if posting videos is bad, but I can't think of clear and concise way to type that: http://www.youtube.com... free rider: people do have an incentive to profit off the backs of the productive, but it would be easy enough to fix that. A community could keep a ledger of each persons production compared to what they took, by making this public a person could be made a pariah it he free rode. Their is also a social aspect to labor, in a communist society, where I send work with my friends and you do what you love, meaning that you will want to work because its social time. Also I believe that a large amount of labor could be mechanized, with machines that don't have incentives. When the basics of society are provided people are able to provide betterment to society. How many great scientists are currently languishing in ghettos, or working a factory line. Then their is alienation, when a worker is forced to sell his labor, he doesn't care about its value, so he produces crap. In socialism a worker builds things he loves, so he makes better products, giving everyone better goods.
Anarcho-capitalism would be a more humanitarian form of social organization than Anarcho-communism

This challenge is for ihartman2. I noticed he's a new debater to the site who has an anarcho-communist perspective and seems somewhat critical of the theoretical conditions of an anarcho-capitalist society. I hereby challenge him to defend his own conception of anarchism in a debate against anarchist capitalism.===Definitions===Anarcho-capitalism: a society in which the functions of the State (defense, roads, etc.) are provided on a free market with an economic system based on private property, private ownership of the means of production, and voluntary exchange.Anarcho-communism: a society in which the State, capitalism, markets, and money are abolished and where the means of production are collectively owned (whether through worker councils, direct democracy, etc.).Humanitarian: concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare[1].*The first round is for acceptance only. Actual arguments will begin in round 2*===Sources===[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...