BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I should be allowed to marry Mother Earth!

As Pro has actually failed to provide an argument himself, I will keep this round relatively brief and first respond to Pros *small* amount of points: I'd remind that Pro that not once in round one did I state or imply that Pro was in "love" with mother earth, and argued purely from the standpoint that she not be allowed to marry "her", or rather "it". Once again I used the fact that there would be no legal basis in him being able to marry mother earth and this kind of marriage could not be allowed as it would not be recognized. Pro compares marriage with mother earth to gay marriage and brings this up as a reason to allow it--however, this is of course not valid. For starters, gay marriage is that between human beings. Mother earth is NOT a human being or a human entity. Those of the same-sex getting married can willingly give their consent, speak their vows, and sign the necessary papers; obviously mother earth cannot. The Cornell University Law School outlines this as a definition of marriage: "The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law."So once again, only humans beings [otherwise known as "people"] can be married--thus showing that legally Pro should not be able, nor possibly could be able, to marry mother earth. [1.] https://www.law.cornell.edu... Pro further argues that the U.S is supposed to be a "free country", and therefore shouldn't have rules. However, he has completely misunderstood how "freedom" relates to the U.S and what actually constitutes a "free country". Overall the U.S is a free country as people are enabled civil rights, are protected by law, and enjoy basic liberties. Obviously a country has to have laws as if they didn't it would result in complete anarchy. On the contrary to what Pro seems to think, laws are actually in place to protect "freedom". If they did not exist, people would essentially be able to exploit whatever and whoever they like AND impose upon the freedom others. [2.] http://www.studyzone.org...Once again, laws are specifically there to protect people and the basic rights of all civilians [3.] https://www.oas.org...I'd also state that Pro made a blatant inaccuracy with his *short* law contention, he starts off by stating "the U.S" and then argues on as to "why are there even rules in America"; which is not a country but a continent [4.] http://www.defineamerican.com...Only the U.S is categorized as an actual country, so in order to keep things correct Pro simply should have stayed with that.
I should be allowed to marry Mother Earth!

Did I mention that I should have the right to marry Mother Earth, and not that I love her?!? I say since gay marriage is aloud, why not object marriage? https://en.wikipedia.org... Also, the US is supposed to be a free country. So why are there even rules in America! For gods sake, Murica! Stop lying! It's not a free country if something is not allowed. definition of free - Not controlled by obligation or the will of another http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.foxnews.com...
I should be allowed to marry Mother Earth!

Debate accepted. As Pro has specified that round one is for the layout of each case. I will briefly summarize what my argument will be: -That mother earth is not a human being and/or entity and therefore not able to give consent to marriage--this will in fact be the main point in my argument[s]. -That even if mother earth was able to give consent, it may not actually want to marry Pro. -That such a marriage could not legally take place--for example, one would not be eligible for a marriage certificate confirming that they are married to mother earth and that this kind of partnership would never be legally recognized. -That it would defy and wholly contradict the traditional sense of marriage, which is that two human-beings come together in formal and legal unity. **Burden of Proof**Seeing as it's a shared BoP I'd remind Pro that he has the task of affirming his resolution and showing exactly why and how he should be allowed to marry mother earth, this should include providing a full argument and supporting it with a legal basis. Whereas it's on me to simply negate the resolution and provide enough evidence against it.
I should be allowed to marry Mother Earth!

First of all i did not 'fail' to provide an argument since that argument is enough to destroy you if you actually think about it. Joachim, a grown man has married a steam engine. This is called object sexuality. To add on Eija-Riitta has married the Berlin wall. Also Liu Ye, a Chineese man, has married a picture of himself. This is called not only object sexuality but narcism. Since you yourself have called the world 'it' than you yourselve are calling mother Earth an object. Nowhere does it say that object sexuality is illegal. So therefore you should not be stopping me from my rights of marrying Mother Earth! https://www.google.pl... http://www.ranker.com... http://www.ranker.com... http://www.ranker.com... http://www.ranker.com...
'God' might be real. It's not stupid to believe it is.

However, I will confuse I don't like the way the proposition is phrased. "Might be real. " OK, but that isn't that strong of an statement. Almost of win for pro just on how that is phrased. "It's not stupid to believe it is. " Stupid isn't my word. Since I'm not completely thrilled about the initial phrasing, I think I will treat this as a causal debate and just see where the conversation takes us. I'm down if Pro is down.
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

Rebuttal"I do still believe that it is applicable because that it what has caused many people to begin smoking in the first place."About 30 years ago they didn't know if smoking was really all that bad. After this, it became clear that smoking was absolutely awful for your lungs and then restrictions were put in place to protect consumers. Now people know what they are getting into when they purchase a pack and puff away. Therefore, this argument is invalid."So why even give people the option to smoke anymore? Sure there'll be select people who still do smoke, even when it is against the law, but the number of smokers will definitely drop dramatically. Also, we will be stopping the generations to come to even begin the nasty habit in the first place."Because of all the reasons said before. It is their choice to live their lives the way they want. Would it be fair to outlaw bad diets, video games, poor grades in school, not exercising, and such? Let's take the grades for example. Many people want good grades, but don't have the motivation for it. Making it illegal to get bad grades would be motivation, but not moral. It really comes down to what they want to become. If smokers really want to quit smoking, they can. If a bad student really wants to be in the honor roll, he can. They just need to try."So why let the youngsters of our generation to even try a cigarette, and push them to go through all this?"Because it is their choice just like getting bad grades."But will it really? Or will it make the 70% of smokers who want to quit, but can't, lives better? Also increased taxes can't solve everybodys problems. Sure, it will slightly decrease the amount of smokers, but it is never going to erase the problem completely."*Sigh* We are officially going in circles for this debate. More regulations need to be put in place to protect non smokers from smokers. I will agree to that. This doesn't mean we should ban smoking. That is taking it too far.
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

I do still believe that it is applicable because that it what has caused many people to begin smoking in the first place. So why even give people the option to smoke anymore? Sure there'll be select people who still do smoke, even when it is against the law, but the number of smokers will definitely drop dramatically. Also, we will be stopping the generations to come to even begin the nasty habit in the first place. I am well aware that it is possible to quit. Both my parents have tried numerous times and ultimately failed. Don't get me wrong though, I do know of people who have managed to pull the pin altogether, but its been a real struggle, and quitting cold turkey can be one of the hardest things. As I mentioned before, the nicotine in cigarettes acts by flooding the brains reward circuits. Therefore, when people do try and quit cold turkey, they are left just wanting cigarettes more and more. More symptoms of smokers trying to quit are withdrawal symptoms, depression and even insomnia. So why let the youngsters of our generation to even try a cigarette, and push them to go through all this? "Making them illegal will do more harm than good." But will it really? Or will it make the 70% of smokers who want to quit, but can't, lives better? Also increased taxes can't solve everybodys problems. Sure, it will slightly decrease the amount of smokers, but it is never going to erase the problem completely.
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

Rebuttal"Dad was telling me a story not long ago about how when he went to the footy, as about a 12 year old kid, they'd have lady's giving out free sample cigarettes, to try and promote their product. This obviously has not happened in very recent times, but it was only 30 or so years ago when this was a common thing."This would never be allowed today, as you said 30 or so years ago. It was a common thing maybe back then, but now its illegal to do said actions. This is not applicable to today's society."If this isn't pressuring young people (and mind you underage too) into smoking, then I don't know what is. It's from things like this that both my parents, and I'm sure many others, were led to start smoking, and they are still struggling with the addiction today."This is based off of 30 years ago problems. Regulations had to be put in place. Back then, they weren't quite sure if smoking was all that bad. Now we know without a doubt that there are 30 or more carcinogens in smoke fumes. This is what lead to a huge rebellion in smoking. I'm sure if your parents knew all the hazards associated with smoking they wouldn't have started to begin with. If they did and began smoking then it's their fault. They were just unlucky in that they don't have the knowledge we do today. Thus smoking should remain legal."But, it can be quite difficult for people to quit because nicotine acts by flooding the brain"s reward circuits with dopamine (a chemical messenger) and it acts on the chemistry of the brain and the central nervous system. In simple terms, this makes the smokers want more and more, therefore, they become addicted."It is difficult, but it is also possible. Hardcore drugs such as cocaine will kill you if you cold turkey them. Once you are addicted to those kinds of drugs, you must slowly and carefully reduce the intake of the drug until you officially cold turkey. Your parents just need the right motivation to quit, like many others who try to quit but end up failing. Normally this motivation comes from financial situation, loved one gets cancer, or the like. Remember, people who begin smoking today know what risks they take."Also unhealthy diets are only affecting the people who consume them."Not if they are taking up spots in the hospital like you said with smokers. Second hand smoke is a problem with cigarettes. However, making them illegal will do more harm than good. Also, second hand smoke is very controllable by not allowing people to smoke in public. They have designated places where people can smoke freely. This system works fairly well. Also, by increasing taxes they reduce the number of smokers in the world. This means less second hand smoke to even worry about. Therefore, second hand smoke shouldn't make cigarettes illegal.
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

What I meant at the start of my argument, is that my parents were both pressured into smoking starting from a young age. Dad was telling me a story not long ago about how when he went to the footy, as about a 12 year old kid, they'd have lady's giving out free sample cigarettes, to try and promote their product. This obviously has not happened in very recent times, but it was only 30 or so years ago when this was a common thing. If this isn't pressuring young people (and mind you underage too) into smoking, then I don't know what is. It's from things like this that both my parents, and I'm sure many others, were led to start smoking, and they are still struggling with the addiction today. To be honest, I can't remember where I got my statistics from because it was quite some time ago and it appears that I didn't save my references. But, it can be quite difficult for people to quit because nicotine acts by flooding the brain"s reward circuits with dopamine (a chemical messenger) and it acts on the chemistry of the brain and the central nervous system. In simple terms, this makes the smokers want more and more, therefore, they become addicted. Sorry my typo, my bad. Also unhealthy diets are only affecting the people who consume them. Passive smoking is another issue that I can bring up if you like..
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

Rebuttal"Cigarettes are a choice?"Yes. As far as I know, nobody has had a gun pointed at them and made them smoke. Perhaps maybe this has happened because there are always exceptions. These are so rare that they are just flukes."Addicts become addicts completely on their own will?"Yes. This is a side effect that the consumer is well informed of when purchasing cigarettes. Since Cigarettes are a choice, so are the side effects of it."Well from what I've learnt by parents, cigarettes were continually pushed on them, from a young age."I'm not sure exactly what you are saying at the beginning. You learned this from parents? Parents pushed cigarettes on them from a young age? It's one or the other, but I'm not sure. I'm going to guess you meant to say something like "I learned that parents continually push cigerattes on kids from a young age." You can only purchase cigarettes at the age of 18 or above. You are a legal adult and must take full responsibility for your actions. You can't blame your parents for a bad upbringing. Cigarettes are still a choice regardless."Most people smoked, and you were deemed 'uncool' if you didn't."This is nothing but an incentive to smoke. You can look cool and smoke or choose not to smoke and look uncool. Again, you are a legal adult and must take full responsibility for your actions. There are also many incentives not to smoke also. The taxes, the side effects, and social unacceptableness of smoking lead people not to smoke."Now I'm not saying we can blame cigarette producers entirely for results of peer pressure, but what we can blame them for is the fact that 70% of current smokers would like to quit, but can't."Where do you get the 70% number? I'm just curious. They can quit, but are too weak minded to do so. As stated before, all you need to do is quit smoking. Cold turkey works the best as stated in my source in the opening argument. They also have an alternative to cigarettes, electronic cigarettes. They work well at helping even highly dependent smokers. Here is the source: http://heartland.org..."Over 750,00 [Note the typo isn't mine. He meant to say 750,000.] hospital beds are being taken by people with smoking related diseases every year. This results in losses from diminished labour productivity and in many parts of the world, makes the poor even poorer."Where do you get this number? They are also paying for that hospital bed through both bills and excessively high taxes. Cigarettes are the highest taxed good in the United States. Check this website out: http://www.ehow.com...; We should also make unhealthy diets illegal since this would prevent countless hospital beds from being taken up by people with just cardiovascular diseases alone. The poor have the choice to spend the money as they wish. If they choose to purchase cigarettes then so be it.Sources 1. http://heartland.org...2. http://www.ehow.com...
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

Cigarettes are a choice? Addicts become addicts completely on their own will? Well from what I've learnt by parents, cigarettes were continually pushed on them, from a young age. Most people smoked, and you were deemed "uncool' if you didn't. Now I'm not saying we can blame cigarette producers entirely for results of peer pressure, but what we can blame them for is the fact that 70% of current smokers would like to quit, but can't. They know how bad smoking is for them, but they're that addicted that they still can't manage to stop. Sure, I agree that cigarettes are a huge profit, but you have to look at the end of the other scale too. Over 750,00 hospital beds are being taken by people with smoking related diseases every year. This results in losses from diminished labour productivity and in many parts of the world, makes the poor even poorer.
Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal.

Thank you for the debate. I will argue that cigarettes shouldn't be made illegal.Cigarettes are a ChoiceThe consumer has the option to not smoke. All the information regarding the horrible consequences of cigarettes is readily available to them. Even on the package it is told to them. Proof is here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Addicts become addicts completely on their own will. It is also not an addiction like cocaine. You can completely quit smoking or known as "cold turkey." This isn't safe to do after a heavy addiction to cocaine. In fact, to quit smoking, all you need to do is quit smoking. Here is proof from an unbiased site (many sites will advertise their product, but his provides genuine research): http://whyquit.com... Cigarettes are profit A lot of tax dollars come from cigarettes. A lot of businesses rely on cigarettes (and also plenty that rely on people trying to quit). To completely ban them, you would severely impact the economy in a harmful way. 17.6 billion dollars were made from taxes in the year 2012 from cigarettes in the United States alone. This information can be found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... Here is a list of businesses that would completely go under if cigarettes were banned, or at least suffer in the United States: http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov... This is not including anybody that profits from helping addicts quit smoking.Second Hand SmokeSecond hand smoke is indeed a real problem, however it can be solved. We don't need to ban cigarettes to keep non smokers safe from them. We need to add more regulations where it is acceptable to smoke. Here you can see a list of laws passed aimed at protecting people from second hand smoke: http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... Many of these laws prevent smoke from ever polluting the air in the first place. This is also a side effect of taxes. Higher taxes on a good decrease the amount of the good sold. You can argue that more regulations are needed, but banning smoking would do more harm than good.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://whyquit.com...3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...4. http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov...5. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...
In the United States organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

Quick disclaimer, just cause I am about to shovel it doesn't mean buy it. for my real stance on this issue see my debate where I argued my opponents side. I accept my opponents definitions except for Organized. in the resolution it is an adjective not a verb. So it should be Organized: (formed into a structured or coherent whole) using the same source given by my opponent. My name is Marauder as far as anyone be concerned on this website who is not my friend.
In the United States organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

This will be a PF style debate.The first round we will present ourselves as well as bring out definitions WITHOUT any arguments until the SECOND round which will include cases. My name is Ryan and i will be arguing the pro in this debate. I will prove how lobbying does more harm than good because in all actuality it does. To prove my arguments I will list the following definitions lobbying-to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Harm-the occurrence of a change for the worse (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) Good-that which is pleasing or valuable or useful "weigh the good against the bad" (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) Organized-(create (as an entity) (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)
Redistributive Justice

PrefaceI have been looking forward to this debate for some time. It should be fun. Thanks to Endark for agreeing to take me up on this issue!TopicIn many cases, Justice requires the Redistribution of Resources.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossAlso, for this debate, we will agree to forgo semantic arguments; however, debaters are free to dispute what "Justice" is.StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: ConstructivesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals and ClosingsThanks......again to Endark for what I am sure will be a fabulous debate!
Should Arts be limited not expanded

Yes,u r right on that point, people can be creative by touch on art. Another contribution thing need to support is, people need to clarify what is the art, that is identified only a thing can get rid of your daily stress or your job grind. People should have their main work to do and they will judge art is only a thing to enjoy to rely on that for live . By the way, maybe artists can regard art is their whole life, but still most people not emphasize a lot on art. Thus, art is already limited in people's life. That is for sure.
Should Arts be limited not expanded

Yes, you can be right. The effect of art can't measure on money. It is a little bit cold blooded. But, people can enjoy the art really well only based on they have a wealthy life. Through the history, whatever the ancient Europe or ancient China. Only aristocracy can live with art. Other poor people or even the normal citizens always struggled for life for food. That's why, maybe art self cannot measure on financial aspect, but people will think consciously that only rich people can touch art or enjoy it then they will limit the art life and immerse themselves in daily stress.
Should Arts be limited not expanded

I think the contribution of the art should not be measured by what it brings on finance. Learning the art might not gonna make people rich, but the rich isn't means everything. There are many artists transport their ideas of peace or equal in their art works. Those effects that the art brought may not worth any money, but people would no say their are worthless. Art is changing the social in a different way, a way that is more selfless and expressive.
Adults from the age of 10

1. Studies show that people's brains do not mature until 21.I will give sources if my opponent asks, but this is proven and you can easily search this up.2. 10 years olds are irresponsible and uneducated.On average about 5-6 year olds begin first grade, meaning that 10 year olds would only be 4-5th grade. Having them granted adult rights would be absurd since they are not wise enough to know everything my opponent listed, especially drinking alcohol or buying a house.
Adults from the age of 10

I think that people from the age of 10 years old should be classed as an official adult in society this would be amazing because we could all drive, drink alcohol, run for prime minister/ president, buy a house and basically anything we wanted, and it would be fun driving ( other debate of mine) so yeah vote thumbs up for this debate SKRUBS. Shoutout to my friend jack Rutter who has a account, I can't remember his name but yeah.👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽👽🤖🤖🤖👽👽👽👽👽🤖🤖👽👽👽