BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should Legalize Marijuana

As I am relatively new to this site I will try my best to use proper etiquette but I am truly sorry if I miss something. Pro (We should legalize) Con (We should not legalize) To make this debate clear here is the definition for legalize provided by google: "le"gal"ize make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law." Medical use is not the focus of this debate only legalization for smoking Marijuana. I will be for the side that does not want to legalize Marijuana. The first round will be acceptance. After that you are free to start your arguments. I chose this topic because of the numerous times that I've debated this and only gotten "because it is good for you," as an argument. This is meant to be enjoyable so please no insults, open your mind and back up your arguments. I'm looking forward to debating with you!
Competitive sports should be allowed at recess

Thank you for responding, and thanks for mentioning that blatant "sterotype" I chose to use. You said "But I'm talking about the kinds of sports like football." Here is a quote from my previus response: "At least at my school, football is played all the time at recess, and that gets quite competitive, as one student was suspended for fighting with another student after the game got heated." I realized you were talking about football and the like, thus why I mentioned it. You said: "we learn to be team players and not get into those arguments." You cant make generalizations like that. It is not always the same everywhere. I understand that this happens in your school but only a few sentences is not much to work with by my standards. This debate was shorter than I might have wanted it to be, but nevertheless I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.
Competitive sports should be allowed at recess

First of all, I want to clarify my position on this debate. I am not explicitly debating that there should be competitive sports on the recess playground, but that there already is. Lets take a look at the definition of competitive, shall we? Liking competition or inclined to compete, having a strong desire to compete or to succeed. Now, absolutely any sport could be considered competitive, I.E. Four Square. I will set up a hypothetic situation: You are at your cushy private school,and you decide to play a game of Four Square. You run to grab the ball and slam it into another players square, only to run into a "that was the line!" "No it wasnt!" argument. Now, reread that definition, think about the decision and your feelings, and then tell me that four square is not competitive. At least at my school, football is played all the time at recess, and that gets quite competitive, as one student was suspended for fighting with another student after the game got heated. I am fine with competitive sports being included in recess, but I argue that it is already there. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Your contention is that there should not be marriage between gay people in the United States. Your reasons are: - It is not moral - They will want to have babies - They will "want to continue the cycle and that is grown. " Firstly, according to what standard are you applying morality as a factor? Whose morals? Lots of people think that cheating on a partner is immoral. Does that mean it should be against the law? Lying is not against the law. And what makes homosexuality so immoral, anyway? Secondly, how can gay people have babies? That's patently absurd, unless you're talking about adoption, in which case isn't it better that an orphaned, unwanted or badly neglected child is placed within the care of parents who actually want and have fought for it? Your third point is unintelligible. I think you're trying to say that gay parents will turn their children gay. That's pretty ignorant, do I really have to address this? Here is an excerpt of mine from a previous debate on this topic: "The right to engage in a relationship with another person is fundamental to the human condition. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. " [. http://www.un.org...] Furthermore, Article 2 of the same declaration demands "[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind. .. " Some claim that the institution of marriage is antiquated and obsolete. While this may be true for some, we are not arguing the validity of marriage itself. We are arguing whether it is a right that should be afforded to all people, which I will contend it should. " If you are to make marriage a legal right for a group of people, it is discriminatory not to extend that right to others. This is not the case in all circumstances (for instance, not all people should be entitled to receive government allowances, but people who deserve them should be entitled to them). However, in this case, marriage is a right that should be afforded to all citizens, for the following reasons: - Having relationships with other people is not a privilege, it is a right - Formalising that relationship through marriage is also a right - Two homosexuals getting married does not infringe upon anyone else's rights - It is the business of those two people. No one else.
Teen drivers and DUI/DWI offenders should be required to have breathalyzers in their cars

The statistics show that such a measure would not be unreasonable. If DUI offenders rarely were repeat offenders and drunk teenage driver involved in accident was a barely there percentage then yes the measure would be unreasonable. But teenage drunk driving kills eight teens every day. In 2003, 31% of teen drivers who died in car accidents had been drinking, 40% of alcohol-related fatal car crashes involve teens, and 60% of all teen deaths in car accidents are alcohol related. A teenage boy with a blood alcohol concentration of just 0.05 (well below the amount considered "legally drunk" in most states) is 18 times more likely to suffer a single vehicle crash than his non-drinking counterparts. And a teenage girl is 54 times more likely to crash. By your thinking, we should all just work on the honor system and HOPE people and the teenagers who defy parents and society rules at every turn in their efforts at playing adult, possess great judgement and follow the law. If a person has shown or repetitively shows poor judgement, they are put on notice, probation, grounded until they can prove in a period of time that the CAN exercise good judgement. Why risk them killing someone or themselves when they have a track record and/or scientifically proven to have impaired judgement when drinking and teenagers by virtue of a unformed brain due to their age. Worse when combining these two things, a intoxicated teenager driving. The measure is only in place till they are of legal age to consume alcohol and until the end of their probation for DUI offenders.
Teen drivers and DUI/DWI offenders should be required to have breathalyzers in their cars

This is a clear violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens and this law will just be another way for the government to infringe on our rights. Article the sixth of the constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." This is a infringement on our rights as American citizens and this law will only further abuse the powers of the government. The numbers and statistics you presented are irrelevant. There are plenty of other ways to prevent drinking and driving rather than just putting some new martial law into effect. This new law would just move us closer and closer to the big brother society. Our corporate owned government has absolutely no right to put a camera in our vehicle and spy on us to make sure that we follow some unnecessary law. Their cars that they drive will not have some stupid breathalyzer in it, I can guarantee you that.
Has any of the scientific explanations given by the truther side actually been debunked.

Actually no. I intentionally didn't post any arguments up until now just as for some mild troll value. As I said in acceptance I didn't have anything going on for the "next few hours" and that's why I accepted. Was on 24 hour duty and was bored out of my mind so thought I would fu(k around with you. But then it took you over a day to respond and by that time I had more important things going on and no longer wished to play. So I decided to just pretty much troll you a little and get some small amusement out of it. So here is my argument now that you can't have one. Conspiracy theories that have been scientifically proven to be false. "The towers were never hit by planes, but by cruise missiles DISGUISED as planes with the use of super sci-fi military holographic projectors!" Cause you know. That makes total fu(king sense. The guy on this site does an excellent job describing the stupidity of people who believe this. [1] "There was a nuclear bomb in the basement!" Yup. Cause you know. The evil government and Jews have been able to cover up the fact that half of New York City was actually wiped off the map and the death toll was actually over 5 million and they were successfully able to cover up the massive destruction and death that would have been caused over the years by the nuclear fallout. Maybe the New York City you can go and visit today and all the New Yorkers you see are all holograms too??? Dun dun dun. Any way here is a list of the characteristics of a nuclear explosion. Please find one of them present on 9/11. [2] "The towers were actually destroyed by laser beans... FROM OUTER SPACE! Dun dun dun!!!" Yea I'm not even going to touch this one. The level of stupid is beyond the pale. "Crab people" This one I actually do believe. Crab people, crab, people, crab people... [3] Anyway here's just a few of them. There are plenty more. And I have quite clearly proven my point that there are truther theories that can and have been debunked. Have fun with that knowledge. To the voters. You must give me points for argument as Pro has not countered any of my arguments nor has he provided any of his own. He has failed to prove his side of the case or, at the very least, disprove mine. Thus I clearly win in the argument department. He has provided no sources whatsoever while I provided several so I must also receive points for sources. He made several personal ad hominem attacks against me and thus I must also get points for conduct. Also, I'm his finally round he didn't capitalize my name and so I also must receive points for grammar. Pro has failed in this debate and I have, beyond the shadow of a doubt, proven my case. Please. Vote con. Or the Jews.. Ehem, "terrorist" win. [1] http://scienceblogs.com... [2] http://www.fourmilab.ch... [3] http://mirror.uncyc.org...
Internet Censorship

I have debated for internet censorship recently (although my opponent forfeited mid-debate), so I will be using some of the same sources and arguments that I used in that debate. I cannot be striked for doing this as I will be using my own ideas and my own words. As my first point, however, I would like you to point out that the First Amendment calls for free speech, yes. It grants the freedom without government interference, but I will bring up why this is not very useful in the debate. Thanks.
*Censored by Moderator*

Ok this is just getting ridiculous.... Allow me to go ahead and get this debate back on track after being derailed by con's antics.... *Censored by Moderator*" *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator* "Thats just idiotic because *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*" *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator* "I can see how one could make that assumption based off of that observation, but you must remember that *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*, which defeats the initial argument*Censored by Moderator*Now in this argument, con claims that *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*However, con's own previous claim that *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator* completely contradicts the argument since *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator* which renders this argument pointless since it is completely contradictory to the fact that *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*Conclusion:In conclusion, *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*Sources:*Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*
*Censored by Moderator*

I will be arguing that moderators do a fine job in censoring us and that it is needed for the overall efficiency of DDO. THIS IS A DICTATORSHIP. JUGGLE IS OUR LEADER. MODERATORS ARE HIS HENCHMEN. HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN THEY'LL SEND IN JIMMY. YOU DON'T WANT A VISIT FROM JIMMY. Guys I'm being held at gunpoint by Jimmy as I type this. Help. On to my main arguments now! *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator* *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator* *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by *Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*ator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*Conlusion*Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator**Censored by Moderator*Sources1. *Censored by Moderator*2. *Censored by Moderator*3. *Censored by Moderator*
*Censored by Moderator*

I am arguing that the level of censorship of DDO done by moderators is far too *Censored by Moderator* to the point that people dont even know what youre talking about anymore since the moderators are so *Censored by Moderator* with the censoring.... Like just the other day I wanted to make a debate called *Censored by Moderator* and the debate hadnt even been open for *Censored by Moderator* minutes before *Censored by Moderator* came in and shut it down! The debate wasnt even that bad either, it was actually meant to be a humorous discussion about why God would be ok with shoving a *Censored by Moderator* up your *Censored by Moderator* on an airplane when you are waiting to take off!.... And this isnt just about censoring debates either. Whenever Im in the forums or the opinions section, Im always being *Censored by Moderator* up my *Censored by Moderator* by the *Censored by Moderator* over some of my word choice and over who I talk badly about, like *Censored by Moderator*, *Censored by Moderator*, or even *Censored by Moderator*This is an issue that everyone puts up with too, not just me. Just recently a member on the home forums got in a fight with *Censored by Moderator*, and just because *Censored by Moderator* is really good friends with the moderators, the moderators came in and censored everything that was said against him. Even harmless insults like *Censored by Moderator* and *Censored by Moderator* were *Censored by Moderator* just because they were said towards a particular person who is good friends with the Moderators on the site. They even went to censor the name of the person being insulted just to protect his image, even though *Censored by Moderator* doesnt really have a good image on the site to begin with.....Whats worse is that whenever someone speaks up about how *Censored by Moderator* and *Censored by Moderator* the censoring has gotten on the site, that person puts themselves in grave danger of being *Censored by Moderator* from the site for life simply because they spoke out about all the *Censored by Moderator* !So basically, *Censored by Moderator* has become so *Censored by Moderator* and *Censored by Moderator* that I argue they should scale back their efforts at censoring everything from controversial debates to the use of very harmless insulting language such as *Censored by Moderator*
Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true.

Conditional statements can allow people to argue from positions that are not their "home turf" I love them. It is my contention that conditional statements are neither true or false but rather valid or invalid At the core it is the difference between "fact" and "belief". This reminds me of debates with creationist when the subject is DNA and information. In which DNA is perceived as having information because what it does when it it active. The rebuttal is what information do we see when it is inactive? like the perception of information when it comes to DNA conditional statements must be in an active role in an argument to be seen true or false. Are these conditional argument true or false? If Yahweh exists then we should worship him If Allah exist then we should not eat pork (or the one I like) If Yahweh exists then he is a child abuser (If you feel offended, sorry, challenge me to a debate on this one) If this is not a solipsistic world then the people on DDO may be real If this is a solipsistic world then where did this post come from? If the world start 43 seconds ago then all our memories are false. Yes, they are all validly reasoned, but are they true? Are they false? Are they indeterminable? a few of those examples are arguments for or against internally consistent realities, unprovable. "First, if the conditional is determined to be true" Believers in gods will argue that it is determined that their particular god does exist, while asserting the conditional others put forth to be "not determined true". Now pro is smart and uses true and not true this leaves this in the realm of belief. It is the difference between "guilt and not guilty"(belief) and "guilty, innocent, and BoP not met. "(fact). The problem is then we are not determining conditional statements to be true or not true we are only believing them to be a such. Problem is people and conditionals get wrongly convicted everyday. ". .. .may be determined to be true" sounds nice and soft and all but it is from the cold harsh land of facts. At least Pro was nice enough to wrap it in a nice downy "may be". In a very simplistic way of looking it a "conditional statement" is a thing, it is a noun. Things can not be true or false, they just are. Its contents may be true or false but the conditional statements is just the container, a template a jig. conditional statement A conditional statement, symbolized by p->q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion. [1] By themselves they are nothing it is only when they are active in an argument that they are seen as true or false. My example above, the one I noted I like, is not active when used but is rather used as frame work since the opponent accepts the condition the debate centers on the reasoning between p and q. Conditional statements are not, true or not true They are valid or invalid. [1] . http://www.mathgoodies.com... (I hope if Pro is unsatisfied with this debate that they not make another debate to which a sizable portion be dedicated to ranting. )
Both letters from "Disgusted White Girl" and "Black Royalty" are racist and/or misinformed.

I am not attempting to prove otherwise. I am attempting to persuade readers into an alternate level of thinking. My argument is that DWGs letter was not racist BECAUSE she was misinformed. Think about it. My second argument is that BRs letter contains his own racist beliefs, or his own racist view of a situation (e.g. omitting white women's contributions to society and instead only recognizing black contributions). But his letter does not promote racism. Therefore his letter does no harm. All it does is stick up for black people after they were berated in a previous letter. BR is celebrated in the black community because people are happy that he thinks the way he does; people are happy he loves black women and supports his sisters instead of agreeing that black women are difficult. It offers another perspective to history. Maybe it's the "black" perspective. Maybe it's the wrong perspective. But there is a "white" perspective that is wrong to, as we have seen in DWGs initial letter. I ask that people vote Con because my arguments have shown them an alternate view of what went on. If they understand where I'm coming from, they understand where BR was coming from, and where the black community was coming from.