BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is unethical to legalize marijuana for recructional use.

Heh. This is a funny joke right? Right? My opponent thinks he can forfeit. Ha. So funny. You are joking right? No? Then let me tell you a joke. Its about a man with little patience. A man who can break other men. A man who takes great pleasure in doing so. A man you really don't want to piss off. Because, when such a man has a bad day the whole world knows about it.People get hurt.This joke is also about an insect. An insect who doesn't know to whom he should give respect. Now this insect, one day he's walking along and he sees the man. He declares a challenge. A battle of wits, if you will. Now this man, he sees the insect, and thinks to himself; "why not?"So accepts the tiny insects challenge. Half-way through the insect feels intimidated. Scared. He runs away. He does not show the proper respect.So the man goes and pulls every leg off of the insect.That was the punch line. Not very funny you say? Well, maybe you should of thought of that before you decided to Fuckk with Thaddeus J River.I will be seeing you shortly.
It is unethical to legalize marijuana for recructional use.

I affirm today's resolution, since by negating we are leading ourselves back into a "state of nature". When we affirm we allow for us to demolish our government, and therefore our society, into the state of nature since we are allowing complete liberty to smoke marijuana whenever and wherever cigrate smoke is allowed, completely disregarding one's health and other health of them around them. I offer the following arguments to discuss in today's debate:When we negate the resolution we allow for complete disregard for Hobbe's social contract and disingrate into a "state of nature". Hobbe's social contract details that without a government we are in a "state of nature", in this state of nature we have complete liberty to do whatever we please, but it is misrable in this state so we gather into groups to form a society with laws that are governed. Once we have come into these societies we give up some of our liberty inorder to be protected. People who begin to abuse marijuana, and use it on a daily basis, will be unprotected by the government, espically students. Smoking marijuana everyday causes the brain to funcution on suboptimal level and even smoking it once can cause memory lose. It is the job of the government to protect everyone, and when we negate the resolution we are demolishing that protection. Surronded by marijuana is another form of being unprotected by the government. Second hand marijuana smoke can be just as harmful as second hand cirgrate smoke. As I mentioned in the begining people will be able to smoke marijuana, in the same places they would smoke cirgrates, and the levels of smoke surrounding the avrage citizen would increase. The centers for disease control reports 30.2% of college students have used ,arijuana in the past year, but only 19% have smoked a cigrate. If we legalize marijuana these rates will only go up, and the government will continue to not protect the citizens, and people will always be surrounded by marijuana smoke. This uprises a good question, then why is cirgrate smoke allowed? What we must see is that cirgrates and alchol have been around for a while, alcohol has even been refrenced in Neolithic period (10000 B. C. ). They both have been around since no one know even how to test for health concers, and they both have been an extreme part of society. While weed was founded in 525 B. C. it never became a societal norm, other than some tribes. Major civilzed society do not considred it ok to smoke a joint of marijuana while sitting at a table with your coworkers, but drinking a glass of wine and smoking a pipe is ok. For these I see this resolution in a diffente affirming. Sources: Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention (cdc. gov)Candian Cancer Society (cancer. ca)NIDA(drugabuse. gov)CriminalAttorney. com
It is unethical to legalize marijuana for recructional use.

I would like to say hello to everyone on debate.org, as this is my first debate here! First round is just for acceptance, and opening statements. I would just like to clarify a few things in today's debate. 1) In the resolution it does not stipulate an age group, but to even the debate we will suppose that legalizing it would mean 18 and older. 2) We are not talking about the health benefits of marijuana since the resolution does say recreational use. 3) Since the resolution does say unethical we should considered the philosophical point of the resolution. I thank anyone who reads this, and any opponent considering.
The War On Drugs. Destroyer of your liberty

Well the biggest problem with your argument is we don't protect people when we make something illegal if anything it makes it worse for the user and their family. If there is a demand there is going to be a supply and right now the supply is met by thugs dealing it harmfully. First let me say I'm sure that those specs are correct but I don't trust what the government has to say on there policy and how bad it will be after words. And you must understand one thing I'm not talking about legalizing drugs I'm taking about relegalizing drugs we go back in time before probation when aspirin had heroin in it and wines had coke in it as well as coca cola actually having cocaine in it. And you know we were pretty good off and our economy was alot stabler than it is today. Now you talk about welfare and health programs than an entire other debatable topic there weather the government should runs those or not. When you think about drug addicts and stealing that the entire fault of it being illegal the black market having control of it. Them wanting their products to be as addicting as possible so making it more and more pure as well as making entire new harmful drugs like crack and meth. I'm not going to say that if we legalized drugs that the crime revolving around drug use would go away, but let me say when is the last time you heard about somebody knocking over a 7-11 to buy a case of bud light or a bottle of aspirin. Yes you are correct in saying that "If someone's actions hurt someone else, legitimately, then they shouldn't be able to do it." but the biggest problem with your reasoning is they don't directly hurt people we could go on and on weather they do or not but the question is where is the line draw. First we make drugs illegal because they can hurt the people you are associated with, then we make alchol and tobacco illegal because it does the same thing and so on. Its a very slippery slope when dealing with goverenmnt if they can do one they can do the other. And drugs are legal because of the out dated thinking in washingtion by people who think they know better for me.
The War On Drugs. Destroyer of your liberty

So, going into this last round, your argument is contingent on this idea that drugs don't hurt people other than the user. Therefore, if I can prove that drugs hurt other people, than we should protect those who are harmed and keep drugs illegal. To elaborate, you claim that as long as it doesn't directly and substantially hurt other people, I should have the right to do what I want. I agree. However, drugs definately hurt other people. There are some drugs where this is not as true as others (weed vs. meth), but since you advocate ALL drugs, we can lump them together. You argue that the only harm drugs cause people other than the users is grief. However, drug users are lazier, less responsible and more susceptible to crime. According to the National Drug Threat Assessment (http://www.usdoj.gov...) drug users cost America over $180 billion dollars. Imagine how this number would sky rocket with the increase of use after legalization. This proves that the health of drug users isn't just a problem for the user. They become a burden on the economy, as they are sicker and less effective as members of society, claiming welfare and health benefits, as well as other costs. Also, the number of stories we have heard of drug addicts stealing or prostituting themselves in order to buy drugs and feed their addiction proves this as well. As for your claim about alcohol and WoW. I don't need to prove that alcohol should be legal as well, just that drugs should be illegal. Whether or not alcohol and video games have these effects isn't relevant to the debate. However, you DO make the claim that "just because somebody may get addicted to something and hurt themselfs by doing and inderctly huring their friends and family as I have said is not a reason to make something illegal". First, this is blatantly false. If someone's actions hurt someone else, legitimately, then they shouldn't be able to do it. You argue this in your first round. Second, as I have shown above, the harm of drug users on others is incredibly substantial and direct. The reason drugs should not be legal is because drug users have a direct and devastating effect on society. If drugs were a purely personal choice, they should be legal. But, the drastic effects drugs have on non-users make them a communal issue and the illegalization of them legitimate.
The War On Drugs. Destroyer of your liberty

First let me say I'm sorry like I commented down below I new to this website so it werid to just put my postion out in the open. My postion is that all drugs should be 100% legal Well when I was talking about hurting people I was talking more along the lines of beating them or damaging thier property things along that nature. Just because somebody is feeling bad for them self because lets say their cousin is doing herion is not a reason to make something illegal. And if your going along that line of thinking alchol should be illegal as well as world of warcraft (to the extreme of course) just because somebody may get addicted to something and hurt themselfs by doing and inderctly huring their friends and family as I have said is not a reason to make something illegal.
The War On Drugs. Destroyer of your liberty

I am having trouble identifying your stance here. I'll state some generalities to kind of get it going, but if you could clarify in your next round, that would be great. Your arguement seems to be that drugs should be legalized. The reason is that it violates our freedoms because using drugs only harm the user. Your opening claim seems that it doesn't violate our liberties if use of drugs harms others. Then, you argue, it is OK for the government to take that privilege away. I agree on the first part. You should be able to do what you want to your own body. I believe, in a free country, each person should "own" themselves. However, neither of these are sufficient to warrant the legalization of drugs. It is the last part of your claim that is problematic. The widespread, accepted, and legal use of drugs DOES hurt people other than the user. If your argument is just for "softcore" drugs then other arguments may apply better. The general use of drugs is BAD for society in general and particularly those closely affiliated to the user. Again, I am not clear on your position, or what I am trying to refute, but at the least drugs harm more than the user. Thanks and I urge you to clarify.
Abortion should be illegal with exceptions

There are two reasons why this debate should go to the CON side. Reason 1: My opponent agrees with me In his last round, my opponent states that the "number one reason does have to [do with] financial reasons." He cites that 42% of women who had abortions could not afford a child AND were unmarried, which means the total proportion of women who had abortions that could not afford a child is likely to be at least 50% (if you factor in women who could not afford a child and were MARRIED). 38% of women who had abortions said that children would interfere with their education, and 38% of said that children would interfere with their employment. Again, even assuming 50% overlap (an unrealistically high overlap) between the two groups, the proportion of women aborting due to career considerations is still over half. My opponent says that abortion should be illegal with exceptions. Is the status of the majority the exception or the rule? My opponent claims that aborting for job prospects is unethical. Without good career prospects, poor women doom their children to lives of economic pressure. Many of these women would rather have their children unborn than have them live in poverty. As Patrick Henry famously said, "is life so dear ... as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery." Through abortion, women are saving their children from the chains of debt and economic slavery. In a country that emphasizes rags-to-riches, the rights of women to their own future are essential and unalienable. Reason 2: My opponent's sources contradict his arguments My opponent is pro-life. His sources are pro-choice. The Women's Center ends their article with a plea to fight for abortion rights. Infoplease states that 54% of women having abortions had used contraceptives prior to getting pregnant. My opponent says that if women were scared to have a child they would not have sex, but he forgets that they could have safe sex and not be scared. It's not the woman's fault if the contraceptives don't work. The statistic from Infoplease also invalidates the last paragraph that my opponent posted this round. People who use contraceptives usually realize from the beginning that they want children. Conclusion: As we can see here, the question comes down to is it ethical to restrict the futures of women and their born children by forcing them to have children they cannot afford. Most of the women who had abortions were sure from the beginning that they didn't want a(nother) child. They sacrifice the child they carry for the economic well-being of their born children and their future children. They are not the stereotyped teenage girls, but rational adult women. They are a significant portion of the population. Therefore I urge a vote for abortion being LEGAL with exceptions. Thank you. Sources I used in this debate: http://www.nbcnews.com...
Abortion should be illegal with exceptions

i became extremely busy having to handle school and practice. I first wold like to present my counter argument against my opponents statement " Women don't just abort when they aren't willing to raise a child". my evidence is found at: . http://www.womenscenter.com... I would like to highlight this section: The most common underlying reasons for abortion were 1) they could not afford a child at the time and were unmarried (42%), 2) it would interfere with their education (38%), 3) it would interfere with their employment (38%), and 4) they were students or planning to enroll in studies (34%). Other reasons are having relationship problems, not ready for another child, or don"t want people to know they had sex or got pregnant, the health of the fetus, victim of rape, or became pregnant as result of incest. The number one reason does have to financial reasons, but it does say that other reasons are because A) The infant would interfere with their job B) They were not ready C) or they did want people to know that they are pregnant. You might say it is unethical to abort a life or potential life because you don't want you ego to be affected, r because it would interfere with your job. Most woman who have a child usually have interference with their job because of a child. You might say that if they were scared of these reasons they would not have had sex in the first place. it also says that there are abortions because of rap and incest Based on ]. http://www.infoplease.com...; every year there are around 1.3 abortions per year only 13,000 are because of rape or incest which equals 1%. This means that 99% of women who have abortions had sex willingly then got pregnant and either realized they would could not provide all they needed to for the child, or they said oh crap i want to go to college, i don't want to be tired at work, or my boyfriend always is yelling and i cant handle the stress etc. It also states that many women had previous abortions.
Abortion should be illegal with exceptions

In this debate, there are a few factors that must be considered. Who has abortions, why, and what are the alternatives to abortion. I will be arguing that abortion should be LEGAL with exceptions. The foundation for my arguments will stem from the reasons for abortion not being unethical, and from the few reasonable alternatives to abortion. If any part of the foundation is proven, the ballot should go to the CON side. Who has abortions? NBC News reports that those who have abortions come from various demographic fields, but a higher proportion of economically depressed women have abortions. 60% of the women getting abortions already have at least one child. Why do they have abortions? Abortion rates are linked with economics. When family economy is bad, women are more likely to get abortions. Their decision may stem from wanting to better support their born children, or from not wanting to give their unborn children harsh, impoverished lives. What are some alternatives to abortion? This will depend on the circumstances, but the most common alternative is adoption. However, carrying a baby to term most likely would entail an unpaid maternity leave, which would not help economically struggling families. Thus adoption is not a viable alternative for all. As can be seen, having abortions is not unethical. Women don't just abort when they aren't willing to raise a child. Alternatives to abortion may not be readily available to them, and dire economic situations may demand that they have an abortion. Therefore, abortion should be LEGAL with exceptions (the exceptions are when the baby can actually live on its own). I wish my opponent good luck in this debate. Welcome to debate.org.
Abortion should be illegal with exceptions

This is my first debate so please just bare with me. i have had this argument before, but it was me vs. 6 Catholics and they wouldn't let me speak, and just decided that they won. plus they were very aggressive. My point is that people who go and have sex and get pregnant then just because they don't want a child, or feel they aren't ready, should not get the option of abortion. i then feel that the people who are raped, abused, or could possibly die during the pregnancy or birthing process should get that option. For the person who would like to challenge me they can either choose abortion should be completely legal, or it should be completely illegal. how its going to go: 1) my opponent should next try to counter and give the reasons for why the way they feel about the topic is the the way they feel 2) i will then argue why you are wrong or flawed. and then the process will be repeated by you 3)just be nice, i don't want to go back to the argument against the six Catholics again. 4) voters just go for who you felt had a better argument 5) i would be happy to except any other persons debate on this topic, i also appreciate to see your comments
Abortion Should Be Illegal In the United States

Contention 1" Secondly, is it right to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person from the risk of death? That would be absurd; to kill any innocent person for any reason, is by definition, murder, punishable by law. "The issue my adversary is bringing up that killing a fetus in the hopes to save a mother is illegal. The first thing I am going to address is that it is not illegal. It is considered self defense, they are acting in defense of harm brought upon their body. Justifiable Homicide - Rightful; warranted or sanctioned by law; that which can be shown to be sustained by law[1]"The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force."[2]So if we took pros stance and actually considered the fetus a human, we are promised by law the right to terminate it if it could endanger the mothers life. In the case of terminal pregnancies, the mother is in fact suffering and will die from it. Telling her she does not have the right to reasonably defend herself because it does not happen that often is a bold statement to make.He then says this"If you were walking through that minefield, unknowing of it's existence, would an occupant of the hut, or a passerby on the street have the right to shoot you to protect the occupants? Innocence is defined as being without crime or offense."The issue with this is that someone is going to die in the case of a fatal pregnancy. That can not be avoided, and by allowing the fetus to live you are killing the mother. While pro is strictly saying save the baby, the same thing applies in the case of the mother. So how then do you judge the quality of life? At that stage no federal regulation should have a say in the circumstance. It should be decided by the family and only the family. Contention 2"My arguments already covered the arguments you mentioned about rape. Most of those "rape" incidents, probably couldn't be proven."This is just false, see prior round sources for statistics on rape. Contention 3" So how does the lack of development in a baby make it moral to kill the baby? You haven't even touched on the subject yet."I did touch that. The lack of development is a the answer in itself. It does not exhibit human characteristics so at most stages if can be argued the baby is just a life and not a human life. At what stage does someone feel pain, emotion, conscious, etc. As my source from the prior round shows, it normally starts at around 22 weeks or so. In conclussion. We can assume there are some situations in which abortion is a viable choice, therefore the practice of abortion should not be banned. [1] http://thelawdictionary.org...[2] http://www.princeton.edu... / Most state statues also have this.