BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Marijuana should be legalized

1.This Argument is not a comparison on which is worse for you tobacco or cannabis, because obviously they both have side effects. Instead this debate is a comparison of the benefits of legalizing cannabis compared to the downsides of legalizing cannabis. --- Looking at the downsides of the drug is showing the side effects and why the government should not allow it legal are connected. The governments obligation is to protect its people, and if pot has bad side effects to endanger the lives of its people , then it has right to enforce the law that they enact to protect their people from these drugs. 2.Tobacco users know and understand that the substance that they are choosing to ingest willingly as a part of there freedom of choice could have serious side effects: who are we to limit that freedom of choice to users that will and have been using cannabis. ---What I have been arguing is that even the fact tobacco should in itself not be legal as it endangers society, we have people killing themselves and as a government should try to ban tobacco to protect our people. However as it is the government has not done this, and is fail in it obligation this does not mean we should allow another problem as tobacco. 3.Not just the benefits that the user who CHOOSES to use cannabis, but the benefits that society will reap. Would society refuse the 25 billion dollars in projected taxes to the government that would help reduce personal taxes as a whole. And the 25 billion dollars doesn't account for the dollar amount that would be saved from legal consumption for marijuana's drug enforcement policies. Also it would alleviate the millions of dollars used to keep marijuana related cases in prison and jail. Your opinion is biased and narrow-minded. And to say that my argument is ignorant when you posted a statement, such as "My opponent is clearly advocating, we have something worse than this so lets add this on top of it and its ok because its not as bad but admits its bad?" is pathetic. --- Society will not benefit from this, pot being legal will lead to mass distributing of marijuana, you cannot denie this . Simply put legalization will increase drug use as it will be legal to purchase more available. As well as calling me pathetic just because i disagree with the legalization of marijuana, thanks you did even try to understand what i was say as you never attack my case but stated contradictions willy nilly without specific arguments that i stated. As well what i am advocating is legalizing pot is harmful to society even if the willingly accept the bad effects as the government is obligated to prevent harm to their people. My opponent may advocate that we should have the right to chose self harm but the government tries to stop suicides the fundamental idea is the same. As well we people as a society give up rights to be governed, which is the social contract we as people should follow the law. Why, add pot on top of the legal drug problem like smoking and drinking? we should not to protect society we must keep marijuana illegal.
Why Marijuana should be legalized

This Argument is not a comparison on which is worse for you tobacco or cannabis, because obviously they both have side effects. Instead this debate is a comparison of the benefits of legalizing cannabis compared to the downsides of legalizing cannabis. Practically every substance that society comes in contact with has side effects. Tobacco users know and understand that the substance that they are choosing to ingest willingly as a part of there freedom of choice could have serious side effects: who are we to limit that freedom of choice to users that will and have been using cannabis. if it were to be deemed legal that wouldn't mean that everyone will start smoking cannabis, but it means that everyone who chooses to smoke cannabis will be and should be allowed to. And if we were to allow that freedom, what benefits would come from it? Not just the benefits that the user who CHOOSES to use cannabis, but the benefits that society will reap. Would society refuse the 25 billion dollars in projected taxes to the government that would help reduce personal taxes as a whole. And the 25 billion dollars doesn't account for the dollar amount that would be saved from legal consumption for marijuana's drug enforcement policies. Also it would alleviate the millions of dollars used to keep marijuana related cases in prison and jail. Your opinion is biased and narrow-minded. And to say that my argument is ignorant when you posted a statement, such as "My opponent is clearly advocating, we have something worse than this so lets add this on top of it and its ok because its not as bad but admits its bad?" is pathetic.
Why Marijuana should be legalized

I completely disagree with the laws that hold marijuana, in society, to be illegal. To claim that a plant without a portion of the consequences that alcohol or tobacco brings is to be deemed illegal is utterly foolish. With that, Marijuana should be legalized Your Argument towards the side effects on Cannabis are completely true and cannot be argued. But when it is compared to tobacco or prescribed drugs, the main focus is on THC. Compared to tobaccos 4000 chemicals, 559 ingredients, and 43 carcinogens, THC in cannabis is more or less just a moral standing on the using of marijuana. With drugs and alcohol there are always inevitable problems with every substance. What should be, and is, a main focus on the legalization of Cannabis is, do the benefits outweigh the effects? A study at a University in California suggests that there is a definite slowing in the progression of people affected with Alzheimer's. Another study in Saskatchewan shows that Cannabis when consumed helps with the treatment of nausea when undergoing chemotherapy, helps with the prevention and treatment of glaucoma, a pain reliever, and helps with muscle relaxation with multiple sclerosis. In 2008 a survey was taken on prescribed pain relievers, and there was an estimated 15 million Americans age 15 to 28 that abused pain relievers. The two most common forms of pain relievers are Oxycontin and Vicodin for mild and moderate pain. These two narcotics are prescribed and accepted in society but have numerous serious side effects such as heart failure, hemorrhages, hypo-tension, Anorexia, diarrhea, hyperglycemia, iron deficiency anemia, laryngitis, lung disorder, are just a few examples.
Resolved: free trade should be valued above protectionism

There is not really anything more that can be done on this. Based on the definitions originally provided, protectionism includes more than just tariffs as it states "Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade." In my opponent's opening quote, "...free trade leads to better roads, better health and better lives." My opponent also states, "My value for this debate is societal welfare or the total well being of an entire society." Meaning that all aspects of society need to be weighed, not just one (like the economic aspect). "I do agree that health and safety regulations are important but not necessarily the point in this debate." It seems to me that if one is going to be considering the entire effects on society of free trade vs protectionism, than safety and health restrictions are key elements to look at. But even if we agree to ignore the safety aspects and short fallings of free trade, it would not be fair for me to present a new arguement now, as my opponent would have no chance to rebuttal. As for that, I'm going to have to just let this go to the voters as-is. Thank you,
Resolved: free trade should be valued above protectionism

ok so I'm going go over my value and my points then go on to address what my opponit said again sorry for missing a round. alright my value for this debate was societal welfare and my value criterion was free trade. my points were competition economy and societal welfare. ok so in my opponits first rebuttal he started with definitions so let me go ahead and clarify here when I said unrestricted I meant free from tariffs not from health and safety regulations. I do agree that health and safety regulations are important but not necessarily the point in this debate. That was his first argument. His second argument was much of the same saying that free trade is not beneficial to consumers merely on the health standards but as I stated above the unrestricted were talking about here if to be free from tariffs. now he hasn't directly attacked my points in total. when I said that free trade was beneficial to consumers I meant on an economic scale. he did not attack my competition contention nor my economy contention with sub points on unemployment and prices. and those contentions cross over and are dropped. thanks for taking my debate and again sorry for for fitting last round.
Resolved: free trade should be valued above protectionism

I'm sorry that my opponent has missed her round. Traditionally, I would skip to allow the debate to remain even, but I will go ahead and restate my last round in a more LD format (one must forgive me, I've never done LD, and so I'm not too familiar with the format, if you must, you can cite that conduct point against me for not knowing the proper format of which was agreed). My opponent says that "free trade is benefitial for the customers," but I have to ask. How is allowing untested mediciene in come into the hands of our people benefiting them? How is allowing foods with no ingredent list so that customers can make an informed decision benefiting them? How is allowing toys that may not be safe, and have no warning about not being safe, benefiting parents (the customers)? I will just add these as my questions (which apparently I need for an LD debate, according to Wiki) and use my last round as my negative construct. Though I am probably still doing something wrong.
Resolved: free trade should be valued above protectionism

However, I think that it is worth noting, that based on the provided definitions, she has not described a free trade system, but a system with open trade. As she stated, free trade is " trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods" and that protectionism is "Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade. " I would like to add a definition for "restrict," from the princeton dictionary. Restrict - "•place limits on (extent or access)" Restrict does not mean to prevent altogether, but merely to have limits or rules on. Therefore, protectionism includes government actions which put restrictions on international trade, while not flat out preventing it. That means that even in a protectionist market, we can still have playstations and nintendos (though I prefer computer games). Common restrictions are basic safety requirements, and proper labeling. In a free market, with no governmental protection, companies are free to send whatever products that they wish to sell. This includes (but is not limited to), toys with lead based paint (without informing the customers that the toys have such paint), foods that may have come in contact with nuts or other ingredients which people may be deathly allergic to (without informing the public of those risks), or even untested medical drugs that god only knows what the side-effects are. It is also worth while to note, that customers can only make decisions based upon information that they know, which is why another protectionist policy, requiring product info to be available (like nutrition charts for foods) actually helps people figure out what they really want, so that competition is more consumer driver (as it is suppose to be in theory). So, all in all, are there some bad protectionist policies? Of course. Does that mean that all of them are bad? Of course not (that would be a logical fallacy). Since there are some cases where free trades is not valued above protectionism, the resolution should be rejected. Thank you,
Would the gaming horror genre fail if it wasn't for the Five Nights At Freddy's series

"In round two we will begin." You have not. I will. Look at the horror games in the latest months. Alien isolation has a majority score of 4/5 stars or 8/10{1} and sold to the total of 1.8 million dollars, and was critically praised in gaming awards shows, winning the "BAFTA games awards for use of audio".{2} Another game in the genre that was critically acclaimed was the evil within, selling 1.21 million copies.{3} It has an average of 4/5 stars also (7/10.) It won multiple awards, winner for Best Original Game, Best Action Game, 3 best of E3 selection awards, and Best Upcoming Game, all by different major gaming networks{4}. Awards aside, and facts aside, and common sense centered, it is a poor way to jump to conclusions when one successful game comes out, and to dismiss all the genre as obsolete just because of one game. That is poor hindsight. "Five Nights At Freddy's changed the horror genre forever!" Even though resident evil is the most critically acclaimed horror game of all time. "And was only made of fan games and creepy pastas." There isn't much room for creepy pasta material in there. The fan games one is the bad assumption. Fan based Five Nights At Freddy's games do not exist, and that isn't an assumption. All the ones that do exist are jokes of how the game is "Overrated". "Scott changed this". No, scott didn't solve a problem that didn't exist in the first place. The horror gaming genre was never going under, as i addressed in the top. Maybe the games weren't being well known enough, but that isn't equal to dying off. If anything, this encourages linear unoriginal content, as popularity encourages more of the same thing that is popular. Five Nights at Freddy's has an average score of 3/5 and has won no awards. Especially innovative. https://www.google.ca... {1} http://www.polygon.com... {2} https://www.google.ca... {3} http://evilwithin.net... {4}
Fake tan is the equivalent of black face

Nor does it insult the heritage of those who are naturally tanned. Are you referring to white people who tan in the sun or are you referring to black people? It makes no sense to say if one changed their skin color permanently to be racist yet if another person changes it for the next three days is not racist. Either they are both racist or they both or not. Speaking of 72 hours, That's where you should have at least set the time to argue as. An hour is not enough time to argue, Just a future reference. Welcome to ddo! On to my argument:Look at black people who are skin bleaching themselves. Is that racist? No. Plus, Media makes it the norm to think "white is beautiful" "lighter skin is pretty" which tends to manipulate particularly some black women. Examples: Celebrities, Lil Kim and Tiny (Tameka Harris). Black people have been oppressed and dealt with so many things for so long, That if they skin bleach, It doesn't even make it racist since white people are seen is good or better than. If a white person naturally tans their self in the sun, Does that make them racist? Or are you saying it only makes them racist if they spray tan? Back to the skin bleaching thing, You really don't see white people saying "I want to be darker, I want to be black" well if that does happen, Then it's rare. Racism plays a big part in this idea of white is beautiful (as I said before) and black is not. This also ties into white privilege. Black facing is completely different than spray tanning. Keeping it brief this round for the sake of time. Your turn.
Fake tan is the equivalent of black face

Fake tan is a cosmetic product, Used to change the colour of skin. Fake tan is not used to cause offence, Nor does it insult the heritage of those who are naturally tanned. It is used to look healthier. There has been a consensus in which users tend to say they feel happier having tanned as well. The effects are temporary. The case of Martina Big, A German model who permanently changed her skin colour in an attempt to change her cultural heritage is racist. Changing one's skin to look better for a party for the next 72 hours is not.
Some of the original new testament was written in Japanese

Extend my second observation, my opponent has already conceded the burden of proof does not lie on me by dropping my rules complaint in his second speech. I would also like to point out that even if you let him bring back this dropped rule, he still loses the debate on his rules interpretation- he has provided no warrants to defend his reasoning that we still both share the burden of proof, and with evidence showing this is a case of shifting the burden of proof, you should give this argument to con. RebuttalsHis yeasu "argument" still isn't linked to any part of his case, it is not a key argument, let alone an argument, it is an unqualified claim, which should be rejected by the voters. Your attempt to reinterpret New Testament, in the third round, should not be allowed for a few reasons. First, it is abusive to the con, it means that you can shift out of any argument, no matter how late in the debate, by redefining words in your resolution that are considered to have standard, set meanings. Secondly, it conflicts with the rest of your resolution. The word original, defined:o·rig·i·nal/əˈrijənl/ Adjective: Used or produced at the creation or earliest stage of something. [1]This contradicts your usage of New Testament, books written 300 years after Jesus death were most certainly not produced at the creation or earliest stage of Christianity, rendering his semantic trickery useless. My opponent then proceeds to repeat once again, without evidence, that the New Testament was written in Japanese. Cross apply Observation 1. The Japanese New Testament you present, first, is a broken link, second, was not the original New Testament, it does not fulfill the resolutionConclusionMy opponent has effectively given up making actual arguments and is now only repeating his unsourced claims. Since he cannot provide a single shred of evidence any of the original New Testament was written in Japanese, my opponent fails to meet his burden of proof and thus should lose this debate. Vote Con. [1]. http://goo.gl... This qualification is linked to the definition provided by google dictionary when one googles original.
Some of the original new testament was written in Japanese

The Burden of proof will be equally be shared. Iesous pronounced Yeasu is my key argument. New testament- Any books based on Jesus christ written by 300 AD. The Jewish people write in many languages including Aramaic, GREEK, Hebrew and JAPANESE. Polytheism was the common religious belief of the area the Jewish people blatently rejected it. Here is a Japanese new testament. . http://www.biblejapanese.com...;
Some of the original new testament was written in Japanese

Thank you for your speedy reply. Before I continue though, I would like to point out a few observations about my opponent's last speech:ObservationsO1: My opponent provided no qualifications for any of his claims. Cross apply this for each of my opponent's points, his entire case is suspect without any qualifiers.O2: My opponent has conceded my rules objection, the burden of proof thus lies on my opponent to show the new testament being partially written in Japanese.Now, moving on.RebuttalsI will go through his points and address them as cleanly as I can."The Name Yeasu is obviously Japanese".This is unrelated to the topic and is never linked to his case. "Why would apostles write in Greek?"Koine Greek was the common language of the eastern Mediterranean during the time period and is the language of the bible was written in. They were writing in a language of the area. [1]"Thomas Preached in China, therefore the gospel of Thomas could have been written in Japanese"There are two major problems with this argument:First, it's a nonsequiter, it does not follow that because he visited China the book was written in Japanese.Second, the gospel of Thomas is not part of the New Testament. [2]ConclusionMy opponent's arguments do not meet the standard of proof to show that any of the New Testament was written in Japanese. None of his argument had qualifications, and the few examples and conjectures he has raised I have effectively negated with tangible evidence. Vote Con.[1] Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland The text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical 1995 p52 "The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the Greek of daily conversation. The fact that from the first all the New Testament writings were written in Greek is conclusively demonstrated by their citations from the Old Testament[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a list of the books in the bible and New Testament, by searching using control+F it can be seen the gospel of Thomas is not even part of the bible.
Some of the original new testament was written in Japanese

However, you are incorrect in stating that as con I have the burden of proof. As a person making a claim, I. e, some of the New Testament was written in Japanese, you are responsible to provide evidence why your position merits being accepted as correct. Until proven otherwise, the negative position is assumed to be correct [1]. Thus, pro's claim I possess the burden of proof is a fallacious case of shifting the burden of proof, and should be rejected as a rule for this debate. I assume this first round is for acceptance, and look forward to a good debate. [1]: . http://www.nizkor.org...
Some of the original new testament was written in Japanese

Debating an opponent who refuses to make an effort into his speech is tiresome. For the sake of the voters, I will keep his speech brief. I apologize for formatting errors, I am currently unable to fix them.Extend all of my previous arguments and observations made in the last speech, he has not answered any of my objections, he has been shown no shreds of evidence stating the New Testament was even partially written in Japanese, he fails to meet his burden, and thus should lose the debate. He has dropped his "key yeasu argument. He has conceded my definition of New Testament.My opponent also shows a lack of integrity in the one piece of attempted evidence he brings up. The actual passage, from the NASB translation, of Mathew 13:213:2 And [a]large crowds gathered to Him, so (A)He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.ConclusionSpending time writing elaborate speeches to be returned with the bilge my opponent calls a speech is quite disparaging. I have effecly shown that my opponent fails to meet his burden of proof in all of my previous speeches, so continuing to repeat myself is only prolonging the inevitable and wasting the voters' time. My opponent, as the pro, at the end of his third and fourth speech, urges you to not vote pro. I now ask you to respect his request.
Top military small arms

Welcome to DDO!I'm not fluent in small arms and I've only shot a pistol, but I know a little.Rifles/Carbines: AK-47/AKM.DMR: M16 rifle. SMG: P90. LMG: M249 SAW/FN Minimi. Sniper Rifles: Reminton M700.Shotguns: KSG-15.
Top military small arms

(Sorry if I have typos as I am writing this on my phone.) So this debate is similar to a topic that another user has posted. Which firearm is the best for each position (Rifles/Carbines, DMR, SMG, LMG, Sniper Rifles and Shotguns) 1st Round: Simply state your respective choices. 2nd Round: Make you argument for each choice. 3rd Round: Rebuttal on the opponents choices 4th Round: Further rebuttal and no new arguments. My choices: Robinson Armaments Xcr, HK 417, HK Mp7, M27 Iar, XM 2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle and m26 mass