BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana Legalization for recreational purposes

My opponent, Myzory, has made only one, single assumptive argument. He asserts that marijuana use should be classified as a personal right. This however, is not so -- the government is obligated to step in. When events get so out of control that local and state governments are not able to do what's best for the people, the federal government must step in. Not wearing a seat belt for instance, is illegal. Instead, it is a mandatory action even though some may think it to be a violation of personal rights. However, the evidence to prove that it saves lives is conclusive, and so it stays. That is assuming, however, that marijuana is bad for you. And it is. The Health Canada team reported in December 2007 that cannabis has more toxins than tobacco, another drug that The World Health Organization says accounts for 26% of male deaths in developed countries. In fact, the study concluded that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In January 2008, Dr. Matthew Naughto and his team reported that marijuana smokers tended to develop lung cancer as much as 24 years earlier than tobacco users. In July 2007, the popular medical research journal, The Lancet, published an article that concluded that cannabis users had a 41% increased chance to suffer from phycosis. Not to mention, marijuana use has also been linked to depression, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema. The experts agree too. Bob Weiner, a Drug Issue Strategist at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, says that, "(The movement against Marijuana has) done a lot to make us safer and it's one of the reasons why we have record low crime numbers, and why we have record low drug abuse." He continues, "Marijuana is the number one drug where teens must seek treatment in hospitals... it's the number two cause of car crashes." Marijuana is not bad for you? Preposterous! Marijuana, as I have proven, is more harmful than tobacco, a drug that kills 26% of male deaths in developed countries. Thank God marijuana is not more widespread then it is! Thank God not as many people have died. The government needs to step in, just as steps in for cocaine and heroin. You, the audience, must vote for me thus far because I have successfully defeated my opponent's only arguments, and have provided significant proof as to why marijuana should stay illegal.
Marijuana Legalization for recreational purposes

The case for Legalizing Marijuana use in the United States stems froms the nation's deep respect for the individual. The strong belief in personal freedom appears early in the nation's history. The Declaration of Independence speaks of every citizen's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution and Bill of Rights go further, making specific guarantees. They forbid the government to make unwarranted entry into dwelling places. They forbid seizure of personal property, except when very clear reasons are approved by the courts. They allow every citizen to remain silent in court when accused of a crime. Legal decisions have extended these rights, so that every citizen may feel safe, secure, and sheltered from public view in the privacy of his or her home. Americans have referred to privacy as one of the basic human rights. According to U.S. traditions, there is a strong case to be made against legislating the private behavior of adults, so long as that behavior does not in turn violate the rights of others. Some people feel that this reasoning should hold also for marijuana. A person who smokes at home is not doing injury. The marijuana user is indulging in a minor pleasure over which the government should have no jurisdiction.
Overpopulating the Earth

So all I am saying is, overpopulating the earth, in the right circumstances, seems pretty impossible to me. I mean to say, ~ with an appropriate amount of living space left, to actually enjoy life, have meager privacy, and prepare for congregations ~ the world itself is capable of providing food for every last living thing on it. Vegetation can be used to make alcohol, for fuel and pleasure, and can be made from the same crop which is eaten, and used for art supplies. and all we have to do is garden, and distribute the cultivatable earth appropriately over, in and around our infrastructure developed to increase the habitable living space. :D Is that something GoOrDin Would say? Damn straight. welcome to the back of my head.
Overpopulating the Earth

LOLZ. so wrong. what if everyone stopped cutting grass with non renewable resources on their property, at schools and universities with tuition fees and on government property with tax dollars? Tell me you completely took that into consideration. DO IT. TELL ME (that*). secondly. after we have now fed every animal on the planet and every person, and have exceeded our food necessities by such a high amount hat we made alcohol, SO much alcohol we can't properly market it all, We'd have an excess of ethanol fuel. So. now. everyone has chickens. Because their easy and take little space, and are easy to feed. And their poop produces methane which can be used for a furnace or generator, if properly harvested on a civil scale. So excess food. The deserts can be converted into forests by supplementing them with our feces instead of pouring it into the great lakes and ocean. Which can produce animal habitats, while be turn the current forests without feces into agricultural centers and habitats for humans without destroying their productive qualities. Mountains can be turned into homes. To turn current metropolis and urban centers into farms. and mines like I said reduce human impact on the surface, while presenting the minerals necessary to build these new cities in the mountains, and towers to save space. Even open pit mines serve a practical value of being the ground for factories, markets, stations, and government buildings as well as launch pads. The world is very capable of feeding the human society with fish alone, if we cultivate and harvest them appropriately. Which should be the law that every municipality did it. Without drug supplements*. this does not mean there would not continually be tests with different drugs for results, but not as a device to increase food production. In addition, we should have statutory gardens growing in our windowsills, and seeds sprouting in our kitchens every spring. I also diet on wood, leaves, foliage, moss, mushrooms, herbs and insects in my yard and on the 'road'. via this method, mixed with human mechanical engineering we can easily produce and harvest enough food to maintain a substantially larger population with the current amount of topsoil on the planet. The mechanical engineering is more structured towards energy development*** which is easy. > and with a smaller amount of earth beneath the topsoil do to mining, the thermal dynamics of the world may permit a large production of energy without effecting the global climate/weather.
Overpopulating the Earth

I think that it is impossible for the human race to overpopulate the earth - considering our resources* - if we increase the population gradually and in a regulated manner to allow the vegetation to keep up with converting rock into biomass which can be eaten. Of course we can outnumber the space, but that is not what I am stipulating. I believe that so long that there is Space to literally live, then the world can produce enough resources to sustain us. If we lived in the planet, then we can house ourselves aware from the fruit production, then we can maximize efficiency. Despite the fact that the earth would thus become smaller, via using structures to create multiple layers of living space with less material, we could still increase the worlds habitable zone-age.. :S Thus. Human's can not overpopulate the planet to a point where it cannot provide, while we can still move about and function happily.*** the argument*** I believe that the planet can sufficiently feed potentially hundreds of trillions of people.
Music can effect people

"I think that Music can effect people because, if your listening to an inappropriate song, the people listening will hear the person singing, and they'll think that the person really likes what they are singing about, and soon that listener could start doing those inappropriate things too." By this logic, any music about murder would encourage listeners to murder, any music about drugs directly results in drug use, and a song about rape causes people to rape. This theory is simply not true, and there is no evidence to support it. Because this is your original stance, this is where your burden of proof rests, and in order to successfully win this debate, you must prove this stance. "First of all, music can effect peoples moods, and then it just might eventually change their mind that much" I will agree that music can affect people's moods. These three articles support that theory: http://www.healthline.com... http://bestbinauralbeats.org... http://blog.bufferapp.com... These three articles support the affects of music on an individual. However, suggesting that "it just might eventually change their mind that much" is too broad of a statement to warrant any serious argument. Over a sustained period of time, overexposure to anything may drive people to commit heinous acts, however, music only affects us as much as any other aspect of our setting. If music just might influence my behavior negatively, it also could potentially affect us in positive ways as well. In the final round, the burden falls for you to prove that music directly affects behaviors, not only moods.
Music can effect people

For the record, I will not be arguing that music has zero effect on an individual. I will instead be arguing that music may affect an individuals mood/feeling/mental state, but that music is not responsible for a person's actions. For example, music may influence a person's happiness or anger, but will not influence a person to kill or to instantly change behaviors. In the interest of fairness, I will allow Pro to post their full argument and sources, before posting any substantial arguments opposing them.
Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA

Thank you for responding. I shall now list my three main arguements. First of all, I think we can all agree that fracking is beneficial for our economy. The USA is now the lead producer of oil, ahead of even Saudi Arabia. Fracking is a 385 billion dollar industry that supports 1.7 million jobs. North Dakota is a profound example of this. Ever since the Bakken Shale has been discovered, there has been only 3.1% unemployment compared to the national average of 7.7%. In North Dakota, there are 40,000 people who have fracking jobs and average salries have grown 1.4%. Fracking is not bad for the environment. Actually, fracking produces half the emissions of coal. Also, 90% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid is water, and around 5 to 7% sand. Most of the alleged chemicals in frack fluid are slickeners. Hydraulic fracturing surprisingly uses less water. Fracking requires just 0.6 to 5.8 gallons of water per million Btu of energy produced. By comparison, “renewable” and “sustainable” corn-based ethanol requires 2,510 to 29,100 gallons per million Btu of usable energy. Biodiesel from soybeans consumes 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per million Btu. Also, in a study of 200 water wells near fracking sites, the water quality stayed the same before and after except in one case. The myth about fracking causing earthquakes has not been confirmed.The process of fracking is not the problem, but rather poor maintenence. 6 to 7% percent of wells are built incorrectly, causing the leaks. A mobile water evaporator, for example, can eliminate the wastewater before it leaks. I agree with the fact that their should be stricter regulations for building and watching over the wells. But banning it outright is not the correct way to go. References: http://www.frackingjobs.co... http://blogs.wsj.com...http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.fool.com... http://online.wsj.com... http://www.livingstondaily.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA

Been interested in having a fracking debate for quite a while now, and I'll gladly take the Pro side here. Thanks to kingkd for bringing forward this topic for discussion. As my opponent has not yet posted his arguments, I too will abstain from posting mine, and I'll instead encourage him to start this debate by supporting the usage of fracking in the U.S. I will, however, attempt to clarify what we'll be arguing. Since I am on the Pro side, and since my opponent has not clarified specifically what he means by a ban, I will do so. "to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done." http://www.merriam-webster.com... Further, I'd like to state that a ban is not a permanent state of being. Should the problems that I will articulate be solved by technological advances (something I feel is unlikely, but possible), the ban could be rescinded. Therefore, my argument is that, in the short term (the next 5 years at least), a ban should be implemented and enforced. Since neither my opponent nor myself can be certain as to what would occur technologically outside of that time frame, I feel it's reasonable to set that as the boundary. Nor does this ban apply to all attempts at fracking, but rather, those that would be used for the purposes of acquiring natural gas from underground. It is still possible, under such a ban, to test the processes used for fracking outside of a commercial setting, so long as it is strongly controlled and kept away from towns and cities. Now, what are we talking about banning? "Hydraulic fracturing is the fracturing of rock by a pressurized liquid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally"certain veins or dikes are examples. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing is a technique in which typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create small fractures (typically less than 1mm), along which fluids such as gas, petroleum, uranium-bearing solution, and brine water may migrate to the well. Hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, then small grains of proppant (sand or aluminium oxide) hold these fractures open once the rock achieves equilibrium. The technique is very common in wells for shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas and hard rock wells. This well stimulation is usually conducted once in the life of the well and greatly enhances fluid removal and well productivity, but there has been an increasing trend towards multiple hydraulic fracturing as production declines." http://en.wikipedia.org... As I believe I've defined the terms adequately, as well as my position in this debate, I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA

Well, that's really too bad. I had hoped that this debate would be very substantial, and sadly kingkd has forfeited again. There's really not much left to say here. I've established that there is a significant environmental harm. For those who are not convinced, there's little more I can say. The reality is that Con is right that, at the very least, natural gas releases less CO2 than oil and coal, and therefore it looks like a better alternative. However, it only serves to extend our dependence on fossil fuels. Con would have to have shown that my point about how green energy will be held back was faulted, but he couldn't. The low cost of natural gas has made it so cheap for companies to use that many are just abandoning green tech projects in favor of using natural gas. That means that they're going to be dependent of fossil fuels for longer, which means that we will eventually use every bit of oil and coal we can, along with all of our natural gas. He's also losing on the economic debate. I've shown that the boom and bust cycles it creates are net harmful to the region, as is the economic damage that results from environmental harms. As such, we can only conclude that any transient benefits we might receive from getting this gas are going to cause more harm than good. Now I leave it to the voters to decide this debate.
TV is unnessecary to a child's life

"How can people be so afraid of going outside. Everybody I know is not afraid at all of going outside" I am sorry to here that you don't get out enough to know very many people. I hope that someday you shall meet more people! "Our previous generation has survived without a TV and have developed very well." Not to give away my true age, but my parents are pretty freaky and they didn't have TV. See TV is necessary nowadays for our youngest generation. The world has become too small for them not to have a TV. I will concede that reading books is good. But it puts too much strain on the eyes and drains our younger generations of the little energy they have left. Between school, ACT, SAT, work, homework, volunteering, and trying to get accepted by some prestigious school, kids NEED a TV to gel and 'veg'. Sorry that you want to be an evil dictator who would discard all happiness in the world! I hope you are satisfied, you have effectually made me cry!
TV is unnessecary to a child's life

How can people be so afraid of going outside. Everybody I know is not afraid at all of going outside. In addition, there are many ways to exercise without going outside. They could exercise at home by just running laps around their house or doing a jump rope. But instead, they would not exercise because they would rather waste their time by watching TV. People could absorb more important ideas or subconcious ideas by doing other things, such as reading books. It is a much healthier way by reading books and also improves their eye coordination. THe pencil thing is comparing with blaming the parents for not maitaining the child's TV time. If the TV would not show that stuff, then parents do not need to care at all. Our previous generation has survived without a TV and have developed very well. However, many researchers say that this is the first generation that is going down.
TV is unnessecary to a child's life

People have become so afraid of everything that they refuse to go outside and enjoy activities. That is another reason why people are fat. So, in essence, with or without TV, people would still be fat. Most people are normal and have a tendency to have high brain capacities. Television provides a way for human beings to absorb ideas and subconscious ideas well. It increase eye-hand coordination and motor skills. These are essential resources. Your thing about a bad pencil is flawed. I have a friend who drew and AMAZING picture with the tip of a pencil. Second, people have different ideas of beautiful. TV is key to child development and will continue to be so in our day and age. - Cheeks
TV is unnessecary to a child's life

Mcdonalds? Mcdonalds is not what makes people fat. What makes people fat is not exercising, and one of the reasons for not exercising is TV. If you eat healthily but you never exercise, you get fat. I also don't think that peopel would get fat anyways. 'You' do not learn bad things from TV. How about the other millions of people? I'm sure because 'you' don't learn anything from TV means that everybody doesn't learn from TV. You think that parents would completely control TV? That's impossible. If you draw something with a bad pencil and the picture turns out bad, it is a bad pencil, not a bad drawer. It's not the parents fault for not maintaining what the child should watch on TV.
TV is unnessecary to a child's life

My dear sir! You are and egg-nor-a-moose. (As noted by crackle-barrel) Television is an enchanting portal into the realm of fiction,non-fiction, history, and news. It is a care-free experience. In our fast paced, arduos lives, we need that avenue to experience someone else's life who is better or worse off than ourselves so that we can laugh at them. I grew up on television and look at me now! I am perfectly sane and intelligent. "This creates obesity. Most homes in America have TV's and they are a factor to why America has the largest obesity percentage in the world." Uhhh.. Wrong. McDonalds does. And even if it does, the kids would get fat anyway. I learned all of my cuss words from older siblings, not the TV. Also, parents should be better monitors of what their children are watching. It isn't the telvesion's fault for ignorant parents! I am personally ofended that you would believe that television is a bad thing. You have placed a stigmatism on me and my fellow countrymen!
TV is unnessecary to a child's life

1) TV is bad for health. Once they start watching TV, they get hooked on and do not see the time fly by. The brain is more shutdown when watching TV than when people are sleeping. Because they waste all their time, they do not have enough time to exercise. They would think that TV is a much better entertainment than exercise. Also, many people start eating junk food when watching TV. This creates obesity. Most homes in America have TV's and they are a factor to why America has the largest obesity percentage in the world. 2) TV would give too much information sometimes, especially to children. Children would start learning bad words, or digusting stuff people would not want to hear. Also, TV can give much information on violence. Many shows that people watch have fighting in them, and can encourage people to think that fighting is cool.
The United States should invest in nuclear power.

Not only does my opponent fail to cite a single source, but also, as it turns out, most his claims are false. For example, even if France has a debt of a few million dollars from its nuclear program(an unsubstantiated claim), their export of electricity from nuclear power plants makes them 3 billion Euros a year.[1] He claims the US invested in nuclear power, but that it "just didn't work out"- I wonder, then, how he explains that the US is the largest producer of nuclear power in the world?[2] Sounds like it's working pretty well to me! My opponent also mentioned three mile island, citing it as an example of the disasters to come if we invest in nuclear energy. However, as he should know, not a single person died as the result of the three mile island meltdown. [3] If anything, this shows, not how dangerous nuclear power is, but how good we are at containing it and making it safe. Three Mile Island has been the ONLY serious accident involving any nuclear power plant in the US. We have been running nuclear power plants commercially in this country since 1957. Nuclear Energy may not yet be "too cheap to meter", but it is exceedingly efficient. So much so that a single pound of uranium packs the energy equivalent of a million gallons of gasoline. A MILLION GALLONS. [4] And at the moment we only have fission reactions. Scientists are working hard to construct reactors which will carry out controlled fusion reactions. These produce much more energy than fission, and can use hydrogen (deuterium) and lithium for fuel, in addition to producing no radioactive waste at all. If we are able to master this process, we could have enough energy to power the earth are current energy consumption levels for 150 BILLION YEARS. That is ten times longer than the age of the universe itself. [5] It really doesn't get more sustainable than that. It saddens me that people like my opponent would oppose nuclear power on unsound logic and misguided fears. The energy nuclear fusion would make available to us is beyond the wildest dreams of anyone now living. The current dangers are extremely well controlled and, in the future, may well be eliminated. The potential benefits, on the other hand, are truly mindblowing. So yes, the US absolutely should invest in nuclear energy. It's our best hope for the future! 1. http://www.world-nuclear.org... 2. http://www.world-nuclear.org... 3. http://www.nrc.gov... 4. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...