BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The legalization of Marijuana is likely to have a more favorable impact than current policy

My premise is simple: The legalization of marijuana would have a more favorable impact on our country than the current policy. I present the following arguments: 1. Legalization allows for better regulation, improvement of quality, reduction in street prices, and would alienate street dealers. 2. Regulation rather than criminalization provides a better medium for control of access to minors, including stiffer punishments for providers and dealers who contribute to the delinquency of minors. 3. Legalization would allow law enforcement to concentrate on hard drugs and violent crime (this includes DEA, ATF, FBI, Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and local law enforcement). 4. Legalization would provide safer environments for recreational users as well as pharmaceutical users. 5. Legalization would allow for an improved hemp industry which is currently hampered by a ban on all "cannabis" strains for fear that higher THC strains will be grown amongst the lower THC "hemp" strains. 6. Legalization and regulation would provide a bountiful source for new taxes- industrial, recreational, and medical. 7. Legalization would allow for more efficient studies which would lead to strains that can be disease specific. 8. Legalization would eat away at the monopoly pharmaceuticals have on harder prescription drugs that are actually less effective and more harmful than marijuana when used to treat certain diseases, ie. Fentanyl (a form of morphine) vs. MJ for fibromaelgia, scoliosis, and other painful diseases; Xanax vs. MJ for anxiety; Purcocet (another opioid like Fentanyl and often used in conjuntcion with), Vicodin, and others vs. MJ for pain. 9. Legalization would allow for lower pharmaceutical prices making it easier for patients to medicate and justify the expense which is sometimes smoked up by non-patient family members (like any other pharmaceutical). 10. Legalization would free up about 60,000 jail cells reserved annually for non-violent recreational users of marijuana
The legalization of Marijuana is likely to have a more favorable impact than current policy

My premise is simple: The legalization of marijuana would have a more favorable impact on our country than the current policy. I present the following arguments: 1. Legalization allows for better regulation, improvement of quality, reduction in street prices, and would alienate street dealers. 2. Regulation rather than criminalization provides a better medium for control of access to minors, including stiffer punishments for providers and dealers who contribute to the delinquency of minors. 3. Legalization would allow law enforcement to concentrate on hard drugs and violent crime (this includes DEA, ATF, FBI, Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and local law enforcement). 4. Legalization would provide safer environments for recreational users as well as pharmaceutical users. 5. Legalization would allow for an improved hemp industry which is currently hampered by a ban on all "cannabis" strains for fear that higher THC strains will be grown amongst the lower THC "hemp" strains. 6. Legalization and regulation would provide a bountiful source for new taxes- industrial, recreational, and medical. 7. Legalization would allow for more efficient studies which would lead to strains that can be disease specific. 8. Legalization would eat away at the monopoly pharmaceuticals have on harder prescription drugs that are actually less effective and more harmful than marijuana when used to treat certain diseases, ie. Fentanyl (a form of morphine) vs. MJ for fibromaelgia, scoliosis, and other painful diseases; Xanax vs. MJ for anxiety; Purcocet (another opioid like Fentanyl and often used in conjuntcion with), Vicodin, and others vs. MJ for pain. 9. Legalization would allow for lower pharmaceutical prices making it easier for patients to medicate and justify the expense which is sometimes smoked up by non-patient family members (like any other pharmaceutical). 10. Legalization would free up about 60,000 jail cells reserved annually for non-violent recreational users of marijuana. I await my opponent's response...
Abortion should remain legal.

In Round 3, I, the Pro, will ask my opponent, the Con, 5 questions that they will answer in Round 3. In Round 3, they will also ask me 5 questions that I will answer in Round 4 before I begin my rebuttals. Definition of Terms. These are to be accepted throughout the debate unchanged and unargued. Abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [1]. Coming from Latin word abioriri, aborior, abortus meaning miscarry, be aborted, pass away [2]. Human Being/Person- A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance [3]. Murder- The crime of deliberately killing a person [4a]. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [4b]. Involuntary Manslaughter- The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally [5]. Miscarriage- Loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy [6a]. Stillborn- When a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy [6b]. Life- The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death [7]. Rape- The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will [8]. Sources 1. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. . http://www.latin-dictionary.net... 3. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 4a. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4b. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 5. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 6a. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 6b. . http://www.babycenter.com... 7. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 8. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Abortion should remain legal.

I am not sure if this is the part where I close my arguments but here anyway. Their are usually topics in which I do a lot of research and use a lot of sources. An example to that is an argument I posted in this section: http://www.debate.org... Yet their are some topics in which I usually just use reasoning and less sourced information. This debate is an example of that. I wont deny that I should have done a little more research or use a little more sources. Yet because I don't know how to end this debate here is a completely irrelevant quote: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Benjamin Franklin
Abortion should remain legal.

"That is why the person who hired the doctor/assassin would be given the worst punishment in that situation."But that would be giving exceptions to the definition of murder. I see that if the mother got a coat hanger and got the fetus out, yes she would be a "murderer." But, even though it is his job, under the definition I set, the doctor would be the "murderer." We can say that a police shot and killed someone because it was a last resort, but we will still say that it is murder, so why is a doctor any different? If the doctor is not the "murderer" than they are at least guilty by association.My opponent argued that miscarriage is "technically" involuntary manslaughter, but is undeserving of punishment.It isn't "technically" involuntary manslaughter, it is involuntary manslaughter. You stated that it shouldn't be punished because "it was not intentional and it was not preventable." That is exactly what you call involuntary manslughter- the unintentional killing of another human being.My opponent gives another scenario where it would not be acceptable to attack someone who enters your room.To this, I would like to show that there are laws aginst trespassing and that people do what the right to shoot trespassers if that is a last resort. If we want to parallel these, we can think of the fetus as a burglar because you don't expect when it comes most of the time and it takes all of your resources. So if we want to parallel this to someone trespassing, then how is it unacceptable to get rid of the fetus? My opponent stated that because the baby has the potential to grow, it is alive. A final scenario before I end my arguments. Pool floaties. Yes, an odd parallel. However, in order to get the floaty to grow, you must supply your oxygen and breath. This is what happens with a fetus- the mother gives is the resource that allows it to grow. I know it may not make sense to parallel a fetus to a floatie, but they are both able to grow when given someone's resources, so would it be safe to say, under your circumstance, that a floaty is alive? It can grow with other resources? No, that would be insane.Before I leave, I thought I added this earlier, but I did not. Euthanasia. When we pull the plug on someone who needs the support of a machine to live. Why do we find it moral to "relieve" someone from this after a period of time where there is no independent breathing, where there is no conscious mind? This is exactly what a fetus is.To conclude this debate, I used many sources whereas my opponent used morals over logic and science. My opponent, I believe through my readings, contrdicted their miscarriage argument as they called it involuntary manslaughter but should not be punished because it was "not intentional and could not be prevented." Thanks for the debate!
Abortion should remain legal.

if I hired an assassin to kill someone, under your answer, I would be guilty, not the assassin" Touch" on that one yet your next statement very much provides fuel to this argument: "Bear in mind that in both scenarios, the assassin and the doctor are only doing their jobs, so what makes them safe from the law?" No it does not make them safe from the law yet note that abortion is already legal in parts of the U.S. Also not forgetting to mention the fact that the abortion/assassination would have never happened without the persons request/consent. That is why the person who hired the doctor/assassin would be given likely a worst punishment in that situation. "With 1 in 5 pregnancies ending in a miscarriage, how can we morally throw this many women in jail for something they cannot control?" I never said that they should be sent to jail. I only said that "technically" it would be involuntary manslaughter I never said they should be punish actually the contrary when I said: "Miscarriage would be technically involuntary manslaughter yet note that it is not a crime and is not punishable because it was not intentional and it was not preventable." Regarding the fetus's rights over a women. " A fetus, however, is in the woman's body and uses all of her resources. So why do we give the fetus rights over the woman when it is the fetus using the woman's resources, not the other way around." That is a good argument you have there yet note this. I shown my arguments from before to prove that the fetus is alive. Because of that in the situation of pregnancy the fetus technically is dependent on the mother. Because of that it doesn't give the mother the right to kill the fetus just because it is in her body. For example. Say someone were to enter my room without permission. Sure I have the right to ask them to leave or state why they are there yet I don't have the right to attack them. I will admit that was a strange comparison but I hope you get my point. "With this quote, you contradicted the belief of life in the uterus because that is one of the only things that show "life" in a fetus- breathing motion." Note that my previous arguments stated that breathing wasn't the only indicator of life. The fact that the fetus develops into a living person is proof of that. If the fetus was inanimate how would you except it to grow into a baby?
Abortion should remain legal.

"Really I only consider abortion murder if the abortion is unnecessary." Murder is defined as the killing of another person, and considering you consider the fetus to be alive, then all "murders" should be considered "murder." Also, who defines when an abortion is necessary or unecessary? We would have to look at every individual case in order to see if an abortion can qualify as "necessary."My opponent argues that the woman is guilty for murder because she chose to "murder" the fetus.Now, let me give you a scenario onto why this dos not make sense. Women pay for abortions more than not, and the doctor is the one operating the abortion, we all know that much. So, if I hired an assassin to kill someone, under your answer, I would be guilty, not the assassin. Bear in mind that in both scenarios, the assassin and the doctor are only doing their jobs, so what makes them safe from the law?Argues that miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter but is not punishable by the law.However, according to [1], involuntary manslaughter is punishable by 10-16 months behind bars plus fines and probation. Miscarriages, we know, are natural or can be self-induced by drug use or stress. "Miscarriages are very common. Approximately 20% of pregnancies (one in five) end in miscarriage. The most common cause is a genetic abnormality of the fetus." says medical-dictionary.com [2]. With 1 in 5 pregnancies ending in a miscarriage, how can we morally throw this many women in jail for something they cannot control?My opponent comes up with a scenario about a fertilized chicken egg.I see how this makes sense, but then again it doesn't. The egg is no longer in a body and does not use resources, besides heat, from the mother hen or incubator. A fetus, however, is in the woman's body and uses all of her resources. So why do we give the fetus rights over the woman when it is the fetus using the woman's resources, not the other way around."After all, breathing motions is a slightly lame definition for living." You said that you believed that the fetus was leaving, but I have proven that the baby only has breathing motions and brain activity that does not prove consciousness. I realize that breathing motions is a lame definition for life, which is why I do not consider the fetus alive. With ths quote, you contradicted the belief of life in the uterus because that is one of the only things that show "life" in a fetus- breathing motion.Sources:1. http://criminal.findlaw.com...;2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;
Abortion should remain legal.

Now I guess its time to answer your questions 1. If we qualify abortion as murder, who do we call the murderer? Really I only consider abortion murder if the abortion is unnecessary. For example Teen pregnancy. If the female aborts the baby simply because she doesn't want the baby then I would consider that murder. And it would be the females fault for deciding the kill the fetus just because she doesn't want a baby. The doctor is just doing his job. 2. If abortion is murder, is everyone involved in the choice and operation guilty by association? If no, why not? That is a good question. If it was by choice of the women to commit abortion then she would technically be guilty. Because she had the choice to do so and if the abortion was not absolutely necessary then she would be guilty unless no other choice was given to her. 3. Under the definition of terms set in Round 1, would miscarriage be qualified as involuntary manslaughter, a punishable crime? If no, why not? Yes and no. Miscarriage would be technically involuntary manslaughter yet note that it is not a crime and is not punishable because it was not intentional and it was not preventable. 4. What gives the fetus rights over the woman? Just because the fetus isn't a baby yet doesn't mean it isn't living. Take a fertilized chicken egg for example (not the ones you see in the super market yet ones you see in an incubator). Just because the egg hasn't hatched yet doesn't give you the right to just kill it without good reason. Just because the egg isn't hatched doesn't mean its not living. After all proof a fetus is living is the fact that it develops into a baby, if it wasn't living then it wouldn't develop in anyway. 5. Why do you refer to the fetus as alive before it is born? (Studies have shown that the baby makes breathing motions, as stated previously, but they are not breathing. And they may show brain activity, but in this state, brain activity does not qualify as consciousness.) Like I said in my previous answer just because its not breathing does not mean it is not alive. Proof of that is the fact that you can kill it through abortion. After all breathing motions is a slightly lame definition of living.
Abortion should remain legal.

Okay, that round was for opening arguments, but you refuted some arguments that were not all mine. This round, I will refute those points and ask 5 questions that you are required to answer this round. Then you can refute me.Rebuttals:My opponent argued that killing a baby when born is equivalent to killing a fetus.However, this proves untrue because when the baby is born, it breathes on its own and is no longer dependant on the mother for oxygen. When a baby is born, we know that the fetus has survived, but there is no guarantee that a fetus will survive to birth.My opponent has agreed on condition, so there is no need to refute that.Finally, my opponent states that because the fetus is dependent on the mother, it should not be terminated.Now, you keep referring to the fetus as "living," and I'll let you use it for this debate because you are new, but scientists have not proven when the fetus is alive. This has been a major dispute in the topic of abortion, and if scientists defined when the fetus is alive, then there would not be much to debate. But, I would like to parallel this to the topic of euthanasia- assisted suicide. This is when the plug is pulled on someone that is dependent on some type of life support, thus killing them. They are still alive, possibly like/unlike the fetus, but they are dependent on machinery and cannot do anything on their own. You may argue that a baby cannot do anything on their own, but they can actually breathe, something the fetus cannot do until born.Cross Examination Questions:1. If we qualify abortion as murder, who do we call the murderer? 2. If abortion is murder, is everyone involved in the choice and operation guilty by association? If no, why not? 3. Under the definition of terms set in Round 1, would miscarriage be qualified as involuntary manslaughter, a punishable crime? If no, why not? 4. What gives the fetus rights over the woman?5. Why do you refer to the fetus as alive before it is born? (Studies have shown that the baby makes breathing motions, as stated previously, but they are not breathing. And they may show brain activity, but in this state, brain activity does not qualify as consciousness.)Don't forget to ask me 5 questions!
Abortion should remain legal.

My belief on this isn't that abortion should be a hundred percent illegal rather such laws should have more restrictions to them. Now I am not American but judging by your argument I am assuming that the abortion laws your talking about are in the U.S. And bear with me on this one please as unlike my usual arguments this will be more reasoning then a sourced argument. (though sources shall be present) My opening statement to the whole "Pro Choice" Belief. Now I did some research on Pro Choice Arguments and here are a few arguments to what I found. 1. The embryo isn't actually a human yet so its not murder. However they are still living. That is like taking a new born infant and killing them, There brains aren't fully developed, there bodies aren't fully developed so they could barely feel pain right? That previous statement sounded cruel didn't it? Well that's how this first argument feels to me. 2. The Women would die in labour This is the part in which I would understand. This is my one exception to an abortion. They women's body cant handle labour so that would give the chance that the baby would die as well. At this situation, I see what you would mean. 3. Women has a right to their bodies. This statement also ties into my first counter argument. The embryo, despite not being able to speak or breath through its mouth is still living. The embryo is dependent on you. And you would just kill it because you have the right to? Over all. My stance on this is that abortion shouldn't exactly be illegal, rather it should be used as only a last resort. Sources to the Pro Choice arguments I found are here: 1. http://amplifyyourvoice.org... 2. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... 3. http://womensissues.about.com...
Incarceration vs Treatment

You"ve stated that "pedophilia is an illness not a crime, and a mentally incompetent person is incapable of fully understanding their actions". Sorry I will disagree with this. A pedophilia is not an illness but a crime. I don"t see how anyone could sit there and say that person who just committed a disgusted act needs help, and not imprisonment. We have thousands of men and women, who are sexually attracted to young kids and they need to be punished for that. If we decided to treat instead of treating them like it"s a crime it will be a green light for them to go ahead and continue their horrible act because they known at the end of the day, the excuse is "I cant control myself I couldn"t help it I need to get treated". That"s more children getting abused and more money coming out of citizen"s paychecks to help fund the cost of treating every individual. Isolating them until their time is done is a form of punishment just like having them incarcerated. We can"t put them with other inmates unless its one who is under the same situation and put in protective custody. Lets face it and understand that treating a pedophilia, as an illness isn"t going to help with recidivism. I understand you want them to be treated and brought back to the community and live a "normal life" but will all those circumstances once that person is known to have dealt with "illness" as you say they will always be judged for every move they make. Nobody will treat them with respect and will always be frightful of them, which will make them isolate themselves and revert back to being a pedophilia because that"s the only thing natural to them. Another thing to point out is that there will be accusations to deal with once the pedophilic person decides to commit the act again. You failed to show what will happen if the problem keeps recurring after treatment. How long do you wait in order for them to be removed form the program? Do they even deserve a second chance? Just like getting behind the wheel drunk and you end up running a person over and hurt them, you"re going to jail. Would your answer still be the same if this were a person in your own family who committed such a heinous act would you want them to be treated or imprisonment? Same question but this time it"s your own child? I guarantee your answer would very much be different. Incarceration helps by keeping them away from society therefore treatment is unnecessary.