BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Let's Debate!

Ok this is the final round so i will try to make it count. Musicians make quite a bit of money not on the CD's but on places like itunes and tours. So really we are not making such a great harm are we? As for respect I guess you are right. However, if I was a musician, I would be happy that so many like my music enough that they'd commit a crime to listen to it. Doesn't make it right but it would be flattering. And since the world is now more ditagal it makes it much easier to get music off the internet compared to going to the store to get it. And lastly, I believe that even if music isn't a NEED, it is quite a big WANT. I know I won't get though my day without tunes! (as pathetic as that sounds it is true) Thanks for this interesting debate! I hope we can remain friends without any hard feelings depending on who wins. Best of luck! XD
Let's Debate!

So first of all, MONEY These musicians have to earn money, too, and getting their music for free doesn't help them. RESPECT Definition of respect: A worth seen by someone else about another person. Buying their music says that they're worth something. Getting their music for free technically says they're worth nothing. Even though you don't have much money, I'm sure you would like to earn some. If people download something you make for free, are you making much money? Certainly not. Even though this generation is more digital, that doesn't mean that you have to buy their CD's to get the music. You can get them off of Spotify, iTunes, etc. and these stores still cost money. It DOES cost the musicians to make the songs. It's a lot of money to go to a recording studio, even for one hour. Also, you said: "but anything like electronic devices I have to buy out of my own pocket" If your parents buy you clothes and food, then you should by some time be able to buy music CD's or iTunes cards. Music is a want, not a need, like clothes. Thanks for the worthy argument! :D
Let's Debate!

Hi, I'm new too! Just to verify you will be con for this? And I'm going to be supporting illegal downloading? That won't be hard at all! XD Ok we should be able to download music off the internet because CD's are a lot of money for people that don't have a lot of it (Say me, a 14 year old girl that has to buy anything I want. My parents buy me things like clothes and food but anything like electronic devices I have to buy out of my own pocket. And I really don't make enough money to buy a lot of things). Also, most people are now going more ditagal. So you might as well get your music off the internet since so many people are on it. And the artists of the songs could make quite a bit of money selling their music online for very little. It all adds up! Lastly, people are going to do it anyways so we might as well just make it legal. Especially with the newer generations that are like very tec-smart (me being an exception). If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I say! I eargerly await your response in this very ummm, interesting debate! XD
Jesus Is Black!

Check these latest images from bbc depicting jesus as black breaking news http://www.stewartsynopsis.com...'s%20High%20Tech%20Jesus.htm www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdI6dsCTCA l'm putting up this topic because I see everyone saying jesus is black and jesus is white or jesus was middle eastern. I'm here to crush all this non-sense with the scriptures (God's Word). I"m not here to start racial tension or anything I'm just here to tell you the truth. If you don't believe in God or the bible this isn't for you. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." - Hebrews 7:14 So we all can agree with this scripture since it is of the bible right. Christ came for the tribe fo Judah which was one of Jacob's twelve sons. "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." - Revelations 1:14,15 His head was white showing that he was a very wise man. But it was white like wool. Now wool who has hair like wool, the so-called black man. Okay there's more, his feet was like fine brass as if it were burned in a furnace. Now that should make it clear that Christ was a very dark-skinned man. When i say black no one one black but that is how we are classified in the world today. No one is white or black but so called black people are shades of brown and so called white people are shades of red. But this should make it clear Christ was black. And i want to clear this up just because your black doesn't mean you come from Africa. Noah had three sons which populated the whole world aftre the flood. Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Out of Shem were the Hebrews (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob[Israel]), out of Japheth were the Asians, out of Ham were the Africans but not the Negro, which is the so-called Black, African American, Africans, Original Man, etc. Look up Ham in a Zondervan Bible Dictionary. People try and say the so-called black race all came from Ham which is not true. Just because of your skin color doesn't mean you come from the same place. Christ was African he was a Hebrew Israelite meaning he came out from Jacob (Israel). Why is it that so-called Jewish people don't believe in Christ, shouldn't that let you know something is wrong. "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Revelation 2:9
Jesus Is Black!

When someone is referred to as "black" that person is considered to be of of Sub-Saharan ancestry, and of darker skin than the group being compared to. While this is a loose definition, it's tight enough for us to have a discussion on. Here's a handy visual of what's considered Sub-Saharan (in green): http://blogs.ft.com... This would mean that by definition, Jesus or his recent ancestors would need to come from this area in Africa, and must have a dark enough skin tone to stand out amidst the people of the Middle East. Using either Biblical or secular history, we can see this statement is not true. Biblical History Abraham, who is considered by the Bible to be the distant, direct ancestor of Jesus (and considered the father of ALL faithful), was born in Mesopotamia. (Present day Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates): http://upload.wikimedia.org... Abraham's family line would eventually lead to Jesus, but not only was Abraham born in the Middle East, he was more than 40 generations before Jesus. This means even if he had been of African descent, (which he most definitely wasn't) by the time the family line traced down to Jesus they would be overwhelmingly Middle Eastern in appearance and genealogy. This is due to the fact that there is NO evidence that Jesus or any of his ancestors were anything other than Middle Eastern. This line is well documented in the Bible and can be seen in these various charts (charts differ based on opinion and sources, but none violate my premise): http://www.biblestudy.org... https://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.ldolphin.org... http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com... Secular History The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew, believed to be born somewhere between 7 and 2 BC. http://www.livescience.com... Either account means that Jesus was born in the Middle East. As for the depiction of Jesus, he will always resemble those doing the depicting: Because it's easier for people to love http://rciagrad1.files.wordpress.com... those http://www.gocek.org... most http://www.morethings.com... similar: http://art.jkirkrichards.com... to themselves: http://upload.wikimedia.org... What little evidence we have would overwhelmingly suggest that Jesus was neither "white" In the European, Anglo-Saxon understanding of the term Nor "black" in the Sub-Saharan, comparatively darker skinned understanding of the term. Jesus had the same characteristics of all Middle Easterners of the time: A dark haired, olive skinned Caucasian born and raised in the Middle East. This is based on either Biblical or secular history, and we have no evidence to suggest anything other than this conclusion. Thanks for reading
Jesus Is Black!

Everyone changes the appearance of a deity to reflect their culture and ethnicity. Religion has and will serve the needs of the day. Michelangelo's Apollo-esque Jesus in the Vatican Museums Slave-era blacks painted an African Jesus Chagall depicted Jesus as having a tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) for a loincloth. Jesus took on almond eyes in Asia and blond hair in Scandinavia. http://www.nytimes.com... The truth is, Jesus was a Galilean Jew, with an ancestry from Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). We have no reason to believe this man differentiated from the people he was born and raised among. PRO claims that Jesus was a black African and will undoubtedly provide abundant evidence to this claim to solidify what historians and scholars have been arguing about since the time of Jesus.
Jesus Is Black!

White man changed the real face of Jesus from black to white, to promote white supremacy on world! Abraham was an African from Ethiopia.. Now the LORD said to Abram, " Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2. And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing;"Abraham left Africa to the middle east as a black man not as a white man and certainly not arab man.Jacob was African. David was African and his Decedent Jesus was African! Evidence is there in very Ancient African and European architects. Who in the world can challenge this fact. ln the name of Jesus let that person come forward and deny this!
United States involvement in war

The United States of America"s involvement in war has widely been debated; however, I firmly believe the United States should not go to war unless they are attacked first. The Vietnam War was a situation when the United States was not attacked but still felt the need to go fight to stop the spread of Communism. Over 50 thousand American deaths occurred, and the war itself cost 738 billion dollars. The vietnamese did not attack the United States first, the United States only went over to vietnam to stop the spread of the idea of communism. Secondly, Pearl Harbor is a situation when the United States was attacked,and in that case, we fought. Over two thousand military lives, along with 68 civilian lives, were lost at Pearl Harbor. After that, the United States declared war against Japan and Germany. Entering the war helped resolve economic issues, therefore ending the Great Depression. Last, 9/11 is another example when the United States was attacked on American soil and in return the United States went to war in Afghanistan to fight against Al Qaeda. This was beneficial to the United States because we fought against terrorism on their own territory instead of on United States soil. Based on this information, the United States should not go to war unless they are attacked because do so will protect American lives and save United States financials resources to solve domestic issues.
Hitman is better than Dishonored

First off, Hitman and Dishonored are two very different games. Hitman games are more about creative kills, dishonored is more of the way to get to the target Dishonored also has a much higher focus on world building than hitman, which is more: "target, kill it". Dishonored give you reasons for doing so Also, your argument that hitman has more games is fairly irrelevant, since it started much earlier, and it does nothing to improve a series' quality.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I'll message you about what ld is. Its fine that you aren't familiar, but in the future please do not accept challenges that say ld format or begin the topic with the word Resolved until you are familiar. Onto the arguments. My opponent attacks the car example stating that not using a seatbelt is misusing the seatbelt portion of the car. Simple grammar shows us this is not the case. My opponent claims it would be "misusing" the seat belt function, however in reality it would be "not using" the seat belt. There's a big difference. Misuse would indicated that I am improperly wearing it or that I dont have it fully buckled. Not using it, which is what my opponent is talking about, implies it is just sitting there doing nothing. Now going back to what this point was originally about, it is illegal to not use a seatbelt, nevertheless just because you dont wear it does not mean you misuse (or abuse) it. Thus we can also infer that just because drugs are illegal does not make all use abuse. My opponent claims that even second hand smoke from abusers only creates health problems. However I refer you to my previous round in my point 2. I already addressed that second hand smoke from abusers is minimal because they all die from overdose. My opponent claims no amount of crack is okay. He gives no warrant for this. Never brings up any scientifically proof that drugs in non-abusive dosages are still bad. I've shown you throughout the round that the main harms from illegal drugs is caused from overdosing, contaminants in the drug market, or using drugs too often. My opponent also conceded that I solve for all these. Thus, I solve for harms from illegal drugs. Then, My opponent drops my point three from last round and still has not denied I solve for drug abuse through overdose and impurity prevention. Round summary/voting issues: Please realize, with simple common sense, not all use of drugs is abuse. If I take one tablet of E and no more, am I an abuser? I have solved for drug abuse, which is what this topic is about. I educate the public about proper dosages, I also create purer/safer drugs that are free of contamination. Drug abuse is no longer a problem because of this under the affirmative wold.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Thank you Black Void for the timely response. In regards to your request for LD format if you could explain what that is I will follow it. I myself am accustomed to a Public Forum style debate. My opponent used an interesting analogy to counter my saying: "Any drug use is miss use." My opponent said that in a car one must wear a seat belt. If one does not he is not miss using the car. I concur not wearing a seat belt in a car does not mean you are inherently miss using the car;however,you are miss using the seat belt portion of the car. I believe this is a more appropriate analogy, after all we must remember that you can not wear a seat belt and then not end up crashing your car, where as if you use/smoke drugs you will end up impaired. My opponent also said: "I never said drug use was okay." However he did. By defending the fact that one can use an illegal substance such as crack and then because you did not take a dangerous amount it is okay (which is incorrect because no amount of crack is okay) is to in other words justify it. He said how it was irrelevant to talk about the second hand smoke produced by such substances merely because we are not discussing recreational use of these substances;however, regardless of the "type of use" this smoke will still be being produced thus harming the public's health. In my criteria that I established in round one the Neg must prove that drug legalization will harm the public's health. I have proved this by showing that regardless of the "use type" (whether it be recreational, medical, etc.) second hand smoke will be produced and this will harm the public's health. In accordance with my criteria (which my opponent had no objections to) I have won this particular argument. I thank all readers/commentators/potential voters and I urge all parties who will be voting to vote for the Neg/Con
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

My opponent obviously did not see the "LD format" that was at the very beginning of the round (since this is an actual ld resolution), either that or he ignored it. Nevertheless I'll continue this debate. 1. My opponent does not attack the correct argument. I never said regular drug use is good. I do not need to because we are not debating recreational drug use, we are debating drug abuse, which is obviously bad. Just because drugs are illegal does not make all use misuse. Not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, but if you dont wear it anyway are you misusing the entire car? Obviously not. My opponent claims a contradiction in my case where I supposedly say normal use of a drug is good (I didn't) but that because of the overdose risks I brought up, drug use is never good. What he fails to attack whatsoever is that we are *solving* for drug overdose on the affirmative. He has conceded the risks of overdose in a criminalized world, but never conflicted that the aff solves for it. Please extend then that I solve for overdose as well as drug additives. His argument now has no weight because it was predicated on the dangers of drug misuse, which I have solved for. 2. My opponent makes an interesting argument about criminalization preventing second hand smoke. Nevertheless this is a nontopical argument. The way he solved for this issue is to keep all drug use criminalized. However my opponent cannot draw from the impacts of criminalizing all uses because the resolution is specific to drug abuse only. He can only make arguments that stem from criminalizing abuse. Obviously most second hand smoke would result from recreational use, because abusing it indicates taking it in excess or taking a poisoned drug. Therefore there will be little second hand smoke from abusers because they will be in the hospital sick or dead. 3. My opponent states not all drugs would be regulated under my system. This is ridiculous considering I created this policy. Let us look at the word "ought" in the resolution, which basically meas "should". I'm arguing we should treat abuse as public health. Therefore as long as it relates to public health I can create any policy I want and say this is what we should do. My policy of pharmeceutical regulation will regulate all illegal drugs. This disproves his argument of not regulating all of them.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I accept my opponent definitions, but would like to add a criteria in which the Pro. must meet in order to win. he most prove not just that illegal drugs are bad and can be miss used but that illegal drugs are an issue to Public Health. The Neg. (Me, TheSquadBoss) must prove that keeping drugs illegal will benefit the public's health. i will now begin my opening statements: Point 1. Drug Miss Use My opponent talked about how the use of illegal drugs is not inherently bad;however, the miss use of drugs are. Regardless of whether drugs should be decriminalized currently they are illegal. Due to the fact that they are illegal any use of such substances is miss use. My opponent also stated that if the proper amount of a certain drug is used it is okay, but this statement is a contradiction on his part. During his contention 2 part A he talked about how drugs are often mixed in with other drugs for various reasons. If this is the case then as my partner stated we don't know what is in these drugs and therefore cannot give a proper amount to use without getting injured. Point 2. Keeping It Illegal Would Protect Public Health Second hand smoke from a substance such as marijuana is much greater than that of second hand smoke from say a cigarette. I concur second hand smoke from cigarettes is bad and can lead to some minor health problems;however, second hand marijuana smoke can lead to second hand inhalers getting impaired as well. If marijuana and other drug use is decriminalized than its use will obviously increase meaning there will be more smokers/users creating more second hand smoke. With second hand smoke in the air it could potentially be inhaled by a minor where as similar effects as the one the actual user is going through would occur on the minor. If drugs remained illegal there would be less users, thus less second hand smoke, thus less of a chance of third party people going through the negative impacts of illegal drugs. I prove in this point that keeping drugs illegal (or criminal in this sense) is actual in the best interest of the public's health. Point 3. Even if Pharmacy Did "Make" the Drugs My opponent talked about how drugs would be safe merely because pharmacies would be growing/creating them. To an extent this may be true;however, that does not mean that all drugs would be made and regulated. A large amount of drugs would still be being made the same way they are now leading to the same negative health impacts. At the beginning of this fine debate I established a criteria saying that the Neg or Con must prove that keeping drugs illegal will better benefit public health. Because I met this criteria by proving that second hand smoke is harmful to the public's health and that by keeping drugs illegal we will reduce second hand smoke I have one this debate. I thank you all. .. . I strongly urge all parties voting to vote for the Con/Neg/Me side of this debate.
People are born good

"A common definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic." "Being good is subjective, what you believe is good may be bad for me vise versa."- Con has accepted that being good is subjective. If something is subjective, then people give the subject meaning and value. This means that, using this definition above, if I can find any example of a parent approving of their child at birth, the resolution is supported. Since the resolution does not specify that I must prove that "all people are born good", as long as I can prove that "some people are born good", I have supported the resolution. Here is an example of a parent approving of a child at birth: http://www.cbsnews.com...
People are born good

"A common definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic."- So this is is definition we are using? "Being good is subjective, what you believe is good may be bad for me vise versa."- I agree, and I think a lot parents would approve of their newborn child, making the parents view the child as "good" by definition. Since what you believe is good subjective, and parents think their newborn child is "good", their child must be "good", proving some people are born good. I do not disagree with John Locke, but since you cannot disprove opinions, and some parents view their child as good, some people are born good.
People are born good

I agree that we need to define good. A common definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. If you are arguing that people are born good, how do you define good? Being good is subjective, what you believe is good may be bad for me vise versa. How can people be born good if they do not have the ability to know what good is? What does good to mean to you? How do you know that people are born good if you do not know most people? What are your arguments and do you have evident to support your arguments? John Locke a famous philosopher who formulated the concept of tabula rasa. We are born neutral as we do not know what is right or wrong. Their environments shape who they are, good, bad, evil. It is society who can corrupt mankind or not. There is no evidence of innate knowledge, therefore how could people be born good if they do not know what it is. People are simply born. Good and evil are sociological concepts presented to individuals later in life when they can comprehend them. That is when the choices occur