BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban All Tobacco Products

In regards to the entire population and marijuana, most studies find that the rates of marijuana usage does not go up when legalized[3]. I don't see how prohibition being a larger task would influence the desire of people to take it or not take it. The fact still remains that people drank more under prohibition than who did when it was legal. I would still conject that, at the very least, making tobacco products illegal would not lower the usage of it, as is seen with marijuana, and may in fact lead to an increase of its usage. If there is an increase in it's usage, rather than a decrease due to banning it, then all of the problems my opponent talked about worsen. Tobacco excise taxes only raise $4-5 billion annually, compared to the $170 billion in healthcare costs. I don't know where you got this information from, but you provided no source. In the United States, we make $40 billion off of tobacco taxes[4], now, it looks like the number my opponent used for healthcare costs is accurate, however, it should be noted that people who use tobacco, their lifespan will be shortened. That means, there are less years of them alive in which they will use the healhcare system. According to this, smoking reduces life expentancy by 7-8 years[5]. According to this, we spend about 10,000 dollars per person on healthcare per year[6] 15.1% of adults smoke[7]. There are about 250,000,000 adults in the United States. 15.1% of that is 37,500,000. That means that because that many people will have their life shortened by about 7-8 years, they will save us 2.6 trillion dollars in healthcare costs, since we no longer have to provide an additional 7-8 years of healthcare to them. Over all, it saves us money to have that many people use tobacco. In regards to the next several points about secondhand smoking and the family of a smoker: I don't think the solution is to ban tobacco, but rather make it illegal to smoke around other people. The way this would be enforced is if someone develops lung cancer, but never smoked but was exposed to seconhand smoke from someone their entire life, then they can sue that person and get compensated. Why ban it entirely and why not ban the ability to smoke around other people?By this same logic, everything should be decriminalized. It's overly simplistic to contend that simply because one cost goes up, it isn't worthwhile or that some other cost (in this case, life and economic cost of healthcare) won't compensate. As I stated, healthcare costs would likely go up if we banned tobacco(assuming that it actually gets rid of people smoking) because when people die early from smoking, we no longer have to provide healthcare for them. But, I would argue that more people would smoke under a ban anyways, and if that's the case, it makes all of your other arguments illegitimate. Sources:[3] http://norml.org...[4] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...[5] http://www.tobaccofactfile.org...[6] https://www.forbes.com...[7] https://www.cdc.gov...
Ban All Tobacco Products

"Having tobacco products legalized likely decreases the use of tobacco products"This claim is likely false. The study to which my opponent refers examines rates of marijuana consumption among teens, who are not representative of an entire population, particularly in their increased susceptibility to rebellious tendencies. Further, decreased use of marijuana may also be an effect of the increased popularity of other (also illegal, but more potent) drugs which have more recently entered schools. "Another example of a harmful substance, that when banned, had more use of was alcohol."Prohibition was a far larger task than a ban on tobacco consumption would be. Alcohol consumption rates were far, far in excess of 30% (modern smoking rate) at the time, and a much greater proportion of the population would cooperate with a tobacco product ban than had supported Prohibition. "At least, when it's legal, we can tax it and then have this money go to healthcare costs that are associated with tobacco usage. If tobacco is illegal, we wouldn't be able to do that."Tobacco excise taxes only raise $4-5 billion annually, compared to the $170 billion in healthcare costs. "What business is it of the government's to tell us what we can and can't take?"What business is it of the government to tell us whether we can or cannot kill our neighbor? Government is designed to act in the interest of the public, and, at the very least, a tobacco ban would act in the interest of the 41,000 individuals who die from secondhand smoke (and therefore inadvertent and non-optional exposure). "As long as it harms no one else, why should the government tell us what we can and can't do?"I've already addressed this -- half a million people die each year from it. And, with the introduction of legislation mandating that individuals with pre-existing conditions be given healthcare at the same cost as healthy individuals, the cost of caring for these people before they die is distributed to the healthy, driving their healthcare cost up. "One way to help this problem is to make smoking illegal on public property."Smoking is already illegal inside most public facilities. Yet, 41,000 people still die from secondhand smoke every year.Thus, it should at least be legal on private property, because it's their own property and they can choose whether to smoke or not, and usually they don't affect people through secondhand smoke, and if they do, then the people on that property can leave. What about the children of smoking parents? The wives of smoking husbands? Otherwise, if it's only harming yourself, but you choose to do it anyways, isn't that your choice? We've already established that smoking doesn't only harm the smoker. "More people will be arrested than there are currently, and then it costs tax payer money to pay for having those people in jail and/or prison."By this same logic, everything should be decriminalized. It's overly simplistic to contend that simply because one cost goes up, it isn't worthwhile or that some other cost (in this case, life and economic cost of healthcare) won't compensate. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
Ban All Tobacco Products

Having tobacco products legalized likely decreases the use of tobacco productsNow, my opponent brought up the deaths and health issues that come from tobacco products. However, I contend these problems would be worse if tobacco was illegal. The reason why is because people tend to rebel against what the government tells them what they can and can't take. For example, the use of marijuana went down after it was legalized in Colorado[1]. Another example of a harmful substance, that when banned, had more use of was alcohol. When it was banned, we saw , first, a decline in alcohol consumption, but soon after an increase that made the consumption over all, more than what it was back when it was legal. [2]. Therefore, since Americans have a pattern of using harmful substances more often when it is illegal, I contend that making it legal would worsen all of the problems my opponent talked about. More people would die from tobacco if it was illegal, because more people would take it. More people would die from tobacco secondhand smoke because more people will be using it. And finally, the economic costs would go up because more people would be smoking. Why would tobacco be different from what we've seen of marijuana and alcohol? It would likely increase in consumption if we made it illegal.Having tobacco legal means we can tax it.Now, my opponent brought up how tobacco related health problems cost money. Again, it would cost more money to have it illegal. In addition, if it's illegal, we can't exactly tax it. At least, when it's legal, we can tax it and then have this money go to healthcare costs that are associated with tobacco usage. If tobacco is illegal, we wouldn't be able to do that. What business is it of the government's to tell us what we can and can't take?As long as it harms no one else, why should the government tell us what we can and can't do? Now, again my opponent talked about secondhand smoke. One way to help this problem is to make smoking illegal on public property. This would decrease the amount of secondhand smoke that goes to other people. Thus, it should at least be legal on private property, because it's their own property and they can choose whether to smoke or not, and usually they don't affect people through secondhand smoke, and if they do, then the people on that property can leave. If government wants to make it illegal on public property, I can see argument for why because the secondhand smoke could be harmful to other people. Only when it clearly harms other people, should something be illegal. Otherwise, if it's only harming yourself, but you choose to do it anyways, isn't that your choice? Banning tobacco would result in a black marketMy oppoenent claims that the use of tobacco would go down, but as I talked about before, I would argue it would go up. A black market would arise with tobacco, and that is how people would get their tobacco. More people will be arrested than there are currently, and then it costs tax payer money to pay for having those people in jail and/or prison. Sources:[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com... [2] http://www.nber.org...
Nothing can escape from a black hole

Thank you, Pain, and the viewers for making this debate possible. The proposition that my opponent will be defending and I will be refuting is this: "Unless it's a white hole or dark matter, nothing in the universe can escape a black hole." Why would I ever accept to this debate then? The proposition seems to be merely a quote from a science textbook, and therefore is not really up for debate. However, it holds a glaring flaw: the conditional phrase "Unless it's a white hole or dark matter". This means that my opponent must defend the contention that white holes and dark matter both can escape a black hole. To defend this, however, will prove impossible, as black holes can (and do) swallow dark matter. I. Dark matter cannot escape a black hole. It is rare, only because of dark matter's naturally little interaction with ordinary matter, but dark matter (when at just the right distance and acceleration) will be sucked into a dark hole [1]. Astrophysicists at Cornel University visit the subject and agree that dark matter accumulates relatively little of a supermassive dark hole's fuel, but it does account for ~10 percent [2]. II. Dark energy can escape a black hole. My opponent was so close to having a bulletproof proposition. However, he surely meant to write "dark energy" instead of "dark matter". Dark energy is a mysterious thing; it's what causes the universe to expand and is completely unaffected by gravity. Therefore, it is the only known thing in the universe capable of escaping a black hole [3]. In conclusion, I have not only shown that his conditional phrase "unless it's a white hole or dark matter" to be false (as dark matter, in fact, cannot escape a black hole), I have also shown the core thesis "nothing in the universe can escape a black hole" to be false (as dark energy can). Seeing as how we are dealing with scientific fact, and these cannot be disputed, I see no reason to prolong this debate another four rounds. However, as I agreed to partake in them when I initially accepted the debate, I shall continue to falsify my opponent's proposition as needed for the duration of the debate. I look forward to my opponent's response and wish him luck. Sources: [1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [2] http://arxiv.org... [3] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
Legend of Zelda is One of the Best Video Game Franchises Ever

Well.... There's Zelda games thats worst.Like for example: Link to the Past is only the worst Zelda ever if you have a pathological hatred of perfection. The only possible downside to LttP is that if you were introduced to the Zelda series with this game, you might find it harder to go back and play Zelda 1 and 2 after you've already experience this huge leap forward. Seriously, we can"t think of anything harsher to say.
Legend of Zelda is One of the Best Video Game Franchises Ever

I believe that Legend of Zelda is an amazing game. It has been my favorite thing in the world ever since I was a very small person, and I think that it has every reason to be. I personally don't understand why anyone would dislike the Zelda series. What is there to dislike about it? Please tell me. Also, if you have never played any of the Legend of Zelda games, I would prefer if you didn't accept my challenge.
The Big Bang is very possible - With a few things taken into consideration

I have come up with a couple of theories that may just prove that the Big Bang could have happened. Note that these are very new and may be slightly incomplete, so some things may not make a lot of sense but I'll do my best. Note that I will also be disagreeing with the likes of Stephen Hawking in certain areas. First round will be for formal introductions and greetings, acceptance of the debate and general introduction to what you will be arguing. Other rounds are up to the person on how they argue their point, with the final round being closing points can basically summing up your argument. Anybody can join the debate, regardless of belief, just so long as you have a solid argument against the Big Bang that I can argue. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello everyone, I am Lord Deathera and I shall be arguing for the likelihood of the Big Bang. I would like to point out that this is not to hate on anyone's religion, I respect everyone's individual beliefs, I am simply trying to bring some new light to the possibility of the Big Bang with some ideas I have come up with. I would like to ask both the contender and the audience to refrain from insults and attacking of either side. I would also like to ask that the voters keep any bias out of their voting, and only vote for the side who argued best, not what they personally believe. You can state your beliefs in the comments, just please leave it out of the voting. To argue the point of the Big Bang being something that is very likely, I shall be using my own theories as well as my knowledge of how the universe and everything works. I would like to ask my opponent to cite any sources that they get their information from, and I shall do the same.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

I thank Rational_thinker for instigating this debate.I will start by analysing each premise and show how sound this argument is: P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.Law that never failed, and how would it, if it failed it would just mean our universe is chaotic, for only due to this fundamental law have we been able to study science and physics and develop technology.This is similar to an axiom, and the way to show it isn't true is simple, you just need to figure something that do begin to exist, yet it has no cause!! it already sounds foolish and the reason is that, the idea of something beginning to exist with no cause is nonsense and dangerous, beside never having been scientifically recorded. Example of things that began to exist (inside our universe) : life , galaxies, continents, stars, civilizations, earthquakes, rain .. and so on, we do not know of one thing that began to exist by magic and my opponent is welcome to find one. The cause is to be determined, and it usually can be a combination of factors or a sentient being with will and ability at least:For rain, the factors would be a sufficient cause.The broken plate in my kitchen, my daughter is the rational cause, for there are no factors that I know that would pull the plate from the middle of the table down on the floor!!! A machine : a man , for man is a sentient being with will ability inteligence ,enough to make a machine that cannot be the fruit of the combination of natural factors. P2. The universe began to exist.Although I'm not sure how Al kindi knew it, but the universe still began to exist, it wasn't as it is since ever, and won't remain forever, and today, thanks to science, we know it more than ever! But as I know my nice opponent will catch me on this I will have to explain my point, as from what we know about stars and galaxies and planets, that have a birth, a life cycle then a death so shall we assume about the universe that it had a birth , has a life cycle, and will certainly end. P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The logical conclusion, but wait a minute, would the cause be a combination of factors, or a sentient being, for there are no factors known to exist in an empty space and cause a universe, the sentient being is the rational cause, a sentient, free willed, able, independent (from time and space), powerful, and knowledgeable, for each and every of these attributes is needed in order for a sentient being to create a universe from an empty space.If one wants still to consider the combination of factors that would have lead to the existence of the universe, in an empty space with no energy nor matter, it is unlikely that there is any condition that would lead to any change. therefore this supposition is the most unlikely of the two.Also to note that the universe isn't anything, it is a complexe combination of machines , that live and die in a regular harmony , that further supports the sentient being we call God as the cause of the universe. Thus the kalam Cosmological argument for God is sound.To RT.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

IntroductionThe Kalam Cosmological Argument specifically, is as follows:P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2. The universe began to exist. P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.[1]Self-evidently, this is not an argument for God's existence but merely an argument for a cause of the universe. An additional premise is needed to show that God exists:C. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.[2]Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is in fact sound (which, in the context of this debate, includes the necessary additional premise). My burden is to undermine the Kalam Cosmological Argument to the point where there is reasonable doubt hanging over the truth of the conclusion based on the argument. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his/ her opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."PS. The logical validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is assumed for the sake of debate. This debate will be over the truth of the premises. Sources[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Unconstitutional

PRO has engaged in a very strange line of argument in his last round. He contends that because hiring and firing is 'commerce itself' rather than entities engaged in it, then it is beyond the scope of federal regulation. But it is precisely commerce itself that the Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate! It has the power to regulate those entities because of the commerce in which they engage. Secondly, he contends that the Act applies to purely intrastate commerce. (PRO has got inter and intra mixed up, though this isn't a big deal. Intra means within). It is not true that I have conceded that the Commerce Clause applies only to interstate commerce - I have not used the word until this round. That is the Supreme Court's historical definition, not my own. As justices, we are bound by precedent, but if you are able to throw out the precedents upholding matters like this as examples of interstate commerce, I am equally free to throw out the test itself. The first definition given for 'among' in Merriam-Webster[1] is 'in, into, or in the midst of.' If we take the Commerce Clause as meaning 'In the several states' then there is no question at all of the constitutionality of the Act. Since Merriam-Webster is a reasonable source for definition, this is a reasonable interpretation. Secondly, as per the quote from the Act itself I supplied in the first round, if we understand 'among' as meaning 'between' then the Act makes clear that it only applies when there is an interstate element at play. Even if it were true, therefore, that the Act was being applied to purely intrastate matters, that is a problem of the executive's application of the Act to things it was not intended to apply to, not the Act itself, whose language as I have noted parallels the Constitution's. A contract to participate in interstate commerce clearly is interstate commerce. Why? Because the language of the contract itself cannot help but cover matters of interstate commerce, because it defines how the employee is to participate in said commerce. If Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, it must logically have the power to regulate things that themselves regulate interstate commerce! On Hamilton. Firstly, while Hamilton's opinions can be assumed to carry some weight, the Constitution was the product of negotiations, and therefore no one person's interpretation of it can be considered definitive. Secondly, it is by no means clear that "Private justice between citizens" applies to commercial activity - by the logic of Hamilton's own words, it does not. Therefore Hamilton's words would be an argument against federal tort reform, which clearly is a matter of 'private justice,' but not against interference in commercial affairs - note that Hamilton also does not use the term 'interstate.' Hamilton clearly contends that commerce, all of it, is properly the province of Congress. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...