BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for those 18 should be legal.

TO CLARIFY PLEASE NOTE I MEANT THIS AS THE TOPIC: "Resolved: The production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for those 18 and older should be legal." I simply ran out of room. I propose that this be debated in a modified (no crossex) Lincoln Douglas format, as follows: 1. Affirmative Constructive 2. Negative Constructive/Rebuttal 3. Affirmative Rebuttal 4. Negative Rebuttal 5. Affirmative Rebuttal (Due to the nature of this site the negatives last speech should be blank, as affirmative gets the last rebuttal) "Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could." - William F. Buckley, Jr. William Buckley is saying here that the criminalization of marijuana causes more harm to society than marijuana itself does. Because I agree with William Buckley I affirm the resolution, Resolved: The production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for those 18 should be legal. My value for this resolution is efficiency. Efficiency is defined as productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste. I feel that efficiency is the best value as a society must not waste resources if it is to be successful. My value criterion is elimination of inefficient laws. Inefficient laws waste resources and must be eliminated in order to achieve efficiency. In this case I am arguing that the criminalization of marijuana is an inefficient law. Contention 1: Marijuana criminalization causes inefficiency in the criminal justice system Criminalizing marijuana distracts the justice system from real issues. Marijuana users are usually teens and young adults that are otherwise law obeying, productive members of society. Throwing them in jail is a waste of time. It wastes the time of not only police officers catching them, but also of judges, public defenders, etc. And takes up space in jails. The war on marijuana is a useless war that cannot be won, and in the mean time it reduces the efficiency of the justice system. Contention 2: A legal marijuana market would benefit the economy. While currently the criminalization of marijuana loses money for the government, a legalization could in fact make it money. A legal market for marijuana could be heavily taxed, like they do for cigarettes, and provide money to the government. In addition illegal marijuana currently takes money away from the national economy and gives it to international crime gangs. The legalization of marijuana would also provide another viable crop for farmers to grow, which helps stabilize the economy. Thus, the legalization of marijuana would result in a more efficient society. In conclusion I affirm the resolution because marijuana criminalization causes inefficiency in the criminal justice system, and legal marijuana market would benefit the economy.
Should religion be involved within the society

I'll start off with some rebuttals: 1. 'Imagine a world without religion.... people would be doing all sorts of things like rape, murder, stealing, kidnapping etc.' No evidence is used to justify this claim at all. I don't see the logical link. My opponent states that laws against these crimes come from faith, however, again he provides absolutely no evidence and merely claims it is 'obvious', which once again, I don't see. Countries such as China, in which most people don't identify as religious, still have laws against such things [1], and this is because the true reason for these laws is dual: firstly, the existence of these laws provides personal security that others won't be able to harm you (purely self-interest) and secondly due to empathy. People do not possess empathy because of religion, empathy is something that existed all throughout human history and which the most convinced of atheists possess. 2. The second main point appeals to the idea of religion being beneficial in regards to depression and meaning. Firstly, my opponent has not provided any references to the research he claims exists but if we assume it does and indeed backs this idea then that is still meaningless for two reasons. 1) It could be that it's not religion that makes us less depressed but more that depressive people are driven more towards disbelieving God, 2) one can accept that this is a benefit of religion but still see an overall net negative in the sense that even if religion can result in lower depression rates, I would argue that overall the lack of religion still would provide more benefits than the presence of religion. For example, the tens of countries which restrict the rights of women wouldn't do so. The tens of thousands of fighters fighting for religious terrorist organisations wouldn't do so because they would be without motivation. Furthermore, people such as homosexuals would not be persecuted simply on the grounds of an old book condemning their practices. Not even to mention the scientific advancements that would be more likely to be supported and accepted if the population didn't cling onto outdated beliefs and rejected any scientific evidence against such. In regards to religion giving us meaning, this is perfectly true. The following point about people not learning different languages without religion is self-evidently false due to the number of atheists and agnostics who do so. Different people derive meaning from different things, religion is only one thing meaning can be derived from. This is of course anecdotal and should not be treated as an argument but the atheists and agnostics (such as myself) that I deal with are no less passionate about life than the religious people I know. People can and do pick their own purpose in life. One example being my purpose in life is to succeed in politics. [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Should religion be involved within the society

Imagine a world without religion; how different it would be, people would be doing all sorts of things like rape, murder, stealing, kidnapping etc.. Yes the government provides punishment for these laws, but where do these laws against these crimes come from? It obviously comes from faith and religion since religion provides these laws to the society; without religion there would be no such thing as those laws. It also makes people feel scared knowing the consequences they will get from their lord if they committed such crimes. Religion has provided many benefits to the society People who believe in a religion, according to some researches tend to have less anxiety and depression compared to those who don't believe; this is because they know they have somebody to look up to when they feel like they've lost hope. Religion gives us meaning and purpose; without religion, we wouldn't be learning new things like different languages or different cultures. Religion is what shapes people to become better individuals
There should be no laws, Taxes, Or restraining orders.

Thank you for your compliment. I appreciate your succinct method of putting forth ideas. I, As you noticed, Enjoy meandering around the shrubbery. :) I agree, More taxes could help with mental health care which is already a great concern in my neck of the planet. Our mental health program is light years behind many european states. As an American, We are taught that our revolution against the British was about "Taxation without representation". Our civil war had many causes (slavery, States rights, Etc. ) and taxation was just another. If we branch out through history and legend -- and who doesn't love a little folk lore -- Lady Godiva and her infamous ride on the horse was over taxation. Robin Hood robbed the rich to give to the poor who were taxed into poverty. Really, Though, King Richard's participation in the crusades nearly ruined his nation in taxation and didn't provide for the common folk (https://www. Thoughtco. Com/king-richard-i-of-england-1789391). We could probably look at taxation as though people are working for the state's common good, And if we do, Are we not considering communism? Though the state would help take care of the people, We still find ourselves without the resources to provide equality to everyone. We also struggle with the unfortunate human emotion of pride -- the vile sense that demands I be better than you! Wait -- isn't that what debating is about? ;) Ultimately, I would acquiesce to you on higher taxation so long as the funds were truly used for the public good and preserving public welfare and the money does not find it's way into corrupt pockets. Which may require greater laws in that those who receive and disperse said moneys are held to complete accountability and transparency.
There should be no laws, Taxes, Or restraining orders.

The main point is that more taxes mean more public improvements that would save people money and lower homelessness rates. 1: People could get free mental help funded by the government. 2: There would be government-funded help for homeless people. 3: I'm not sure, I am quite ignorant on this topic too. 4: I'm not saying you are lying, But can I get a source? I must say I like your writing style.
There should be no laws, Taxes, Or restraining orders.

Very well -- Stricter laws are not capable of producing the utopia either. As laws become more strict, The people will feel stifled. Humans have a sense to create, Yet people also tend to crate laws that fit a moral code -- for example I live in a small town in America where dancing really is outlawed, Yet I love to dance. The rational is that dancing leads to unmarried copulation, Which leads to fatherless children, Crime, And such. the US is also currently going through a stint of people showing for greater gun control laws, But the problem isn't guns so much as it is mental health, Relationships, And boundaries. Yet, This cry for stricter laws won't treat the problem, Impaired driving, Domestic violence, Preventable diseases, And even stabbings are regularly in the top tier of killers in this country with gun violence in the distance. Yet, These laws would impair law abiding citizens from attaining personal protection or hobbyists from indulging, But the criminals would still be armed and there would still be funerals for victims of violence. What if a law was passed to force people to feed the homeless? Forced people to take the homeless into their homes? Would this then create the Utopia spoken of? Or would people rebel against the situation. What if a family doesn't have the means to do so? What if I treasure my privacy more than anything else, Shall I rise up and fight that law? Taxes -- is there any evidence for taxation being tied to contentment? I would like to know more about how taxes make a country happy. I must admit, I am quite ignorant on this topic. I can state that high taxes have a long history of tragedy. Wars and famine lay in the wake of overly taxed citizens, And yet many governments crumbled anyway.
There should be no laws, Taxes, Or restraining orders.

No, You misunderstood me I meant that there should be more strict laws and regulations to protect against such inhumanities and crimes. That poor oncologist is being stripped of their rights. As for taxes, Take Denmark. Denmark has very high taxes and is one of the happiest countries in the world. If there is confusion about what I said in my previous statements, The problem lies with the garbage autocorrect system that we all live with for absolutely no reason.
There should be no laws, Taxes, Or restraining orders.

Good day. I would be happy to enjoin you in this debate. First, I would like to dispel part of the primary argument, Or at the very least get some clarity on the discussion. Laws aren't preventing the homeless from getting food, Unless you are proposing that the homeless could steal the food and thus be allowed to eat what they take. Is that indeed your premise? Utopia is defined as a state of perfection, But I think that this is also an unclear distinction as without law, There would be no regulation. Regulation provides boundaries for people as well as helps the flow of common resources that people need. Without these regulations, People would hoard clean water out of greed, Paranoia, Cruelty. How might we regulate such vile human traits without penalty? Thus, Without regulation, We would have no penalty to ensure fairness for all, Thus I question the type of utopia to claim we will have. I feel that we should also establish a base line for crime. You claim there would be no crime, But if we do not have a definition of crime, That is true, Yet someone who has had their hard work ripped from them without reason or their person violated, Would certainly feel that they have been wronged. Do we ignore these feelings? Do we own a person in this utopia you suggest? Some artisans and professionals are truly the best in their field, Would people know that not everyone is able to go see say the best oncologist, That we should see the one that we are able to see within our ability and means and work through referrals? Otherwise, That poor oncologist may never get to see his or her own family. In many ways, Laws are established to protect the public sphere from negative influence and outcomes. We try to engender (though it can be discussed how effective or lack there of) fairness for each individual. There truly are limitations to what is available for all people -- these limitations on things like food and clean water have led to such travesties as wars and human rights violations. How might we institute regulation? To speak of taxes, Though I do not appreciate them, They do serve a purpose. However, I wonder if your question is about the necessity to simply privatize all infrastructure and subsidies. Who would carry all the people using government welfare programs? Or how better should we?
Did modern man able to get rid of his basic animal traits or is it still at prowl ,

Yes , But the basic instincts Either should have an outlet or should be diverted In a positive harmless route , For example aggressive drive can be diverted to games like football etc , and sexual drives should be given positive opportunity and the rest should be diverted to arts and cultural activities , The success depends on education and awareness campaign , revealing the true nature of man as an animal and the need for positive diversion of these drives for a peaceful coexistence of human beings. Rather than conceal it with the fog of morality , Like Nikos Kazantzakis mentioned in Report to Greco ,Youth is A blind Incongruous beast , and it does not comprehend and when one begins to comprehend ,youth has fled , Its not only youth even matured people have all these drives which is suppressed and which should be diverted positively with self awareness. I think it is possible .
Did modern man able to get rid of his basic animal traits or is it still at prowl ,

yes I agree , but science and technology itself is Neutral here , Its the human beings who uses or abuse it is to blame , definitely if you look all the positive sided science and technology brought about is tremendous . there is more food than anytime in history of mankind , and you can see almost all diseases there is medicine , and we can predict all natural calamities and mitigate its effects. As I mentioned here human beings abuse food , medicines and land , so we have to think about proper use of all the advantages of science and technology , not that we blame it , we ourselves misuse and abuse it and blame science and technology for that . this is what you are doing
Did modern man able to get rid of his basic animal traits or is it still at prowl ,

Does modern human being able to get rid of his animal nature , i mean like aggressiveness , cruelty and selfishness with the advancement of science and technology and progressive thinking - I think yes , modern man has really able to at least suppress and divert his killer instincts , even though at times he fail , comparing 100 years back the life of people and now , its far more friendly , but there is a lot more room for improvement
Transgender People should not be harassed.

They feel like they need to express themselves, as the opposite gender? That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. What do you mean they are not themselves in their own body, OF COURSE THEY ARE THEMSELVES. If they are born male, they are truly male, not female. They just want to switch genders because they are not mentally correct. If 40% of transgenders have attempted suicide, then why do they switch genders at all? We should harass them because they deserve it, they are makers of absolutely blasphemous decisions in life, they are basically asking to be ridiculed. I have never heard of a white man painting himself black because he felt more like a monkey than a human! I don't understand why you are defending these goons
Transgender People should not be harassed.

Transgender people are people who transitioned to the opposite gender because they feel the need to express themselves. They feel that they are not themselves in their own body. They should not be harassed because they continued to become who they truly are. Being harassed does have something to do with life actually. Being harassed could lead to suicides, self-harm and worse. Statistics say that about 40% of transgenders have attempted suicide. Transgender people are jus people who have changed their identity. That does not give people the right to torture them. Transgender people should live just like the rest of us do.
Gmos are dangerous and could result in human extinction

GMO's increase yields LOWERING the prices of foods. This is necessary in a world that will rise by another 2 billion by 2050. There is no physical way to cause an extinction of the human race. Even with Nuclear wars, it will require a huge amount of weaponry that will cost trillions. Use the website http://nuclearsecrecy.com... and take the largest tested bomb. It isn't going kill everyone in that range. We do not know about bacteria. There are millions out there that we do not understand. We may know what they look like, but we cannot remove every single strain of bacteria or virus. It is the same for GMO's. We know where the DNA has come from, but the thing is, we CAN remove the GMO from production. Forbes even has a title, '2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable'. http://www.forbes.com... There is no clear evidence that it can make people sick. I do not see a single death record from GMO's only. You claim 'GMOs kill pollinators which will kill plants due to no pollination and killing plants.' This is what we are doing anyway with herbicides and pesticides. In fact, those are worse for the environment as it can pollute that land for years after. GMO's can stop this . To summarize, GMO's are the best thing for this world as the population increases. I would love to avoid heavy usage of pesticides, and GMO's can do this. So if you have not understood, GMO's are a good thing.
Gmos are dangerous and could result in human extinction

The title also says COULD not will, what I mean is could. There are two ways that GMO could lead to this. 1. Increasing poverty which will lead to wars and maybe even a nuclear war. 2. GMOs kill pollinators which will kill plants due to no pollination and killing plants. This is also different from bacteria because we know about it but companies such as Monsanto pay money to companies to tell the world they are good even though their killing the environment.
The US Should Have Vetoed UN RES 2334

PositionMy position on the issue should be quite obvious.I agree with the choice made by America to abstain on Resolution 2334 (I would even argue that they should have voted in support of the resolution).ReasoningMy reasoning should also be quite apparent: Israel is currently violating multiple U.N. resolutions as well as an article within the Geneva Conventions by settling (and occupying) Palestinian land. No country should be allowed to violate international law. Continuing to occupy Palestine will further increase tensions between the two states, further weakening a future hope for peace. This further hurts Israel (as well as Palestine) because a state of war will exist for a longer period of time, and clearly a prolonged war would cause even more suffering and misery for the citizens of both states. With as little research as I have put into this topic, this is my current position and reasoning. Please try to persuade me out of it; I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say in opposition.
The US Should Have Vetoed UN RES 2334

Clarification:-Res. 2334 is a resolution from the U.N. that actively condemns Israel's settlements of Palestinian land. (see 1)Please do not open your argument in Round 1. This is only an acceptance round.-Sources:1. "http://www.un.org...(2016)"NOTE: You may struggle with opening the link, the "(2016)" is a part of it, but the website isn't recognizing that. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Jesus loves science

Well, sir, since you completely decided to not read the comments (not being mean, just sayin, take a looksy) im going to use a theoretical jesus. Hell, i call mine jebus, because i completely acknowledge your lack of evidence for Jesus Christ. So, for peoples sake, lets call my Jesus, Jebus Crist. Thats right, we are no longer needing evidence of his existence. And, Jebus here, would love science. He loves making fun of the people that insult him by reading the Bible. This explains his lack of return to save us from ahem *Sin* (laughs slightly). And, since you also lack to acknowledge the Bible as a credible source of existence, Then i also guess that we can talk a little about that as well. Bible, written by so many people over so many years before being compiled into a legit book. Two, not all the books were in the Bible at the time of its original compilation. Revelations was left out. The main reason why Jebus loves science is because most of his followers disregard its existence, and since he died for our again "SIns" (emphasis on the quotes) which included the theoretical apple, the most irrelevant fruit on the planet to choose to have a beings brain be unlocked to them (this is from the bible, not what i believe), included that very same gift of knowledge which allows us to discover science. God stated in the Bible (again, its in the Bible, yet again a non-credible source, but since this theoretical person is from it, we must use it) He would kill us over the Apple (now re-created by Steve Jobs XD). So, If we are forgiven for using knowledge, why the hell wouldnt we use it? So, jesus loves science, because he loves to laugh at the people that dont use it? So... bring it ooowwwnn.. XD
Jesus loves science

I will refrain frompersonal insult and fabricating a huge run on sentance as Pro just did. As the voters will surely see PRO certaintly said" Jesus loves science". He has yet to prove that he existed. Much less that he "loved science". However this debate is clearly about "Jesus" having a alleged passion for science. Pro cannot change his own rules. Pro MUST first prove that "Jesus" existed. Pro has yet to make one argument for his proposition. Jesus never existed .