BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA

sorry about cutting it close on the time First of all, I would like to give some sources to back up my claim of the FDA's incompetence: http://www.nejm.org... http://www.wellnessresources.com... . Secondly, I would like to talk about economic gains. Originally I did not address economic gain because it isn't worth it to have people taken advantage of, and dying for any amount of money. Legalizing drugs would probably increase government revenue, although the cost of regulating illicit drugs correctly would also add to government expenditures. Even if there was a net gain, there are many other much more ethical ways to increase revenue, and I certainly hope the government is not a point yet where they literally need to sell drugs to pay for stuff. Finally, on the topic of dealers, even if legalizing drugs put dealers out of business, the whole reason people want to put them out of business in the first place is to stop the distribution of drugs, which makes no sense if we are going to legalize drugs anyway. Also, due to the incompetence of the FDA, dealers might legally sell the same poorly made drugs they were selling before. In fact, it is also a good thing in some ways that the drugs they sell aren't perfect. For example, if cocaine was laboratory grade people would overdose way too easily, so many drug dealers will actually add baby powder to their cocaine to weaken it because they don't want to lose customers or be charged with manslaughter.
Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA

I think it is important to point out that there is a distinct difference between decriminalization ("the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts") and total legalization. While my opponent is correct that harsh drug penalties have caused prison over crowding, and are not always best for drug addicts, this can, and should be fixed not through total legalization, but by making the penalties harsher on dealers, and lighter on users. Even if my opponent's plan made crack houses into legitimate businesses, it wouldn't change the fact that they are taking advantage people who need help. I think it is a great idea to send addicts to rehabilitation centers rather than to jail, but they would have to go to one. If my opponent had his way an addict could legally continue killing himself, which is unethical as for serious addicts the temptation to do drugs overrides the want to go to rehab, and so they must be forced to. As for lowering drug related deaths by making illicit drugs go through the FDA, the FDA has proven inadequate at handling supplements in the past and as I mentioned in the last round, for most drugs, no matter how pure and well regulated, there truly is no safe dose. Finally, I would like to rebut the accusation that my argument that hardcore drugs would become more socially acceptable if legalized, as weed has recently, is a slippery slope argument, an accusation which I resent, and which is incorrect. A slippery slope argument would be if I said that if marijuana is socially acceptable, soon hardcore drugs will be as well WITHOUT any further actions. However, I made a fair comparison between the legalization of one drug causing it to be socially acceptable and the hypothetical legalization of another, and its implications.
Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA

When it comes to illicit drugs, there is no healthy way to use them. Drugs like cocaine can be lethal the first time through a heart attack even if the user has a healthy heart, and takes a "normal" dosage. It doesn't matter how well you regulate it, it is impossible for the FDA to offer these drugs in a safe format due to their high toxicity meaning a safe dose would be so low it wouldn't give a noticeable buzz. Although people will always find ways to do drugs, this is no excuse for basically giving up because trying to fix the problem is to tiresome. People will also always find ways to rob, and murder, but we do not say to hell with it just because the laws aren't working perfectly. Not to mention that there is a moral obligation to not legalize illicit drugs, as it is a known fact that when something is available to adults (alcohol/cigarettes) it is essentially available to children, and it is also a known fact that as marijuana has been increasingly accepted that the opinions of children have been molded so much by both anti-smoking and pro marijuana propaganda that currently youth would overwhelmingly prefer marijuana to tobacco and see nothing wrong with smoking it. Weed may not be a big deal, but imagine what would happen if the combined public approval of hardcore illicit drugs like heroin and meth, and the increase in ease of access to children as I stated earlier through adults happened as a result of the legalization of illicit drugs. There would undoubtedly be an epidemic of addiction in children, and teens worse than anything in the past. Legalizing illicit drugs would be turning our backs on those poorer than, or those less experienced than us (the children) simply for expedience.
Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA

First of all, I never said that the increased government expenditures due to drug regulation would mean there would not be profit, I just said that the profit would not be worth the lives of addicts. Hardcore drugs can not be taken in moderation like alcohol. One simply does not do crack socially as he might with drinking. My opponent presents an overly idealistic view of a perfectly functioning FDA, and drug dealers who will simply back down when their business is taken away. Regulating illicit drugs doesn't change the fact they are deadly, and legalization would without a doubt increase use. (http://denver.cbslocal.com... " In 2014, when retail marijuana businesses began operating, that in only a year: " Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 32 percent " Almost 20 percent of all traffic deaths were marijuana related compared to only " 10 percent less than five years ago " Marijuana-related emergency department visits increased 29 percent " Marijuana-related hospitalizations increased 38 percent " Marijuana-related calls to the rocky mountain poison center increased 72 percent " Diversion of Colorado marijuana to other states increased 25 percent") In Colorado, the legalization of marijuana has had negative impacts, and marijuana is comparatively very mild to hardcore drugs like meth or heroin. I have shown that the vastly negative impact of legalizing illicit drugs far out ways the meager benefits of profit, and a very unrealistic FDA taking the place of a drug dealers selling what might actually (due to dilution) be a safer product, and that is why I have won this debate.
God is the Best Explanation for Why Something Exists Rather than Nothing

My opponent believes that my evidence of the big bang and my explanation of how life was cultivated on Earth is unnecessary and irrelevant. He throws the Big Bang theory off to the side, calling it a "description of the early expansion of the universe, but it has nothing to say about its explanation," even though the Big Bang Theory clearly proposes that the universe was created through an implosion. As I have stated in round one, there is a lot of evidence for this theory such as cosmic radiation and redshift of light. My opponent believes that my discussion about prebiotic molecules and abiotic synthesis serves little purpose in this debate and makes no effort to address it. However, the Miller-Urey experiment and the existence of prebiotic molecules clearly demonstrates that organic life does not need to be spontaneously created by a divine source, but can instead be cultivated naturally. Prebiotic molecules virtually nullify the argument that a God is necessary to create life. I apologize to my opponent for misunderstanding Thomas Aquinas's analogy about the sticks and ball. However, I still find it to be insufficient in proving a deity. The situation suggests that there is a ball being moved by a stick, and the stick is somehow being moved by God. This analogy, while understandable, is entirely unrealistic and cannot be applied to anything in reality. I can suggest a situation where unicorns exist. Does that make for a reasonable analogy? Of course not. How does a stick supposedly moved by "God" make for a reasonable and realistic analogy?My opponent proceeds to clarify why God must exist to "pull the stick that moves the ball," or create the universe and cultivate life completely on the basis of Aquinas's analogy. Though, as I have said previously, this analogy is entirely baseless. It does not refer to a realistic situation. It's unrealistic and fails to prove any sort of valid point supporting my opponent's belief in a God being a "necessary reality."Because my opponent fails to provide any proof aside from an unrealistic analogy and premises with little support, my opponent has failed to create a sufficient argument that proves that a deity is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing. Additionally, his argument is incredibly vague. He does not argue for a specific God or Gods, nor does he provide any evidence of the existence of a deity. Through the explanation of the Big Bang Theory (no, not the show) and evidence for it, as well as prebiotic molecules and the Miller-Urey experiment, I am confident that I have provided an argument proving that things such as life could have been created without a God.
God is the Best Explanation for Why Something Exists Rather than Nothing

My opponent continues to attack positions that I am not defending in this debate. I do happen to be a Christian, but my aim here is much more modest than proving Christianity. I have been arguing for a theistic worldview at the exclusion of an atheistic worldview. For this reason, even if my opponent were to prove Christianity to be false, it would have no bearing on our debate. It is also entirely unclear to me what point he wants to make in discussing biology. It is unclear to me which premise of my original argument that discussion is meant to undermine. My opponent has also misunderstood Aquinas's analogy. He has posited various contingent states of affairs (a man, positioning on a downhill slope, and strong winds) in place of the various sticks. The sticks were merely a stand-in, however. They represent any contingent state of affairs. This is why I further simplified the analogy by reducing it to "Contingent object A", "Contingent object B", and so on. Remember, a "contingent" object is one that owes its existence to another. By contrast a non-contingent, or "necessary", object is one that does not owe its existence to another (it exists by the necessity of its own nature). It makes no difference to me if my opponent wants a man, a downhill slope, or strong winds to stand in for the stick in the analogy. These are all contingent states of affairs, owing their existence to some cause outside of themselves. The point in the analogy is that one cannot have an infinite regress of contingent realities. One must eventually get to an object that, itself, is non-contingent. That is to say, it is impossible that contingent realities can exist unless there exists a non-contingent reality (a reality that exists by the necessity of its own nature). Now my opponent has claimed that I have given no argument for why a necessary (a. k. a. non-contingent) reality must exist. I have given an argument for its existence! Here is the argument again: 1. If no necessary (a. k. a. non-contingent) reality exists, then no contingent reality exists. (This is demonstrated in the analogy) 2. Contingent realities exist. 3. Therefore a necessary reality exists. Recall back to the original argument that pushes this further to a theistic worldview. 1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (e. g. it is either "necessary" or it is "contingent") 2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation for its existence. (from 1 and 3) 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God. (from 2 and 4) 6. Therefore, God exists. (by logical extension from 5) You'll remember that I also gave arguments for premise 2, that this explanation must be "God" instead of something else. I showed that it must be an un-embodied mind that transcends space, time, matter, and energy. It would be a strange form of atheism indeed that admits the existence of such an entity!
Universal Brotherhood is More Valuable Than Patroitism.

Universal brotherhood is great, but so is fighting evil. Dictators need to be held accountable lest they be a threat to freedom. Dr. King once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and I am inclined to agree. Of course, war should be a last resort naturally, but there comes a time when singing kumbiya and holding hands is no longer effective. Do you honestly think India became independent by placating the British or America by placating the British, or Jews by placating the Nazis? No I am not calling the British Nazis. Just using an analagy. I believe that there is a time and a place for anything in life and that includes war and peace, brotherhood and patriotism.
Universal Brotherhood is More Valuable Than Patroitism.

A lofty ideal at best. So people should coexist with countries that commit mass genocide and let by gones be bygones? I should think not. I would never coexist with the corrupt Al Saud regime, Al Qaeda, and others. I will coexist with people who take responsibility for there actions and do what is right though. You cannot coexist with people who want to kill you.
The United States Should Abolish The Capital Gains Tax

Many of these explainations are common sense based on a simple analysis of the economy currently and in the past. If my opponent wants sources, then I am happy to list them below. https://www.finance.senate.gov... https://www.ineteconomics.org... https://www.dissentmagazine.org... https://www.americanprogress.org... I do have several other sources, but I don't deem it necessary to list all of them since these articles cover all of the main points I have gone through.
The United States Should Abolish The Capital Gains Tax

Capital gains should be taxed in full as they are earned, not when realized. Capital gains are income, not really different in substance from interest, rents, and royalties: other kinds of capital income that are taxed as ordinary income. Reducing/Abolishing Capital gains negatively affects the economy The difference in tax rates between capital gains and other income is a prime factor behind individual income tax shelters. Since ordinary income is taxed at rates up to 35 percent while long-term capital gains are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent, there is a 20 percent reward for every dollar that can be transformed from high-tax compensation, say, to lowtax capital gains. The basic idea is to make an investment that generates deductions, such as for interest, lease Thus, the lower tax rate on long-term capital gains produces several distortions: (1) It encourages investments purely for tax purposes that would not make any sense without the tax savings, draining capital away from other more productive investments. (2) Since tax shelters that can pass legal muster or escape detection tend to be extremely complex, brilliant financial planners, 5 lawyers, and accountants turn their talents to this lucrative, but socially unproductive line of work. (3) Similarly, the enormous tax savings available likely lure too many highly productive people into the private equity business, drawing them away from other potentially more socially valuable enterprises. Lower capital gain rates enables the oversize financial sector to wield enormous influence on the U.S. economy. It encourages corporate executives to take stock-based compensation, because it"s taxed more lightly than the same amount of salary income would be. This practice encourages executives to obsess over short-term stock-market performance at the expense of the long-term success of the corporation. Increasing rates will decrease inequality In 2016, for example, nearly 76 percent of all capital gains went to households earning more than $1,000,000, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center. And 96.2 percent of the households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution are white. Preferential treatment for capital gains meant that the federal government forewent $109.5 billion in taxes in 2016, a giveaway second only to the tax exclusion for employers" contributions to employees" health plans. If capital gain tax rates were raised, then the rich will be taxed their fair share. More money will be given to the government, which will allow more social programs to be implemented that will aid the poor in supporting their family and improving the American economy in general since more money also translates into more importing, exporting, production,etc.
Is Michael Jordan better than Kobe Bryant

Refutation - As for your weak argumet posted straight from Wikipedia, i'm not impressed. - Seeing how Michael Jordan dominates Kobe on paper I will get onto records. (for evidence look at my previous argument.) - Scoring 81 against Toronto isn't that hard since they were the worst defesive team in the league, you're talking about the team that started 1-15 and wasn't even close to playoff contention (finished 27-55), it's also apparent the referees generiously gave him 20 free throws. [1] - Kobe had nothing on Jordan's records [2] 1. The records he had from being to youngest player to achieve feats are not relevant since Jordan went to college while Kobe went straight to the NBA 2. Michael jordan has many achievments including: -Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Class of 2009 -6-time NBA champion: 1991-93, 1996-98 (all with Chicago Bulls) -6 NBA Finals appearances: 1991-93, 1996-98 -5-time NBA Most Valuable Player: 1988, 1991, 1992, 1996, 1998 -10-time scoring champion: 1987-93, 1996"98 -3-time steals leader: 1988, 1990, 1993 -3-time minutes leader: 1987-89 -14-time NBA All-Star: 1985-93, 1996"98, 2002-03 -3-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 1988, 1996, 1998 -6-time NBA Finals Most Valuable Player: 1991-93, 1996-98 -1-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year: 1987-88 -11-time All-NBA selection: -First Team: 1987-93, 1996-98 -Second Team: 1985 -9-time All-Defensive selection: -First Team: 1988-93, 1996-98 -NBA All-Rookie selection: -First Team: 1985 -NBA Rookie of the Year: 1985 -2-time NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1987, 1988 -Runner-up in 1985 -7-time The Sporting News Most Valuable Player: 1987-88, 1988"89, 1990"91, 1991"92, 1995"96, 1996"97, 1997"98 -The Sporting News Rookie of the Year: 1985 -Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year: 1991 -Ranked #1 by SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-time -Ranked #1 by ESPN SportsCentury's Top North American Athletes of the 20th Century -Selected in 1996 as one of the "50 Greatest Players in NBA History" -Selected in 1996 as member of two of the "Top 10 Teams in NBA History" -1991-92 Chicago Bulls (67"15; .817) -1995-96 Chicago Bulls (72"10; .878) United States National Team -2x Olympic gold medals: 1984, 1992 -Pan American Games gold medal: 1983 -3x USA Basketball male athlete of the year: 1983, 1984 (with Sam Perkins), 1992 (as a part of the 1992 Olympic Team) College - -NCAA National Championship University of North Carolina: 1981-82 -3x Atlantic Coast Conference regular season champions: 1981"82, 1982"83, 1983"84 (undefeated) -1982 ACC Tournament champions -ACC Rookie of the Year: 1982 -Naismith College Player of the Year: 1984 -John R. Wooden Award: 1984 -Adolph Rupp Trophy: 1984 -USBWA College Player of the Year: 1984 -ACC Athlete of the Year: 1984 -ACC Men's Basketball Player of the Year: 1984 -2x The Sporting News College Player of the Year: 1983, 1984 -2x Consensus First Team All-American: 1983, 1984 Sources: http://espn.go.com... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]
Pikachu is a pokemon.

Time to finish this. Extensions, then voters. Pokemon with accented EThere are multiple reasons to vote for pro on con's semantic argument:First, my opponent conceded my predictable ground argument, which states that referring to pokemon without an accent is a predictable spelling and use. This is ground to reject the argument in and of itself, he has essentially conceded that my interpretation is the standard and predictable interpretation, and thus his semantic argument is nothing more than a massive character and time skew. On formatting and ease, no warrants were given to the effects of miswritten words and is thus my opponent's point only a statement, not an argument, you can vote pro on formatting. Finally, my opponents failed to prove any ground lost abusively due to my use of unaccented pokemon. This argument wasn't about ground, it was to avoid debating the resolution itself, don't let him win a debate by avoiding the topic. New ArgumentThis argument attempts to exclude Pikachu as a pokemon through definition spin. However, pokemon in this instance is to represent a member of the aforementioned franchise owned by Nintendo. Pokemon represents the franchise as well as the individual members thereof. Err pro, he should have asked round one for clarification. CaseThe case flow was conceded through the entire debate. VotersThe pro should be considered the winner of this debate for a few reasons:1. Spelling/Grammar - do not lump the con's semantic argument into this vote, that should be part of better arguments. The vote on spelling and grammar should go to the person with the better spelling and grammar in the debate. Some mistakes my opponent made: " and missritten words" and "not a franchise nor (double negative)" are two mistakes that stand out.2. Evidence- With 7 sources, vote pro.3. My arguments that pikachu is a pokemon were ignored in favor of nonresponsive semantics, and case was conceded.
Pikachu is a pokemon.

Thank you for the quick response!I'm already enjoying this debate. :DAnyways, enough character-wasting. Time to debate.Refutations"Predictable Ground."Sorry, I have no idea what this term means. However, I will refute what has been said. I did not change the topic. As the Opposition, I am simply arguing against the resolution with my own proof. The truth is, Pokemon and Pokémon are two completely different things. "Formatting and ease."I appreciate the intention of making this a light-hearted debate. But regardless, you still must treat this seriously. Misspoken words have their effect in the real world, and missritten words have their effect on paper, as well. Anyways, it is very simple to input the accented e. Simply copy 'é' from some website and paste it in. "Reasonability."I'll just answer this one in the next point."...specific ground abuse..."Clearly, this would be a cakewalk for the Proposition had there been no semantic argument. Anyone who has ever played the Pokémon game or even seen the show must clearly know that Pikachu is a Pokémon. If we continue to argue as the Proposition sees fit, this would be an easy win for the Pro side. As a result, something is needed to combat the resolution. "My opponent concedes the completeness of all four steps of my proof, and that Pikachu is indeed a pokemon."It is impossible to not concede something that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the world is there a "pokemon." There is a Pokémon, however. And that is what Pikachu is. New ArgumentAfter a bit of reading, I discovered a major flaw in my opponent's argument.Interestingly enough, Pro defines "Pok[é]mon" as "a media franchise published and owned by the video game company Nintendo." Is Pikachu really a media franchise? Is Pikachu an electric-type media franchise, using my opponent's other definition? No, it is not. It is not a franchise nor a pokemon.Thank you.