BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug Decriminalization in the United States

I support federal legalization of Marijuana but it is completely irresponsible to legalize all drugs at least not before having popular demand. With the introduction of the Affordable Healthcare Act witch I don't support for the record, makes individual health public business as tax dollars are used to correct the individuals failing health. Based on your argument you are supporting tax payer money being used to save the lives for causal heavy drug users. The drug Krokodil is not only terrible for human health but can damage the house of the user to point where it damages the health of future residents. This is obviously something that should not be legalized. The effects this will have on children is an important issue in witch you seem to have ignored as well. If all drugs were legalized it would definitely lead to parents using in front of their children. Your position is encouraging this as well as the increased likelihood and availability of children's use and access to these harmful drugs. Imagine the future our society would face under the leadership of a drug addicted future generation. Third we have signed an international treaty agreeing to fight heavy drugs. Abolishing the law would be in violation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, Invalidating the American position on any other global issue. Sources http://www.unodc.org... http://www.drugs.com... https://ndpr.nd.edu...
Drug Decriminalization in the United States

I am not sure why you decided to forfeit the last round, but that is beyond me. Now that you have not responded, I will go out and provide more reasons for all drugs to be decriminalized. The Drug War is racist, and degrades those who use drugs as second class citizens. The Drug War is entirely racist, from who it arrests, to how it's user's are convicted. This can be seen when African Americans only make up 14% of average drug users, but are 37% of those who are arrested for drug offenses. This statistic clearly shows how their communities are unjustly targeted by police and law enforcement. Not only are Black Americans subjected to racial profiling from the drug war, and therefore arrested at a much higher rate than their white counterparts, but they are also given much harder time for drug offenses. " African Americans serve almost as much time in federal prison for a drug offense as whites do for a violent offense." ( still from drugpolicy.org ) This shows us how, a black man smoking some crack, is given nearly the same amount of time that white man could for assault. This is purely discriminatory, and it should disgust every person that such prejudice and racism can still exist in our "civilized" government. The Drug War also creates second class citizens. Thanks to a report from The Sentencing Project, we now are aware that about every one in 13 black males will not be able to vote due to drug charges. This is ENTIRELY unlawful, as it depraves our citizens of our wonderful "democracy" of the very right it was based off of. This dogma is cancerous to our society, as it depraves the right to vote from anyone who has or consumes a product that the government does not deem appropriate for their usage. Do not allow our government to continue with it's discriminatory practices and it's deprivation of our bill of rights, do not support the Drug War. Citations: http://www.drugpolicy.org... http://www.sentencingproject.org...
ban oil drilling

My adversary has failed to make an response so I shall begin to clarify my points. 1] The people who go to work on these oil rigs are already aware of the potential risks of explosions, and drowning so it makes no sense to be playing nanny to individuals who already know the risks and weighed them and found it was worth it. 2] When you ban offshore oil drilling you would be increasing unemployment for the people who work on these oil rigs will have to begin searching for new jobs which is already hard as is in this economy. 3] When you ban oil drilling you also increase our dependence upon foreign oil [particularly the oil from the middle east] which adds onto the cost of oil in calculating for shipping costs as well as the many wars that plague the region which can further influence and destabilize costs. 4] There is also the perks that come with many offshore oil drilling jobs such as, 4-5 Star Hotel class accommodations, 14/21 day rotation [meaning that you work for 14 days and have 21 off, or in other terms spend 3/5 of the year on holiday], plus one can also add people getting an chance to travel all around the world [depending upon where the rig is located]. 5] Also one must calculate the pay rates of these workers [considering the many different types of workers that work on these rigs] drill deck workers make about $47,000 per year, drillers $56,000, Tool pushers, Drill Leaders and Supervisors are likely to earn around the $75,000 - $100,000 range per year. All of these seem to put your arguments that offshore drilling should be banned to rest, especially in consideration of how these jobs do not even make the top 15 most dangerous jobs in the US [fishermen were number 1 and 15 was maintenance ground workers] as can be seen by this source http://www.businessinsider.com... alongside this fact it can be included that with every catastrophe comes improved safety an example would be that now workers live on a separate rig then that of the drilling platform and other such amenities. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org... http://ezinearticles.com... http://www.livescience.com... Now I would like to add that my voter may say that the title states ban oil drilling but if one reads her first argument "Most people had died from oil drilling while working or drowning in freezing water" she is talking about offshore oil drilling [the drowning and freezing water] and if she wishes to clarify all drilling she still has the chance to do so in the next round.
Black people are inferior to white people

Thanks. What country are you from? I'd like to heavily avoid it. I mean holy f-ck. This was meant to be a joke, I hope your response is. If not, the US and Nazi Germany had an interesting concept around the time of WW2, Negrology: the study of black people and why they're inferior. I think that's a promising career choice for you, although one of those black autists could stab you since they're all stupid criminals.
Black people are inferior to white people

I'll debate lightly, since I don't want too much of an advantage, I already have an extra round to argue. C1 Blacks have inferior IQs It's common knowledge that on average blacks have lower IQs than whites, thus making them inferior intellectually. "The black-white gap is 15 points when measured on the Wechsler tests, 18 on the Stanford-Binet. Both tests are, of course, normed so as to produce an average of 100, but the white average is a bit higher. On the Wechsler metric, whites and blacks average 102 and 87, respectively. On both tests, the gap between the races is almost exactly 1 SD (standard deviation). The gap of 1 SD has been observed since the earliest days of intelligence testing." http://library.flawlesslogic.com... C2 blacks have a higher crime rate Black people also commit more violent crimes such as murder and rape than white people. "Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks com"mitted more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses " including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes " is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn"t cut it as a plausible explanation." http://www.washingtontimes.com... Conclusion- blacks are clearly more intellectually inferior and morally inferior to whites. Now my opponent might make excuses for their inferior state and blame it on policy or social aspects, however those causes are beside the point. We're evaluating the facts, not potential facts
Death Penalties should be abolished

I. Cross-Examination1. A rusty life can be fixed and built into a new one rather than destroyed.It's easier to kill someone than to either rehabilitate the 80% or imprison the 20%. We're talking about objectively easier. So I see no reason to include subjective morality into an objective debate. Killing is faster, and simpler than keeping trying to deal with a past criminal. So why even try to?Humankind isn't precious. There are 7,000,000,000+ people on this Earth. In fact overpopulation will become an issue soon. At that point human life will will actually be on the negative side of preciousness, meaning that a living person will be causing others pain. At this point in time, over-valuing humans will be our biggest leap into poverty and starvation.What we really need to do is focus on killing the criminals to make way for the better-fit civilians to carry on our fast-growing species. That way, not only do we only have trust-worthy people surviving, we also take care of overpopulation. It's a win-win. Even for the guy dying, because he's too dead to care.2. A death penalty would lead to more problemsWho cares what the families think? That's emotion you're talking about, not objective consequence. As for the triggering anger and excitement, where's your proof? I'd say the families will be happy that their delinquet child got what came to him, but without evidence it doesn't matter what you or I think. Support your claims. II. ConstructI do actually have a point to make for my side of the case. That point being that there is really no con to the death penalty besides the slightly higher cost.Think about it, the only people that are affected are the guy's family and the guy.The guy is dead, so his feelings are non-existent.As for the family, they aren't really relevant. Their grief has nothing to do with the overall well being of society. People are sad all the time. That doesn't mean that society should cater to every last thing someone cries about.On the other hand, overpopulation does have a negative impact on the welfare of humans. Therefore it is more objectively relevant.Finally, on the issue of rehabilitation. This is a very risky treatment option. For no other reason than you're releasing a man who has done something worthy of the death penalty back into society. Once again, negative impact. There is evidence to show that criminals become criminals based on envirmonmental factors as well as gentic factors. Two things that the criminal doesn't control. Therefore that criminal is still at a greater risk of commiting a crime than your every-day joe.III. AppendixSupport for my claimshttp://www.deathpenalty.org...; (Easy and simple) (Death is comfortable)http://howmany.org...; (Overpopulation an issue)http://www.personalityresearch.org...;(Criminality origin)
Death Penalties should be abolished

Let me define the topic before starting: Death penalties are penalties in which the court agrees to end an offender's life. Death punishments should be abolished for two simple reasons: 1. A rusty life can be fixed and built into a new one rather than destroyed. It has been proven that rehabilitation works for 80% of the people who go through it. This means that they become better citizens when they walk out, citizens who are criminals no more. Now what with the 20%? If it doesn't work for them, then they should stay in jail rather than die of forceful causes. This way, that little handful of 20% percent does not affect that raging 80%, and in a way that is still safe too. If the court thinks life is so precious that humankind should not kill humankind, then don't you think that it is contradictory that they should end lives themselves? 2. A death penalty would lead to more problems: Death is a big thing. Families of the imprisoned would probably rather them stay in prison forever than die, as many do not yet believe that letting go is for the best. Killing an offender will trigger anger and excitement in his family, who will probably start working against the law, taking vengeance in the form of purposely bending the law, or maybe commit suicide or turn to drugs for their sadness. 3. Given this, one does not have to kill to solve his problem- he can turn the problem into something better instead.
Model United Nations is the Student Activity that Best Aids Students in Real Life.

While MUN is a simulation, and while it never fully emulates he UN that is not what this debate is about. This debate is whether MUN is the BEST activity. obv it will never be completely accurate but the skills it teaches are REAL. You say that teaching students to emulate an inefficient organisation is bad, but to expand on my previous point it is not teaching students to emulate but teaching them skills that they can hone. Finally, while is true foreign policy "nerds" as you say do take enjoyment from MUN it but not just them. Model UN supplies activities and opportunities outside of committee sessions such as social events and tours. In fact Model UN also gives students the opportunity to meet people from other states and indeed other countries. This was a fun short debate. Hey email me at emmitt30 @ gmail.com and we can see if any of our conferences overlap. toodaloo
Model United Nations is the Student Activity that Best Aids Students in Real Life.

I agree with some of your points. It does help with intellectual development and gives enjoyment, but you are forgetting one crucial fact: MUN is only a simulation. A simulation is supposed to represent of the real thing, but simulations inherently can never fully mirror what the real experience is like. Say we have a security council simulation where you have decide what actions to take in response to North Korea threatening to unleash its nuclear arsenal on the south. Yes that pretend tension exists, but it can never fully emulate that high stress environment that actually exists. Furthermore, it's the UN. We are teaching children to emulate a multi-national organization that suffers from a terrible lack of efficiency inherent in many bureaucratic organizations. I disagree with you in terms of the social realm. Yes it does help with intellect (like research and debate), but I fail to see how it helps in the social realm. IT does give enjoyment (but only for foreign policy nerds)
Model United Nations is the Student Activity that Best Aids Students in Real Life.

MUN is the activity that best aids students in real life.It supplies more of the 3 essential factors necessary to make an activity greater than any other student activity.The 3 biggest adv. MUN supplies are intellectual prowess, social and networking skills + enjoyment.When hs students reach adulthood they need to obtain a job and an enjoyable life.The ability to grasp tough concepts and make them simple, the ability to research different aspects of any subject, and the knowledge gained through Model UN are essential skills every student will 1 day need.MUN doesn't just ask that students accomplish these, it allows them and puts their know. to practice.Next, MUN gives essential social skills that every student will need to succeed at their job, at life, and every single day for the rest of their lives.The interaction between students and the speaking opportunity helps people overcome the most common fear in the US, and practice life skills. Fin. MUN is a fun act. that livens ppls lives
aliens exist

I suppose that I should first clarify what I intended for this argument to be. I intended for the definition of 'aliens exist' to be that the likelihood of aliens existing is high enough that it can be reasonably accepted as fact. But, I would also agree that I did not specify that in the title, nor did I in the first argument, and that those two together would in fact suggest the opposite, the I intended on proving undeniably that aliens exist. So I forfeit the argument officially. note: the round 3 forfeit was accidental, I didn't have an opportunity to respond in time.
aliens exist

My opponents proposal is an interesting one. I will agree that there may be life on other planets.( notice my use of the word may) However I don't absolutely believe there exists aliens on other planets. We cannot assume conductive things based on inductive arguments. This is just simply faulty logic. My opponent made a statement witch he/she believes to be factual and absolute. My job is to prove that we cannot assume facts based upon probability or inductive arguments. Pro clearly states the their is no evidence to believe his assertion. How then can he make a claim to be fact if he doesn't have support to stand on. Let me demonstrate why we should not support this flaw in logic.Inductive argumentI believe the sun is hot because my friends have told me such. (because the person may trust his friends the person probably thinks what they are saying is true however they may be lieing or pranking him. Then the statement can be false because it is based on probability.)Conductive argumentI believe the sun is hot because my friends said such and I can feel the suns heat myself. ( the friends have said the sun is hot and the person has experienced this himself. He therefore can safely conclude that the sun is hot. This scenario is based on proven facts.)So as we can clearly see inductive arguments cannot be used to prove conductive things. Therefore my opponents case hold no water. Thus he cannot prove aliens exist. A con vote is a very logical response to this debate.
aliens exist

probability: The existence of life on earth is evidence that there is life on other planets, because there is no scientific basis in the idea that earth is unique. We live on a planet in an average solar system orbiting an average star, in an average spiral galaxy containing many such star systems, in a universe containing many such galaxies. therefore, due to vast size of the universe, it is more likely that life is prone to developing and earth is one amongst many life-bearing planets then the idea that earth is a unique life bearing planet in a universe that abhors life. evidence: I understand that we have no significant proof towards the existence of aliens, but this in itself should not disprove the existence of aliens. Man's area of detailed information does not go beyond our solar system. although we are able to view other stars and even planets, we have no way to prove that there is not alien life on a planet.
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

ASL and locked-in syndrome are very different. Hawking was able to prepare himself before the more severe symptoms of motor neurone disease kicked in. Tony had a stroke and was incapacitated immediately afterwards. He couldn't write a book on his own, he would constantly need someone there to write it for him, all of his independence, what it means to be a human was just taken away from him so violently, he had every single right to die. The family are now having to live with the fact that Tony starved himself to death whilst suffering from pneumonia and locked-in-syndrome. Imagine your mother, father, brother or sister doing that. Imagine what it must be like going to bed at night knowing that when you wake up they will have had 12 hours of loneliness on top of all that pain they endured through the night. It would be absolutely awful. You would much rather they were taken to a clinic and had a painless, dignified, gentle death. Isn't that so much nicer? Not even the Republicans would be stupid enough to legalise euthanasia of children because they have special needs. Euthanasia will be HEAVILY regulated, it works in Switzerland. And children under the age of 15 wouldn't be allowed to be euthanised, as in Switzerland. We're not allowing doctors and parents, husbands, wives, sons and daughters to just go an pull the plug on their rich relatives. We are giving people in pain, both physically and mentally, the chance to end their ordeal. If you award some people the right to die, you have to award it to everyone else, too. It isn't fair to say that families will euthanise rich grandparents to get their inheritance, what kind of people do you think we are? Usually, when they get married, men and women will choose when they want life support equipment to be turned off. Most people don't want to live through locked-in-syndrome, so will choose to die if that is an option. The system works in Switzerland, there is no reason why it can't work in the UK and (by the looks of how you spell 'legalise') in North America. Thank you very much for an enjoyable debate!
Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.

He has the potential hope for an advance in science. Stephen Hawking continues to learn new things to make his career successful, not everything he talks about he knew before he was diagnosed with ASL. Obviously Tony has the ability to learn, or to at least write a book. He could of began to take a more positive perspective on life instead of looking at his life cynically. There are those who sympathize with him who have turned it around. The family however, are knowingly taking him to the place where he WILL die. They have to live with that. Honestly, the tragedy of Tony is one of the more extreme cases. However, the legalization of Euthanasia is a LOT broader than that. If you were to have a baby, and then as it grows up, you learn it is a special needs child, and IF euthanasia were legal, then you would be able to kill that child so that it wouldn't have to "endure" such a life. They would have that choice taken from them, and special needs children are no less of people than we are. You have to understand that euthanasia gives the family members and doctors more power over the life of someone who hasn't the ability to choose. There is also no proper way to perform Euthanasia. Perhaps there may be a way to help only those with the most abnormally extreme cases in the future (such as Tony), since he was beginning to be in pain, but the legalization of Euthanasia as a whole is an absolutely horrible idea.