BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Decrease Military Funding to Israel

So, as per the instigator's rules, this round shall just be my constructive case and then the next round shall be for refuting each other's arguments. Using my opponent's format, I shall make my case. INTERPRETATION: The USFG should not pass legislation or give executive orders "significantly" decreasing military funding to Israel. As the opposition, it is not my burden to propose a plan/counter-plan, rather just prove that my opponent's proposition should not be adopted. Contention 1: UN and Int'l Law. A. The League of Nations Mandate, the UN Partition Plan, and Israel's 1949 admission into the UN reaffirmed Israel the international right to exist as the Jewish homeland. B. UN Security Council Resolution 242 reads that Israel should relinquish land only if it is in the context of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." C. UN Resolution 242 requires that all states in the area recognize Israel's "right to live in peace with secure and recognized borders free from threats or acts of force." Summary: We, as loyal and powerful members of the UN, should do all we can to promote its ideals especially if they reflect our own. As they do, cutting 1/3rd of our military aid to Israel would not be doing so. Contention 2: Peace. The average Israeli has made clear that he/she primarily wants peace. Israelis are more than willing to compromise on a two-state solution as opposed to Israel's enemies who solely want to see it wiped from the map. The US should support the Israelis in their fight for dominance, therefore their fight for peace and compromise. Contention 3: Self-defense. Why do anti-Israel individuals promote Muslims' right to self-defense but not Jews? Not only should Israelis have the right to defend themselves but, as our closest and most stable ally in the region, we should be supporting and aiding them any way we can. Impacts: 1. Distance US from Israel; turn our backs on UN. 2. """; promote discord. 3. Prejudice in promotion of rights. Citations in comments.
Abortion should be legal

The "Unborn Victims Act" designates unborn children as human beings with a clear right to life. According to the The National Right to Life Organization, the "Unborn Victims Act" does not include abortion as a legally punishable act as a compromise, so it could become law. However, the law does legally recognize unborn children as legal human being with rights, so this sets a legal precedent for the legal right to life debates. If a fetus can, in fact, have a crime committed against it, and is seen as a legal human being, it gives credence to the argument that mothers shouldn't have the right to kill a child just because it hasn't been given birth to yet. The argument that women do not have to use birth control methods just because they don't like it is absurd and the argument that women may not feel comfortable using these methods, but are comfortable with getting an abortion may be even more absurd. A woman not only has the ability to use birth control methods if she can not support a child, she has a duty to use these birth control methods. There are many birth control methods which I listed which in no way shape or form affect hormones. The best way to stop a problem is prevention, and if prevention methods are used, abortion is unnecessary. Finally, the Hippocratic Oath is still a mandatory oath which doctors must take. The oath specifically prohibits the unnecessary harm of human beings. If a baby is not threatening the safety of a woman, the abortion is not necessary and many other approaches can be taken towards the child. Such as government financial support, other forms of support, and giving the child up for adoption is also an option.
Abortion should be legal

Actually, according to the website article "Key Facts on the Unborn Victims Act" by National writes of life states is "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if a "child in utero" is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child." Also, further into the article its states that this act does not apply to abortions, and thats its the women's choice if they have one or not. Some women do not like using alternatives to prevent children or don't feel comfortable using it/taking it. Like Birth Control for example it changes the women's hormones around and pumps hormones into their body to change the PH balance, either for the better or worse. In addition, The Hippocratic Oath dates way back and is a religious belief, it is not a law. It meant / means to other religious individuals that "doctors must reject any role in killing and be devoted to the arts of healing", from the article "Hippocratic Oath and abortion". Hippocratic Oath with its prohibition on killing, clearly conflicted with the new legal and ethical realities of medical practice. Medical schools chose to drop the Oath or administer a more ambiguous one that suited the new era. Also, some doctors may believe in this but not all are religious, plus if they cant perform the procedure maybe that job isnt for them. Women dont freely choose to have an abortion their is always a reason why they are choosing to take this hard decision. For many cases, that cant afford to take care of the child / themselves on their own or not ready for one etc.
Abortion should be legal

Abortion should be illegal (except for cases when a mothers life is greatly threatened) for these reasons which I will discuss in greater deal later; there are many ways births can be prevented , second the unborn babies are protected under the law, and it is against the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. There are many ways that are not an abortion that can be used before to prevent a birth. The Planned Parenthood website lists 20 different forms of birth control, many of which come at no charge. These different forms of birth control when used in tandem can reduce the risk of a birth to practically zero. These forms of birth control include but are not limited too: Abstinence Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon) Birth Control Patch Birth Control Pills Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera) Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge) Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing) cervical Cap (FemCap) Condom Diaphragm Female Condom Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs) IUD Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Spermicide Withdrawal (Pull Out Method) This slue of methods are all viable methods of preventing a birth. Unborn babies are in fact currently protected by the law. There is a current federal law called "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of it recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". This means legally a crime can be committed against a baby, such as murder. Currently as it stands the law sees unborn children as human and all humans have the right to life. No one has a right to rob someone of the right to life, not a mother, not a father, no one. Finally doctors who perform an abortion are in violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." is a line from the modern Hippocratic Oath. Killing a baby when there are other alternatives is in direct violation of the statement against over treatment. As long as any other option exists a doctor should not carry out an abortion, because the thing a doctor must hold most sacred, a human life, is at stake.
Abortion should be legal

Abortion should be legal to women because women have the right to do what they want with their bodies. As we progress in society it becomes more and more important for woman to take initiative amd decide for what they think will have the most postive impact in their life. If having the opportunity to decide whether abortion is most suitable is important for women today. According to Anne who wrote the article "what if abortion were illegal?" Says that of they were to make it illegal ot would cause a lot of problems. It could possibly have women try to do "home remedies" that can hurt themselves. Also, if abortion was illegal where they lived, some women may travel to far places where it legal just to get it done because they really desperate to have the procedure. So basically some women will still go out of there way just to have this done, because that's what they want for themselves for many reasons.
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

I'm aware of that people cant function as well while high, and I never claimed it either. What I said was, if they can make their lives go around while doing drugs, then why stop them? If they cant however, then I think that they should be offered help. I'm also aware of the harm a drug can do to a man. But that is something that he or she should have to be aware of while buying and taking the drug.You said "the reason 1 in 3 adults are not dead or otherwise in a bad way is because they quit." see? most of them can make that decision themselves. As stated before, anyone that cant make that decision themselves should be offered help. But now you are making the same argument as before, you admit that in most cases they quit themselves. So you are taking a small exceptional case, and use that as an argument for making all cases illegal.You said "these people who hear about how drugs are the "high of a lifetime". Don't you think that people are already hearing this? The sellers will use the same methods to trick people into buying drugs no matter if it is legal or not. But the problem is, if it is illegal, regular people wont notice the lies that the sellers use, because they are at the black market when it is illegal."As for the law being an obstacle, it certainly makes it harder to go get drugs". Well that's the problem I explained in my last argument. If drugs are harder to get, the price goes up, if the price goes up, the demand for a new, less expensive and more powerful drug will start growing, this effect will boost the development of drugs, and it is the very reason for so called "Internet drugs"."Drug dealers are people who exploit others for gain" This is only the case if it is illegal. If it is legal however, we can regulate the market in such a way that the buyer has to understand the scientific risks of doing drugs in order to buy them. By then, is it really an exploitation if the buyer is aware of the dangers, is aware of the risks, but still decide that the positives outweighs the negatives for him."it was also because cocaine is a stronger high than cannabis" This just proves my last argument, a high drug price leads to new, cheap and potentially more dangerous drugs.I'm also aware of that only some people would seek help for their addiction, but if someone put himself there, by knowing the risk of an addiction, then it would be his own fault, and he would still be in the same position if it were illegal.I know I said that I would not bring up the: Its their own choice argument, but yet here it comesMy question for you is: If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "ruin their lives" with addiction, "depression", schizophrenia, why are the same people, through voting, qualified to make good decisions with regards to, war, economics, abortion, the death penalty, international trade, schools, immigration, liberties… and yes ironically, if people should be allowed to do drugs or not?
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Hello again, You claim people can function just fine on drugs? Under the influence of them? People lose control under drugs. It has been proven in studies that drug use leads to depression, which causes higher vulnerability to suicide and self harm. Drugs also cause schizophrenia, and cause irrational behaviour in order to get drugs. People have wasted their entire savings purely to get another high. 1 in 3 adults have done drugs, that is correct; but the reason 1 in 3 adults are not dead or otherwise in a bad way is because they quit. "Drugs" are also a broad term, as I have stated. Of course, being poor and depressed is a problem. And of course, if they can"t find drugs, they"re going to find another form of escapism. But drugs are the elephant in the room and the most obvious path for them to take. If drugs are legalised, these people who hear about how drugs are the "high of a lifetime" or an "escape from reality" will turn to them, and become addicted. Few would intentionally go out and do drugs if they were legalised. However, few intentionally smoke or heavily drink despite it being legal to do so; yet they are peer pressured. Or, they are offered it at parties; since everyone around them is doing it, they figure, no harm done. As for the law being an obstacle, it certainly makes it harder to go get drugs. In order to obtain them you need connections, you need to know someone who can set you up. As for tobacco, you just need to walk to your local gas station. Drug dealers are people who exploit others for gain. While the main reason for cocaine being so popular may have been the high price of cannabis, it was also because cocaine is a stronger high than cannabis, and is more addictive. Thus, customers keep on coming back. Of people I have talked to that used to do drugs, they commonly dismissed cannabis as a "beginner"s drug". Some would seek to cure their addiction but the hardest step of overcoming addiction is admitting that it is indeed an addiction. Not every meth-addict will admit they have a problem, be it delusion as a cause of drug use or not. As for your question, yes, I would answer drug use is inherently detrimental. It is addictive, causes irrational behaviour, and destroys lives. People might find it as a release, but that doesn"t justify it; that would be hedonism.
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Your first point were to keep drugs away from people. I agree, I do not want people to do drugs, but i dont think that drugs have to be a bad thing. Most people can handle their life while doing drugs. About one in 3 adults do drugs in their lifetime. I would not think that you believe that 1 in 3 adults have ruined their lives. So that means that you are taking an exeptional case in order to make all cases illegal. I believe that the people who are suffering from an addiction should be offered help, and medical treatment.You said that poor and mostly depressed people would use drugs to get way from reality. I would agree on that, but you are missing the problem itself. The problem itself is not that they are doing drugs. The problem is that they are poor or depressed from the beginning, the drug is only a consequence from poverty and depression.People usually say: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!Well? how many reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would start using it just because it would be legal. Nobody think like this: oh I cant take care of myself, and I don't want to use drugs, so I need the governments laws to take care of me!Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs, you either want to do drugs, or you don't. Simple as that.The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been lower, cocaine would never have got as popular as it did. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so high? The answer to that question is that it were illegal. If marijuana would have been legal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were illegal, it got harder to sell, so the drug dealers could set a higher price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive drug also went up.So my point is, the more money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it gets for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason for so called Internet drugs today. If the price would be low, nobody would develop new drugs, because there is no demand for it.This is why the war on drugs is failing, people will still get drugs even if it is illegal. But if it were legal, some of them would actually seek help to cure their addiction. If its illegal, then instead of help, we put them in prisons, where there is a higher rate of drugs and criminality then there are out in the real world.I have a question for you. Does drugs use HAVE to be a bad thing? I know that I would never in my life use any drugs, but if some people can find their happiness in it, who am I to judge? “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

As I see you are a libertarian, I hope to at the very least offer you a different perspective on this topic. It may be worth mentioning I have known people that have taken drugs, dealt drugs, and been around them. Personally however, I admit I have never ran into them. So what is a drug? The word is a broad term. It could range from anything as trivial as caffeine, to something as detrimental as meth. However for the sake of this debate I will assume you mean detrimental drugs, as those are the ones kept illegal. Secondly, why do people take drugs? Well, typically, the way these addictions start off is due to people looking for escapism or a release, as they are dissatisfied with life. One they have taken these substances however, they easily become addicted, and find it hard to stop. Drug addiction is typically more widespread in poorer areas, thus it would be harder for the addicted individuals to find help to stop, or have people to reach out to. This leads onto my first point: keeping them illegal protects people from themselves. Now I do not believe in a nanny state; if someone"s stupid enough to leap off of a cliff, well, that"s natural selection; I don"t think we need signs telling people that it"s dangerous to jump off cliffs. But with drugs, it is often one mistake, and then a violent addiction is born out of it. Parents, teachers, officers of the law, they will all become a shadow of their former selves, as their life begins to revolve around one thing: getting high. Also, the addiction rate would, as you said, go up. But the people mostly at risk if they were to become legal would be adolescents. Teenagers are teenagers; we"re impulsive, and we like breaking rules and societal norms. So if drugs become legal, it won"t take much for teens to start doing them, thinking they"re the cool thing to do, or a way to rebel. Teenagers are already smoking and drinking underage, and while yes, they"re age restricted products, it"s much easier to get someone older to buy you a product than have anyone get a restricted, black market product. I think an omen for what would become is legal highs; they"re only an inch of the kick of a real drug, and yet they"re already ruining lives. You could make the argument that some drugs are near harmless; the elephant in the room, cannabis. And you know, I don"t think it should be in the same class as ketamine or codeine. However it"s not fully harmless; while it doesn"t have any health risks, it makes people lazy and unproductive, and is tied to gang culture/thug culture. Through that, it can easily become a gateway drug. I eagerly await your response.
Organized Political Lobbying does more harm than good

In the U.S. Organized Political Lbbying does more harm than good. Tag: Increased campaign spending is socially harmful. Cite: Department of Economics Evidence: Political action committees can spend $5000. Increased fund raising keeps politicians from legislative duties. A large contribution can shape the outcome of regulatory proceeding. Too much money is being spent on political lobbying. Abstract: The cost of political campaigns in the U.S. has risen substantially in recent years. For example, real spending on congressional election campaigns doubled between 1976 and 1992 (Steven D. Levitt [1995]). There are many reasons why increased campaign spending might be socially harmful. First, increased spending means increased fund-raising, which may keep politicians from their legislative duties.1 Second, a lobbyist who makes a large campaign contribution may have undue influence on electoral outcomes, on the shaping of legislation, or on the outcome of regulatory proceedings.2 Th
Evolution

As decided in the comments, these are the rules of the debate: 1. Source information 2. No religious or atheist websites 3. The Bible is not evidence 4. No new arguments in the 5th round 5. Burden of proof is shared I also recommend the following, but it has not been agreed upon: 1. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct. 2. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points. In the comments it was also decided that this debate would be about the age of the Earth. Con is arguing that it is 6000 years old, I am arguing that it is older. It was also decided that I should start my argument in this round, so here we go. There have been four different independent radiometric dating methods used to date rocks at the Grand Canyon to 3.7-3.8 billion years old. There have been rocks dated to around 3.4-3.6 billion years old in southern Africa, Western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov... We can also see the number of impact craters that we have on Earth. These are rare, asteroids large enough to leave these craters do not make it to Earth that often. There are around 184 confirmed impact craters on Earth. If the world is only 6000 years old then there would have been a period where asteroids were much more common than they are now. Another problem is the size of some of these craters. Some of them are so large that they would cause mass destruction on life. http://www.passc.net... Sorry that I do not have more right now, but I will bring more into this debate later.
Evolution

We agreed that all information must be sourced. Why should the half-life have changed over the years? You provide no sources to how they could have changed or why they should be thought to have changed. The trees argument needs to be sourced, I also left a link that showed there are ways that that could happen, I did not have to mention every single way though. You did not provide any source for the Earth's rotation speed slowing, but I will address it anyways. The Earth's rotation speed is decreasing that it gains 1.4 milliseconds about every 100 years. That is .0014 seconds every 100 years. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old by current estimates. That means that the Earth's fastest day would have been 17.5 hours longer. A day of 41.5 hours is no problem for an old Earth. . http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... In order for you to say "God could have made it that way" you need to provide sources that God actually did it. Con provided no sources for his previous round, even though we agreed to use sources for all claims. There is only one more round where we can provide new evidence.