BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

I am not going to argue your personal opinion because we are all entitled to freedom of beliefs, but I will answer your last question by saying that it is "unacceptable" because of the psychological and physical health complication associated with marijuana usage.But WHY is it unacceptable to damage yourself? Don't people have the right to damage their own bodies?However, I said that the laws would need to be altered to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana, and you agreed.Fair enough, but its the governments JOB to alter laws. I am not sure I understand the last point you brought up. People do not serve 10+ year prison sentences for marijuana usage and/or possession, nor will they ever be subjected to. OK., you are right. However, we would save so much money! If drugs are legal, we can tax drugs, and the money will pay for more important things.This site shows that we could save BILLIONS. http://norml.org...
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

To address your first point, you stated an opinion that is not based on any facts other than your own beliefs. To you it may be acceptable to use a Class 1 Controlled Substance recreationally, and that is fine. However, I cannot sufficiently argue this point to do the lack of viable support. I am not going to argue your personal opinion because we are all entitled to freedom of beliefs, but I will answer your last question by saying that it is "unacceptable" because of the psychological and physical health complication associated with marijuana usage. You say that committing crime under the influence of marijuana should be treated the same was as cases involving alcohol. Yes, I agree with that statement if marijuana were legal. However, I said that the laws would need to be altered to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana, and you agreed. In order to 'treat marijuana the same way' as alcohol, you have to change and create new laws because there are no laws currently dealing with legalized marijuana and being under the influence while committing a crime (driving or otherwise). I am not sure I understand the last point you brought up. People do not serve 10+ year prison sentences for marijuana usage and/or possession, nor will they ever be subjected to. Individuals serving that lengthy of a sentence committed felonies in conjunction with marijuana usage, such as drug trafficking and violent crime/robbery. Possession of marijuana with no other criminal history or charges usually results in a misdemeanor charge. For example, in Virginia, a first offender possessing one half ounce or less of marijuana is subject to 30 days maximum incarceration or a maximum fine of $500. The only crimes that result in a possible prison sentence longer than 10 years are: possessing 5lbs of marijuana (5-30 years), more than 100kg (20 years- life), selling to a minor who is at least 3 years younger (2-50 years), manufacturing marijuana (5-30 years), transporting more than 5 lbs. into the state (5-40 years), manufacturing/distributing/selling/giving/possessing hashish oil with intent (5-40 years), and bringing more than 1 oz. of hashish oil into the state (5-40 years) {1}. Also, the fines for these crimes can serve as an alternative to any incarceration/reduced sentence. The fines range from $1000 to $1,000,000 depending on the crime and whether or not it was a repeat offense. {1} http://norml.org...
Guns should be banned

You are right "Guns will never be banned", but the point of this debate is to see whether it should or should not. Not what is going to happen in reality. But in reality the right for citizens to bear arms has caused more negative effects than positive. Shootings and crime are a common thing and we have done nothing to change this. Guns are far too accessible in this country and far too dangerous. It provides power to the enemy. Using guns for self defence, just adds to the number of people with this weapon of death. We can't change the motives of people, but we can limit the casualties by removing the common weapon of choice, the gun, from the offender's hands. Thank you for the debate.
Guns should be banned

Thank you for the response. To start off, guns will never be banned. Americans love their guns too much. 1st Argument: For your argument: "Police carry guns to protect the innocent from the people WITH GUNS. If guns were banned, this wouldn't be a problem and STRICT laws would be implemented to get them off the streets." Yes there would be a problem, even you tried to ban every gun the U.S. (which you can't because its a violation of the second amendment) There would still be riots and out rages towards any public figure, and this might be congressman, senators, and just the government heads in general. And you said that there wouldn't be an outbreak because there is no guns to have an outbreak with, well thats wrong, people can have them smuggled in, or they can just use and object around their house to kill people. This is just a true fact. 2nd argument: "Guns are instruments of death and you may argue it is the person pulling the trigger, but this wouldn't be a problem if guns weren't here at all." Although you are partially correct with the above statement, you are still very much incorrect. It would be physically impossible to ban EVERY gun in America, and if the government tried to audit a civilians gun stash, or tried to take it, there would be complete chaos from the NRA. This organization is very powerful, and is not afraid to kick some butt to get their point across. This concludes my 2nd set of arguments. I am eager to hear my opponents set.
Guns should be banned

Police carry guns to protect the innocent from the people WITH GUNS. If guns were banned, this wouldn't be a problem and STRICT laws would be implemented to get them off the streets. Anyone who would own a gun in this time, the time they are banned, it would be clear to the police that the gun is owned and bought illegally and this person would be put to justice. So no one would want to even have a gun during this time! A total outbreak? A total outbreak with what? They have no guns to stir up any more trouble. Guns are instruments of death and you may argue it is the person pulling the trigger, but this wouldn't be a problem if guns weren't here at all.
Guns should be banned

For the above argument, you say that guns cannot save lives, or should not be in the same sentence? Well that is purely bullcrap, everyday police carry guns to protect the innocent, and every day soldiers are protecting the very thing we take for granted. Freedom. Although you are correct in the statement "If the attacker never had a gun to begin with! " There should be stricter laws in how to get the weapons, but even if we did that people could just buy weapons off the street. So banning guns would be futile. Argument #2: "If ALL guns in america were banned today, we would not see a decrease in gun violence, we would see no gun violence if any. " If all guns in America were banned, there would be a total outbreak!
Science is a boon rather than a boom for the human race.

I am sorry that you have forfeited a round. Here is my final argument.Previously,I have argued that developing science is a boon.Now,I am going to argue that science is not a boom.You might argue that science is a threat to the environment and that humans could not survive without the environment.I certainly do not think so.My opinion is that it is the humans rather than science that destroys the environment.You might argue that science has paved the way for the humans to find ways to destroy the environment.I certainly cannot agree to that either because science has found many ways for saving the environment and it is the humans who do not implement these methods. Now,I shall conclude my words.It is not science responsible for the destruction of mankind.It is the people themselves.Science has only made life better.
Science is a boon rather than a boom for the human race.

I am sorry.I cannot agree with this opinion. The following is my instigation.Your first argument stated that knowledge is useful only useful if it can successfully be communicated to and understood by another.I cannot agree to this argument because the discoveries made by great people can be studied at schools.This knowledge may also be obtained by means of books,television,newspapers etc.One of your other arguments stated that the knowledge gleaned should be able to be utilized by the person or some other person to create something that is useful for others.I certainly cannot agree to this statement either.One example is as follows.Newton invented a formula which stated that force is the product of mass and acceleration.this formula has been used as the base of many other formulas.Your third argument stated that it takes further action until it can be considered useful.This argument is irrelevant because we all know that there should be a present for the past and there is always a present for the past.The term 'present' is what you referred to as 'further action'.
Science is a boon rather than a boom for the human race.

Hello, friend. I'm not sure it's within me to challenge the idea that the study of our universe is beneficial for humankind so I will approach this conversation from a slightly different angle. If you find it doesn't suit your purpose or you feel I'm missing the point in some way I apologize. The following will be my contention. Scientific study and any knowledge gleaned thereby is only beneficial to the one studying until that knowledge is either successfully communicated to and understood by another or used by the one to create something which can be used by others. I simply mean that after study and knowledge have been conducted and obtained it takes further action before it becomes beneficial to the rest of us.
Science is a boon rather than a boom for the human race.

Science has made a lot of our lives better, faster and easier. It is unimaginable to live without the developments made in the fields of science. With the developments in science, most of the phenomenon"s that are happening can be understood. Today, there is only a little that is unknown to mankind. Today there is only a little that man is unable to do. All this is possible only due to one thing-development in science.
Women in Combat Arms

** Closed Debate - comment if you wish to accept ** Full Resolution: Women should be allowed into combat arms if they meet all standards. Definitions: Combat Arms: All branches of the US Military previously closed to females, including Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces. Standards: All performance standards currently set for combat arms jobs, including physical fitness scores, body composition, etc. .. **Full disclosure, I am very familiar with the military and its gender integration policies, so please don't accept unless you're prepared to offer a strong (yet civil) argument. Please respond with a comment explaining why I should pick you.
Women in Combat Arms

Thanks for accepting, hoping for a good debate. == Argument == 1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. The previous policy of gender exclusion was made based on this premise. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involves completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify a man for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job. 2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have proven courageous and competent under fire. 3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success on the basis of equal standards, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com... [2] http://www.homeofheroes.com... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Love after marriage is much better than love before marriage

What I think is that love after marriage is a better option because out of 100% ,80% "love marriages" failed to keep their relationship smooth. As far as "love after marriage" is concerned,its mostly beneficial because partner expect less and get more where as in love marriages people expect more and get less because of their sky reaching expectations......U.S is having highest divorce ratings....and sadly speaking U.S have majority people having love marriages... http://www.pagalguy.com... http://thadisan.blogspot.com... visit the site to have a better explanation
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

If guns are made illegal, Criminals will use illegal guns or knives, And nobody will have anything to protect against it. Also, Guns save far more lives than take them. There were at most 10, 000 gun homicides per year, But over 2. 5 million Defensive Gun uses per year. Gun bans have proven not to effective. In U. K. , After they banned guns, The homicide rate spiked up and eventually subsided to its pre-ban level, Indicating that gun bans do not decrease homicide rates. Same is true in Australia, Jamaica, Ireland, Chicago, And Washington D. C. They are also necessary to protect against a tyrannical government. Concealed-carry should be legal in more places because conceal-carry holders commit 14% less crime than POLICE OFFICERS! That's how law-abiding they are. How can you explain all of these points? Good luck to my opponent rebutting in the next round.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Guns are not toys. I have already told you why we have them, But you failed to rebuttal to any of points, And are ignoring the points. They are to protect yourself in public, Home-defense, And to protect against a potential tyrannical government. I will ask you once again to rebuttal to my points, And failing to do so should result in a win for me. PLEASE REBUTTAL! : 1. Guns save far more lives than take them. There were at most 10, 000 gun homicides per year, But over 2. 5 million Defensive Gun uses per year. 2. They are also necessary to protect against a tyrannical government. 3. Concealed-carry should be legal in more places because conceal-carry holders commit 14% less crime than POLICE OFFICERS! That's how law-abiding they are.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

"If guns are legal, You will be handing out guns to maniacs" There is this thing called background checks. "We got plenty of examples of countries where public citizens don't have guns, And they don't have gun murder statistics anywhere near the us. " What I said is true. (https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/) I was not talking about gun murders. Of course other places will have lower gun murders. What I am talking about is the overall homicide rate, Not just gun murders. You didn't rebuttal to any of my other points(probably because you couldn't come back from them), But I will list them anyway so you can clearly see and rebut to them. 1. Guns save far more lives than take them. There were at most 10, 000 gun homicides per year, But over 2. 5 million Defensive Gun uses per year. 2. They are also necessary to protect against a tyrannical government. 3. Concealed-carry should be legal in more places because conceal-carry holders commit 14% less crime than POLICE OFFICERS! That's how law-abiding they are.
Abortion is nearly always wrong.

1.) The beginning of life A fetus won't even being to resemble a human being for around 8 weeks after conception. And a fetus will not be able to form any sort of memories or feel anything for 20 weeks after conception. Life does not begin at contraception, simply the process for creating life starts then. 2.) MURDER Yes murder is wrong, but this idea is completely over simplifying the topic of abortion. There are so many different situations where abortion can be justified. What if the mother will die if she is forced to carry the baby to term? What about cases of rape? What if bringing the babe into the world would place it in an unstable home due to a lack of income from the parents (teen pregnancy). Abortion is something that needs to be taken on a case to case basis, there are cases that it is acceptable. And in the end it comes up to the choice of the mother. Another reason that abortion should be up to the mother is simple. It is their choice. It is their body and you have no right to tell them what to do with it. whether they have an abortion or not doesn't impact you at all. So it should be their choice. Hopefully in this response I have shown you how people can justify abortion. And why there are many time periods and situations in which abortion is acceptable and the choice of the mother. I brought up CHOICE a lot in this debate on purpose. That reason is the fact that it is a point that can't be refuted. In the end it is a women's body and you can't tell them what to do. I believe that in a certain time period after conception, it is the choice of the mother to have an abortion.
Abortion is nearly always wrong.

I've come to this format to seek what people think about abortion. Abortion is one issue where I truly don't understand a litany of arguments and so part of this is me arguing to understand them better. I'll lay out my arguments and we can go through the rounds from there, no too strict of a structure is necessary. I think this debate comes down to two statements. 1. Conception is the beginning of life. Scientifically speaking, it is no doubt that conception is the point at which life begins. This is simply a proven and indisputable fact. But even if, lets say, it was not. Let's say that, instead, we in fact did not know where life began. I would still argue that its best to assume conception is where life begins. Any other point would be arbitrary and cause many ethically questionable situations (some examples: 1) heartbeat - are adults that rely on pacemakers not lives? 2) brain activity - are adults that are brain-dead not lives? 3) 'consciousness' - loose term, and what about individuals in comas?) 2. Murder is the purposeful, premeditated killing of an innocent life or a life that poses an immediate harm to another. Murder is ALWAYS wrong. At some point, we have to make certain ethical assertions. I think this is a logical understanding of murder. Another important point is that murder is unjustifiable, i.e. it is always wrong. That's it. That's the crux of my argument. I don't understand how people can justify abortion in any context if these two statements are true. I also don't know what the alternative to either of these statements is. This provides a clear image of what I am PRO-ing: Abortion is wrong in the vast majority of contexts. The only context in which is is acceptable is one where delivery would risk lethal harm.
Parents should not purchase war toys for their children.

I am going to start by saying that the Fortnite links you added are completely unnecessary and add nothing to the debate. They do not support your argument, nor do they have any relevance to the topic being discussed. I would also like to clarify that the reason I am arguing pro is not because I believe war toys cause violence, it is because I don't think parents should buy toys for their children. Instead, children should work for their own money by doing chores and get gifted money on their birthday and during Christmas. However, if children do their chores too slow or don't complete the chores, they will not be paid. What the child buys with the money should be their decision. The goal of the aforementioned system would be to teach children financial responsibility and the value of hard work so they can be more successful in the future. A study published by the University Of Minnesota (link below) proves chores to be beneficial for helping children succeed, therefore children getting war toys from chores is better than parents purchasing toys for them. Link to study: http://ghk.h-cdn.co...
Connect Four

Result Connect Four Debate Round 2 |___|___|_x_|___|___|___|___| |___|___|_o_|_o_|___|___|___| |___|_O_|_o_|_o_|___|___|___| |___|_x_|_O_|_x_|___|___|___| |___|_x_|_x_|_O_|_x_|___|___| |_o_|_x_|_x_|_x_|_O_|___|___| Winner: Nails Current score: 2 - Nails 0 - Koopin
Connect Four

Nails has won round 1. |___|_o_|_x_|_x_|_o_|___|___| |___|_x_|_o_|_o_|_x_|___|___| |___|_o_|_x_|_o_|_x_|___|_o_| |___|_o_|_o_|_X_|_X_|_X_|_X_| |___|_x_|_x_|_x_|_o_|_x_|_o_| |___|_o_|_o_|_x_|_o_|_x_|_o_|