BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks

"Well, can one achieve the same benefits of alcohol without drinking? Of course, yes, but the benefits remain" Let's not forget that your claim is that the benefits outweigh the risks. You just stated that you can achieve the same benefits through other methods. Why put your health at risk if you can take healthier preventative measures? "Well, does drinking damage your liver in any way? in response to both of these quotes, I would compare cigarette smoking to drinking alcohol. There are benefits just as there are risks." You have to remember that drinking and smoking are choices. One can choose to do both, therefore one can chose to not take the risk of damaging their lung or liver. The same health benefits can be achieved through healthier alternatives. Through that reasoning, it is fair to conclude that smoking is a greater risk than a healthier method at achieving the same health benefit. Remember, the topic is "Benefits of smoking actually outweigh the Risks". If you wanted your argument to be more affective, you should debate on the topic of "Despite some health risks, smoking also has some medical benefits". However that is not the topic of the debate. As for the statistics you provided "1 out of 6 chance of heart disease", it's not relevant to the debate. Smoking is a choice! People can completely avoid the risks associated with smoking by choosing not to smoke. It's a risk that could be controlled. Strokes, accidents, heart disease, and accidental poisoning can be mitigated, but not fully prevented. A person can fully avoid the risks associated with smoking by choosing not to do it. There is physical evidence that can be observed through an Autopsy that can prove that smoke damages a human lung. That damage along with other risks associated with smoking is a risk that can be avoided all together. My opponent did a great job identifying the few medical benefits of smoking, but that is not what we are debating over. The same health benefits that are seen in smoking can also be achieved through healthier means. In conclusion, smoking still poses a risk. If there were no other alternative health benefits, your argument would have been quite convincing. However, that is not the case. Thanks for the debate! I would gladly debate you again,
The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks

You claim that smoking has it's benefits, but can one achieve those same medical benefits without smoking? Does smoking damage your lungs in any way? Now, based on the answers of those two questions, is it really reasonable to assume that the benefits outweigh the risk knowing that there are healthier alternatives to smoking? I have no issue with your math, and .7 percent does sound like a low number until it is views differently. If you group about 130 people into a room, one of them will die from a smoke related illness. That is extremely high! You might as well take your chances in a war zone. The chances of dying in Vietnam was .5% (1 in 185). You made the claim that some of the oldest people were chain smokers. Yes, sometimes you will have people who will live very long. But, if you look at the average life expectancy, which is a more accurate representation, smokers have shorter lives. Do you deny that?
The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks

Premise of the Debate: "The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks." It appears my opponent is taking a stance on the medical benefits of smoking. The CDC estimates over 1,000 people die every day as a DIRECT cause of tobacco smoke. Why do cigarette companies post warning label on their products? I will not deny that tobacco has a medicinal history. Fortunately, it has a history, and it is not a common practice today. Medical practice has evolved over the years with the advancements in technology and the study of medicine. I am actually not surprised that at some point in history, tobacco was used as a form of treatment. As for the treatment of asthma, modern medicine provides a much better alternative than smoking. "I would like to challenge my opponent to prove that tobacco has had absolutely no medical history" You don't need to challenge me on this because it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You made the claim that the benefits of smoking outweigh the risks. Are you making the claim that if people adopted smoking, more lives would be saved in the area of medical treatment? As of 2012, 42 million people in the United States smoke, and over 300,000 died of a tobacco related illness. There was approximately 3,500 deaths caused by asthma in 2012. The rise of cancer has nothing to do with tobacco smoke, and I would like to see how smoking tobacco is a better alternative to preventing cancer than eating healthy foods, and taking care of your body through natural means. "Action on Smoking and Health? tells us that a 30-year-old smoker can expect to live about 35 more years, whereas a 30-year-old nonsmoker can expect to live 53 more years. The children of a parent or parents who smoke may be at risk from the genetic damage done to the parent before conception (because of their previous smoking), the direct effects to them in the womb, and the passive smoke they are exposed to after they are born. "http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...; The differences in life expectancy in Japan differs from that of the United States, but Japanese people do not live longer because they smoke more. Their diets are completely different, have you noticed the differences in the physical appearance of the average Japanese person? Almost 1/3rd of the U.S. is overweight which is higher than that of any other country in the world. To give tobacco credit for longer life expectancy is simply outrageous. As you mentioned, tobacco smoke carries some medical benefits. However, there are alternate methods to achieving the exact same medical benefits. Eating healthier and having an active lifestyle are some examples of this. As for some deductive reasoning, if the benefits of smoking tobacco actually outweighed the risk, why don't more doctors advertise this concept? You brought up the history of tobacco and medicine so here are some statistics. Average Life Expectancy: Mid 1700's: 40 years old. Today the average life expectancy is over 70 years old. If tobacco was used to treat diseases in the past, it did not do a good job.
The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks

Con Statement: Smoking has the ability to harm nearly every organ in your body. Further, smoking can cause many diseases and reduces the general health of an individual. Nearly 16 Million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking. Currently, tobacco use causes over 5 million deaths per year globally. The notion that smoking tobacco lowers a smoker's risk of Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease is completely trumped by the fact that the risks of those diseases could be reduced by healthier methods. Smoking is not really all that popular, if it was, why do tobacco companies lace the cigarettes with nicotine? People do not smoke cigarettes for medical reasons, if they do, I would find it to be very rare. People are addicted to cigarettes, and they have trouble quitting. Tobacco companies target youth and hope they can create an addiction at an early age. Have you seen the lungs of a smoker? Can you really tell me that inhaling smoke is in any way healthy for an individual? The benefits of smoking do not outweigh the risk. Are you saying that I can be a healthier person if I start smoking, please explain. Every medical benefit you will bring forth through tobacco smoke could be attained by a healthier method.
An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

The only clarification which I seek is that time horizons will not be used as a determinant of whether an open borders immigration policy is a net beneficiary or a net detriment to the economy. PRO should not place unreasonably short time-parameters on when the effects could be measured to prove his point, and CON similarly should not place unreasonably long time-parameters before which the benefits would accrue. The debate should assume that effects on the economy are assessed once migration levels have stabilized to a "steady state", whereby the number of immigrants expected in a given year can reasonably be expected to be the same as the previous year plus a by-now predictable growth factor. I think a reasonable period for this would be approximately 5-15 years, so for the sake of simplicity, let"s assume we"re talking about the state of the economy 10 years after an open borders policy is instituted. Fair enough?
An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

Debate rules: 1. No semantics. 2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only. 3. No new arguments in the last round. 4. Text and graph/chart-only debate. Only three graphs/charts allowed per round. 5. All source material must be easily accessible Any source of disagreement on the resolution, rules and definitions can be clarified in the comment sections or elsewhere before my opponent accepts this debate. The burden of proof is equal. Con must show that an open border policy would either have no effect or a positive effect on the economy, while I must show that an open border policy would have a negative effect. Definition: Graph/chart - This should be straightforward. This does not include pictures with a bunch of text in order to bypass the character limit. For example in the debate below, CON's use of pictures in round 4 would break the definition of graph/chart. . http://www.debate.org... Open Border policy - A policy in which anyone from any nation can migrate to another nation for the purpose of work or other reasons. For the purpose of this debate, we will be referencing as scenario in which the US adopts an open-border policy. Negatively effect the economy- This can be based on a variety of economic metrics. This includes gini coefficient (measure of economic inequality), GDP (gross domestic production), GDP per capita (gross domestic product per person) and unemployment. "The economy" also refers to the nation (in this case the US) that adopts an open borders policy.
Evolution cannot be proven scientifically

(The first video is used to attack my opponent's second contention, while the second is used to build my own. Please excuse the music :) CONTENTION 1-Age of Earth My opponent says that evolution would need A LOT of time to occur. This is supposedly met by the "Age of Earth." He claims we can get accurate numbers on how old the Earth is via radiometric dating. THIS METHOD IS FAULTY. Several tests have been done on lava flows of known dates. These year-old samples have been dated at three and a half million years old! This method relies on the decay of minerals, or their half-lives. There are two main problems with this. One, the decay rate is not constant. Two, the original amount of the mineral is IMPOSSIBLE to know. Sure, they assume that it decays at a constant rate, but they don even know how much there was to begin with! Radiometric dating is faulty, and cannot be used to date the Earth. Contention 1 falls. http://hubcap.clemson.edu...: http://www.cs.unc.edu... methods in general are inaccurate CONTENTION 2- Speciation and Natural Selection My opponent brings up speciation via natural selection. While this can explain the accumulation of various traits, it cannot explain how traits with no solitary advantage can be selected, and then assembled into new, functioning systems. This is impossible. His contention 2 falls. http://www.youtube.com... CONTENTION 3-Homology Yes, it is true, there are in fact other animals with similar bones to us. "Oh my gosh!" He says this can be used to further evolution. While there are similar bone characteristics, evolution can still not be proven due to its other faults. I will concede homology. Since I am arguing that evolution is not scientifically provable, I need only show why evolution cannot be proven to win. I will, however, offer up the fact that life is so complex, that it could not have evolved. So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.youtube.com... For these reasons, I stand in absolute affirmation of the resolution. Thank you.
"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

What proof do you have about me slandering English people. We're talking about Longshanks. And that debate with Cromwell was about the blame between Cromwell and the Royalists nothing to do with English people. Unless you can provide proof that I've slandered the English, I'll hold you personally responsible for slander. I suggest you concede. Anyhow let's see the personal stuff of William Wallace that is true. "The first act definitely known to have been carried out by Wallace was his assassination of William de Heselrig, the English High Sheriff of Lanark" (those this ring any similarities to the movie). Now most likely, he didn't do it because his girl was killed, but we don't know for sure. (Battle of Falkirk, again nothing to do with either country) "John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey's professional army of 3,000 cavalry and 8,000 to 10,000 infantry met disaster as they crossed over to the north side of the river. The narrowness of the bridge prevented many soldiers from crossing together (possibly as few as three men abreast), so while the English soldiers crossed, the Scots held back until half of them had passed and then killed the English as quickly as they could cross. The infantry were sent on first, followed by heavy cavalry. But the Scots' schiltron formations forced the infantry back into the advancing cavalry. A pivotal charge, led by one of Wallace's captains, caused some of the English soldiers to retreat as others pushed forward, and under the overwhelming weight, the bridge collapsed and many English soldiers drowned. Thus the Scots won a significant victory which boosted the confidence of their army. Hugh Cressingham, Edward's treasurer in Scotland, died in the fighting and it is reputed that his body was subsequently flayed and the skin cut into small pieces as tokens of the victory. " Almost all of this happened in the movie. "They plundered Lothian and regained some castles, but failed to bring William Wallace to combat; the Scots shadowed the English army, intending to avoid battle until shortages of supplies and money forced Edward to withdraw, at which point the Scots would harass his retreat. The English quartermasters' failure to prepare for the expedition left morale and food supplies low, and a resulting riot within EDWARD'S OWN ARMY [meaning he was there] had to be put down by his cavalry. In July, while planning a return to Edinburgh for supplies, Edward received intelligence that the Scots were encamped nearby at Falkirk, and he moved quickly to engage them in the pitched battle he had long hoped for. " All of this is fact.
"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

This is not to say that "Braveheart" was based on a true story. Never said that. But historically a lot of it is accurate. The Battle of Stirling Bridge did indeed happen (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It wasn't about Longshanks, but that England was indeed brutal with the Scots. The opposition argument that some would have stated, was that Normans were to blame, not the English, but the English were the ones who behind the invasion, since Longshanks was the first Anglo-Saxon king after the Normans. Battle of Falkirk did indeed happen too (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Now mind you, Robert the Bruce wasn't the traitor as portrayed in the film. That part of the movie was indeed wrong, but the point is that "Braveheart" is true historical fiction, whether Anglo-Saxons like it or not. Even the execution of "Braveheart" was true (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Whether it happened exactly the way that it happened in movie or not, historians agree that a Scottish noble handed Wallace over to the English lords and he was tried for treason in front of an audience. The more graphic parts of his execution were tamed down in the movie but England was brutal with Scotland, make no mistake of it. And I gave you links to show the proof. Con it's your turn, friend.
"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

OK, my argument is this. Edward invaded Scotland out of pure greed. Now the prima nocta most likely didn't happen. Rape, unfortunately, did. He was power hungry womanizer. He was called Hammer of the Scots for that reason. Now, whether Longshanks really said, "the trouble with Scotland is that it's full of Scots," can be debate, but given England's history and role in creating racism, it's likely. Now, there are claims from those who oppose this view that it wasn't England, but the French who were behind this, given that England had been invaded by the Normans, however, Longshanks is said to be the first Anglo-Saxon after the Norman era, and Longshanks is a Viking name, not a Norman one. He was the first true Englishman since the last Anglo-Saxon king. The English have a history of racism towards the Scots, both in England and the USA.
The "Wii U" Console is OVERLOOKED

I know what your trying to explain, but let me explain also. I am saying that people are overlooking the "Wii U" and here are some reasons why it's good. I'm not saying is that people should overlook the Wii U. I should be penalized for NOT creating arguable, and clear topic.Here are some facts showing why the Wii U is overlooked. https://www.statista.com...https://www.statista.com...http://www.cubed3.com...
The "Wii U" Console is OVERLOOKED

Okay, nice to meet you, and thanks for accepting. I will list the uniquity and differences of the Wii U which make it a better console. I will post each one in different topics by using numbers. 1. The Wii U doesn't require a T.V. The Wii U actually has a "Wii U" gamepad which has a touch screen already implemented on the controller. This control also comes with a screen cover, and great quality graphics. This means is that you can be in a room where its quiet, that doesn't have a T.V. 2. The Wii U has a humongous expansion of games. It has your "Mario Kart 8" to your modern First Person Shooter like the franchise of "Call of Duty Black Ops." Most people don't actually realise this. 3. While your most popular consoles "Play Station 4" and "Xbox 1" there cost to access online can be expensive and spend enormous amount of money. While the Wii U is FREE! No charge, and ready to go. 4. The Wii U is around 299$ Mario Kart 8 Bundle, but if you with drawl the money spent with Mario Kart 8, you get 235 dollars, with the Wii U gamepad, all the cords, and the console it self, and more. 5. The Wii U also was the first console to have backwards compatibility, and it doesn't stop here! You can use your old Wii controllers, games, motion detector, and the sensor. Saving you a lot of money. 6. The "Nintendo I.D." (The ability to play online) can connect the same account on BOTH "Wii U" and "3DS". If there is a game on both "Wii U" and "3DS" and you own one game on that system, you can have it on the other system as well, and not spend the extra money. Example: "Mario Kart 8" is on both systems. So if you connect your Nintendo I.D. on both systems, and own "Mario Kart 8" on one, it will also be transferred to your 3DS, so you do not need to buy "Mario Kart 8" on both systems, saving you Sixty Four dollars. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sorry, I didn't have a lot of time, wrapping up on some subjects. I also Didn't add pictures. Here are some of my sources: Prices: gamestop.com - - - - - - - - - - -
The "Wii U" Console is OVERLOOKED

.. HERE ARE SOME OF THE RULES: _________________________________ 1. No trolling nor spamming 2. You can still recover from a forfeited round. 3. Cannot start your debate on round one, ROUND ONE is only acceptance. (That's why it has four rounds. ) 4. Copy and Pasting, Plagiarism, is not tolerated. If using a quote, quote it, and have the link at the end of your argument. 5. Have fun :)
Debater's Choice

Rules: 1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules: 2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind. 3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i.e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments. 4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here: http://www.debate.org......) 5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that. 6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications. 7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible.