BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
UK government should legalize weed

i would first like to apologies for missing round two, i didn't realize that i even had an opponent yet. you talked about how unwise it would be to waste space in the U.K. to grow marijuana, however what you haven't thought about is the possibility of importing it from other country, and i live in a small country city where the use of marijuana i very common, so i think we can move on from this. you went on to talk about my use of the term "gateway drug" i was using this to refer to the common belief that by going through a dealer you are more likely to progress to "hard drugs" due to the easy availability. you have also talked about an increased risk of cancer, this however is still to be conclusively proven. and as for second hand smoke, it has been proven that marijuana does less damage to the lungs then egrets. and obviously much like alcohol the government would create a limit on the amount that you could use before driveling, the government may be incompetent, but there not idiots. Amsterdam isn't the only place that have legalized marijuana, the other places have had a similar effect, and i only used Amsterdam as a comparison because it is the best know of these places. the study wasn't made up, i didn't read it online and don't know where to find it but it is real, i find the fact that you think that i would make it up to be very insulting, and i never said that more people where using it, just that people where more open about there use of it, and if you are against it then why would you put about it putting people off, isn't that what you want. look, I'm just going to summarise what I'm saying, it would add to the British economy, not just through people living here, but from tourism (allot of the marijuana use in places like Amsterdam is from tourists), it would put an end to anyone having to go to back street dealers who would try to convince them to buy other products swell, and once it is legalized it would loss the rebellious, bad boy image that is has gained over the years, meaning that less people would use it, but the government would still be making money of off what is being sold, swell as saving money that is wasted on catching, processing, and punishing thouse who do use it.
UK government should legalize weed

To who ever may except this debate, I would like to inform you that this is my first, and that I personally haven't used the drug due to it's legal status, however I know many people who do, this is where I draw my knowledge of the subject. My first point is of course finance, as we all know the UK, along with the rest of the world, is still in a recession, the legalization of the drug would create a new, taxable market for the UK giving the economy a much needed boost, as well as saving the government money and the police forces time that is wasted in the prosecutions of users. Second is health, people often think of weed as a 'gateway drug' that will lead to the use of stronger substances such as cocaine, and heroin, however if it where legalized it is likely that either the cigarette or alcohol company's would dominate the market leading to licensed vender's or bars/cafï¿½s where the substances could be regulated (much like in Amsterdam) Thirdly, if you look at the drug rates for weed in Amsterdam, less people use it there then they do here (in comparison to size) and most of these are tourists, the thing is, is that weed is just a normal thing there, it's not considered cool, or rebellious; it is my belief that after a few years of high use due to excitement would soon drop creating a similar effect to that of Amsterdam. Four social effect, there is none. they did an experiment in London a few years ago where in a small part of the city people where told that they wouldn't be hassled by the police for it (to see hoe it would effect the community's) and the only thing that happened was people where a little more open about using it, that was all. that's all I can think of at this hour, so I would invite anyone to join, I would love to see what other arguments people can think of.
Working mothers cannot give decent upbringing to their children

Thank you for your respond, I agree with you in some points. But when mothers works fathers want to help them with house hold and in this phase children also want help to their moms. In this way, they can learn self awareness and discipline from early age. In addition, the children become co-operative from childhood. It is not possible for non working woman because she is expected to keep everything ready for her husband and children ("Children...", n.d.,para 5) Secondly, yes I agree with you their work can be stressful but when mothers come back after their job, for whole day they miss their children and can make them happy.When they see their children they become kind and they show for their children how they love them. When mothers who stay at home they do not miss their children and cannot show them those feelings which working mothers can show ("Children...", n.d.,para 7). You mentioned about why mothers should go somewhere when their family at home. Why not? Do you really think that they should stay at home all day and all night? I do not think so, because they need some time for themselves. Even though being a mother is filled with busy days and a constant companionship, many mothers experience feelings of loneliness and isolation. After that it can end with stress and depression (Michelle LaRowe, 2012) However working mothers can take care of their children, they can give better education to their children. Working mothers in many cases know how to provide their children with high education, they can teach them how to achieve goals and to be high professional specialists. They also motivate children to participate in different activities and then children want to resemble to their parents. ("Children...", n.d.,para 6). In conclusion, the thing to remember is that any mother can be a good mother, whether she works or stays at home. What does make mother a good mother, of course it is love. With love mother will find ways to do the right thing to her children. All moms sacrifice themselves in order to nurture their children. I hope all moms know what to do for their children and how to grow them up. Darkhan, thank you very much for this debate. It was very interesting topic. http://www.yourtango.com... http://www.parentingnation.in...
Working mothers cannot give decent upbringing to their children

Hello, Aidana. Thank you for participating. Unfortunately, I disagree with your arguments. Firstly, you wrote that no matter if mother work, she can take care of her child. But according to Doughty (2001), children whose mothers work are likely to do worse at school, become unemployed and suffer mental stress. This means that after all, working mother cannot take care of her child like mother who stay at home. Secondly, you wrote that working mothers have more patience than mothers who stay at home. But also working mothers worry that something may happen with her child. Because of that she may suffer from mental stress. Also you wrote that mother should do something exclusively for themselves to be good mother. But what interfere her to go outside, when their relatives at home? She can go outside from time to time to relax. Thirdly, you wrote that it doesn't matter if mother work or at home, her children may drink alcohol and smoke cigarets. But can kill him. According to The US Society for Research in Child Development (2010), children at age 3 and 4.5 years and in first grade whom mothers work have behavior problems. This means that after all, employed mother controls her child worse than mother who stay at home. Finally, I want to add that mother's work has huge impact on child's education. The Institute of Social and Economics Research (2001) stated that if mother of child works, child is twenty percent likely to get an A-level. References http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Working mothers cannot give decent upbringing to their children

Hello, thank you for your debate. First of all I'd like to mention the term "good mother" is not synonymous with stay-at-home mother. If a mother stays home with her kids, but buries her face in a computer all day, she is not spending time with her kids. On the other hand, a working mother may make a point of doing something special with her children in the evenings when she's home. That hour she just spent with her children was more special than the 8 hours another mother spent on the computer or buried in housework. Secondly, a working mother will often have more patience, having been away from her children all day. While a stay-at-home mom has been with her children all day and may be short on patience because of that. A woman may start feeling overwhelmed with being with her children all day every day, just as someone may tire of the co-workers they see day in and day out. This doesn't mean she loves them any less, just that she needs that time away from her kids to get back in touch with herself and be an individual. Most of mothers say that they can't be a good mother if they don't get out of the house and do something exclusively for themselves. Thirdly, it does not matter where mother is, if even she is at home, it does not mean that her child cannot drink alcohol and take drugs.Mother cannot control all her child's activities. If she wants to control it, she should go everywhere with her cild.
Animal Cruelty

So... I'll take a victory. I would like to point out that the wording of the resolution is extremely poor. However, it seems that my opponent was desiring to argue that we should... I don't actually know, I never got clarification. However, from his mentioning of different types of animals having different treatment, I can conclude that he was arguing against animal abuse to pets. Obviously, this is the correct and moral path, but I'm going to try to dissect what my opponent was saying a bit more. He seems to think that it is completely right to eat animals, and seems to have no issue with factory farming, so that isn't the argument. It seems, in fact, given the fact that he uses the term 'die and be eaten', that he is referring to people eating dogs and cats. What my opponent failed to realize, however, was that our love of dogs and cats is not universal, but rather cultural. As I'm sure most voters are aware, China eats dogs, and cats, while unacceptable to be consumed nearly everywhere, used to be a common source of food for many Asian countries a few hundred years ago. However, my opponent doesn't seem to acknowledge that. I would argue, therefor, that if you are to treat one animal with higher respect, you should assume it of all animals. Or something. I didn't even really need to post much of anything, my opponent forfeited and so, unless he replies in the next round, I guess I claim victory.
Animal Cruelty

Alright, I can agree to this. A few questions that I would like to answer, just for clarification because your wording is a bit strange. Specifically, I would like you to explain your precise definition (perhaps with an example) of 'torture' in this instance, just so I am aware of what exactly do you mean (factory farming, domestic pet cruelty, crazy dudes kicking squirrels of the Grand Canyon? How, exactly, are you shooting to define it). Also, because you used it in an odd place, I would like your definition of the word 'deserve'. Aside from that, I am prepared to begin, knowing that it is quite possible that, depending on how you define torture, I may end up in quick agreement with you. I will, however, attempt to debate to the fullest of my ability, even if I am in agreement, if for no other reason than a competitive spirit.
Animal Cruelty

So a lot of people have different opinions on animal abuse. Most people when they hear animal abuse, the thought of eating animals comes to mind. That's not what "we" mean. We're saying to stop beating and torturing animals. But we DO NOT eat dogs or cats. They are pets. I'm not saying that I other animals (pigs, cows, chickens etc.) do not deserve to die and be eaten, I'm saying that dogs and cats are mostly what we love and they love us back. (Again, I'm not saying that the other animals don't love or be loved.) It's simple, we should stop animal abuse. And that does NOT mean that we eat them. It means that we stop torturing.
Prolifers should make it easier to choose life.

If I understand your motion correctly, I believe you are making the point that if one is Pro Life, than the burden is on him to make it easier to choose life and not abortion. If I have completely misunderstood your question, then perhaps you should restart this debate with a clearer motion. Now to address your concern. The burden should not be on the Prolifer to make it easier to choose life. That burden should fall on the those who are not Prolifers. For example, should it be the burden of Educated to make it easier for others to earn an education. Schools exist and it should not be incumbent on on who has been educated by said schools to make it easier for others to get educated. Is it incumbent of the Vegetarian to make it easier to for non Veterinarians to choose to eat only vegetables. I believe it not. Therefore, the burden of making the choice of life should not lie in the Prolifer. It is an individual choice as your choice to go to school, or to be a vegetarian. No one should choose life or death on your behalf. The choice of Life should be given equally to all who must make that decision. My introduction is over, if I did not address your point, then the fault lies with my misunderstanding of the motion which may or may not be completely my fault.
Jesus probably didn't exist

Hello and welcome! My opponent couldn't finish his last debate with me on this topic, so here we go again! In this debate, I will advance the proposition that on the balance of the evidence available to us, there is good reason to believe that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is probably not historical. I intend to meet this burden of proof using two key contentions: first, that there is no good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and second, that there is good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is mythic. I have the burden of proof. If you don't know how to judge a debate without bringing in your own biases, beliefs or facts from outside the debate, please go away and learn to judge. Or judge not, lest ye be judged. That works too. I'm going to define Jesus very broadly as the character talked about in the Bible. I do not contest that nobody in Nazareth had the name "Jesus" in the first century AD, but rather that the specific "Jesus" talked about in the Bible is probably a fictional character. "Existance" is pretty self-evident, but I do mean in the physical sense of the word. My opponent will be free to challenge these definitions within the context of the spirit of the motion, but if they do so they must provide an alternative definition for me to argue in favor of. To enable me to both state the rules and start immediately, I'm going to ask people to just read what I wrote in round 2 of the last debate (don't worry, it's the only round there was). See the debate here: . http://www.debate.org.... I hope my opponent is alright with this, which will allow us to get underway without the need for an acceptance round.
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Thanks to Pro For his response; I will now present my remarks.Contention One: Connectivity You stated that I failed to address your contention so I will do my best to satisfy this. The examples I provided above among others effectively do the same thing as facebook. You can text and message any individual who has a phone number. These and others are secure and effective they are far superior to Facebook' s potentially dangerous message service. Contention Two: Maturity"It would be wrong to judge the entire population of a certain age group based off an average number of what *can* happen to someone in particular circumstances."Obviously not everyone will become mature at the age of thirteen as there will always be exceptions. But science has proved as hormones are released during puberty individuals develop a more mature mentality. "but that doesn't mean people should be banned from crossing the road until they mature."If individuals are not yet mature they cannot always utilize good judgement like you or I. Therefore people should be banned from accessing social networking sites until they are mature. They will be less impressionable and more sensible safe Internet users.Note 1: Privacy"One must be careful when citing sources - particularly when it comes to missing out words. Sometimes it's OK and useful, but missing out the word extreme makes a big change, as my opponent has done."Very well, Here are the other standard cyber bullying stats [1]: "One million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year. (Consumer Reports, 2011)This is an unacceptable number. Facebook is a harbour of cyber bullying. Nobody should be subjected to cyber bullying."I also believe my opponent has based his argument on people 1-13, whereas this debate is about people 13+. Last round, I gave people under thirteen as an example to express staggering numbers in a minority. There will be more 13+ users on SNS such as Facebook than 0-13 users."Although several of arguments were based on children they are not the only ones at risk.The risks applicable to children are also relevant to those older such as stalkers and predators [2]Summary of my arguments:1. I have address the contention of connectivity and shown how there are safer alternatives to facebook which provide similar services and also allow you to connect with people.2. I showed how maturity doesn't kick in until puberty which is typically around 13. I have also shown how maturity it critical when interacting online and how children should be mature before they exposed to the dangerous realm of facebook and other Social Networking sites.3. I have found relevant sources some of which I have accidentally mis-quoted (I apologize) but I have also proved my case with accurate information.Thank you to my opponent, the audience and Voters. Thank You!It's been fun.[1]http://www.internetsafety101.org...[2]http://www.momlogic.com...
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Thanking Pro for his remarks; I'll respond.Contention One: ConnectivityYou stated that: "My opponent appears to have consented that Apple Messenger and Kik are beaten by Facebook" I have done no such thing I was simply using these as examples. Apples messages service is a very secure system as long as one keeps their email secure. Whereas on the Facebook platform you can message someone even if they are private.TextSecure was another example I used although their are many other safer more secure SMS alternatives to Facebook. Such as Tiger Text (http://www.tigertext.com...) This platform is a secure safe way to communicate with people. It is a safe alternative to the dangerous facebook platform. Contention Two: MaturityYou stated that:"in the U.S.A. (which I'll assume you're referring to) one starts high school at 14. The resolution is on 13+, which leaves one year of "immaturity" if you will"At the age of 14 is when males usually hit puberty. With the onset of puberty comes emotional and mental maturity [1] so that is correct one year can make a lot of difference in the maturity department. females typically become mentally mature slightly before men. My opponent stated "I never denied this as a general trend, but warned that for specifics. (13+ vs 16+) we need more data than a general trend" My opponent has never specified what data they feel would be necessaryNote One: PrivacyMy opponent stated that: "Children are sometimes ensnared by predators or cyber-bullies. But, I would point to the actual facts we have here, instead of assuming that any case reported by the media represents a high percent of children." The fact of the matter here is that cyber bullying especially on facebook is a dangerous trend. According to some studies 54% of cyber bullying occurs on Facebook [2] this is alarming people under 13 should not have to cope with this it is alarming and is preventable children under 13 should not be allowed to use social networking sites as it is a useful outlet for cyber bullying.My opponent stated that:It's relatively nothing, speaking from an objective, number standpoint. My opponent would want to deny these millions (dare I say billion{s}?)of people (not under thirteen; that was just an example) a chance to connect, share, play, enjoy, benefit, and organise on SNS because of a relatively few cases each year that are hyped up by the media?"That is correct Facebook in 2010 facebook received 223,374 reports of sexual predators targeting children, nearly double the 2009 number [3]. And this number continues to climb. child predators are still prevalent and are not the only threat let alone the largest. There are threats from phishing sites, scams, cyber bullying and porn among others [4]. The under 13 facebook environment is a dangerous place. Children under thirteen should not be allowed to have to deal wit the multitude of threats facebook poses.I'd like to thank my opponent, voters and the audience. Sources.[1]http://www.ask.com... [2]http://www.bizreport.com... [3]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... [4]http://eyeguardian.com...
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Thanks to Pro For his points, I will now respond.Contention One: Connectivity When I stated that you can use Apples messages and kik as social networking alternatives, I meant to use them only as an example. My point was that there are other more secure SMS services their are email services that allow you to filter emails you receive and texting or SMS services that are private and don't allow for scams. Such as TextSecure (https://play.google.com...). As you can see there are a plethora of alternatives to dangerous social networking sites if your goal is connectivity.Contention Two: MaturityThis quote form Gween O'Keeffe. describes my stance "Since logic and sophisticated reasoning don't kick in until high school, younger children may not realize when one of their posts is inappropriate. Yet it's that social tentativeness that makes Facebook so attractive to kids: creating a virtual social network lets them avoid the hard work of building live-action ones."(http://content.time.com...)Social networking sites detract form the time spent forming in-person social interactions and relationships and learning social cues.You also stated that social networking sites:"need specific data to avoid any fallacy"I cant refute this point if I don't know what data you feel is necessary.Thank you, and I look forward to your response.