BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states

In this round, I plan to rebut my opponent's arguments from round 1 and possibly answer his question from then end of his round 2.Section 1: Legalizing marijuana isn't necessarily important, its more a matter of opinion. I believe that we have more concerning matters to deal with, other than legalize a drug. What to do with the illegal immigrants and whether or not we should raise the minimum wage are more important issues than an insignificant drug which has always done more damage than good. Also a drug that kills people. People say that marijuana doesn't kill people, but it does. Its made out of hemp (cannabis) which has a history of killing people, which is why people have began to call it cannabis. Its' funny though. Everyone is saying that the drug is being legalized for medical purposes, but its the medical field trying to stand against it. The medical field keeps warning everyone that cannabis is deadly and bad. It kills 30,000 people a year. The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and terribly mental illnesses. Not to mention a user is up to 6 times more likely to develop schizophrenia. This is not something anyone in their right mind would want legalized. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 2: Research that has been performed shows that since we can't get a good revenue for marijuana, the tax will probably be high. This would give more money to the government sure, but that might not be so good for the overall economy.http://dfaf.org...Section 3: If people believe that damaging their IQ, memory, health and mental state is something that's good for them, then go for it. These are the kinds of decisions that the last generation has been trying to teach this new generation, especially since we're graduating high school and going off into the real world. But like I said at the beginning of this round, its a matter of personal opinion. Section 4: That may be so, but from talking to a foreign exchange student from the Netherlands in my school, they're expecting a major decrease in their education. Also, even though they've legalized marijuana, it can only be sold in coffee shops, they can't legally grow it privately and they're only allowed to have a max of 5 grams.http://420intel.com...I apologize for not posting longer rebuts. I was having technical difficulties with my network, so just being on this site was complicated enough. This is a before and after picture for the use of marijuana.
It is OK to not care for the poorer classes i.e.: emotionally, financially, etc.

I'm going to start this segment of by narrowing this debate down even further, I simply can not care how someone feels emotionaly. You are allowed to not care about (or even dispise) whoever you like. You start your piece off with some great questions about how the money spent on the poor is allowed be spent on luxuries like pizza by them. And continue by saying that questions like this make people consider you "morally bankrupt". When i read this was the response you got i was quite shocked, and even more when i read the first article you linked ("If you don"t understand how people fall into poverty, you"re probably a sociopath,"?!)(1) (I'm starting to realise we are not diometricly opposed on this issue) I don't really have much against these types of questions, they are important. But, there is a big difference between limiting food stamps to staple foods. And canceling them all together (which "not caring for them" would entail) But i do not condone cencure of opposing opinions. Then you go on to make arguments i agree with a whole lot less. You compare survival of the fittest, to thival of the richest. The numbers that you presented about the 14,000$ spent per poor person is correct, as is the poverty line, 19,530$ or a family of three. But it is important to remember, that that is the poverty line in a country where 14k$ is spent on every poor person, and is as such adjusted to work with that mind set, "this family of three is earning less than 19,530$ per year combined, and each person get's the benefits of 14,000$ spent every year (this money is not given to them in cash, but spent in such a way as it benefits them) , therefore they are still living in poverty". The fact is that in the US today, there are people working 3 shifts per day, yet still live under the poverty line (2) If they can live in a country which spend 14k$ per year on them, yet still be forced to work themselves to Death, what would happen if the country did not spend this money? would they work themselves to death AND starve? To your closing statements. "It is not my responsibility to care for them when their predecessors are the ones who set them up for failure." With this i don't agree at all, what someones predecessors did or didn't do should be irrelevant to how we treat them, they had no hand in that, and thus, it should not affect them negatively. and ofcource the always controversial "If you cannot care for your own then you should not produce more of your own." I can't honestly disagree with this statement, i'm too libertarian to think that it should be required by law, but common sense commands you to wait until you can sustain a family to start one. But can you honestly say that One poor choice should doom you to live in poverty for the rest of life? http://www.theguardian.com... (1) http://www.nydailynews.com... (2)
It is OK to not care for the poorer classes i.e.: emotionally, financially, etc.

Hello there, i'm genuinly very interested in your reasons in beliving this. i hope we can have a friendly debate about this topic. I am a social democrat and as such this idea goes against the very core of my opinions, but i have yet to be truly challanged in this belief, as most of my friends agree, i will be debating quite a bit from the idea that evolution did happen. If you do not agree i'll try to avoid these arguments. This is my first debate on this site, as i saw it was for you as well. In my opinion the reason humanity has come so very far is the fact that we cooperate even outside these "closer circles", otherwise we would be stuck in the packs that other animals are in, and the scientific progress we have made would not have been possible without the cooperation of large parts of the race.
It is OK to not care for the poorer classes i.e.: emotionally, financially, etc.

For my first debate I would like to open with something that has been bothering me for awhile now: caring for the poorer classes. Everywhere, on all forms of media, I see articles and banners and rallies and --well you get it-- about why I should give more money and time to those who do not have what I do. If I don't? Well, then I am one crappy person. Never mind that I am a jolly good fellow, or that I like to feed the ducks at the park, I am a down right rotten person for not giving that beggar a dollar, or complaining that an extra $0.50 is taken out of my phone bill to give poor people phones and so on. I would like to debate the fact that it is not my, or any persons, responsibility to care for any other outside of their sphere of family/friends (in this specific case: poorer class people), in any way, and that people who share this belief should not be demonized or beaten down by society. Have at you!
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Was Fully Justified

I am entirely against the above resolution.Rules The first round is for acceptance, second for main arguments, third for rebuttals and fourth for conclusive statements. The burden of proof is on my opponent as they must explain why it was justified. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. So is profanity (for sake of the website). Footnotes, endnotes, annotated bibliography, etc is required. DefinitionsNuke- the action of striking a region using nuclear capable weapons.Justified- having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. Unconditional Surrender- a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. Empire- an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. In case you are wondering how to get bold, italicized or more text, click the 'Rich Text' button. Source Reccomendation I would reccomend using the website https://nuclearsecrecy.com... provides a way to visualize the effects of a nuclear bomb.
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Was Fully Justified

I didn't copy paste any whole article- just one paragraph. And when I copy pasted anything, I cited it so it was obviously not my work. Note you did not follow rule 1. Since there is little my opponent said, and he did not follow the rules, I am the clear winner of this debate. I believe I have brought up superior points and have accurately proven my points. Conclusively, the US was not justified, although I am not saying it was the wrong decision.
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Was Fully Justified

1. Understand Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not "molested". If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.[1]2. But so what? The Soviets didn't even take much and it was not justified. It was quite clear Japan would not win. What difference does it make about the will of the Emperor? If he had power and influence, it was under his jurisdiction to surrender. To be clear, your response for R3 is a rebuttal to my opening statements, not my R3 argument.Sources1- http://www.ihr.org...
The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Was Fully Justified

Due to the above stated rules, I will now make my case for the nukes being justified. 1. Japan did not want to surrender. Even after a single nuclear bomb was dropped, the Japanese did not surrender [1]. Even when they did surrender, it was only by the will of the emperor. Most of the military also did not want "However, the senior leadership of the Japanese Army took the news in stride, grossly underestimating the scale of the attack." [2]. If the bombs, which changed the emperors opinion greatly, had not been used, we would be looking at an all out invasion from not only the USA but also the USSR. Imagine if the bombs were not used-even if the emperor wanted to surrender in the middle of an invasion, it would most likely not matter at that point as Japanese military leaders would probably lead guerrilla campaigns if needed. 2. Prevented Japan from becoming Korea. Just weeks before Japan's surrender, over a million Soviet troops invaded Manchuria [3]. The Soviets, as seen in Europe, had a lot more troops then just those and could have easily maneuvered them to invade Northern Japan. This would have made it a state of perpetual war like Korea is today. Both these reasons, to me, justify why dropping nukes was the better option. I look forward to your response. Additional video (not official source): Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.history.com...
On balance, corporate contributions to political candidates are harmful to the democratic process

I accept this round. Recall that my obligation is not to argue that corporate contributions should be banned, indeed doing so would violate the first amendment and private property rights, but rather to show that they are indeed harmful. I do not know how my opponent wishes to define "democratic process", but I'll simply define it as the act of legislators passing meaningful and useful legislation beneficial to the country, mostly in accordance with the will of the people. Back to Pro
Australian Politics

Australian politics are irrelevant compared to American and European politics. It doesn't have as much of an impact on the world compared to the presidential election, or, the royal family. The only reason that Australia would matter in politics, it would be about the social and economics of Australia. Or, if Australia was to threaten America or a major country with a nuclear bomb, with the uranium mined from Ares Rock (Uluru). Otherwise, it is not relevant.
The United States education system should be changed.

The instigator's argument rests primarily on scores or performance of American students relative to those from other nations with regards to testing. Conceptually, we could probably summarize this argument by stating the following: "The American educational system produces students who under-perform their peers in standardized testing and similar competitions. Therefore, this educational system should be modified in such a way that American students would become more competitive." The problem with this argument is that it assumes that this type of testing is an indicator of educational value. It assumes that the purpose of education is to produce citizens with strong math skills, fluency in foreign languages, and 'quality' writing ability. This assumption is misguided, due to the following questions/points: 1) What if the purpose of an educational system was to facilitate innovation and creativity, so that future citizens could produce ideas and services that improved processes and standards of living? The US is becoming more of a service economy every year. In such economies, it is possible that math skills are not essential for success. Helpful, but not necessarily a top priority. 2) What if secondary school writing skills do not correlate with strong business writing skills. Is it possible that grammar, vocabulary, and flow are less important in memos, reports, and emails when it comes to business? That style is less important than substance? That structure is rarely necessary when writing short essays and single paragraphs? 3) Although it might be considered arrogant to say so, English is one of the most widely spoken languages among first-world nations and top economies. Throw in another Germanic language (German, which is simpler structure-wise, and relatively easy to learn for native English-speakers), and that percentage increases. British and former British colonies learn it as a native tongue. Japanese and Western Europeans learn it during secondary education. With regards to American business and economy, it may not be essential to learn a foreign language. Perhaps resources are better spent elsewhere. 4) Test scores do not reflect sociability, creativity, or willpower. It is quite possible that the American educational system emphasizes and prioritizes these items over test scores and the other aforementioned skills. The US is a heavily profit-and-market-driven nation. If there is a way to achieve value from learning a specific skill set, then people would likely do so. A gradual movement away from a specific educational focus may simply be a reflection of deteriorating value. In order to prove that the American educational system should be changed, I suggest that the instigator proves why a different educational system would have greater value, and how one would measure such value.
The United States education system should be changed.

The United States seems so grand. Freedom, liberty, everything we need -- within our own country. America is not a country to be confined within itself. Let us take a look at the U.S. education. I will go over the five "main" courses. In mathematics, the U.S. is failing. East Asian countries, namely Korea, Japan, etc., are consistently scoring higher in the International Mathematical Olympiad. Adapting the mathematics teaching to a system similar to the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or even Romanian will yield far better results, both in a short-term and a long one. In English, COME ON! It is our NATIVE laguage, yet our high school students' average score on the SAT written portion is lower than that of Korea. Also, approximately 90% of our American society does not recognize correct English when they see it to China's 40% (Scientific American). In science, I repeat my argument for mathematics. In the International Science Bowl, guess which country sends the most teams and wins the least medals! The grand ol' U.S. of A has that shameful award written in their resume. Similarly, at the International Physics Olympiad, the USA's 6 teams all lost to China's 3, Korea's 1, Japan's 1, Canada's 3, and Australia's 1 team to rank at an astonishing 10th Place. In history, we are the weakest. Who was the 17th President? the 18th? Cartoon writers just poke fun at presidents while we do not even remember them. In Korea, where I lived up until college, we knew all of the kings, queens, and presidents, IN ORDER! The "shrimp between two whales" is exceeding America in their historically proficient students. Now, in foreign languanges. We brag that we learn Spanish, French, you name it! In Korea, a branch in the government has a camp where students go to the country they are learning the foreign language about. If they do not understand, they fail their class. These seemingly frightening deeds are really the motivation to do better. I rest my case, as the proposition side has clearly made its case.
It's okay to be a bit racist sometimes.

As for his request, I can confirm that I will 'come at' him. Imagine that you detest dark colours like black and brown, but you don't mind light colours like white/creme. You therefore think that white women are more beautiful than black women. This would be racism, as beauty is a positive property and racism is saying one race of people is superior in some way to another race [2]. But, it is perfectly okay to have an opinion [3] on what is beautiful and what is not. So, it is okay to be a bit racist sometimes. Besides, the black guy at my school is always insulting us normal people (or 'Whity Tities', as he insists on calling us) by saying we can't rap [1]. Nobody ever complains about him. I'm intrigued to hear Con's response Sources[1]. http://kingdebater.blogspot.co.uk...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.richardsachs.com...
It's okay to be a bit racist sometimes.

One day, I was watching the television with my friend, Ryan Eggleton. The continuity announcer announced that there was a black comedian coming on (not his words). My friend Ryan then proceded to exclaim "Get ready to do the n!gger snigger!". After I'd asked him to explain his kooky catchphrase, he explained to me that it's called the n!gger snigger because you're sniggering (laughing) with a n!gger (black person). I told him that it was racism, and that it was totally unacceptable (I was a teacher's pet at that stage in my life). He actually gave some good reasons for his slanderous slogan actually being acceptable to say.So that's what I want to debate, whether it's okay to be a bit racist sometimes.I thank you.
We Are the Masters of Technology - Not the Other Way Around

It's not exactly technology enslaving us. It's us who are getting enslaved by our own design. Look when you walk by you see people using iPhone, tablet, laptop etc... on the side of the street. We are certainly getting to the point where you can say human have been enslaved by technology. People are addicted to the web and what content is posted on the internet. Looking at videos or debating online. Admit you are addicted to the internet. Internet therefore is a technology upon itself. The more we use. The more we get addicted to it. It's our ego and our addiction that is getting the feed from the mass laziness. 100 years ago there we few addictions or the addiction were probably way different that what our addiction today is. Yes not all computers can think. Not all computers can make decisions like the ones we made today. Look at SIRI I know it doesn't make decisions. The reason I bring it up is because it communicates with us changing our decisions we make with our lives slightly.
We Are the Masters of Technology - Not the Other Way Around

Technology has not enslaved us because technology cannot - yet - think for itself. Slavery is only established when one man reduces another man to a property-like status, forcing them to bow and comply with every command issued. Technology does not force us to engage in any activity, nor does it punish us for inaction. If at all, it is the advertising agencies and software designers that manipulate us into making decisions that we wouldn't normally pursue. The slavery that is inflicted upon us in this instance is perhaps a more fearsome one than which was previously established; they draw us in, but it is our own will that urges us to comply, egged on by various social norms and society-established expectations to which we by nature strive to conform to. In reality, it is not the technology itself we are being enslaved to, but the chemicals that our brains release when we access those technologies: that particular formula of dopamine and neurotic impulses that produces the experience we call pleasure. We are, in effect, addicted to our own happiness, and technology induces a form of it because through it we have opportunities to achieve various short-term goals that, when completed, result in a feeling of accomplishment. As long as we can hold ourselves to higher standards, and use technology as a means to an end instead of making the technology itself be the end to which we are striving, we will achieve a better-earned and more satisfactory feeling of accomplishment. When perceived from this angle, it is obvious that technology has benefited those of us who can adjust our goals from short-term virtual reality into long-term corporeal endeavors. With this in mind, we can use technology as we see fit, to further our own knowledge or personal endeavors, support others, or make our opinions known. We are the masters of technology, not the reverse.
Was casting Iron Fist as caucasian whitewashing and "a missed opportunity?"

The Netflix Tv series Iron Fist cast Finn Jones- a caucasian to play the Kun'Lun warrior. But a lot of people were disappointed by his casting purely because he is white and they wanted Marvel to reboot Iron Fist as an Asian American and that casting him as white was whitewashing (despite him being white in the comics). I will be arguing that casting Iron Fist as white was not whitewashing and my opponent will be arguing that it IS whitewashing. The first round is acceptance. Good luck to my opponent!