BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I stand in firm negation of the resolution which states that the abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. Definitions: Public health: issues that affect the general health of the community on the whole The highest value in today's round is Social welfare. That is society's overall well-being. Social welfare is the most important value in today's round because having all of society being well is a moral obligation of the U.S. government. But that cannot happen unless the abuse of illegal drugs is treated as a matter of criminal justice. The best criterion to uphold this value is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is best explained by the fact that there is a punishment, then people will abstain from doing that which causes punishment. Utilitarianism upholds my value of social welfare because by having punishment to prevent actions that would be harmful to society. Now I will present two contentions to support my value and value criterion. My first contention is that drug abusers are harmful to society's well-being. If an individual is not sent to jail for abusing drugs, that person still has the potential to harm society's well-being because of the effects that abusing drugs has done to him or her. By sending these people to jail, it would get them off the streets and away from anywhere were they could cause harm. This contention supports my value of social welfare because by having these people away from where they can do harm, it is protecting society's well-being. My second contention is that punishment is needed to prevent crime. When people have the knowledge that there is a punishment for abusing drugs, it would make them refrain from abusing these illegal drugs. If people are already doing drugs and they then see the consequences of abusing drugs, it would show them that they should stop. If there was no punishment for abusing drugs, no one would be afraid to do that, but what happens is that the mindset of the people says that punishment is far worse than what the drugs actually do to the body. This contention supports my value of social welfare because by having the punishment, people are more likely to abstain from abusing drugs out of fear. Thank you
Men are only good for money and sex.

I. Men Have Biological Advantages Over Women Which Are Useful in SocietyHere are but a few examples of things that men biologically/genetically have over women, with an explanation of why it is useful.-Men have better spatial awareness.This helps in a range of very important fields, such as architecture. But everything from a fighter pilot which is important during wartime, an astronomer for the sake of science and a photographer to document what will soon be history. Surgeon, filmaker, driver, pilot and most sports out there, men are not just good for sex and money, but for all of these.-Men handle lack of sleep better than women do.The world would not run if everyone was stagnant in the night. Night shifts are a necessary to help travellers and to boost international trade, and with a biological advantae over women.R32;-Men are better at detecting infidelity.Cheating, something no one wants in a relationship...unless you're into that. But detecting infidelity means that you can save possible drama and pain that could lead to more serious issues. This is a useful skill.-Male brains may be optimized for motor skills.Most sports, most physical jobs.-Men are more likely better at learning and performing a single task at hand, like cycling or navigating directions.Again this is quite self-evident, most jobs which require this.-Male brain is able to tolerate more pain.Needed for dangerous jobs which entail pain, from fishing to hunting and most other jobs which give people food. And food I'm told is important.-Male brain is hardwired to be paid more, occupy more powerful roles and positions.Self-evident again. Positions of power.-Men are more inclined to kill things randomly.Needed for war and hunting. Jobs which with society are needed.Let us not forget that men have a more physical suited anatomy and are more useful for physical anything.I realise that the debate is not that men have no use over women, but to state that men have no use at all is quite stupid, because one example can be used to completely negate the BOP that you have, so I jumped the extra mile in case you were going to say that women can do all of those things. Women can do things men can't however, and both of them are useful in society and are needed. Sources:http://www.theguardian.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://news.discovery.com...http://jobs.lovetoknow.com...
Should Jerusalem be a Jewish territory

Thank you Con. I would argue that just because the Jews of the era are no longer around does not mean that Jerusalem does not belong to there descendants. Before the Jews came Jerusalem was a unstable ruthless town which the Jews settled in claiming laws and authority and boosted the trade. They boosted the economy and the wealth of the area. The Jews managed to keep it as a massively successful city until the Romans. Shortly after the Romans left the Arabs settled in the area and claimed it as there city. After going in and out of control of the Ottomans and the British the "Palestinians" didn't claim they were oppressed until the Jews returned to the land. By your argument why is the Vatican in catholic control despite the shifts of power in the surrounding areas? The Jews made Jerusalem what it is today and they can not be penalized for returning to the promised land which they founded.
Should Jerusalem be a Jewish territory

Pro argues that because the only reason the ancestors of the current Jews left was the Romans, the current city should belong to the current Jews. However this happened in a time where no person was alive that is still alive today. In fact, the people that experienced the initial windfall of the extra land inherited from those people are no longer alive. If we would go back further we would have other people living on those lands, and we can certainly find people that are descendants from those people. This form of justification can be found for any group. So I don't agree that that is a good reason to hand control over the land to anyone. We have statute of limitations laws for a reason and punishing people for the sins of their parents isn't going to give us a stable society. The borders of nations are stabilizing across the globe. Wars are slowly stopping. I say it would be most practical to simply let that process run it's course and than slowly open (and eventually maybe even dissolve completely) the borders so people can live where they want (and can afford). If Jewish people are certain that Jerusalem is their holy city than they can trust God to grant them access to it eventually. Peacefully. Maybe not to them specifically, but to their children or even further down the line.
Should Jerusalem be a Jewish territory

Thank you Brian for giving me a lesson on the proper uses of the word "Should". I will restate my point if needed, I believe that Jerusalem should be a territory governed by Israel and more specifically the Jewish Zionists. I believe this because Jerusalem was first a small Jebusite town and in 1050 BCE a band of Jews escaping Philistine oppression and landed it Jerusalem. By 970 BCE Jerusalem was completely rebuilt and was a Jewish city. Jerusalem was not a Islamic city since about 632 CE. Long story short the only reason the Jews left was because of the Romans and the so called "Palestinians" can not claim it as a Islamic city.
Should Jerusalem be a Jewish territory

Hey Isaac2428, welcome to debate. org and thanks for making this debate. I will be Con in this debate and will argue that "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory" is not true. My strongest initial arguments will resolve around the fact that I don't believe in any "shoulds" at all. There is no objective morality and therefor no objective way to determine what should and should not be. The term "should" has little to no meaning without a stated goal. If for example the statement is "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory if we want more Jewish territory. " than yes, that statement is probably correct. If for example the statement is "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory if we want the Jewish religion to disappear" than no, that statement would probably be incorrect. So, "Jerusalem should be a Jewish territory" is impossible to defend on it's own (unless my opponent wishes to establish the existence of objective morality first) and I now extend to my opponent the chance to make an addendum to the statement so we can properly start the debate.
Should Jerusalem be a Jewish territory

Pro counter argues that just because something happened long ago it doesn't mean the land no longer belongs to someone. I agree and have never disagreed. However just because something happened long ago doesn't mean the land belongs to a specific person either. All the involved people died. You would need other arguments to make your case. Pro provides further arguments in round 3 which I will address now. Pro states that the Jews should own the land because they have added value to the land in the form of laws, trade a boosted economy, etc. However since they left others have added value to the land as well and before they where there in the first place others have also added value to the land. Even if "added value" was a measurement with which people tend to hand of control of a land (it isn't) you would still have a hard time proving that the Jews added the "most" value since such things are incredibly hard to quantify and modern global economy has grown far faster than the economy of that time. Pro states that the Palestinians didn't claim to be oppressed until the Jews returned to the land. Even if this where true (it could or could not be, I am uncertain), how would another group of people complaining about oppression have anything to do with the initial group of people their right to control of a land? ==By your argument why is the Vatican in catholic control despite the shifts of power in the surrounding areas? ==The Vatican is in catholic control because the control of a piece of land has little to do with the control of the pieces of land surrounding it. Simply put: the Vatican is in control because nobody with enough political or military power claims otherwise. ==The Jews made Jerusalem what it is today and they can not be penalized for returning to the promised land which they founded. ==I agree that they should not be penalized for going to live in the place they want to live in if they can afford it (whether or not they made it what it is today or not). But to claim it as their territory is another question all together.
If America would be better off without the Jews.

Here is a map of the house of representatives by state, http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com... Clearly a minority are Jewish. You comment "There is no indication that Hitler hated capitalism". http://europeanhistory.about.com... This clearly shows that at the start of his rise to power, "At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street." If that isn't hatred, I do not know what is. You think that all Jewish people are the same. That is indeed more incorrect than anything else you speak of. Not all are capitalists and to those reading this, all his articles are very biased and written by groups that are also very biased. The Eminem story, he implies that it "sounds like Hitler doesnt it?" The word "Global Revolution" has been used in everything from technology to media so that is not a viable argument. Your paragraph "As for the foreiner status I would like to remind everybody that the people he is reffering to are the Native American Indians. They approved of immigration and look what happened to them." Precisely, you have no right to judge anyone. If anyone has a right to even think of claiming what you are, its the natives (not that they would). It is not true about your comments about "abortion and gay marriage." Their scriptures mirror exactly what the old testament says in Christianity as well as the start of the Qur'an in Islam. To conclude, it is not the Jewish community that he speaks of that is slowing down progress in the US, its the kind of people like him who refuse to see that globalization is happening and that hating certain groups is no longer acceptable.
If America would be better off without the Jews.

All I see here is useless sources that are biased. You think that all Jews are rich capitalist people, I have news for you, they are not. In fact many would agree that capitalism is not the best way forward. But removing Jewish people will not solve this. Any fool could see that. You say that the only freedom of speech is on the internet, well I have news for you. https://www.battleforthenet.com... This is the net neutrality campaign which is clearly showing that freedom of speech and neutrality will not last forever. You still don't understand that they have not "infiltrated" the media. As stated before, the top people are mostly not Jewish. Looking worldwide, the BBC is not controlled by a Jewish person, neither are most news networks. America is not the land of the free. Neither are you. As your little dictionary help... noun the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. Jewish people have the ' right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.' Clearly you have destroyed your fundamental pillar to your argument. You also comment (with bad spelling may I add), 'As you can see it was a group of forieners that are trying to take all our freedoms.' I reckon that most Americans were actually not native there. You came from places like Spain, France (New Orleans being the area of many French ancestry) and the UK. So history begs to differ. Hitler was not fighting against capitalism, he was actually apart of the far right party that would promote this. http://en.wikipedia.org... 'The conservative Nazi Hermann G"ring urged Hitler to conciliate with capitalists and reactionaries.' Clearly not what you were claiming. I searched 'Eminem against capitalism' and nothing of a reliable source came up. So clearly you were using a bad source there for your information. Basically, your argument has been built on sand and with a couple of searches, it can be dismantled.
If America would be better off without the Jews.

Your Argument is like a long horn, You got a point here a point there and all this bull in between. This is about America's relationship with the Jews more so than Germans in the 1900's. Altho I will humor your statements regarding how the Jews where not responsible for Americas entry into WW1 and WW2. http://youtu.be... Benjamin Freedoms final words on his public speech in 1961 where: "How much can you depend upon there(The Jews) loyalty? You can depend upon there loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon in 1916. We(The Americans) are going to suffer the same fate and hens for the same reason. As for your statement regarding the demonizing of Hitler: http://prntscr.com... That is JFK, One of the greatest political figures of all time. It was the Jews who where responsible for assassinating him. A book published in China backs up 100% of what JFK tried to do. There also several similar books printed in Russia like the one you see here: http://prntscr.com... Also I don't know where you got the idea that America is the land of the free ever sense the Jewish conquered it. So I thought I might explain to you what freedom really is: free"dom noun the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. Expelling the Jews is the Key to your freedom. As Benjamin Freedman said in 1961. "The Jews have fooled you so much so that you don't know if your coming or going". Ever sense the Jews in America rose to power they have filtered every media outlet. Every book in the Library is censored and the only freedom of speech you are going to find is on the Internet. The only reason we have our gun rights in because we can 3d print them at home now. As you can see it was a group of forieners that are trying to take all our freedoms. By god I wont let them take it. here is a good example of what freedom really is for all those reading: http://prntscr.com... Here is a good example of that Jew money you love so much. http://prntscr.com... Hitler was fighting against the Capitalistic system. Infact famous musicians like Eminem, Ice Cube, and Korn are siding with Hitler on that now. http://prntscr.com... Oddly enough so did Russell Brand: http://anonhq.com... If you are a real American you should be out here picketing with us. I am saying this because I love my country. I do love it.
If America would be better off without the Jews.

I oppose this ridiculous motion, its racism in every way possible. You cannot be any better than the Hitler if you argue that America would be better off. Hitler claimed this, he tried it and guess what, you have a genocide. Just remember that the media is controlled by all different kinds of people. In fact most news channels are not run by Jewish people. If America is the land of the free, this is the opposite of it, you suggest that the removal if certain groups is a good thing. Just remember that it was not just the Jewish people who caused the world problems. You claim that 'Our relationship with Germany was fine until they where offered Israel by the British.' It is a false statement. WW1, the Americans fought against the Germans as well. The recent phone spying allegations on the German Chancellor was not going to improve anything. Hitler rose to power using the emergency powers that Germany had in its law. Your claim is as false. Anyone can see that this is a very bad argument and that the claims are made on very thin ice.
If America would be better off without the Jews.

My argument is that There are 2 forms of fascism. One that is public and one that is private. If you observe the actions of the politicians ever sense the Jewish population rose to power there has been a turn of events that are catastrophic in every Americans way of life. First and foremost I am referring to about 100 years ago when they purchased every form of media outlet so they can censor what I am showing you. http://prntscr.com... Also I would like to remember how they rose to power like Hitler did. http://prntscr.com... By discrimination instead of voting for who should be the administrators in a country that is supposed to be Christian. Now we know how Obama got elected. http://prntscr.com... We know who is ahead of the central bank which has already been debated to be evil. http://prntscr.com... We know who runs the media. http://prntscr.com... So they tell everybody a bunch of lies such like how the life of a married couple is a burden to there freedoms. http://prntscr.com... Then they tell everybody that all races are equally accomplished. http://prntscr.com... Then there is Palestine: http://prntscr.com... Everybody knows the Americans where dragged into WW2 by the Jews. http://prntscr.com... Our relationship with Germany was fine until they where offered Israel by the British. That is what dragged us down. We can pretty much Identify the problem coming from an organized religion. My argument is that maybe you have over stayed your welcome and we need to fight these Jews like the Russia peopl had to fight Stalin. If we do that then the people can have there voice heard. We have our houses back and most wars will halt because we are 1/2 way across the globe.
Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity

Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.Pro is for water being a human right.Con is for water being a commodity. Rules:1. First round acceptance.2. This will be an LD debate. All forms of LD cases are acceptable. 3. Cases may be posted through a google document link. ONLY CASES, not refutations.4. In the event of a forfeit, all seven points must go to the victor.Round structure:1. Acceptance2. Pro posts case, con posts case and refutes pro3. Pro defends and refutes. Con defends and refutes4. Pro defends and refutes. Con may not post any sort of argument or clarification in this round, to keep it structured as close to an LD debate as possible. However, pictures of lolcats are acceptable in this round for the con.I await an opponent.
On Balance, GM Foods are Beneficial for Humans to Use.

I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting continuously in this debate--unfortunately, April was quite a busy month for me, with me having to prepare for five competitions that took place in this month along with exam preparations. If he's interested, we can re-do this debate in the summer where I will have much more time to spend on debating (if he's not, I can't blame him LOL). Vote Con. (I got rekt)
On Balance, GM Foods are Beneficial for Humans to Use.

Why would "modern biotechnology" not be considered "biotechnology"? History of GMO's I'm not sure how this is actually relevant to the debate. As shown earlier, our definition includes the modern form of bio technology. My opponent's argument really only shows that some genetic modification (That does not include modern biotechnology) is good, but it still leaves my main arguments un-refuted. I can agree with my opponent that some forms of GMO's (Again, not including biotechnology ) are good without conceding or contradicting my argument that they are, *on balance*, not beneficial for humans to use. Environment GM foods are still terrible for the environment. My opponent notes that there are other methods of farming that are harmful, but this is irrelevant as we can easily avoid using those and it still does not change the fact that GMO's are harmful. With all things considered, his only response is that it is not the worst thing for the environment. Again, just because it is not the absolute worst thing does not mean it is still not bad/harmful and my argument is essentially uncontested. "Note: I am on my phone right now, so I will post my sources in the comments and the next round when I get home" That would be breaking rule 2. If my opponent intends to break not only rule 1 but also rule 2 voters should consider taking away more than just a conduct point as it would seem to be a huge violation on of our rules. Conclusion: Most of my arguments are completely uncontested due to my opponent's waiting until the second to last round to write full rebuttals and arguments. For this reason, I sadly have little to post in this round. I hope that my opponent will begin rebutting my arguments and perhaps developing his own in the next round.