BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poem Battle

I was only warming up, pro. That was meant to more of be a powerful rap than a cool poem to show my versality.Now, for my poem:The Living MountainPlink! Plink! Water drips downfrom the stalactitesto the ground echoing throughoutthe vast empty cavethe sound flies out--and crashes against the waves.Ah, it is a stream!The water streaks forward and splashes onto the grass to give them wet dreamsto the pasture, sheeps walk towardsmunching on the plants,with their "Baaa baaa" chants.A crowds of birds fly across the skyenticing the following of many eyes.Soon enough it is nightgone were the sun and its bright lightnow everywhere is filled with bright starssparking, twinkling, like God winking at us from far.
Smile, god loves all of you :)

You are a lye and a devil. this is not true people god does love very one. Revelation 7.9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. See god do love everyone no just a certain grope of people
Marijuana ought to be legalized

I thank Con for their response. I will attempt to negate my opponents points. Your negation of my contention of Medical marijuana was that of "I acknowledge that Marijuana has specific medical benefits. However, this does not require that Marijuana be legalized for public use. Heroin and opium also have specific medical benefits, and are used today. I wouldn't't want marijuana intended for a specific medical effect to leave the hospital any more than I would want morphine to roam the streets." The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, otherwise known as the FDA, could easily control the usage of marijuana if it was legalized. Your first objection to my second contention were that of the military has access to certain things that the general public does not. Well, you could extend this access to certain justice and crime associations, such as the CIA or the FBI, which could be used to allow the pain reliving effects of those groups. Your second objection to my second contention was that of there are better alternatives for pain killer which have less side effects. Marijuana has a greater effectiveness as a pain killer than most other pain killers. Wars may produce a near death injury, while allowing the use of marijuana as a pain killer, can allow the pain to be eliminated near instantly. Your third contention stated attempted to show that certain drugs are less harmful than marijuana. According to NORML, " In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems." In refute of the THC spray, I doubt the majority of users of marijuana have discovered said THC spray. Users may also prefer actual marijuana experience over the THC spray. (1)http://norml.org... (2)http://www.annieappleseedproject.org... (3)http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu...
Marijuana ought to be legalized

I will be using the L-D format of debating in this debate. Resolved:Marijuana ought to be legalized. I affirm this resolution. My value for this debate is freedom. My criterion for this debate is the various positive physical and mental effects of long term use of marijuana. I will now present some definitions to further allow understanding of the debate. Please note, all my definitions are cited from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The definition of marijuana is the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plant that yield THC and are smoked in cigarettes for their intoxicating effect. My first contention is that of supporters of medical marijuana. Supporters of medical marijuana state that it can be an effective and safe treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, gluacoma, epilepsy, and various other medical conditions. My second contention is that of wartime use of marijuana. Napoleon and his army used marijuana for its pain reliving and sedative like effects. The Vietnam war's uniqueness from many other wars it its drug use. Marijuana was grown over much of the land in Vietnam, many soldiers had their first experiences overseas, besides being used strategically as a pain killer, the soldiers used it mellow out and helping them to forget the purpose of the war and the cause they were fighting for. My third contention in that of other various positive effects of marijuana. Marijuana is generally more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation. Limiting the use of marijuana restricts personal freedom. Legalization would mean a lower price: thus, crimes linked to marijuana would be reduced. Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced. It would be a source of additional taxing revenues. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes. Drug busts often trap adolescences in a flawed system transforming them into lifelong criminals. I have finished my argument so, that is all.
Marijuana ought to be legalized

I thank Con for their response. I will refute his counterpoints, then build up my own points. My opponents counterpoint to the FDA was that of "Any control exerted could be circumvented. " Once again the FDA could regulate the movement and usage of marijuana, they can supplement who gets it and who uses it, also they can regulate the quantity of marijuana being issued "My statements applying to the military apply just as easily to these groups you now present. Extend my arguments to cover these as well. " Your argument was "the military has access to many things that the public simply does not. " Well having it legalized only for military and combat purposes would permit a long and tedious process that the organization in question is forced to abide by. You then attempted to refute my NORML point. I will also use my source to counter your point. It clearly states "While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. " So , regardless, that there is no prove that the claim is correct, there is also no prove that shows that claim is incorrect. "You have not provided sources confirming your claims. While secondary sources can be used effectively, the sheer bias of NORML is enough to make any reasonable person skeptical of its claims in support of its cause. I will quote directly from NORML's website "In fact, the most recent studies. .. " There sources are clearly from other non-biased parties. From your attempt to refute of my counterpoint of the THC spray. "Surely any reasonable doctor would prescribe the THC spray over marijuana if he wanted his patient to be well-cared for. " If the patient refused to take the THC spray in favor of the actual marijuana substance, the doctor would have to give said patient the marijuana as the alternative of him dieing is less than him being giving the marijuana.
drunk driving

Con doesn't address my points, he just dismisses them as short of any real argument or debate, and claims that his was full of logic and reason.Seeing as he didn't respond to my arguments, I'll just directly respond to his arguments from round one."lets discuss drunk driving with the case of the 16 year old that killed 4 people..."We have no reason to believe this case is true, as Con provides no sources."I am totally against people driving drunk and hurting innocent people." Con has declared his position in this debate."however I think that the drinking and driving laws today or horrible and the zero tolerance attitude in this country is run rampant and horrible for our society..."This is his opinion. "what say you?"There is a grammatical mistake in this sentence!"I should be allowed to go drink a nice scotch and smoke a cigar after work on Friday and not fear."No, you should not! You are smoking! Smoking is extremely dangerous and really uncool!"My point is this, the law of zero tolerance of drinking and driving has no positive effect on keeping drunks off the street yet takes away my freedom of enjoying a drink responsibly. DO not punish the masses for a small percentage of the populous. I do not believe in the mantra " if it saves one child its worth it" these are laws created in fear and make us feel good. they hold no real value."This is also his opinion. "My debate is that the strict drinking and driving laws are ineffective."P1) If Good comes out of it, it's a good thing and ergo is effectiveP2) (from round 1) Good comes out of participating in "drunk driving".C1) (from p1, p2) ∴, Participating in "drunk driving" is effective P3) If there are laws governing an activity that is effective and those laws do not damage the effectiveness of said activity, then those laws are effective.P4) Participating in "drunk driving" still happens and has the same consequences with and without the law.C2) (from C1, P3, P4) ∴, the laws governing "drunk driving" are effective.JustificationP1 - This is quite self-explanatory. A good thing is effective in achieving that good purpose.P2 - (Extend all arguments from round one)C1 - This follows logically from the first and second premises.P3 - This is self-explanatory also. If the laws do not affect the effectiveness in a negative way, then those laws are effective in not destroying the good purpose coming out of said activity.P4 - ". Any good coming out of people participating in "drunk driving" still exists with those laws in place.C2 - This follows logically from the first conclusion, third premise and fourth premise. Thank you.
drunk driving

your argument makes zero sense? mine was full of logic and reason.. while yours had silly pretty pictures that fell way short of any real argument or debate. I still offer the debate that our zero tolerance to drinking and driving is wrong. driving drunk however is not acceptable and should be punished to a high extent. Again do not pass laws that take away my freedom based on the bad behavior of a few. get back to me when you can argue these points with logic and reason please. I look forward to the challenge
drunk driving

I am in favour of "drunk driving" as Con has worded it. I participate in "drunk driving" a good portion of the time! In fact, here's my route home: Pretty cool, eh?Why be in favour of it? The main good coming out of "drunk driving" is that it's cool. Being cool, whenever somebody tries it, the regular cool kids all give an amount of money to the bozo that tried it dependant on how long he did it for, because the longer you do it for, the more likely there is to be an accident. Here is a graph drawn up by a scientist to explain: Also, the view that "drunk driving" is extremely dangerous is not a well-thought out view. After extensive review, it was deemed that "drunk driving" is "probably fine" [1].Back to the point about the cool kids. The amount of money given to said bozo actually outweighs any costs (if any!) of damages of any "drunk driving". Since people who participate in "drunk driving" are kind people [2], they will give the money they obtained to the local council, who will be able to invest excess money in advancing other important projects.That brings me to my next point. This is a story of a Mum in the Manchester area who was caught participating in "drunk driving". Mums are good people, they've taken on a massive responsibility and they haven't made a complete mess of it. This Mum was no different. She even had her children (there was four of them!) with her in the car, and nobody and nothing was injured/damaged. About Con's arguments, they are in need of sources to back them up. I'm not going to believe any stories without any proof, and I'll also need some evidence of damage/injury caused by "drunk driving".Thank you. Sources[1] http://theporridge.co.uk...;[2] http://is.gd...
drunk driving

lets discuss drunk driving with the case of the 16 year old that killed 4 people... I am totally against people driving drunk and hurting innocent people. however I think that the drinking and driving laws today or horrible and the zero tolerance attitude in this country is run rampant and horrible for our society... what say you? My debate is that the strict drinking and driving laws are ineffective. I should be allowed to go drink a nice scotch and smoke a cigar after work on Friday and not fear. I should also be allowed to pop a top and drive home if I want? One beer on my drive home will not cause any harm period. People that drive around drunk and have the potential to hurt someone or worse are going to do it regardless of the laws that keep me from enjoying the small pleasures of life. My point is this, the law of zero tolerance of drinking and driving has no positive effect on keeping drunks off the street yet takes away my freedom of enjoying a drink responsibly. DO not punish the masses for a small percentage of the populous. I do not believe in the mantra " if it saves one child its worth it" these are laws created in fear and make us feel good. they hold no real value.
Soda Vending Machines Should Be Taken Out Of High Schools

Schools are supposed to promote healthy lifestyles, and I feel by having a soda machine in a hallway it is defeating the purpose of promoting healthy living. Rather than a student spending the $2.00 on a soda, they would be able to buy a water for $1.50, or a bottle of Vitamin water zero for $2.00. By substituting these healthier choices for soda, students may feel more compelled to live healthy. The choice, as u say, is ultimately up to the students, which it is, but it should be the school boards who help may the students make the smarter choices. Even the people selling the products feel compelled to provide the healthier choices. "Coca-Cola, PepsiCo have voluntarily agreed to stop selling high-calorie sodas and sugary drinks, ... Instead, the beverage manufacturers, which stock about 90% of all school cafeterias and vending machines, will supply students with only bottled water, low-fat and nonfat milk and 100% fruit juice." http://www.time.com...
Soda Vending Machines Should Be Taken Out Of High Schools

A major flaw with your reasoning is the statement, "Where there is accessibility, there will be use, and there will be abuse." While I agree there will be use, abuse does not come from the presence of vending machines. As I said before, abuse comes from an individual person's desire to maintain their own health. Should they decide to buy two or three sodas per day, it is their choice. However, by removing vending machines, the majority of students who drink pop as a "once in a while treat" can no longer have that. By not being able to have what they want during school, they will buy what they want outside of the school. Also, pop is often much cheaper outside of schools (an example being my school, where pop is $2/bottle, opposed to a six pack for $3.50-$4.00). If they are forced to buy pop outside of school at these less expensive rates, they will be able to buy, and therefore drink, more. It then could be said that removing the machines would lead to abuse outside of school.
Soda Vending Machines Should Be Taken Out Of High Schools

There is no argument that if a student wanted to bring soda to their school they could. The fact is that students do not need to bring it from home, because it is provided in schools. Where there is accessibility, there will be use, and there will be abuse. Having no vending machines in the schools removes accessibility to the unhealthy drinks during the school day. By taking away the accessibility in the schools, students are forced to purchase alternative drinks, such as water, or natural juices. By being exposed to these drinks they may not rely on soda as their main beverage. Personally, I have not had a Pepsi in almost a year. I began drinking water, and natural juices, and by not having soda accessible to me I realized that these drinks can be delicious and are definitely the better choice. I also began losing some weight, and feeling better. I had friends in high school who used the soda vending machine at least two to three times a day. That's about 33 tsps of sugar in school.
Soda Vending Machines Should Be Taken Out Of High Schools

Hello. This is my first debate on this site, however, this issue means quite a bit to me. I would like to start by saying that I am a senior in high school, so I have a little bit of background with the topic. Now, on to the debate itself. I would like to start with your first point. "It has been linked to diabetes, weak bones, damage to teeth, and harm to major organs." This all may be true about soda, but it is also true for many other drinks and food items as well. The only reason it is linked to soda is, as you said, the amount of consumption. This brings me to my second point. Having vending machines in school does not lead to an increase of consumption. That is entirely up to each individual student's desire to maintain health. If students want to drink soda, they will buy it outside of school and bring it with them, or wait and drink large amounts at the end of the day. This means that removing the machines just makes it less convenient. It doesn't prevent anything.
Soda Vending Machines Should Be Taken Out Of High Schools

Soda has been proved to be an unhealthy beverage. It has been linked to diabetes, weak bones, damage to teeth, and harm to major organs. It is known that students spend a majority of their day in school, and if soda is accessible to them in school, there is no limit to the amount of soda they can consume. This can lead to unhealthy lifestyle choices. If soda is not accessible in school, students are less likely to consume large quantities, therefore hopefully preventing severe health issues in the future. 1-"Soda is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that has been linked to obesity. Soda consumption also has been linked to the development of type 2 diabetes, both due to its sugar content and its effects on the body's hormones." 2-"...increased soft drink consumption may be linked to chronic kidney disease " http://www.everydayhealth.com...|21761|soda%20health%20facts||S|b|7169680272&gclid=CKqS772stqcCFYh_5Qodt2DiBg
Soda Vending Machines Should Be Taken Out Of High Schools

If it comes down to the school promoting healthy living, much more than just vending machines need changing. The food offered in cafeterias needs to be changed, food portions reduced, and classes like P.E. or weights should become mandatory for all students. Yet, if the change you are talking about, or these other changes, are made, students will feel oppressed. They will think that the school is trying to decide what they should or shouldn't drink, can or can't eat, must or must not do. And, just like in a family where the parents control the children extensively, this doesn't lead to acceptance. It leads to rebellion. The best way to promote a healthy life style is to offer classes about it (maybe hold a big event in the gym or auditorium for the whole school) and then give them the options. When they feel they are treated as adults with their own opinions, they will actually think about their actions, instead of just choosing to do what they are told they can't normally.
god is either exceedingly stupid and ignorant or he does not exist

Typical teeny bopper absolute loser nothingness batbrain lick-ity-ling-long champion He-Man She-Ra chess tuornament lookin' for some action in a puddle of manure spread while selling vacuum cleaners door to door. Now make sure you lift your hat when you greet the ladies as they melt in your you know where areas. Yeah my debates are always, no exceptions, none, serious. But you being a 15 year old and all cannot possibly understand that since your brain is not well nourished and obviously has not reached it full growth patterns and or mental capacity for darts to be flung at it. And don't worry, since you've decided to ruin a perfectly good debate, in which this is, I've reported you. I'm so very glad I made your day better.
The amendment preventing presidents to serve more than two terms should be abolished.

I forfeited all the rounds since you obviously did not pay attention to the debate, if you were wondering. The statement was "The amendment preventing presidents to serve more than two terms should be abolished." I selected PRO. You selected CON. Yet, you argued that that amendment SHOULD be abolished. YOU ARGUED THE WRONG SIDE OF THE DEBATE. C'mon, dude. That's not cool. Before you accept a debate actually read it. Seriously, what the heck.
Hitler was an Atheist

At the final round, it is clear that Pro will not redeem himself as I invited him to do. As such I consider the debate over, and will not be placing any further arguments on this page. I'm disappointed, as I was hoping for better from my opponent, but also because there is no point to placing the arguments I was developing for my finale. I will leave with a few tidbits that I other wise have no use for. http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com... [http://www.rationalskepticism.org...] [http://www.nobeliefs.com...] [http://coelsblog.wordpress.com...] [http://www.library.arizona.edu...] I regret the lack of closure, and the waste that those coming to this debate in hopes of finding useful information for either side will find.
Hitler was an Atheist

First, I will note that my opponent has violated the terms listed in Round 1, as "you're gay" is exactly the attack that I prohibited. I urge that followers votes be for CON, due to this Ad hominem idiocy, the poor grammar (a two word sentance that isn't capitalized) , and because there is no source cited (oh, snap!). I will save my rebuttal to the argument for the comments section, and concentrate on my own subject. Adolf Hitler was the heir of a long and nondenominational tradition of antisemitic bigotry in Europe. As early as 380 AD, St. Ambrose called the synagogue "a place of unbelief, a home of impiety, a refuge of insanity, damned by God Himself" and officially sanctioned massacres occurred throughout the Crusades, the Inquisition and during any societal downturn. Also, Martian Luther himself went from being originally sympathetic to the plight of European Jews to a virulent hatred not exceeded until Hitler himself [ http://www.humanitas-international.org... ]. Both groups also participated in the truly obscene Blood Libel, as well . [ http://books.google.com... ] [ http://books.google.com...] It is notable- obvious even- that throughout his writing and speeches the Fuhrer hated with a psychopathic force not just Jews, but also other traditional out' groups of the European religious tradition, such as gypsies, intellectuals, more successful artists than the Fuher, and homosexuals... … which brings Pro's last 'argument' into sharp and sad relief. There is probably no stupider path of argument against the source of bigotry from Histories Greatest Monster than descending into exactly the same witless shriek. I hope that Pro can redeem his poor performance in Round 3.