BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tobacco should be banned

It is impossible to ban tobacco in the sense where you can't *use* it in your home, but you can ban the *sale* of it. [There is no legitimate legal basis for preventing people from smoking tobacco in their own homes, where the dangers of SHS are nonexistent] Sure, if you live alone in your own home (not an apartment), the dangers are nonexistent. If you have a girlfriend, wife, children, or if you live in an apartment, the dangers are higher. "If you don't quit smoking for yourself, do it for your children"-Anonymous. Your children didn't choose you as a parent. I do think a public ban is good (but a total ban would be better). Smoking releases thousands of toxins into the atmosphere, and countries with a stricter smoking ban (i.e., Ireland), have noticed a considerable change in air and living quality. It is easier to breathe, and bellows-driven devices (like filters and accordions) do not need to be cleaned as often. {1} {2} There has to be a line between protection and rights. The majority of new smokers (destined to become hooked) are uninformed, think they're invincible, and/or don't think they will ever become hooked. Banning/regulating smoking will kill the habit. Smoking truly is a disease itself; we are fooled into it by our family and friends who also smoke. If citizens have the right to put stuff in their bodies without being required to know what it does, should we just get rid of the FDA? Should we unban Red 2 and other toxic chemicals, and allow food joints to add as much trans fat as they want, simply because we are the ones (often unknowingly) choosing to harm our bodies? Should the government allow the sale of a sweetener known to be highly toxic, as long as there is a basic warning on the package? Should we allow dealers to ferment their stool and sell it as "Jenkem" on the street for a dollar (this exists in some parts of the world)? Put yourself in the shoes of an asthmatic or allergy sufferer who must be exposed to the secondhand smoke, or someone who regrets smoking after losing their mouth or tar lungs. Look up how much tar is in a year's worth of cigarettes. Watch a video on how cigarettes are made. Look up "Pig lungs soaked in cigarette tar". Find out how much land is used for tobacco production; land that could have been used for feeding the growing population. Do you still want those cancer sticks in our society? The ultimate question: Do you smoke? CITATIONS 1. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com... 2. http://abcnews.go.com...
Tobacco should be banned

Tobacco should be banned slowly. At first, there will be great taxes and high regulations (i.e., no smoking in public), and then it will become stricter. Eventually a total ban of tobacco will come into play. [An individual has a right to decide what goes into their body] According to this argument, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess. It's not just about the smoker, it's about the poor people who must be exposed to secondhand smoke. No one likes secondhand smoke, but most people have no choice because they have to go somewhere or are in a car. If you smoke at home, it could harm your roommate, family, or pets if you have any. You may not care about the health of those around you, but they do. If you live alone (no family or pets), it could harm whoever must walk into your house. According to the CDC, tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death. More than 440,000 tobacco-related deaths occur per year in the US alone. Of these deaths, 49,400 are from secondhand smoke exposure. Other risks: - Various cancers - Laryngectomy -Use of an artificial larynx, AKA robot voice. - Difficulty breathing - Oral problems -Bad teeth -Bad breath - Bad skin - Cardiovascular problems - Brain problems - Reproductive problems Many smokers were naive when they started. They thought "Oh hey, one won't hurt", and then they got hooked and regret it. Banning smoking will stop an addiction before it starts. I coundn't find any reliable sources that listed benefits to smoking. Citations: 1. www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
Tobacco should be banned

In this debate, I will be talking about why smoking should be banned or at least partially banned (i.e., illegal to sell). There are many risks to smoking that apply to both the smoker and the people who have to put up with secondhand smoke. No one likes the smell of cigarette/cigar smoke, and most smokers regret it later after finding out about what it does to the lungs (sometimes even seeing their own charred lungs through endoscope!) or developing cancer or emphysema. It is hard to quit. The solution is not to do it in the first place, and surgeon general warnings don't seem to do the trick. Society would benefit from a tobacco ban.
The Japanese wouldn't have won if they invaded Russia in 1941.

The cost would still be too high. The main problem with your argument is that the Japanese would still have the fuel to transport the large amounts of men and material in order to launch an invasion. The reason the Japanese attacked the Pacific holdings in the first place was that they needed fuel in order to continue to their war in China. Stalin didn't need to send reinforcements towards thee Far East since it so vast. John Keegan in the Price of Admiralty said that the Japanese were losing a million tons of fuel each month, meaning that the Japanese would need to attack the Dutch East Indies unless they wanted their invasion to ground to a halt. That is the point I am making. The Japanese would need to fight a war on two fronts, unless they wanted their war machine to grind to a halt within a few short months of their invasion. Stalin looked west instead of east, and the Far East forces would be able to stop the Japanese on their own. The Japanese would still be drawn into the war against the United States unless they managed to find the Siberian oilfields at least forty years early. The Japanese just couldn't fuel their forces and tanks, bombers, and transport over a large distance. Just outside of their range.
The Japanese wouldn't have won if they invaded Russia in 1941.

Thank you for accepting. First we shall look at logistics. Logistics for the Japanese was always a nightmare. They over stretched themselves, having forces in Mayala, most of the Pacific, Burma, Indochina, and China. Supplying them by sea would be almost impossible, due Vladivistok being frozen shut several months out of the year. The Japanese always had a smaller force than a hundred thousand men when conducting invasions against the Allied Powers. In order to invade Siberia and the Far East, the Japanese would have had to assemble a massive force, at least a million strong, while still having enough to continue to occupy the Chinese territories, Manchuria, Korea and the rest of their territories. Second, the Far East is vast. The main strength that the Russians here have is not that they have better troops, better armor or better aircraft,(though they had better armor) is that the Japanese would have to make sure that they could be bring up enough troops to garrison the entire place. A few thousand Russians with cold weather gear could hold Vladivistok as long as the railroad was kept open. Even if Vladivistok was lost, the Russians didn't just have that one area. The German attack on Moscow would still have been stopped even if Japan attacked. That's all the time I have. I await your response.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

Since this is the final round and since you must have only a preschool knowledge of the ability and lack there of to read I shall help you out ONCE AGAIN Sheesh I wish I could get someone intelligent and educated for a change to debate with. JUST ONCE would be A LITTLE BIT NICE THANK YOU! The title of this debate is ONCE AGAIN “god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. ” And what do you do? NOTHING except for one thing you stated in your 2nd and 3rd rounds had ANYTHING to do with that. “I still do not understand why my opponent believes that text form of communication is the worst form of communication for God to use. ” oh for f--k sake DID YOU EVEN READ THE QUOTES FROM Aron Ra, Dillahunty, and Hitchens? NO YOU DID NOT TO MAKE SUCH AN ASININE PIGHEADED STATEMENT. Yes I’m angry. I have EVERY RIGHT TO BE when someone is SO AMAZINGLY STUPID just like YOUR GOD. You mentioned the CHURCH. You mentioned CHRIST. AND YOU base your arguments on them. WHO CARES? They are NOT GOD now are they? The end. Now I am blocking you simply because, I mean you might be the nicest person on the planet and the greatest friend that there is, and the greatest person that there to get to know, but wow, we’ve been involved in 2 debates thus far, and your stupidity and lack-there-of-education and inability to debate someone who obviously has a lot more know-how into his subject matter than you, and you are clearly playing pretend time in preschool, I mean come on here, it can’t be anything less, well it becomes turning frustration into anger. And its not worth it. Sorry.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

I don't see how my statement contradicts what my opponent believes, considering what he has said in his arguments but whatever. My opponent has still not answered my previous question on why text form of communication is the worst form of communication for God and has instead opted to use ad hominem attacks. Once again, if he is to backup his claim he must provide evidence for it. I await to see this evidence. Sources: http://open.lib.umn.edu...
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

“My opponent's main issue with the Bible being a written document is that because there are many translations of it and many different groups interpret it in many ways,” WRONG. Sheesh. See? That’s why I hate debating with teeny boppers still in high school with an obvious high school edumcation and and a clearly stunted intelligence who has the brains of a fallen nightmare twig.Tell me, please (beat), what is the very title of this debate? Now get back to me when you have the answer and then go from there and then put that headliner ideal that you posted as a secondary thought and thus continue, but only if you want because I'm not sure if I want to because I want to have a debate with those that are INTELLIGENT and have an EDUCATION.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

My opponent's main issue with the Bible being a written document is that because there are many translations of it and many different groups interpret it in many ways, God (being an omniscient being) would not have wanted his word to be written down because he knew that people would get it wrong. Well, there's a simple answer to this. God established a Church to interpret the Bible without flaw. Jesus Christ established his Church in Matthew 16:18. Of course God knew there would be division and different interpretations of his word. That's why he made sure his church would be able to interpret it correctly. The Catholic Church throughout history has interpreted the Bible infallibly throughout its entire history. Which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are figurative are answered by the Popes and Bishops throughout the history of the Catholic Church. But even when Catholicism was the only form of Christianity, groups formed and broke off of the Church because they had their own interpretations(along with other reasons). It wouldn't have mattered if God wrote the Bible himself, people would still find a way to interpret it to their own wants and desires. Keep in mind the Bible was not written by God, it was written by humans inspired by God. I still do not understand why my opponent believes that text form of communication is the worst form of communication for God to use. He has proposed that text form is the worst and then gives no evidence to back up this proposition. In order for his statement to be true he must provide evidence. You cannot just state something to be true and then that makes it true. Give me evidence for why your statement is true and stop attacking me with ad hominem attacks by saying I'm not smart because I'm in high school or whatever. That is irrelevant to this debate. If my arguments are good, then it doesn't matter if I'm male or female, tall or short, in high school or not in high school. My education is irrelevant to my argument. My opponent also talks about how God must not exist because of some reasons. If he would like to debate those reasons he showed me then I can do that on another debate; but for now I thought this debate was assuming that "if" God exists, he would not use text communication. Sources: http://open.lib.umn.edu...
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

To begin, I would start by defining communication and the different types of communication. Def. of Communication - the imparting or exchanging of information There are 3 basic types of communication. 1) verbal communication, in which you listen to a person to understand their meaning; (2) written communication, in which you read their meaning; and (3) nonverbal communication, in which you observe a person and infer meaning. (open. lib. umn. edu) To start, I would ask my opponent why he believes that text form is the worst form of communication? Text form is very useful to store and teach information. If it wasn't for the Romans documenting their history, we would know little to nothing about them. The Bible is a great way for God to communicate to us because by having people write it down, we don't have to worry about having scholars remember all of it in their brains, which they may unintentionally (or intentionally) change parts of it. So to restate my first question, why does my opponent assume text form of communication is the worst form of communication? Sources: . http://open.lib.umn.edu...
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. Rules:For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

"you have NO RIGHT to call any religion or culture immoral, you assh*le." 1. [1-21]I have provided evidence to support my claims. 2. [22] Freedom of speech. 3. [23] My debate is not against the terms of service. You did not provide any evidence for your "counter-argument", you personally attacked me and thereby committed a logical fallacy that is called "ad hominem" and you are obviously either not informed at all, or just trolling. Sources: [1]: https://sunnah.com...... [2]: https://sunnah.com...... [3]: https://sunnah.com...... [4]: http://www.pewforum.org...... [5]: https://quran.com...... [6]: https://quran.com...... [7]: https://quran.com...... [8]: http://www.pewforum.org...... [9]: http://www.cbsnews.com...... [10]: http://pewresearch.org...... [11]: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...... [12]: http://www.pewforum.org...... [13]: http://www.pewforum.org...... [14]: http://reports.weforum.org...... [15]: https://quran.com...... [16]: https://quran.com...... [17]: http://old.ilga.org...... [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org...... [19]: https://sunnah.com...... [20]: https://sunnah.com...... [21]: http://www.pewforum.org...... [22]: https://dejure.org... [23]: http://www.debate.org...
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

First, to quote your second round, "the only time that the government should be allowed to make a law without an amendment is… war time" It seems that you have conceded that my primary contention is valid; that any legislation that doesn't meet a strict interpretation of the Constitution's limits ought to be rejected, unless we amend the Constitution to allow for such legislation. The only contention that you offer is the stipulation that Congress ought to have such a power (the power to pass extra-constitutional laws that violate the strict restrictions offered in the Constitution) in times of war, when "the country is in danger," and, "said action is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to protect the people of the United States (emphasis in original). This is, however, extremely dangerous. Firstly, how do you define "danger" or "absolutely necessary" in the context of these exceptions? Could I not argue that if our country is in danger of electing a poor president, and such a president could put our country in other perils, that suspending the election would be absolutely necessary to protect us from such a calamity? I certainly do no advocate such a policy, but it meets your requirements as written! Open-ended statements such as those are rife with the potential for abuse and misinterpretation. Besides, it was exactly under such a premise that a Republican congress and Pres. Bush launched the infamous ‘Patriot Act' that is so universally reviled as not only unconstitutional but a dangerous abuse of executive power! One kink in the armor can let the fatal arrow pass through. If we allow one law, or laws in one specific scenario, to circumvent the limits imposed by our Constitution, we set a dangerous precedent that will likely be followed up with further and more perverse distortions of our Constitution. We must reject all unconstitutional laws based upon their unconstitutionality alone; no matter how appealing, "necessary," or otherwise beneficial a law may be, if it is unconstitutional it MUST NOT be passed. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a constitution at all? Making a constitution of any kind a, "living document" in fact makes it a dead document. As I have said before, being governed by a constitution that is subject to contentious and loose interpretation that can be tailored to fit any legislation at all is equivalent to being governed by a blank piece of paper; it becomes meaningless.
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

Sorry, I was very tired when I posted last night and did not fully understand the argument set forth for this debate. I would like to make a huge point that will blow your case clear out of the water. You said in your second statement that there was a ban on MJ. And that ban was unconstitutional. Well my friend you are mistaken. MJ was banned on a state wide basses. It is not the out right government that placed the ban it was the 50 states, sure Pres. Bush tried to get a ban placed and his efforts failed. Now in regards to the argument at had about the government making laws without having an amendment made I can only bring into the argument that of war time. The only time that the government should be allowed to make a law without amending the constitution is when we need to make a fast move like in time of war. The government should not have to wait for the amendment when the fate of our country is in parole. The only exception to this would be a draft. That is a proses for the congress to go though. The only rule I set forth is it showed be allowed if: 1) The country is in danger. 2) Said action is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to protect the people of the United States.
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

It seems that you are making two major contentions; that the Constitution is outdated ipso facto that it was written in times that are fundamentally unlike our own, and that the Constitution ought to be modifiable through the amendment process. I will address the later argument first; stating that it is simply irrelevant. In my opening argument, and I quote, "the amendment process was put in place for a reason, and that is to allow this amazing document to reflect the times as they change." You simply agree with this statement; there is no argument here (that you have presented). I agree that the Constitution ought to be amendable; nowhere will you find me saying otherwise. My contention is that any change outside of an amendment is wrong, and ought to be enforced as unconstitutional (thus, null and void). I would like to offer, for example, the federal prohibition of drug usage. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to legislate in this way. At least the prohibitionists in the 1920's were honest; they sought (and got) a constitutional amendment allowing the government to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol; they understood that otherwise, the federal government would not have this power constitutionally. I challenge you to cite one reference in the constitution that gives the government the power to restrict the usage of mind altering drugs. Sure, they can make it illegal to operate equipment on public roads under the influence, or the like, but an out and out prohibition in unconstitutional. It has no constitutional grounds! This is exactly the type of thing that ought to be restricted (it is already "illegal" to go against the constitution, we need only to enforce it). If we pass a law that has no constitutional grounds, we do one of two things. 1) We ignore the constitution, thus completely negating the document, making it essentially a blank piece of paper, or 2) We de facto alter the constitution without an amendment (a- any law can only exist as legal if it is supported by the constitution. b- a given law having no constitutional grounds is declared legal by successful prosecution of violators; i.e. the courts uphold the law. c- therefore, the constitution must have 'changed' in order for the law to exist). Such a change is unconstitutional and paradoxical, and thusly the law ought to be expunged to avoid this paradox. Any type of change to the Constitution not involving an amendment in wrong. Laws that violate the Constitution as it stands when the law is passed de facto change the Constitution (as shown above) without an amendment. Therefore, any law that violates the constitution as it stands when passed, is wrong. Another way to say, "changing the constitution without an amendment" is to call the Constitution a living document that can be so changed through interpretation (and thus, legislation). Therefore, a "living document" constitution is wrong, and (as the resolution states), treating the US Constitution as a living document ought to be prohibited.
R: Treating the US Constitution as a "Living Document" ought to be prohibited.

Yes you are correct, the constitution is a beautiful thing. Also you said that it was meant to change for the times. We need to remember that the constitution and those other documents you had stated were created in a period of time where the people did not trust the government at all, also the main parties involved with the creation of said documents were the New England merchants and the Southerner Plantation owners. Others had a say but not much. And as you can see Robert we are not in that time period meaning that we must have the ability to change pieces of this document to the changing times. A major point I will bring up is in the Bill of Rights article 2 the right to bear arms. We have had a number of debates much like this one about the meaning and the need for this right to even be hear in the 21st century. Also it is not like they can just change this willey nilly. they (Congress, House) need to get enough people to agree with the change when the vote comes. Around 11,000 amendments have been tried only a few have occurred. Changes have been made, those changes helped our country. Women's right to vote. Blacks right to vote. Change needs to happen so our country changes with the needs of the people.