BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of sex-work

First of all, I want to say that I respect your opinion and attitude towards this issue even though it is not the same as mine, but I would like to keep this debate factual and neutral. The fact is that prostitution is referred to as "the world"s oldest profession" - it's not going away any time soon. Why not make the best of it? Why not give the sex workers the best conditions and working environments? When we have the opportunity to legalize sex work, give sex workers the safety they obviously need and help people make a living for themselves, why not do it? As I mentioned in my previous argument, legalizing sex-work would give safety to the sex workers. Several studies have shown that there definitely is a reduction in violence towards the sex workers when their profession is legal. When prostitution is illegal it drives the sex workers underground, which only exposes them to a greater danger. We are all human beings - whether we choose sex work as a profession or not. As humans we have rights. Do sex workers not deserve rights? Do they not deserve protection from violence? You mention the fact that fornication is legal in the west. Yes, it is. But legalizing sex work wouldn't make sex outside of marriage any more acceptable than it already is. It might make adultery easier to some people, but if it at the same time provides more safety to the sex workers, then I would say that it's quite all right.
Legalization of sex-work

Let me start this out by defining what exactly prostitution is. Prostitution is exchanging sexual relations for some kind of payment. Prostitution is occasionally referred to as "the world"s oldest profession". In the United States, prostitution is illegal across the country. This includes all three "categories" of sex work: street prostitution, brothel prostitution and escort prostitution. Only in some counties of the state of Nevada, prostitution is legal where they have regulated brothels. Al though prostitution is legal in Nevada, procuring is not. This meaning that another person cannot legally act as a "pimp" or "madam" for a sex worker. I would also like to clarify that I think sex-work should be legalized, not procuring, trafficking or any other kind of exploitation. 1)If prostitution was to be legalized, it would increase the safety for the sex-workers. First, if a prostitute was violated while working, it would be a lot easier for that person to go to the police since the profession wouldn"t be illegal. Most sex-workers wouldn"t want to go to the police in fear of being arrested and prosecuted themselves for working as a prostitute instead of being treated as the victim of whatever crime it may be. Second, legalization of prostitution would most likely make it easier for the sex-workers to avoid STDs and therefore not pass them on to their clients. Sex-workers could get regular check-ups and be helped to take the necessary precautions. Third, when you"re a legally employed person in the United States you have rights. Rights such as having a minimum wage, having freedom from discrimination and having a safe work environment " rights that sex-workers currently don"t have in the US because they can"t be legally employed (with the exception of a few counties in Nevada). 2)Legalizing prostitution would also require sex-workers to pay taxes from their payments. Paying taxes would make sex-workers contribute to society on equal footing as every other tax paying American. 3)Legalizing sex-work would give people a choice. It gives consenting adults the right to choose to engage in sexual acts. Sex-workers who are employed in legal brothels would have the freedom to choose. They wouldn"t be forced to have sex with anyone or take on clients that they don"t want to, which is very likely to happen to the illegal prostitutes working on the streets.
Israel will not experience a nuclear attack within the next twenty years

Rules: 1) Since I am Con, I do not have to prove that Israel will get nuked. I can if I want to, but the burden of proof is on Pro. 2) No spamming, trolling, flaming etc. 3) No off-topic. Definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com...): Nuclear attack: Israel: a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948. 5,534,672; 7984 sq. mi. (20,679 sq. km). Capital: Jerusalem. Since I feel like it, I will present evidence to prove that Israel will experience a nuclear attack. As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Now, the president whatever of Iran has said that: **"Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives."**, "Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added. (http://www.ynetnews.com...) Some people say that because of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Iran cannot do anything. They are wrong because: 1) Russia is an ally of Iran. Should USA or Israel nuke/invade Iran, Russia would be there to protect them or to nuke back Israel/USA. 2) Barack Obama, the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel. So, Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Isreal and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two. We have a country who wants to destroy Israel (and USA) and *will have nuclear weapons soon*. What is USA doing? Of course, every rational being would think that America would destroy the nuclear reactors in Iran. Nope. Today, President Barack Obama said (not exact words), "Why hate, let's be friends. We want to negotiate and establish a friendship." Israel ain't doing anything, either. Especially not after the elections, when the president of Israel is a pacifist. Let's summarize. 1. Iran (plus terrorists and other countries) want to annihilate Isreal from the surface of the Earth. 2. Iran will have fully functional nuclear missiles within a year or two. 3. Neither the USA nor Israel are doing anything. C1: Iran wants to burn Israel to the ground and will soon have nuclear missiles, therefore being capable of achieving their goal. No-one is doing a thing to prevent this, instead, Russia is an ally of Iran. I'd like to end with a quote from Mahmudjhin... the Iranian guy. "Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world." This conquest is about to begin.
Intelligent design does not exist

"My opponent argues here that if God knows what choices his creation will make, then we don't have free will, meaning God forced us into our choices. If we have free will then God does not know what we will do in the future.This is a very simple argument to refute.1. There is nothing within the concept of ID that mandates all creation have free will. In order for this argument to be valid, my opponent must prove that we do indeed have free will.2. This can also be refuted by simply saying: Knowing what someone will do, is not forcing them to do it. Example: I know that person A will marry person B in the future. I did not remove there free will."My opponent misunderstands the argument from free will. What it means is that if it's possible to know what choice that creature with free will will make; then it must be "destined" to happen. If "destiny" is true, then free will doesn't exist. So if God knows the choice that animal makes, "destiny" is real and that means that there is no free will. Basically without determinism; it's impossible to know what a creature will do; it's not a matter of forcing them to do it. Essentially you can't know something for sure if there's any chance that something else might happen."Here my opponent makes another simple error in logic. None of said attributes are necessary to the concept of ID. in order for any of your arguments to be valid, my opponent must first illustrate that ID cannot exist without these attributes."So back to defining the creator. We've already established that the creator MUST be a being that exists outside of space-time since there is no way anything could have designed the universe unless it wasn't part of the universe. Another proof that the designer must be a transcendental God is because if it was part of this universe then according to intelligent design any "irreducibly complex" parts must have been designed and then you go into an infinite regression.So one argument against the existence of the intelligent design God: Nothing can exist before the universe because the universe is all there is (except in the case of a multiverse which doesn't change the end result; because nothing can control an entire universe.)CONCLUSIONI have both proven that ID cannot exist without a transcendental God and that a transcendental God is impossible.
Intelligent design does not exist

Intelligent design claims that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.It makes no claim as to who the designer is; but we can try to deduce that from thee "theory."First off it says that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. What could that cause be; there are two possibilities: aliens or God.We can discount the alien creator because to guide evolution or add completely new parts to the biology of animals they'd have to continually visit earth which hasn't happened. So the only option would be God.Second it says that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. We can immediately discount aliens in this one since they couldn't have been around long enough or have enough control over nature to cause "certain features of our universe." The only thing with that much power is God.So from the claims of Intelligent design we can deduce that the supposed designer is God. Now it's a simple matter of disproving God.I have three proofs that God doesn't exist: The Omnipotence ParadoxThis is an example of the Omnipotence Paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it."If God can lift the rock then he's not omnipotent because he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can't lift the rock than he's not omnipotent because his strength is limited. So either way God is not omnipotent.The Argument From Free WillIf God is omnipotent he is able to create a being with free will. God must also be omniscient in which case he must know what choice that creature with free will will make. This is a paradox because if God know what choice the creature will make, then that creature doesn't have free will; its choice is already determined. If God doesn't know what choice the creature will make, it does have free will, but then God isn't omniscient because there is something he doesn't know. So either way God does not have one of his defining attributes.The Argument From Quantum MechanicsThis is an argument that I created. It goes like this: God is omniscient meaning that he is observing every particle in the universe. In the double slit experiment an electron was shot at two slits and passed through both because it was a wave and when it hit the detector it became a particle. This is called wave function; the double slit experiment showed that a particle is a wave until it is observed; when it becomes a particle its wave function has collapsed. Now if God is omniscient he MUST be observing every particle in the universe. However if this is true then the electrons in the double slit experiment wouldn't have a wave function since they would have been observed by God; but the electrons did have a wave function. Therefore God cannot be omniscient and therefore cannot exist as we presently define him.These arguments disprove God because they show that his attributes cause paradoxes.CONCLUSIONBy disproving the designer I have disproved Intelligent Design.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.debate.org...
Legalization of Marijuana in the U.S.

My opponent forfeited this round, so all of my contentions can be extended for the round and no longer refuted by my opponent. I will now adress my opponent's case. My opponent mentions several downsides to marijuana, and in reply simple says "these are untrue". That is not a way to disprove points. Because of this lack of justification, these points ought to be negated. Thus, my opponents entire case falls. You can cross apply my arguments to his case, thus disproving all of the arguments he made. I strongly urge you to negate
Legalization of Marijuana in the U.S.

I negate the legalization of marijuana in the U.S I will be defending the status quo in this round of marijuana being illegal. 1. Drugs rob the user of free will. A drug user cannot make an informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user"s ability to think logically. Nor can they disseminate themselves from drug taking. And if the government was to support this it would allow them to more easily brainwash the people and control them. 2.Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user. In the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. It would also minimize productivity. People would be more frequently on the influence at work, on the road, and during other activities putting people at risk and limiting people's capability. 3. The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the Gateway Theory). The permission of one drug would spark a revolution to legalize all drugs. Even if it doesn't, it promotes people to "move up" on drug use and "upgrade" to more dangerous, and illegal, drugs. 4. Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable. It inherently isn't as non-medical drug use has many substancial problems such as addictions, health problems, and such forther. Because of these reasons, I negate.
Legalization of Marijuana in the U.S.

Since the early 1900s, weed has been demonized and considered harmful and destructive. Today, several studies have arose to disprove these theories. One study suggests that the only effect of cannabis on humans is the temporary loss of short-term memory. Nobody has ever died, or contracted any health issues caused by using weed. The government and smaller organizations including D.A.R.E. have gone out of their way to demonize this plant in an effort to hide it's many uses from the public. Some examples of common propaganda include the theory of weed acting as a "gateway" drug, the theory of weed causing lung cancer/tumors, and countless others. These are all untrue.
The stinking rich should consider people like me a charity.

Pro claims in reference to my source1, his own profile: "Nope, this is wrong." Yet fails to offer any corrections.I offered con an easy way to become a charity, via becoming a helping hands monkey; but he does not wish to become one as he would rather be a lizard: "I make a much more convincing lizard." Skin problems aside, a basic web search revealed no seeing-eye-lizard (or related) programs for pro to become a companion pet for."CON SAYS: 'ther r not dat many celebripees or peepul hoo wun the lotterie tenn mimmits agooooo'"Voters please verify for yourself that I never said such things, not even with proper spelling. This is both pro surrendering S&G, and a large strike against conduct (possibly setting it to tied after my straw men last round). In case he was hallucinating, any of his friends should probably alert the police to check in on him.In reference to rape vans, rather than claiming I had faulty reasoning, pro insists they're proof that "my idea works." Which he furthers the idea, by connecting it to "CRATE-INHABITING." No one should have to pay tax dollars to support rape vans, nor should rape vans count as a charitable contribution on taxes. Same with forcing girls to live in crates, to remove (or decrease) the van part of the equation."COCKREL-CHASING..."I cannot properly respond to the line of reasoning that followed, as I'm unsure what Cockrel-Chasing means; perhaps cockerel chasing? Even then what would be the context of this argument? (who needs a van when you have a trained cockerel?)"Con needs to learn that from time to time, people want to do fun and important things,"This was in reply to a picture of a van with 'free candy' written on the side of it: "Fun and important things."As for wanting to ride roller coasters, or get a non-existent iPhone 6... Get a job, and save up just a few dollars a month; by the time the iPhone six is out you'll have enough money for it.As too many of my counter points were completely ignored (such as the top 1% not being touched by the redistribution proposal, and the 59 people in question not being able to benefit due to instant celebrity status making them have to pay into the system while getting nothing in return), I urge a vote in favor of con.Besides if judging this as a troll debate, you know I made you laugh more (to verify just look at the 'hands up those who believed there was candy in this van' picture).
The stinking rich should consider people like me a charity.

CRAZY CON SAYS: "No. As a fourteen year old [1], it's your parents who should consider you a charity; not anyone else... Unless you end up in prison, then it'd be every taxpayer who has to support you, but the filthy rich rarely pay taxes [2]."Nope, this is wrong.COCKY CON SAYS: "If you want to become an official charity, you can always join Helping Hands Monkeys, where you'd be trained to assist people with your "dexterous hands and amazing fine motor skills" [3]."Con is IGNORANT of the fact that I make a much more convincing lizard.CALAMITY-CAUSING CON SAYS: "ther r not dat many celebripees or peepul hoo wun the lotterie tenn mimmits agooooo"First of all, look at that SLOPPY spelling! How can we trust a nut like that to make convincing arguments? CRATE-INHABITING CON SAYS: "Society already pays too much due to the problems of rape vans." Perhaps, but my idea works. COCKREL-CHASING CON SAYS: "I'm getting ready to throw up."So are our simply fabulous audience, who won't fall for Con's stupid dumb crazy baseless idiotic insane nonsensical dorky wrong biased arguments, alliterative name-calling or being sucked up to.COLD-CALLING CON SAYS: "Which is precisely why the money would be better spent on education, to make no one fall for this..."Con needs to learn that from time to time, people want to do fun and important things, like ride the latest roller coaster or get the NEW iPhone 6.2387609832987. Thanks.
The stinking rich should consider people like me a charity.

No. As a fourteen year old [1], it's your parents who should consider you a charity; not anyone else... Unless you end up in prison, then it'd be every taxpayer who has to support you, but the filthy rich rarely pay taxes [2].If you want to become an official charity, you can always join Helping Hands Monkeys, where you'd be trained to assist people with your "dexterous hands and amazing fine motor skills" [3]. Pro asserts in his stages of richness speech, that "Celebrities and People who won the lottery 10 minutes ago" should give their money rather than to something useful to society, to "KingDebater & Friends" a total of 59 people in the whole world [1].Since winning the lottery takes greater than 10 minutes to get the money, this proposed idea would suffer much the same fate; KingDebater & Friends would instantly be raised into the tax bracket having to give money out (due to their instant celebrity status), before they could hope to receive any at all. Plus it entirely leaves the top 1% (those with 90% of the wealth) of earners out, as most of them are not celebrities.Plus consider the crime spree proposed (straw men ahead)."Unneccessarily luxorious motorized vehicles - I will literally be able to pick up all the hot girls I want."Society already pays too much due to the problems of rape vans. "Talking Pets - I reckon girls will be so impressed by this that they'll be describing me as 'Dreamy' in no time!"Drugging them so much they think your pets talk, does not change the moral problems of it."Big Holes - This is where the fun begins"I'm getting ready to throw up."I'm sure there's some moron out there that will allow me to actually do this"Which is precisely why the money would be better spent on education, to make no one fall for this... Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.zerohedge.com... [3] http://www.monkeyhelpers.org...
The stinking rich should consider people like me a charity.

"How do normal charities work?" I hear you cry. Well, how they work is people who are richer than me (but still not rich enough to afford a Millionaire's mansion) give money to people who are a bit less rich than me. I argue that following this logic, richer people should give money to people like me! To illustrate my point, I'll use some stages of richness.Stage 1 - Smelly Poor (The usual lucky ones who get money given to them via charities)Stage 2 - KingDebater & Friends (me)Stage 3 - People who give money to charity (This is the biggest one, and is comprised mainly of normal regular boring old people)Stage 4 - The Stinking Rich (Celebrities and People who won the lottery 10 minutes ago) Stage 3 currently gives to Stage 1, So stage 4 should give to stage 2.What would I spend that money on? Well....• Unneccessarily luxorious motorized vehicles - I will literally be able to pick up all the hot girls I want. • Talking Pets - I reckon girls will be so impressed by this that they'll be describing me as 'Dreamy' in no time!• Big Holes - This is where the fun begins. I just put it in the middle of the road, and kablam! Accidents.• More Money - I'm sure there's some moron out there that will allow me to actually do this.I thank you.