BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize marijuana in North American continent.

I'm not implying that we should implore international pressures at all. You seem to be creating straw men lighting them on fire and kicking them around. I'm simply stating that legalizing marijuana in North America is logical. Btw, your source makes an awesome argument for legalizing pot. From decriminalizing all drugs the results were less drug use among 13-15 year-olds, HIV infection rates dropped, drug trafficking and drug-related deaths fell. Which implies that people were seeking drugs as the forbidden fruit. Please tell your representative in government that you desire for pot to be legal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Legalize marijuana in North American continent.

The point that you brought up was that we needed to legalize in all across the board in the continent of North America, not that anti-weed laws harm the countries that hold them. What you are suggesting is still that we apply unnecessary international pressures on those who disagree with us and make it harder for them to uphold their own laws, which once more, is their right to have[1]! This is not a debate over the legalization of marijuana in general. This is a debate over legalizing it in a blanket way that passes the individual states and countries because you cannot wait. You are also overlooking the fact that not all of the nations in this continent get along well. Cuba and The United States still have a trade embargo[2]. The laws of one nation will not even inevitably lead to the other nations legalizing. If you look at a map of levels of legalization you will see that it is pretty common for a country not to even border another country on the same level of legalization[3]. 1. http://www.un.org... 2. http://www.cfr.org... 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Legalize marijuana in North American continent.

"There is no "we" that has any right to make a blanket legalization. It must be done one nation and state as a time, as it should be." LeMarquisDEnferYou are correct in this last statement. I did leave the implementation of such an endeavor to the imagination. I think we should convince the nations, states, and local government of the wisdom of such a plan first, and then change the laws to legalize pot. Now of course, a couple nations will resist and say "nay, we like our drug laws!" Yet, enforcement of such drug laws will become nigh impossible when every nation and state around them legalizes weed. So, even if some governments fail to listen, and still have drug laws, they should get rid of the anti-weed laws.
Legalize marijuana in North American continent.

I have several issues with the very premise of your argument. For starters I shall bring up sovereignty. I agree that the prohibition of marijuana is not right, but I only have the right to influence this in my own federal, state, and local laws. For me the prohibition of marijuana has to do with The United States Government, the Ohio state government, and the decisions made by the counties and towns in my area. I would never attempt to impose a drug legalization on one of our closest neighbors. It would be an insult to their sovereignty. I feel from your level of education on this topic, with that "we should," as if we in American can just bop with map with our magic wand, that you imagine we have only three or so countries in North America. The independent countries in North America are Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, and The United States of America. There are also territories in the continent owned by several European countries[1]. Each of these countries, as an independent state or as extentions of a state that is outside of ourselves, has completely different laws that we have no rights on which to infringe, from the context of any one of those states[2]. And considering that many of these listed governments are within the United Nations[3] and therefore are in agreement to respect the independence of other states according to Article 2 (4) - Prohibition of threat or use of force in international relations[4] and Article 2 (7) - Non-intervention in domestic affairs by the United Nations[5]. There is no "we" that has any right to make a blanket legalization. It must be done one nation and state as a time, as it should be. 1. https://www.countries-ofthe-world.com... 2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://www.un.org... 4. http://www.un.org... 5. http://www.un.org...
Legalize marijuana in North American continent.

I think we should legalize marijuana in the North American continent. I don't see how it makes much sense to have pot illegal in one state/nation and legal in the adjacent state/nation. With drug trafficking its too easy to cross the borders. Since its common knowledge that we lost the war on drugs, I feel keeping weed as a contraband substance is a waste of resources. Thanks for the debate. Marijuana [0] 0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Pro Will Lose This Debate

My Dear Friends, It is perhaps by fate that we have reached this point of no return. To vote either pro or con on this debate will unsettle the debate gods, forcing them to unravel the time-space continuum should either PRO or CON win this debate. Breaking the tie is as dangerous as dividing by zero... and for the love of all that is good in this world, we have no choice but to hang in argumentative limbo: neither victory nor loss.[1]Perhaps it was by fate that JaxsonRaine chose to, in this early morning, tempt fate. Perhaps it was destiny that I obliged. Perhaps we are all wholly insignificant in this world, much like Canada is when couples choose the location for their destination weddings. The fate of DDO and the world itself is in your hands, voter. You have the power to forever erase the delicate balance of fact and fallacy on the debate dot org. Only you have the power to protect all that we hold sacred in this world, until we all die when when the Mayan calendar comes to an end. We must therefore preserve what few precious days we have left, and follow the sage advice of the great philosopher Jay Sean, featuring Niki Manaj. We must party like it is 2012, until the end of 2012. [2] Prince tried to warn us of the oncoming tragedy of 1999, and fortunately the oncoming catastrophe was averted. Hence, we can party like its 1999 in 2012. [3] To preserve what is left of human existence, I beseech you, voter, let it remain a tie. Peace and Love, YYW [1] http://i0.kym-cdn.com... [2] Jay Sean Video: http://www.youtube.com... [3] Unfortunately, Prince is a douche who won’t let youtube host ANY of his music. It's ok though, he sings like he got kicked in the nads anyway.
Pro Will Lose This Debate

Please watch, listen, think, discuss. We face a problem that transcends simple debate, and challenges us as a society, as humanity. The resolution has allowed for the possibilty, even the likelihood, of a paradox capable of ending all existence as we know it. Ponder what lies there DDOian. If voters choose Pro as the winner of this debate, then Pro will have won by contradicting his own Resolution. The very laws of logic and reason would begin to unravel, leading to chaos and entropy. Sarah Palin would be elected POTUS. Iran would send a basket of fruit to Israel. Canada would become a popular tourist location... But as scary as these possibilities, nay, probabilities may seem, what would follow is too terrible to put into words.[1] Pristine White Lies Turn Dark. If voters choose Con as the winner, then Pro will have won by asserting the Resolution, trough losing. It seems there is no alternative but risk the very fabric of the universe by selecting a winne. But hark! The solution is in the problem. Choosing a winner will destroy existence (to be, will not to be!), but if there is no winner, the horrible fury of the paradox can be averted. Pro will not lose, and win, nor will he win, and lose. It is clear, fellow DDOians, that we have no choice but to call a tie. No measure must be withheld to ensure an even vote. If necessary, Askbob should be brought in to discover and disclose the physical location of anyone who attempts to tamper with the balance of Vote. Paradox with large typewritten documents. However, in case the balance of Vote is upset, and the world comes to an end, I would leave us with this song, and may it echo through the emptiness of neverternity: (Melancholy tune over soft Gregorian Chant) For comes a day, Where trolls will rule. And ever falls the evening light of joy. The time has come, To bid adieu. Our poor existence now shall end... ... just for the lulz. [1]http://images.wikia.com...
Government in India should set up brothels and amend anti-prostitution laws.

I'm extending my arguments because:1. I didn't have time to reply.2. Your cases don't have any evidence backing you up. My opponent has no evidence backing him. This debate was won before it was started. He has dropped several arguments. He uses his "reasoning" to try to debunk sources. If any judges vote for him, it will show the lack of debate experience of said judge. Debaters need evidence. He does not provide any evidence. I have won this debate a long time ago.Vote Con since I'm the only person with reasonable arguments with sources backing him up.Anime OP:;
Government in India should set up brothels and amend anti-prostitution laws.

Honourable Judges and my most worthy opponent, pls goto http://debateorg-round4.blogspot.in... the remaining part of Round 4 of the debate which I couldn't complete due to a sudden prior appointment.I'm extending my argumentsWHAT??? Is that ALL you had to say?Honourable Judges, you saw that this person just typed a phrase and went away. 1.) Actually, his/her time for posting the argument was ending so he/she just typed a phrase and went away. 2.) This is as good as forfeiting as my arguments and debated points stand unchallenged.3.) He/She has perhaps ran out of words after looking at my huge debated points and arguments.4.) It can also be possible that he/she got scared of huge paragraphs and hence decided to quit.5.) Even though I was running out of time and had a sudden appointment and emergency, still I posted my argument in an exterior site in a blog when I came back but he/she could not even do that and will make a trumped up excuse that he/she was busy etc. However, this is my last round. I am sure that you will decide very judiciously that who has won the debate and vote accordingly. I am having my good faith on you that you will do it without any prejudice and that is why I chose you. Pls vote for me as I have given all that which a normal healthy debate requires and especially if I did not type just a phrase in response to a huge reasoned paragraph with evidences without any reasoning or proof. Thank you.
some/all opinion statements are neither true nor false

if the lochness exists and she saw it, then it is a true statement. if the lochness doesnt exist, then she did not ACTUALLY see the lochness monster, so her statement is false. she probably just saw something that she mistook for the lochness The problem is we do not know whether or not Lochness exists or not. No one has yet found feasible evidence nor has anyone drained out all the water to prove it doesnt exist. When amy says she saw the monster but she was the only person to be there during the sighting of the monster, would that indeed make her statement true? If I told you I saw a ghost, bigfoot, unicorn, superman, and a vampire all in the lost city ofatlantis, however i was the only person to see it... Is my statement true or false? If a child says 2+2 was 5, we would correct them and tell them that 2 plus 2 is actually four. Udnfortunately, it has been scientifically proven that 2 and 2 added together give you four. if a child adds 2 and 2 and says that 2 2 equals 5, does that mean they are neither right nor wrong? if you think that a false thing is true, does not mean that it is neither false nor true.
some/all opinion statements are neither true nor false

if it isnt known whether or not something is true, that doesnt mean that it isnt true or false. if something is true, then it is true, regardless of whether or not people know.if the lochness exists and she saw it, then it is a true statement. if the lochness doesnt exist, then she did not ACTUALLY see the lochness monster, so her statement is false. she probably just saw something that she mistook for the lochnessif a child adds 2 and 2 and says that 2+2 equals 5, does that mean they are neither right nor wrong? if you think that a false thing is true, does not mean that it is neither false nor true.
some/all opinion statements are neither true nor false

How can that statement be false? She clearly said she saw the Lochness monster. She was not on any type of drugs of any sort, no medications, no alcohol as well. She was in Scotland visiting her Uncle Chester. When they were at his cabin by the lake, she saw a bulging figure on the surface of the lake. There has been no scientific evidence proving the existence of Lpchness nor has rheir been proof that it does not exi8. So when amy says "I saw the lochness monster" I conclude that statement is neither true nor false
some/all opinion statements are neither true nor false

I had to think for a while to think of anything. I don't know how it'll end out, but it seemed to rack up my brain a bit haha When Amy says "I saw the Lochness monster" That is neither true nor false. The Lochness monster does not exist. So her statement is not true. But she said she saw it, and being the stubborn being she is, she is firm in her position. So her statement is also not false. Therefore, when Amy says, "I saw the Lochness monster," that statement is neither true, nor false.
some/all opinion statements are neither true nor false

when Amy says "i like fudge", that is either true or false depending on whether or not Amy likes fudge.when Amy says "chocolate is better than vanilla", that statement can mean one of 2 things. if it means "i like chocolate better than vanilla", then that is either true or false. if she means that "chocolate is objectively better than vanilla", that would still be either true or false.do you disagree? can you give an example of an opinion that is neither true, nor false?
Death penalty

First, let me point out you did not put punctuation on two of your sentences. Second, "Someone who has killed many people should go outside outside roaming the streets". That is proving my point not yours. You also misunderstood me, I do not think they should put all criminals back onto the streets, although I think a full life in prison is fair. It just depends on the crime, which you did not specify what crime you were talking about in Round 2. Since it is very vague, I am not sure what you are talking about.
Death penalty

Today, it is behind a closed door. Which in turn does not put as much fear in other criminals. I think an alternative to the death penalty is life in prison. It keeps them off the streets but still gives them the opportunity to live a full life My opponent misunderstood my argument. If you don't kill the criminal and send them to prison they can still keep committing the crime. Someone who has killed many people should go outside roaming the streets. Living there full life would case more mischief and it also can decrease over population in jail
Death penalty

First let me say this, I honestly think it depends on the crime. Although today, the death penalty is not the same as it used to be. It used to be in front of the public eye, it pulled more emotion. Today, it is behind a closed door. Which in turn does not put as much fear in other criminals. I think an alternative to the death penalty is life in prison. It keeps them off the streets but still gives them the opportunity to live a full life. Also could you site the examples you stated such as "killing over 200 lives."
Death penalty

The death penalty has a purpose. People who have killed many and even thousands cant be sentence to death? Death penalty should exist because when someone commits a crime that's so violent the end result can cause hundreds to die. If there is no death penalty then the maniac will still kill more people. Death penalty is used to get rid of bad people so bad that hundreds die. If you think the Death penalty is bad because it kills people you must not know what the purpose of it is. The death penalty is a way to put fear into the criminal and to put fear into others. Crime has decreased and the death penalty still lives. Several tests have shown that the death penalty is an effective deterrent of future crimes. Do people who commit heinous crimes, such as the bombers, really have human rights. To say that we are lowering ourselves to that level is wrong. Killing over 200 innocent lives. We have to look as well at the possibilities of these criminals committing crimes again. In Australia murder, on average, is imprisonment for 12 years. This means many murders are set free, able to commit further crimes. Benefits of death penalty - decreases jail over population - puts fear into other criminals and shows a purpose - It avenges innocent lives - It decreases crime. Without the death penalty -Over population of crime in jail - More criminals roam around - citizen would be feared. Probably could cause strikes on government, - Crime rate goes up It is on to you now
Does the Quran preach violence

Loubna, you need to understand something, the Qur'an as I see it was basically written to address different situations in Muhammad's life. This explains why the Qur'an has very contradicting views on how to deal with unbelievers. You say that you are a Qur'an only Muslim, which makes you a heretic among the mainstream Muslim community. You may reject Hadiths and the interpretations of Ibn Kathir, but you don't understand my methodology. I don't use Ibn Kathir to prove my contentions, the verses speak for themselves when read in context. I use Ibn Kathir and the Hadith to prevent Muslims from accusing me from interpreting it to my likening. Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims quoted the very passages I provided to prove that Islam allows Muslims to fight and subjugate unbelievers. You say "well then, how do you explain the verses that encourage peace between Muslims and non-believers?" Like I said, the Qur'an is basically a mish-mash of verses that seem to mostly deal with the situation that Muhammad was in. This is what I like to refer to as the 3 stages of Jihad. Stage 1 - When Muslims are in the minority, they have no other choice but to preach peace and tolerance. Stage 1 is the context in which the peaceful verses like Surah 119 were supposedly "revealed". Stage 2 - When Muslims gain more power, they are allowed to employ defensive jihad. This is where verses like Surah 2:190 were "revealed". Stage 3 - When Muslims are in the majority, you will then see the true face of Islam. At this stage Muslims are allowed to fight OFFENSIVELY, not only in self-defense. Which explain why verses like Surah 47:35 - Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost, for Allah is with you. If you read the history of Muhammad's life and commentaries on the Qur'an, the 3 stages of jihad I just mentioned will become crystal clear. In fact, whenever Muslims even today are out numbered, they preach peace and tolerance (stage 1). When Muslims gain more power, they employ defensive jihad, for example: when cartoonists make fun of Muhammad in Europe, they fight because the unbelievers are now causing mischief in the land. When Muslims are in the majority, they employ OFFENSIVE jihad (stage 3). Just look at all the Muslim majority countries. Christians are being persecuted left and right, churches are being burned, Christians are being killed on the streets, as well as any one else who is not a Muslim. I have yet to go ONE DAY without seeing a story of a Muslim mutilating or killing a non-Muslim SIMPLY for being non-Muslims. And also, a recent poll done by AL-Jazeerah showed that 81% of Muslims in the Middle East support ISIS: http://www.breitbart.com... Further proof that the 3 stages of jihad is a reality, not myth. Islam does teach violence, as I have established from the Qur'an and the companions of Muhammad. If you know more than Muhammad and his companions, then maybe you should be the prophet of Islam, not Muhammad. Islam didn't start with you and it's not going to end with you. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I speak the truth in love, not hate.
Does the Quran preach violence

The problem gere is that I am a aquranist and I really domt believe in Ibn kathir tafseer or even hadiths and I didnt say in this debate ISLAM preaches violence I said the Quran and if you know ibn Kathir loved 3 centuries adter the death of Muhammed and Islam was complete amd even traditional muslims dont believe in all of what Ibn Kathir says hes only a man and I have an objecrion since you got out of topic since I was debating the Quran and not commentary of Quran and regaring the word Fitnah in arabic has nothing to do with disbelief it means persecution and lets say that Ibn Kathir is true what does he says about "If they incline to peace then incline to it" in Al Anfal amd in al Baqarah "If they stop then stop" ?? what are these verses?? Nothing ?? and if it was to fight all Jews and Christians how could we eat with them and marry from them as in Al Maidah says ?? and can he deny in Al Maida "Youd find the most loving to those who believe are Christians" ?? I think my opponent realized that the words of Quran are peaceful then he used commemtaries to show his point! Forget about and lets see the verse without commentary of "The penalty of those who wage war on Allah and his prophet..." from your intelligence does wage war mean disobey they have two different meanings in Arabic the word ised in verse was Yuhariboom amd not yooardoon and this means physical war since the word is derived from Harab means killing anyway and if it was only disobeying why the prophet prayed for the Hupocrites who tried to assasinate him as in Chapter Al Munafiqoon "And ifnyou tell them comemandnlet the prophet seek Gods forfiveness om you" and ot says"They are the true enemy so take care from them" then why didnt he say kill them ?? amd how can ypu demy the verses "No compulsion in religion" if the verses you stated.meant fighting until they beieve ?? I am sorry but my oppomemt ,ust only state the Quran as the debate was and not Man-,ade commentaries amd understandings was Ibn Kathir revealed to him!! amd let me take your verses one by one the forst one as I stated Frimah ,eams persecution in Arabic and I have nothing to do with the ,istranslation since other translations have the rightt meaning and that of tjose who traded thoer lives with herafter. eams tjose who wage war on you as we camt cherry-pick verses amd leave the verse saying"Fiight in the path of Hod those who fight you" in Al baqarah so those who fight you are those who traded live woth Herafter amd that of the mecks is also im deffensive war as I showed you the verses I domt know why ,t oppomemt camt understand that the Quran ,ust be takem in whole amd I ask jim a straight question amd I demmand an answer if your quoted verses ,eamt offemsive verses what do the verses I state mean ?? Dont they say ot os deffensive ?? I de,mand him to tell ,e why he ignpres the berses I state