BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

"the high price has had little to no impact on the motivation to the evolution of drugs"Lets say that all drugs are legal. Then the price of all existing drugs would be relatively low thanks to competition. Since the price is low, and the demand for the existing drugs are high. Then why would companies spend money on developing new drugs, when there is no demand for new drugs? "the high prices don't discourage them from buying marijuana leaves" That is the problem! There are two reasons why the drug price is high when it is illegal. 1. It is illegal. 2. The demand is high. If the demand is high, there is always room for more competition by other drugs, especially when the new drugs are cheap, and has the double effect. You did not point out any facts or arguments here, you just said that im not telling the truth. Could you please explain?"as on 2017 alone, 20,503 drug offences have been committed" I'm assuming that you mean in the Netherlands alone. 1 in 3 adults have tried an illegal drug once in their lifetime. Some would argue that there are even more who try drugs in countries that drugs are legal in. But it is at least 1 in 3 adults have tried drugs. Netherlands population is about 17 000 000 people. 17 000 000 / 3 = 5 666 666. So there are at least 5 and a half million people who have tried drugs in Netherlands. 20 503 / 5 500 000 = 0.0037, which means that about 0.4% of all the people who do drugs are commiting drug related crimes, and if it is like you say: that more people do drugs if they are legalized. Then that number would become even smaller. So by using this argument as a response to mine, you are taking an exceptional and extremely small scenario in order to make all scenarios illegal.I do not see why you would believe that 52 out of 100 people in WV dies because of drug overdoses. According to THE SAME SITE that you used, these are the leading causes of deaths in WV 2016. s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="602" height="337" /> s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="460" height="45" /> As you can see here, only 884 people died because of drug overdoses. Check it for yourself:https://www.cdc.gov... But even if that "fact" would be true, then why is it that marijuana and other drugs are strictly illegal in WV? s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="602" height="271" /> The answer to that question is that, just because something is legal, does not necessarily mean that more people is going to use it. What you are refering to is: "If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!" Well, how many people reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I dont think that drugs are good for anyone, but I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his or her own way. If we make drugs legal, then I think that the drug addicts should be offered help with their problems, and I would also think that the drug addicts would actually dare to seek help. The other alternative is that we put them in prison, where there is a higher rate of drugs and criminality. We give them contacts into the black market by putting them in prison.
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Disclaimer: This is the format used in competitive debating. Good luck to Pro! Before I begin, I'd like to start off by firmly establishing my stance. Simply, side con believes that status quo, while not perfect, is eventually a better world through comparative to pro's world. Now, I will proceed to engage with the points that side pro has brought up. Side Pro comes up and tells you two things. Firstly, that it is because of the high price that led to the evolution of drugs. Secondly, that people should be trusted to keep away from the drugs themselves. However, side con firmly believes in the contrary. To address the first point, side con can come up and tell you any day, any time, any where, that the high price has had little to no impact on the motivation to the evolution of drugs. For one thing, while marijuana prices are quite high, there are multiple places where you can see people around the area smoking the drug. Yet, the high prices don't discourage them from buying marijuana leaves, no matter how harmful to their health these particular drugs are. Marijuana is just the starting line, by the way. Instead, it is simply because of basic human want to see a new version of a drug that keeps inspiring new development of drugs. Even if we legalize all drugs, there still will be a lot more development on such evil things, and it won't be discouraged. Secondly, side con believes that while people have the right to choose, it shouldn't remain absolute. In fact, for such a big problem, I believe that people shouldn't even have a say in which drugs they want to use or not; as in multiple countries, there are drugs legalized, such as the Netherlands. Yet no matter how much trust they place on the people, it all has been betrayed, as on 2017 alone, 20,503 drug offences have been committed, and there were 14,000 high risk opioid users. As a government, with the safety of the people is at hand, the absoluteness to the right of choice will have to be restricted, yet, I am going to bite the bullet, by saying that I believe it is still a worthy trade-off to make for a better society. This brings me to my substantial point. This is going to be short, as I'm running out of characters to type, but this will prove how drugs are very deadly to a lot. We have to take into account that there is a reason why the War on Drugs is actually happening. These substances risk the lives of just about every civilian out there, who, the moment they begin drinking or smoking, have a much higher chance of being addicted and dying of overdose once and for all. In fact, in West Virginia, 52 out of every 100 people have died due to drug overdose in 2016 alone, and in Florida, 4728 people have died for the same cause. This shows the utter threat drugs pose to humanity. It kills a lot. Overall, drugs have brought a huge death toll on the people, and as a government, we need to stop it. https://www.cdc.gov...
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Hello NDECD1441! Wishing you the best of luck for this debate!My main argument for legalizing drugs would be that the drug user is only harming him/her-self. But I think I'm going to have to argue more objectively on this one, since you obviously don't believe in that philosophy.The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been lower, cocaine would have never been popular. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so high? The answer to that question is that it were illegal. If marijuana would have been legal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were illegal, it got harder to sell, so the drug dealers could set a higher price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive, and potentially more dangerous drug also went up. So my point is, the more money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it get for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, cheap, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason for so called internet drugs today. If the price would be low, nobody would develop new drugs, because there is no demand for it.People who are against the legalisation of drugs usually believe: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!Well, how many people reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would start using it just because it would be legal. Nobody think like this: oh I cant take care of myself, and I don't want to use drugs, so I need the governments laws to take care of me!Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs, you either want to do drugs, or you don't. Simple as that.I do however understand the risks involved with drugs, and I'm aware that some people commit crimes while high. But this is a really bad argument against the legalisation, because 1 out of 3 adults have tried drugs at some point in their lifetime. But far from 1 out of 3 adults have a drug problem. This means that most people are actually able to have a good life while doing drugs. This means that the people who use this argument is taking an exceptional and small case in order to prove that all cases are bad, which is an extremely bad way of proving a point.My question for you is: If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "destroy their lives" with drugs or not, why are the same people, through voting, qualified to make good decisions with regards to, war, economics, abortion, the death penalty, international trade, schools, immigration, liberties… and yes ironically, if people should be allowed to do drugs or not?
GIF is pronounced 'jif'

Hello again I'd first like to point out that your argument is flawed. You can't prove that giraffes exist. Therefore the Pronunciation is irrelevant. Let me ask you to picture this- someone sends you a little picture on your technical device. What do u think? You think "this is a nice little gift I have received". And that is why you take off the T of it gift and say "Gif" with a hard G sound. Thank you for your time.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

Well, this analogy may work if I brought up the problem of evil as an argument. As a God showing someone he exists doesn't mean people will become dependant on God. If the government shows people there exists social programs this doesn't make people dependent upon them. In many religions doesn't God want to be worshipped? Won't he do things for people if they ask? Such as Christianity the scriptures say to cast your cares on the Lord and he will take care of you [1][2]Without removing human desires, people will desire for an all-mighty being to help them out of every problem. People's wants can never be fully met. This is why welfare will never be abolished. People love presidents that give them things. By showing that social programs exist, naturally, many people will flock to it. Just as if God were to show his existence, (an all-mighty being who could, in essense, change the laws of the universe just to help you) people would depend on God for every single problem. As I said before, this is just a thought. No one will ever know why God hasn't revealed himself. Ontological"Simply speaking, this kind of argument comes to "show me god and to I am going to show an existing god". It's just a kind of circular reasoning as the existence was made into your presumptions."This isn't circular reasoning. The argument isn't stating, "God exists because he exists." KalamThis is a red herring. As the argument is God was not needed for the universe to come into existence. Not that the universe is eternal.How is it a red herring if it actually supports the argument? It's saying that the universe was never eternal which supports the idea of an initial cause. I've refuted the first premise of the Kalam. Which Con has not objected to. I've been rejecting that the entire time. Even the scientist, Alexander Vilenkin, that you used states that the universe began to exist. This is a quote from Alexander Vilenkin "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Atheism is more probable than Theism

Defense of the Argument from reasonThis argument relies on the premise that God wants everyone to believe in him. It only eliminates the possibility that he wants everyone to believe in him. For it is very possible that God does not want everyone to believe in him. This idea only comes from the written scriptures. This in no way eliminates the existence of an initial cause.Yes we can eliminate existence of an omnibenevolent deity. As if God doesn't want me to believe he wants me to go to hell, which isn't all loving at all. If you want to remove omnibenevolence then we can move to the other forms of the argument.Then why are the majority of the population on Earth theists? Obviously, there is some reason for belief.See # 3, If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledgeThis can actually be an argument against God revealing himself. As there are so many contradicting religions and beliefs. Even within religions we have conflicting doctrine. Many theists do question the existence of God sometimes, some even become atheists. However if there really was some good reason for belief we shouldn't see this. Ontological ArgumentCon only goes after a small fragment of my argument and ignores most of it. So I will not spend too much space on this one.For one, your Hercules argument fails to meet the criteria of a maximally great being.This is a straw man of what the parody is trying to show. This parody isn't trying to prove Hercules is or was a maximally great being. KalamAgain Con only goes after 1 part of the argument. The video Con posted straw mans my argument as it goes after an old and outdated vacuum model called "The Tryon model" . William Lane Craig States"According to Isham this problem proved to be “fairly lethal” to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were “jettisoned twenty years ago” and “nothing much” has been done with them since."This is clearly going after another model. As I have shown in R2, there are modern physicists who work on these models. The model I was referring to is the "Alexander Vilenkin model". None of Craig's objections apply here. Vilekin's model doesn't claim there was any type of background space (which Craig based his objections off), but that the universe was the result of a quantum tunneling event [1].And what it means is that even if the universe has always existed, what cause it to exist-for under different circumstances, a never ending universe may not have existed. I still don't get it. If the universe has always existed, it doesn't have a cause. As if God always existed he wouldn't have a cause. If we can imagine something possibly not existed this doesn't mean it has to of had a cause.Sources[1] http://mukto-mona.net...
Lincoln wasn't as great of a president as everyone thinks

I would like to use this round not to rebuttal anything, but to end this debate by saying, I concede. I am not giving up because I just want this to end or any such thing, but because it is quite clear that there is no way for me to win this debate. I have nothing left to say that would end in this being a win for me. The sources that were used clearly show the opposite of my argument using the words of reputable historians who clearly are much better suited in deciding a matter like this than I. So this is where I wave my white flag and extend the olive branch. I would also like to thank you for this opportunity. I do not often get a chance to voice my opinion like this, and it is always good to be humbled. I would also like to thank you for the advice. I have never been in an official debate like this, so I do not really know all the twists and turns of properly voicing my opinion. I also wish you the best in any of your future debates, even though it does not seem like you need me too. Again, thank you, and sorry for ending this debate like this, but I really have nothing left to say after what you wrote.
Lincoln wasn't as great of a president as everyone thinks

Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the union, is the stance of everyone who knows who he is. To me, he is only well known and supported just because of the situation he was in, and that the union did win the war. What many people do not know is that he was not against slavery. While he was not for slavery, he decided not to take a stance on the matter. One thing that shows this is the Emancipation Proclamation. Yes, it emancipated the slaves, but only in confederate territories. Since the south seceded this virtually did nothing. The south did not follow the laws of the north. It also did not emancipate slaves that were held in union states, such as Maryland. And which president displaced the most Native Americans, Jackson, right? No, it was good ol' honest Abe.
bible is not word of god

its not about "god is right and the bible is the word of god" every religion claims they r right so what to do? ok why u believe that christ is the only way? there r other religions why your way is right?? u dont have answers utleast ask any pastor believe me they dont have answers,,, dont be a zombie uttering always "bible is god word" without understanding. u dont have the guts to read this..true believer will read without doubts... if u dont learn new stuff u will sink endlessly in the same mud... good luck my friend god bless u
bible is not word of god

frist of all you didnt refute anything and saying "God has a reason for everything he does and bible is from god" - sure god has the reason but from where do u know that bible is actually from god ? because you are born christain or someone said so? im showing u this is not word of god i dont know if you using your brain or believe whatever you hear... you know what? lets ignore the stupid features of god as a "raoring, hissing, barber, riding little girl angels (im not mocking the bible its opposite the bible mocking god) how christain explain the contradictions? word of god =intact/flawless/without contradictions this is common sense unless you r a zombie... believe me you cant explain them go to pastors bishops pope whatever you find they dont have answers... PLEASE dont follow blind faith its waste of time... and i have a question which version of the bible you are using that i may show you through it... here bart d. ehrman - New Testament scholar,became an Evangelical Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[3] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic. CHECK HIM ON YOUTUBE... good luck and im waiting for respond...
X Factor is better than American Idol

I believe that X Factor is better than American Idol for the following reasons: (1) The Production - The show puts on a much bigger production especially at the live shows instead of a singer just standing up and signing like American Idol contestants the X Factor get back up dancers, set and creative directors to work with to help them put on a show. I find American Idol contestants just stand there and sing looking boring. (2) The Judges- The X Factor has much better judges. Simon Cowell is known as the god of reality music tv and Britney Spears is one of the worlds most successful female artists of all time. (3) The format - The X Factor breathes new life into the reality music show market. American Idols format is boring and dated due to its age. The X Factors format is more dramatic and intense. (4) American Idol is dated - It is old boring and should be put off the air!
Donald Trump as president

Donald trump would be a bad candidate. He has no political experience, is racist and sexist, and doesn't explain things at all! He said he will replace Obamacare with "something terrific", like what? When he says terrific, it may mean horrible! He doesn't explain how it will be! China is one of the United State's major trade partners, and Donald Trump's stance on trading with China? "Listen you motherf*cker, we're going to tax you 25 percent!" China is a very important country to the US, and China would be outraged if Donald Trump actually follows through. Here is another quote from Donald Trump. "I will build a great wall " and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me " and I"ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." How will he make Mexico pay for that wall? Mexican President Vicente Fox said multiple times "he would not pay for that f---ing wall." Mexico is our 3rd biggest trade partner, and over 2 million people's jobs are related to trade with Mexico. Trying to get Mexico to pay for the wall would put 2 million jobs at risk. Donald Trump doesn't really have a plan for that(or anything)! If you take a look at the Republicans' political experience, Donald Trump is one of the few that has none. Cruz, Rubio, and even most of the other long-shot candidates have some sort of political background. That's why Donald trump would be an inexperienced and bad candidate. And, Donald Trump is both racist and sexist. He thinks all Mexicans are rapists, is a friend of Ku Klux Klan, and called women fat, pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals, and so on. In 2007, he compared women to architecture. He also called all women gold-diggers. He made many more sexist and insulting comments to women, and also many racist comments about Mexicans. There is a Donald Trump sexism tracker. Here is the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...... This is proof that Donald Trump would be the worst president if he wins, worse than any other president in history. Note: This was copied from my previous debate.