BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Paid news is destroying freedom

I shall argue that paid news does not destroy freedom. Here is a definition from Wikipedia: "Paid news is a phenomenon of in Indian media, that refers to the systematic engagement of mainstream media outlets in publishing favorable articles in exchange for payment. This type of news is typically sponsored by politicians, businessmen, and celebrities in order to improve their public image or accomplish political goals." I will also assume that this is something which happens in most countries throughout the world not just India especially in countries with corrupt leaders. REBUTTALS: My opponent said that paid news has made the condition of public and poor people worst. Really? How? How does the news affect a family's ability to earn a living or to pay their bills? Due to the fact that my opponent has just recently signed up and is not showing much effort I feel that this debate is just a tactic to fish out arguments for an essay or something. Nevertheless... My argument: Paid news does not destroy the people's freedom because they always have a choice of reading/watching/listening to it or not. Heck, I totally avoid some newspapers in my country. They cater to an audience of gossip lovers, no doubt there are people like that in this world. Let's not judge them.
The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

However, after an interesting discussion in one of the poll's comments section, ChosenWolff has kindly asked to take up the challenge. Full Resolution The Big Bang Theory is probably valid. BoP is on pro. Definitions The Big Bang Theory: "The prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests [note "suggests", not argues for] that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. "[1] Probably: "Most likely; presumably. "[2] Valid: "Having some foundation; based on truth. "[3] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA

You say that it is not a debate about the cost of a kidney transplant. I was only talking about the prices because you brought up that $260,000 figure. I didn't even research the costs myself, and I am happy in my argument agreeing with you that they cost a ton of money. You give me ammo, and I use it.The seller does not benefit from selling a kidney even if they think they do. If that were the case then why don't wealthy people sell a kidney? It's a bad idea to give up a vital bodily organ. Why stop at Kidneys? How about people can selling arms, and legs to wounded war vets instead of the vets you know... getting a prosthetic. It's madness!People who are selling their organs are desperate for money. They only sell the organ out of desperation. If a crafty person went to a disaster wrecked area, and the people were very short on food and water and this crafty person was selling bottled waters for $30 a bottle any reasonable person would see that this person taking advantage of people in need. Sure they have the choice not to buy that bottled water... but something is wrong with that. It's called price gouging. People selling there kidneys are being gouged out of their kidney. They can find another more reasonable way to make money. It's not like when people donate blood or semen... You can always make more of those fluids. You can't regrow a kidney. They will either have massive future medical bills or die young or both. Since they are poor people they won't be paying those medical bills, and that will cause a strain on the health care system. Everyone's hospital bills will go up. If the government tries to bail out the healthcare system... Then taxes will go up. When you say science is not there yet, and won't be for decades... Oh it's there, and it's there NOW! In 1996 an entire sheep (Dolly) http://en.wikipedia.org... cloned. In 2013 an australian scientist successfully cloned a human kidney. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...It's not right to shorten a innocent persons life to prolong another persons life when alternatives such as cloning organs exist.
Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA

First of all I would like to point out that the 260,000 dollar number is the cost for the kidney transplant when the patient is able to receive a kidney from the current system. Yes 260,000 dollars is a lot of money for the average American, but this isn't a debate about the cost of the procedure. It is about ways of acquiring a kidney to have the procedure done in the first place. My point was that the cost of acquiring a kidney in a market based system would not be that much compared to having the kidney transplant procedure. The broken window parable does not apply here. In the broken window parable only a few if any benefit. In a market based kidney system as in all market based systems everyone who participates in it will benefit. This is not a reverse robin hood scenario where the Rich steal from the poor. The is a voluntary system in which people are given a choice on whether or not to sell his or her kidney. People should have the opportunity to make their own decisions on whether or not to sell their kidneys. People who sell their kidneys aren't being forced to. They are willingly giving up one of their kidneys to save a life in return for some much needed cash. The seller benefits from the compensation and the buyer benefits from not dying. Just like any other market transactions it is a win win for both participates. As far as growing kidneys go the science is simply not there yet and probably won't exist for a couple decades. In the mean time many people will continue to die from thee shortage of kidneys caused from unjust laws banning kidney transactions. As this debate comes to an end I would like to state that people should be given the freedom to do anything with their body. Laws that ban kidney transactions are not only restricting individual freedom but is also causing the deaths of thousands in America alone.
Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA

One common misbelief of a legal kidney market system is that only the rich will be able to afford a new kidney. This is simply not true. There is one country in the world that has a legal kidney market for all of its citizens rich or poor. That country is Iran. Though I normally don't hold up Iran as being a beacon of economic liberty in this case they are compared to the rest of the world. The Iranian kidney market is highly regulated by the government, in which only Iranian citizens may partake. Every year thousands of Iranians sell one of their kidneys to complete strangers through this system. This has resulted in Iran being the only country to not have a waiting list for kidneys. While other countries suffer from major shortages of kidneys and long waiting lists any citizen of Iran can sleep easy knowing that in their country they can receive a kidney if need be. When it comes to affordability the actual price of buying a kidney would not be as much as most people are led to believe. In Iran it is estimated that the average compensation for a kidney is about 1200-1300 US dollars, which amounts to roughly 1/5 Iran's GDP per capita. Using this comparison we can estimate that in a market based kidney system a kidney would probably cost between 10,000-15,000 dollars. Even if the kidney were to cost 50,000 this is relatively low compare to the actual transplant procedure. According to the National Foundation For transplants the average cost for a kidney transplant and other first year expenses cost about 260,000 dollars. However with that being said it is not just in our best moral interests to help these people get kidneys and transplants but it is also in our economic interest. For even 260,000 dollars doesn't compare to the amount of value each American will add to the Economy in his or her lifetime. So in a market based system there will most likely be government programs or charitable organizations that will help cover the cost of the procedures for the poor.
Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA

Challenge accepted. You are only telling one side of the story. You say that it saves thousands of lives, I will argue that it costs just as many if not more lives. When a person donates their kidney they help the recipient kick the can we call life down the road a few more steps, but drastically shorten their own life in the process. If what you say were made into a law then an elderly wealthy person could keep on buying organs from young healthy working poor people drastically lowering their life expectancy. The donors themselves will soon end up needing transplants, but will lack the funds to receive one. Not every donor will even survive the transplant process. Many will die when selling the organ away. Entropy is a natural part of life. What you propose is the unnatural.It's not like their are no alternatives to organ transplants. What about cloning the organs? What about artificial organs?
Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA

In the 1980s the US banned the sale of kidneys and other human organs on the premise that it was immoral and should be replaced with a system based on altruism. There are two ways people can get a kidney legally in the US. The first is by convincing someone you know to agree to a kidney transplant. The second is to wait on the long waiting list run by the red cross, but every year only one out of four people on the waiting list actually receive a kidney. This has led to the death of thousands of Americans every year. However if we were to legalize the kidney market than people would be able to sell their kidneys and supply would be able to meet demand and thus save the lives of thousands of people a year.
Legalizing Drugs: The Difference Between a Buz at Home and Buz Behind Bars

<> -- You act like gang wars are fueled entirely by drug sales. I would venture that the vast majority of gang-involved killings dont relate to drugs. Maybe they do in Brooklyn but not in Denver, Montgomery, Birmingham, DC, and Salt Lake. Beyond that, the legality of drugs would vastly increase the number of users. If you wanna argue about crime rate, lets take a gander at what it would like like while everyone was high. Rape cases would shoot through the roof. The number of DUI's reported would reach an all time high not to mention the innocent deaths that would be involved. Rage murders would become more common. The number of people convicted of manslaughter would take a turn-up. <> -- Again, maybe in brooklyn, but what about suburban america, or rural america. Ive lived in both and in both places drugs are definitely not easier to obtain then a cigarette. In rural alabama you can run off and buy cigs yourself. In suburbia you can get them through friends and through people of age. Im not saying u couldnt find drugs in these places, but u definitely cant find them easier than drugs. If we do choose to legalize drugs, however, we make them common place too. We make something 10 times more harmful than tobacco easy for teenagers to get their hands on. We spend so much money and effort trying to convince teens not to smoke so we take something that is far more harmful and deadly and give that to them instead? That doesnt make any sense to me. < I tried weed once before, I'm not a slave to it at all! This was 6 months ago. I feel for your family member, but things wouldn't be any worse if drugs had been illegal this whole time>> -- How is it better to give the advice when its legal??? What do we tell teenagers?? "Here it is...perfectly legal...you can have it if you want...but dont take it?" Lastly, why would be legalize something that ruins more lives than any other substance. Even the legal ones? We run the risk of suffocating our own country because of the generation of druggies that we are gunna face...
Legalizing Drugs: The Difference Between a Buz at Home and Buz Behind Bars

<<"Drugs are used in America today even though they are illegal" --So is murder...lets make that legal too>> I didn't say that was the only reason why we should make it legal. It's just ONE of them that contributes to the overall decision of legalizing drugs. So stop with the irony, it's not accurate. < > I heavily disagree. I go to school in Bushwick, a neighborhood in Brooklyn. And so many times you hear of a drug dealer that got shot in the head for selling coke on another dealer's corner. Now, I can't see the Ibuprofen C.E.O. shooting the Advil C.E.O. for selling Advil on his "turf". And that's only one incident, think of all the thousands of gang wars. Gangs supplied with money from drug dealing that they spend on buying illegal firearms. < > Like I said in my previous argument. I'm 14 and it's easier for me to buy a dime bag of weed for 5 dollars on the street corner than to get a pack of cigarettes. Honest truth. Your point on drug overdoses is correct. However, better to have people overdosing (they do it even now that drugs are illegal), than to have gang war shootings. < > Well it would be better to give advice through these people while drugs are legal. Just like tobacco. I tried weed once before, I'm not a slave to it at all! This was 6 months ago. I feel for your family member, but things wouldn't be any worse if drugs had been illegal this whole time. I await your next argument with much anxiety! Thank you for a great 2nd round.
Legalizing Drugs: The Difference Between a Buz at Home and Buz Behind Bars

"Drugs are used in America today even though they are illegal" --So is murder...lets make that legal too "Drug dealing and trafficking increases the crime rate in the country with crimes such as murder and prostitution." --Drugs USE increases these crimes, not trafficking and dealing. These crimes are going to be committed just as much whether or not drug use is legal. Legal drugs are still just as harmful. "...drugs will be easier to control, kids and teenagers will be able to get drugs less often" --Teenagers will be able to get drugs at least as easily as before. Teenagers shouldnt be getting cigarettes but they do anyway. Half of the time they can buy tobacco theselves. If we made drugs legal, cocaine would be as easy for a teenagers to obtain as a cigarette. "Drugs are actually less harmful if you look at car accidents. A drunk girl is vulnerable to get taken advantage of, however, when you're on drugs you still know what's going on." -- "...if you look at car accidents"??? Fine, drugs are more dangerous if you look at ODs... Drugs are far more dangerous. To the user, they can be fatal. One use of ecstacy has the capacity to kill you. You could drink a whole bottle of windex and have a better chance at surviving than using crude ecstacy. Driving when your high is more dangerous than when your drunk. When your high you can rarely even see clearly...let alone pass good judgment. On the danger scale...drugs will lose everytime. Your comment about the girl knowing whats going on is complete crap. Drugs are often specifically used to take advantage of girls. people spike their drinks with potent drugs to almost totally incapacitate them. They lace the weed with stronger drugs to ruin their judgment. Drugs get at least just as many girls raped as alcohol does. "Getting high is awesome! And when I'm 18 I wanna do it legally! ;)" --there are few things that destroy a life as quickly as drug use. It binds you. You become a slave to a subtance. Your paying thousands of dollars into the hands of dealers who essentially control your life because they control your subtance. I have a friend who spends about $750 bucks a month on weed...and he only brings home $500 a month... my uncles life has been completely ruined by his drug use. He delivers pizza for a living at 37 because no one will hire a former druggy... Ruining your life for a few hours of feel good...not cool...moronic...
Legalizing Drugs: The Difference Between a Buz at Home and Buz Behind Bars

Okay, thank you for starting this debate. Here's why I agree with drug legalization: 1) Drugs are used in America today even though they are illegal. Drug dealing and trafficking increases the crime rate in the country with crimes such as murder and prostitution. If drugs were legalized, you wouldn't be putting money into the pockets of illegal drug dealers, but into the pockets of workers in factories. What the drugs contain will be specified so you know what you're taking, the prices would go down, drugs will be easier to control, kids and teenagers will be able to get drugs less often, etc... I find it easier to buy a dime bag of weed or cocaine in Brooklyn than to get a pack of cigarettes. 2) I find it ridiculous that alcohol is legal and drugs are not. The prohibition laws were repealed because gangsters were able to obtain and sell alcohol very easily to millions of people. The same happens with drugs and drugs aren't legalized. Drugs are actually less harmful if you look at car accidents. A drunk girl is vulnerable to get taken advantage of, however, when you're on drugs you still know what's going on. 3) The C.I.A. is bringing drugs into the country instead of focusing on more important things. The C.I.A. was made to be secretive and resourceful to defend our nation, not to get the nation high. 4) Getting high is awesome! And when I'm 18 I wanna do it legally! ;)
the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least

the top tax rate in the 1950s was 90%%%%%%% 90 percent okay 90 % tax rates have very little effect on the growth rate of an economy, During hitlers time the german economy was very good but at what cost? trump is the same we do have a good economy but it was a good economy before under obama for 6 straight years, He had that to build on. If you look back in time the middle classes did better in the usa when taxes on the rich were high, Now all the money goes just to the rich, And they don't deserv it, Plenty of poor people work very hard and get nothing, Many rich don't work at all yet get all, No more! No more, We need to be like sweden and germany make taxes higher to procde services for the midle classes and poor, To hell with the rich, They can pay their taxes or face the guillotine!
the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least

When the top tax rate was 90$ in the 50s the economy was fine and very capitlaist, And the distribution of wealth was much less skewed and the middle clas on much stronger gorund. . $90 is not the same as 90%, As you stated above. The economy was also CAPITALIST. Or should we re lelgalize slavery because we couldnt eliminate it completely. . Did I say to legalize everything, Or keep it like it is? -There are hard working people who deserve to be rich. . . Why should it be taken away from them? -There are poor and not hard working people, Why should money be given to them? I'm not saying our country is in the best shape (actually, The economy is boosting now that Trump is president) but I am saying that taxing the rich isn't going to solve the problem!
the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least

tHERE HAVE always been slaves and always will be. . Would you also argume that attempts to eliminate slavery and laws against it are futule? I think not we havent abolished slavery, Or child labur, Or child molestation? People still molest kids. . People still kill. . People still take guns ans shoot people. . Make meth in labs, Are any of these things remotely okay with you? Are yu alright ignoring yhese problems and doing nothing. . Well neither am i. . When the top tax rate was 90$ in the 50s the economy was fine and very capitlaist, And the distribution of wealth was much less skewed and the middle clas on much stronger gorund. . We can not eliminate problems lok at polio thought we had that licked thanks jenny mc carthy tuberculoisis, Stds. . They never go away but our efforts to combat all thse problems bear positive results. . Or should we re lelgalize slavery because we couldnt eliminate it completely. . Is that such a good arguement? You may need to re think that
the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least

The top tax rate used to be 90% and we did just find we are becoming a nation of rich and very poor, This has to stop, We need to go back to policies that promoted a big middle class like heavy taxes on the stinking rich, Nothinmg wrong with being rich as long as you pay your fair share, Which is almost everythng you have. Rotten Capitalist blood suckers.
the top tax rate should be raised to 70% at least

You failed, First of all, To answer any of my questions. okay 90 % tax rates have very little effect on the growth rate of an economyIf high tax rates didn't help back then, They surely won't help now. -There is a reason America has one of the best economies, Economically. Now all the money goes just to the rich, And they don't deserv it, Plenty of poor people work very hard and get nothingYou haven't substantiated this argument, You are just making statements. Sure, Some poor people work hard and don't get anything, But no system is perfect. Every socialist system that's existed failed or is failing, Why would it be a good idea now? To hell with the rich, They can pay their taxes or face the guillotine! What about the people who work very hard to be rich? During hitlers time the german economy was very good but at what cost? What do you mean at what cost? The holocaust happened due to Hitler's anti-semitism and power hungry mantra! Raising the tax rate to 70% will not help our country.