BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
homework should be banned because its bad

thank you for your compliment.first of all, hw is boring... right? everyone can agree that its not FUN to do. so why should we do it? that question may seem stupid, but its true. if u have ur life taken away from u by hw, then thats immoral, because its no different then slavery. however, if hw was helpful, then this argument would be wrong, right? most people think homework is helpful because teachers told them its helpful. but theres no prooof.... at alll. einstein never went to school or did any homework. neither did i. im smart, evne though im not 'book' smart. also, cavemen existed without homework for AGES and AGES and they were smart enough to become into people that go to the moon and invented ipods and computers. that means that homework is uncessary, because people didnt need it wen they did all this 'smart' people stuff.2nd point: hw is bad because it makes u NON unique. therfore, being this makes u a robot, and u cant even think, ur like a caluclator that cant do anything but numbers (like how people tell you to do stuff).3rd point: hw makes people go to college, which costs a lot of money. things that cost a lot of money that dont give a person anything but paries are BAD and take away money from society to buy food and medical suppliesthanks everyone.
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

Pro has attempted to prove his point, by refuting my own points. It is clear that pro cannot find reasonable proof of his case. Also I will remind the voters, that such statements as "That is a godawful analogy," only discredits the validity of that person. Pro states "It's virtually impossible that a single person representing the views of a body of people accurately represents the majority of people on every political stance. "In this particular case, pro seems to believe that the United States is a dictatorship, while in actuality it is a massive array of 100 senators, 9 supreme court justices, 365 reprentatives, and all of the people in the executive branch. Therefore such a wide variety of people duly elected by the people have every right to restrict, and criminalize drugs. In conclusion, drugs cannot be made legal, for the following reasons.1. Drugs are pyshically harmful to people.2. Once started, drug use will create habbits that will last a life time.3. Criminal acts are feuled in large part by drugs.4. Drugs not only effect the person using, but also the people that feel it thier human duty to help, and support them.5. Drugs effect relationships, and therefore the children of those relationships. Unfortunately, acceptance of drugs will not solve the problem that people are becoming addicted. Therefore the only logical thing to do is to cut off the drug supply, and to incarserate those whom willingly made themselves into the drug addicts that they became.
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

1. "For example the person that is eating cardboard is going to have digestive problems, and so will have to see doctor. That doctor then has to spend time helping that person with an affliction that was preventable. Also then family and friends will then have to take time out of their day making sure that he/she is not still harming themselves." The doctor is not harmed in this situation... and the family and friends CHOOSE to help the person, because THEY do not want the person to hurt himself or herself. They are burdening themselves; the person is not directly harming them, since they are doing it to themselves. What a godawful analogy. 2. "The government is by definition representative, and to say this is to refute the very nature of the American Republic." It's virtually impossible that a single person representing the views of a body of people accurately represents the majority of people on every political stance. 3. It is illegal, but it is decriminalized. And that makes the laws looser then those in the US. We see as the laws were loosened on drugs, overall, the ramifications were less adverse.
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

I know that the BOP is on myself. For that reason I will have to reassert my previous points against pro's rebuttle. 1. Pro states that people have the right to "eat cardboard if they want to." The notion that people have the "right" to do things that are harmful to themselves is unfounded. The fact is that if someone is harming themselves others around them are also being harmed. For example the person that is eating cardboard is going to have digestive problems, and so will have to see doctor. That doctor then has to spend time helping that person with an affliction that was preventable. Also then family and friends will then have to take time out of their day making sure that he/she is not still harming themselves. In the case of drugs the general disruption of people's lives around them can be very substantial, and can even break up families. This also refutes pro's point that the use of drugs do not infringe on others rights. 2.Pro states that the government is a " a group of people with a set, narrow view that opposes the views of members of the nongovernment population." This statement is blantantly false. The government is by definition representative, and to say this is to refute the very nature of the American Republic. Therefore any elected official is given consent, by mutual confirmation, to do as they see fit to "promote general wellfare." Also there are no studies to be found regarding this point, and therefore can not be proven to be true. 3. "Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers"-Wikipedia artical on Portugese drug policy. The previous reference made by pro that Purtugals reforms have been effective, are refuted by the fact that it is still illegal to grow, sell, or trafic drugs. Therefor the previous statements about Portugal have to be seen as simply a liberalization of drug laws rather than the legalization of drugs, as pro suggests. Works Cited http://en.wikipedia.org...
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

"Such examples are of drug caused murders, and other crimes directly caused by drugs."No. People should certainly be charged for murder. But drug possession is not equivalent to murder, nor is there implied causation. If someone is on drugs and kills someone, he/she should be punished for murder just like someone who kills someone while not on drugs. People should not be charged with something that could POTENTIALLY occur as a result of an action they choose to take. "Also regarding the example of Portugal, the laws that were put in place only limited the abilities of the cartels that were running rampant in the country just as they are in Mexico."That's not true. In 1999 Portugal had the highest rate of HIV amongst injecting drug users in the European Union. And The number of heroin users was estimated to between 50,000 and 100,000 at the end of the 1990s. [1] These factors led to the adoption of The National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs in 1999. And, again, the results show that the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal worked. "More importantly drugs such as cocaine cannot be legalized for the simple reason that it is blatantly unsafe for the consumer."It is well-established that cocaine has serious risks attached to its use. With this in mind, a consumer should have the right to make the decision of whether or not he or she should use it. It is an individual choice. If I want to eat cardboard every day, I should be able to, without government intervention, because it is my choice for myself. The government is simply a group of people, and as I said before, no one should be allowed to infringe on the rights of others; this would include one's right to perform acts of self-harm. "To say that selling cocaine is acceptable, is like saying it is acceptable to sell tainted food to even knowledgeable consumers."Tainted food that is sold as regular food is deceptive and criminal. This is like selling cocaine as flour. But tainted food that is sold as tainted food should be justly sold if demand exists. "...the vast majority of the population does not care about the risks, and unfortunately the government has to do that caring for them..."The government is a group of people with arbitrary viewpoints, just like people in the general population. I do not know if the claim about the "majority of the population not caring" is true, since I found no study evidencing it. But acts that do not infringe on the rights of others should not be regulated by a group of people with a set, narrow view that opposes the views of members of the non-government population. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

Pro has made very common sense points in this round, but his logic is flawed. Pro states that the government cannot regulate items that do not infringe on others rights. I concede to this point whole heartedly. The possession of drugs however does led to the the harming and therefor infringement of other people. Such examples are of drug caused murders, and other crimes directly caused by drugs. Also regarding the example of Portugal, the laws that were put in place only limited the abilities of the cartels that were running rampant in the country just as they are in Mexico. The US however does not have effectively organized cartels, and therefor the immediate decrease in drug related crimes would not be driven down as predicted in Portugal's model. More importantly drugs such as cocaine cannot be legalized for the simple reason that it is blatantly unsafe for the consumer. There are reasons that organizations like the FDA prevent companies from releasing dangerous drugs. To say that selling cocaine is acceptable, is like saying it is acceptable to sell tainted food to even knowledgeable consumers. Secondly, the vast majority of the population does not care about the risks, and unfortunately the government has to do that caring for them just as government agencies do in other sectors.
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

1. People have a right to make decisions for themselves without government intervention, as long as it does not infringe on other people's rights. Drug use, in itself, does not infringe on the rights of anyone who is not the drug user. Therefore, the government should not regulate or prohibit use. 2. In Portugal, loosening up laws on drugs and not putting criminal consequences to their use has been a success and has led to positive results. [1] Ending the war on drugs, it follows, would be beneficial to society. [1] http://www.time.com...
The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized

Definitions: "Drugs that are currently illegal": In this debate, we will be discussing ALL of the drugs that are currently considered illegal in the United States today. [1] "Legalized": To make legal, (obviously.) [2] --- First round is for terms/definitions/acceptance. --- [1] http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gays should be allowed to marry.

Greetings, fellow debater. I warmly welcome your challenge. To start things off, I will inform you that this is my first "online debate," but I will do my best. :P To initiate my argument, I feel the need for clarification: There are many "definitions" of gay marriage and gay rights, given by multiple people. However, for conventional purposes, I decided to use the definition given by the website pertaining to gay marriage: "Couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, and be recognized by the state. " This implies mandating the government to officially recognize gay marriages. With this mandate, it disregards the church's say in the matter; and considering the fact that the church was the first to originate the term "marriage," it violates the fundamental separation of church and state. What I mean by this is that the term "marriage" began as a religious term. Of course, at the current time, there may seem to be two distinct definitions of marriage: legal and religious. However, I do believe that what is best for society is to simply "get rid of" the legal definition (pertaining to the legal benefits regarding marriage), and create a new term (civil unions would work) that would associate with all the legal aspects and benefits normally acquired at legal marriage. Essentially, everyone, both heterosexuals and homosexuals, would receive the benefits given by the state. I also think that this satisfies the extremely religious people (Just to make you aware, I am not one of them) by reserving the term marriage for just religious purposes, and instead of the legal benefits, the "married" couple would receive any such entailments permitted by the church. One may argue that this is discriminatory, but in reality it is not. It is true that there would be no more legal marriages, but instead "civil unions" (or whatever other term that is found adequate). Civil unions would in essence be the exact definition of legal marriage as it is today, but it just changes the terminology a bit, as well as allowing the rights and legal benefits to homosexuals as well. I do agree that homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle, and also that being gay harms no one. Well, essentially I agree with all the claims that you have made, but I just think we ought to alter the terminology for governmental purposes.
Gays should be allowed to marry.

For gays not to be allowed to marry is archaic and discriminatory. idon't understand why anybody would think gay marriage is acceptable. Please explain your reasoning. - Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). - Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. - Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. - Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. - It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. - The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. - The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create.
This House would Register Super Humans.

Clarification: The “would” in the resolution means that, in the case of super humans existing, this house would register them. Michel Lotito is an entertainer, not a super human. He eats bicycles by breaking them down into small pieces and drinking mineral oil [1]. There is no evidence of super humans existing currently. I. Volatile: “tending or threatening to break out into open violence” [2] or a danger to others. For example: a super human with the ability to drain the oxygen out of a room. II. Per the rules, I am not allowed to directly cite fiction. However, emotional situations are more intense for teenagers [3], which would lend super human teens to volatility. I challenge my opponent to prove that offering guidance to teens causes a worse reaction than not offering guidance. A. CON believes a registry in unnecessary because the majority of super humans would be harmless. This ignores the minority of super humans that risk endangering civilians and must be monitored.
This House would Register Super Humans.

Rebuttals 1. Danger I challenge my opponent to define "volatile". My opponent argues that superhumans should be kept out of public places, and I would like to know how they plan to do so. I cannot rebut this point without elaboration of this point. 2. Opportunity My opponent states that superhuman abilities often emerge in teen years. This is not an established pattern to my knowledge. I challenge him to prove this theory. Even if such powers emerged in teen years, I argue that attempting to guide these teenagers will lead to a rebellious streak, counteracting the effort. Points 1. Unnecessary I invite all to consider how many people fit into my opponent's description. The number is massive, but the population's true powers are underwhelming. The cost of maintaining a list of people who serve no threat to the population makes the endeavour a bewildering prospect. For example, I bring up Michel Lotito*. He possesses a power which, albeit above mankind's, is not a threat.
This House would Register Super Humans.

This house would register super humans based on the principle of the greater good. I define 'this house' as an Earth wide organization capable of protecting and maintaining a list of super humans. I. Danger Super humans can be a danger to themselves and those around them. It is important for the sake of innocent civilians that volatile super humans be kept out of public places until they are stable. "This house" would be responsible not only for keeping the registry, but also providing resources to registered super humans to help them handle their abilities. II. Opportunity Super human abilities often emerge in the tumultuous teen years. "This house" would be at the front lines of helping teens develop their abilities in safe ways, and protecting them from manipulative third parties that could lead young minds astray. Protecting the public from super human outbursts and guiding young super humans are my top two reasons why we should register super humans.
This House would Register Super Humans.

Resolution: This House would Register Super Humans.Register: "15. To enter or cause to be entered formally in a register" [1]Superhuman: "having powers above and beyond those of mankind" [2]For example, an individual with advanced martial arts skills would not be required to register. However, an invidual with inhuman strength or the ability to glow would be required to register. 1st Round Acceptance2nd Round Standard3rd Round Standard4th Round NO NEW ARGUMENTSNO REFERENCING OR CITING FICTIONAL MATERIAL SUCH AS MARVEL OR DC.Reference/citing history or research studies is encouraged. 24 hour timer. 1000 character limit. Footnotes (such as the links below) may be provided in the comment section to conserve characters. Be sure to specify which speech your footnotes are for. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. http://dictionary.reference.com...;
This House would Register Super Humans.

1. Danger I would like to reiterate that my opponent has not explained his policy as to keeping the superhumans from public. Michel Lotito was not reliant upon tricks and training. He had a stomach lining that was twice as thick as the average person.* This would fall under my opponent's definition of a superhuman, as one with powers above and beyond those of mankind. 2. Opportunity As I said, my opponent was unable to support that superpowers often emerge in the tumultuous teen years", and the only references were fictional.** The new statement that teenagers would be more volatile is irrelevant, and shows case shift. A. Necessary While it is difficult to predict superhuman development and application, the debate is supposedly "in the case of super humans existing". As for which powers are volatile, I would say that "this house" would be drawing the line, as my opponent has already given an example of in his second speech, "drain the oxygen out of a room". Thank you for the debate
This House would Register Super Humans.

I. DangerRegistration is the first step in identifying and keeping potentially volatile super humans out of situations that could result in mass casualties. Michel Lotito, as I mentioned earlier, was an entertainer. He used tricks and training to accomplish a mind boggling feat. This is no different than sword swallowers. Lotito was human.II. OpportunityEarlier, I cited that emotional situations are more intense for teenagers. CON's counter that adults would be more volatile is unsupported, and irrelevant. Adults would also be helped through the registry in the same way teens would.A. NecessaryCON claims a complete registry is unnecessary, and calls for a registry of only volatile super humans. What party would draw the line between volatile and harmless? How super human abilities develop and what their application will be is difficult to predict. I agree it is unnecessary to register individuals such as Lotito, but he is not super human. Thank you for a pleasant debate.
This House would Register Super Humans.

1. First of all, my opponent has not stated how they would keep these superhumans out of public areas. Secondly, how is Michel Lotito not a superhuman? My opponent defined a superhuman as one having powers above and beyond those of mankind. Mr. Lotito has the ability to consume things without getting sick, which is a feat few, if any other people can lay claim to. 2. My opponent has been unable to cite evidence pertaining to the emergence of superpowers in teenagers. He instead has moved the goalposts to bring a new a reason into play, that superhuman teens are more volatile. I do not see how situations would be more volatile for teenagers, and adults would have more to lose when gaining superpowers. A. I do not ignore the minority of superhumans that are dangerous, but such a minority hardly calls for a registry of the whole. If, instead, a registry of only volatile superhumans was created, such a system would be far more useful and cost-efficient in protecting the public.
School Uniforms are not needed

In order to start this debt, i believe it goes against the first amendment right of free speech that schools to a make a rule that restricts a person of being a symbol of who they are. I believe with all these school shootings that are happing that it turns out with a good idea but a person will conflict harm whether they "dress like a student in the uniform." Also for parents to pay more money, than that isn't making the life style any easier. If you have to buy certain types of items than those are items to upkeep and buy more of if an issue were to happen. As well as bullies will always find something to make a child's life horrible wether its how their face looks or if they like a certain thing. Bullies will always bully wether or not the dress code is enforced. As well as it could decrease the comfort level of how the student like wearing it because it's not comfortable or its stupid and it will keep being distracted. As well school isn't a prison even though there are similarities, such as what time you eat or were you are supposed to go at certain times, so enforcing kids to wear something they don't want that also makes them feel trapped such as a jail. I talked to a principle about his dress code and he supported it but also mentioned that it does effect the child's experince because of clubs that were school supported so the school dress code was still enforced at the clubs. (chess, math or science fairs) Also this is a good example of the tinker case.