BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Maine is The Best State

" If you aren't safe in a state, What is the point in living there? " - Just because one safe is safer, Doesn't make it automatically better, By that logic living in a cabin in the middle of the woods in Alabama is the best place to live since it's safer. Besides Washington is in the top 10 so it's not like it's DANGEROUS. " -Maine is home to North America's most photographed lighthouse, Portland Headlight" - Yeah, And Flordia has Disneyworld, Colorado has the grand canyon, And New York has the statue of liberty? What's your point? There are plenty of other states that have way better landmarks than Maine? This isn't even including California either. "-Stephen King is from Maine -The Bush family has a summer home in Maine. (R. I. P. )" - Yeah and Elvis is from Mississippi, Lady Gaga and Michael Jordan were born in New York, And Ariana Grande was born in Flordia. You're acting like Maine is the ONLY place where Celebrities are born when that's simply not true. " Maine is the only state whose name is only one syllable" - Ok, This is absurd who cares if the state only has one syllable? How does that make the state any better?
Maine is The Best State

To keep things fair, I will also compare Maine to Washington and Colorado. Washington & Colorado vs. Maine: 1. Maine is much safer. It is the second safest state (after Vermont), Whereas Washington is the tenth safest state and Colorado is not in the top ten, Based on an article by 'securitysales. Com'. If you aren't safe in a state, What is the point in living there? 2. On top of that, There are also several facts that just make Maine a cool place. After all, This argument is not about the best place to live, It is about the best state in general. -Maine is the most eastern contiguous state (after Alaska if you count all of the states) -Maine is home to North America's most photographed lighthouse, Portland Headlight -Maine is the U. S. 's top supplier of toothpicks, Blueberries and lobster, Producing about 95% of America's toothpicks (at one point), 99% of the U. S. 's blueberries, And 90% of American lobster -Stephen King is from Maine -The Bush family has a summer home in Maine. (R. I. P. ) -Maine is the only state whose name is only one syllable -Donut holes were invented in Maine -Maine is the second coldest state in Spring (some love this fact, Most hate it) Sources: https://www. 50states. Com/facts/maine. Htm https://www. Securitysales. Com/fire-intrusion/2018-safest-most-dangerous-states-us/
Maine is The Best State

Before I begin my argument I would like to clarify 2 things, 1. For the sake of remaining unbias, I will NOT be using California in my arguments as I've grown up in California all of my life and it would be rather unfair for a comparison. 2. I do not think Maine is a bad state, Far from it. I simply disagree with this whole notion that it's the BEST STATE. With all of that said I'll begin my arguments. - For both of my arguments ill be comparing Maine to 2 better states, The first one being Colorado. 1. Colorado has a 48 % college educated rate while Maine only has a 40 % rate. 2. Colorado's median salary is around 32, 000 while Maines is only 26, 000 per person. 3. Colorado's GDP is 322 Billion while Maine's is only 60 Billion. 4. Colorado has a higher population growth rate, Lower job growth rate, And less investment per capita. Next, I'll be comparing yet ANOTHER state which is better than Maine being Washington State. 1. Washingtons median income is 32, 000 while Maines is only 26, 000 2. Washington is 45 % college educated while Maine is only 40 % college educated 3. Washington's GDP is nearly 480 Billion while Maine's is only a measly 60 Billion. 4. Washington has a lower obesity rate and higher percentages of adults with health care insurance. 5. Washington has lower commute times, More energy from renewable sources, And their roads are in better condition. To conclude, While Maine isn't the WORST state in America cough cough Alabama, Is definitely isn't the worst state as it lacks a healthy population, Education, And infrastructure, At least compared to much better states like Colorado or Washington. SOURCES, h ttp s:/ /w ww. U snews. C om /ne ws/b est-st ates/ maine. . . http s:// ww w. Usnews. Com/ne ws/best-s tates/colo rado. . . ht tps://w ww. U snew s. Com /news/b e st-states/washington. . .
Glass Bottles are better than Cans

Thanks to PRO for making this argument.In fact glass bottles cannot be easily melted after use, with the different types (clear, brown, green, etc) all containing different trace elements that need to be handled differently. Due to this "sorting facilities usually separate brown, green, and clear bottles from one another before processing, a laborious and pricey endeavor. It takes a lot of energy to rid green glass, in particular, of the metals (such as iron and copper) that are used to tint it, and there's little market for the stuff once it's been recycled; as a result, a lot of towns don't even bother to recycle your Heineken empties."[1] Though they can be reused, it's hardly easy and the lack of market means that they often end up in landfills.In fact the one claim that PRO makes in support of glass can actually be applied to aluminium! Aluminium can not only be recycled, but as a valuable resource used in lots of different industries (like auto manufacture) it is highly sought after. There is in fact little limit to the amount of aluminium that can be recycled beyond public willingness and the provision of the proper facilities. Even a nation that's not at the forefront of technology or GDP like Brazil is able to recycle an astonishing 98.2% of its aluminium cans[2].Although it's possible to recycle glass, people frequently don't bother because it's time consuming, expensive and it's easy to make glass in the first place - so those bottles just end up in landfills no matter what the ideal PRO presents might be. Meanwhile recycling aluminium only takes 5% of the energy of creating the same amount of aluminium from scratch so it is a cost-effective and economical way to reuse the material[3].Lastly, this is something that has been investigated with scientific studies, with the results finding that "The drink in glass bottles is the worst option" in terms of the lifetime environmental impact.[4] While polyethylene terephthalate bottles are considered the best option, aluminium cans are still ranked ahead of glass bottles.[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...
The United States Federal Government should legalize child porn Wylted vs Bluesteel and Mikal

FRAMEWORK I'm advocating for the full legalization of child porn. My original intention was to take a softer form of legalization, but after diving a little deeper into the topic, I've decided to advocate for full legalization. I don't want anybody to be mislead by the word full. So please continue reading for conext. I'm not advocating for the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor. It would still be illegal to produce child porn for profit or sell it for profit. It would still be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. It would be illegal for an adult to coerce children into having sexual relations with each other. The reason I add the words for profit to what I'm advocating for is that I don't want to see a 16 year old kid take a penis picture and send it to his girlfriend and get thrown in prison for distrubuting child porn (which has happened on several occasions). One detail that I'd like o add to this is that the FBI has the largest database of child porn on the planet. I'd like to see the FBI make it's database of child porn available and easily accesible to the public, strictly on their website. VOTING GUIDELINES This is a highly anticipated debate and I want as many people as possible to give their feedback on it. I understand it reduces my chances of winning quite significantly, but I believe there are more important things than winning to consider. This isn't a topic much people give any thought to other than an initial feeling of disgust. I'm asking the moderation on the site to more aggresively moderate the votes than is typically taken. All debaters are putting a lot of effort into this debate and I'd appreciate if the voters will respect that enough to give incredibly thoughtful and thorough votes. This debate is open for anybody to judge even if your ELO is 1000. TEAMWORK I've been in contact with a few people who've shown interest in teaming up with me in this debate. I'm going to be going at this alone. To say I've recieved no help with this debate would be incorrect. I've had the privelage of debating this topic recently with a few people through PM as well as just bouncing some ideals off of one or two others. To say I've had no help in forming a cohesive argument would be a lie. Anybody who has given me help and would like to be acknowledged will be. A special thanks is in order for Mikal and Bluesteel to both agree to debating me on this important topic.
Different cultures can never be equal

We're going to have to discuss some definitions further. I think we agree, but we're using different words. 1) I agree that everyone should have the same rights under the law. What do you mean by equal status and opportunities, (given that we agree on equal rights)? When you say status, do you mean money, power, and influence? Say one culture is obsessed with social status. For that reason they're hard workers, and bigger risk takers. They're willing to take a risk by changing companies, or starting up a new company, or borrowing money and putting it on the stock exchange. Because they're risk takers, many of them will be poor, but their culture will end up owning and controlling more and larger companies than other cultures. We could say that culture has more money power and influence than other cultures, and therefore a higher status. Other cultures have equal opportunity to do the same, but they're not risk takers, and they're more likely to stick to one job for longer. Can't we say that there is probably something about the middle class culture that makes them wealthy compared with the impoverished class, who's culture makes them impoverished? 2) Let's say everything is a culture as you say. Should student culture be the same stutus as teacher culture? Teachers have more life experience, and they have influence over the students. The students are somewhat dependent on their teachers. Impoverished culture - Some people are poor because they're unlucky. A lot of the poor have made bad choices, for instance they might take drugs, they try to pay off credit cards with credit cards. Why should we treat the impoverished with the same status as the wealthy rather than encourage them to be more like the wealthy? Should we treat drug culture equally with other cultures? 3) OK I didn't articulate the Houyhnhnms vs Yahoos well. What if an advanced culture is living along side a primitive culture? The advanced culture has all the right attitudes to organise an industrial society, invent new technology, paint masterpieces, and compose symphonies. The primitive culture are nomads who've never had civilisation. They wander around starting fires so that they can catch the wild life that run from it. When the primitive culture comes into contact with the advanced culture, they don't deal well with it. They all start drinking heavily, hooning around in their cars. most of the men are dead by 25. Should we help the primitive culture assimilate? or should we let them continue their culture?
Different cultures can never be equal

Given the new response by my opponent he forgot to define some things: 1) What is culture in conjunction with the debate (e.g. culture could be anything whether it is student culture, impoverished culture etc) 2) Equality in conjunction with the discussion (although late) but nevertheless I will respond according to my opponent's response. My opponent said: "First we should agree on what we mean by equality. I'm talking about money, power, and influence. Is that what you're talking about?" When I'm referencing equality I'm talking about the fundamental basis that all human "ought to have" such as rights, status and opportunities. However this is not my debate to which I started so I defined it solely based on the presumed premise that I've always known. However I do believe fundamentally all humans ought to be equal under the idea that we are of the same species but then again we humans live in different systems of government. If equality is on the sole basis of money, power and influence I would argue that those presumptive three, transcend culture. My opponent further states: ". Do you think cultures are are equal now? If not, how can they become equal?" Again you must define culture. There are many cultures as I've indicated in the above, there is student culture, impoverished culture, middle class culture, etcetera. You are tasked to define what you mean by culture and we can go on from there. Alas, culture means: "The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively." However you may perceive culture differently than I therefore you must define what you mean by culture in this debate. My opponent gives the following example: "Yahoos - This is a group of people with a primitive culture. They are savages who live without grace or hygiene. They sleep in holes in the ground. Their families quarrel every day. They treat their women like property. Houyhnhnms - This is another primitive culture of horse people, but they are graceful noble, and moral. They live to help each other out, and they spend their leisure time discussing the meaning of life. and how to live a good life. Can these two cultures find equality unless the Houyhnhnms encourage the Yahoos assimilate? 1) You called both cultures primitive so I assume their technological advancement is not equitable by today's standards so in this they have that relationship. 2) I question how both are primitive yet the "Houyhnhnms" have an ability to reason about the meaning of life yet remain stagnant in their primitive nature. Nevertheless depending on their geography and the time they have both lived, one culture may not relate to the other in the sense of commonality. the fact that you added "grace" "quarrel" etc leads me to believe that you are adding things to suit your idea of inequality. A warring tribe of course is not going to have a peace treaty with someone who is a complete opposite but their primitive nature may bind them together. You need to be more clear in your analogy.
Different cultures can never be equal

1. First we should agree on what we mean by equality. I'm talking about money, power, and influence. Is that what you're talking about? 2. Do you think cultures are are equal now? If not, how can they become equal? 3. We need to describe some cultures so we can discuss how they interact, and how equal they can be. I'll start with two: Yahoos - This is a group of people with a primitive culture. They are savages who live without grace or hygiene. They sleep in holes in the ground. Their families quarrel every day. They treat their women like property. Houyhnhnms - This is another primitive culture of horse people, but they are graceful noble, and moral. They live to help each other out, and they spend their leisure time discussing the meaning of life. and how to live a good life. Can these two cultures find equality unless the Houyhnhnms encourage the Yahoos assimilate?
Legalization of Marijuana

While I don't need any arguments, as Pro has yet to justify his case and fulfil his BOP, I will anyway.Marijuana legalization will lead to lower costs, more consumption, and a net loss to society. RAND notes that the legalization of marijuana in California would cause the cost to decrease by 80% (if not more from advertising and de-stigmatization). [1]. Lower price = greater use = more costs to society in healthcare, crime and lost productivity.[1] http://www.rand.org...
Legalization of Marijuana

As I only have 500 characters, I will make this brief. The sole BOP is on my opponent, as he is suggesting a shift from the status quo. My opponent, however, does not source a single one of his claims and makes bare assertions. Because of this, he fails to fulfill his BOP. As Hitchen's Razor states, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. " With this, I ask that his case be dismissed until evidence is brought forward.
Disabled people should die

Since the paragraphs about disabled people choosing to be disabled is such utter nonsense, it's fairly obvious this is not a serious debate. Since I could literally be voted out if I don't respond, I will actually respond to these points. Fetuses don't have the mental capacity to ask a God to make them disabled. Futlrthermore, the idea that God causes people to be disabled assumes he exists, an idea that is extremely controversial in its own right. Disabled people are human beings. If you wish to deny this, cite one dictionary which states that a necessary part of being put in the category of "human" is to not be disabled. Con hasn't demonstrated that the economic benefits are enough to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the people who were killed, and the emotional agony of the families that would be the result of the deaths of disabled people. Overpopulation is not an imminent issue. Even if it was, genocide would not be the best option to fix it.
Disabled people should die

Yes, Disabled people chose to be born the way they are. The Blind wanted to be blind. When they were just a fetus, they wished "Dear Lord! Please make me blind!", and that's what happened. They became blind! This is why they should die! They chose to be born that way. How dare they be retarded! They do not belong in this world. They are not real human beings because they cannot do what others can. Especially mentally disabled, the retarded, are no use to this society. We need to kill these unimportant subhumans to help put an end to overpopulation, and to improve the economy. They steal our money for no reason, and we can't even do other things because of this. They ruin our country, and make us dumber. We should start spending more money on creating perfect human beings, and then we can have a better country. This will give us a better military, better politicians, and less political issues to worry about, because the retarded won't cause some of them.
Disabled people should die

I'm astonished this is even a question, and I won't put much effort into debating this because this is most likely a troll question. Obviously, disabled people didn't choose to be the way they are. Thus, we would be punishing them for a crime they didn't commit. Imagine if I killed you because you were a male? That would be barbaric. But let's look at your justification for the idea that disabled people should die. "they don't belong in this world" What does this mean? You don't provide any justification for this. "and are not normal human beings" This is not a justification for murder. Imagine if we killed left handed people because most people were right handed. Such a society would be looked upon as barbaric by virtually everyone. I sincerely hope you are a troll.
The Jews of pre-WWII Germany were partly responsible for the Holocaust

During desperate times, people can commit horrendous acts. The Holocaust illustrates this better than any event in history. My opponent's argument is essentially, one, the Jews exploited many native Germans during a time of economic collapse. Two, the Jews failed to integrate, or assimilate, into German society. Three, if the Jews would have altered their traditions, they could have eliminated unwarranted hatred. Finally, he concludes that because of these points, the Jews were partly responsible for the Holocaust. I have no quarrel with his premises; however, his conclusion does not follow. This is much like blaming the rape victim for dressing too scantily. Although the Allies after WWI brought Germany to economic collapse, they would have never been able to predict the Holocaust. We should not think that they should have either. The Holocaust was a complete contingency. After WWI, the victors, particularly France, felt that Germany should be smashed, quelling any effort to spark another war. In the aftermath, Germany lost land, most its military, was forced to pay reparations, and had to admit full responsibility for the war (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...). This, however, would not be enough to spark anything resembling the Holocaust. It took deliberate action by Hitler and the Nazis to instill hatred towards anyone who opposed the iconic German nationalist. These people included Jews, the disabled, homosexuals, communists, gypsies, and other groups surrounding Germany. Hitler and the Nazis must be kept fully responsible for the Holocaust. By accepting my opponent's argument, we leave room for justifying inhumane acts of violence. We could build arguments similar to this that blame slavery on blacks, cultural genocide on Indians, and rape on women. This is a clear cut case. We must blame the Holocaust on Hitler and the Nazis. Please vote this racist argument down. Racism and oppression must be challenged in their entirety, meaning that we must not even consider their rationalizations.