BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Be it resolved that youth are too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world.

I am confused. You say, "are not too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world" at the beginning of your only argument. You then proceed to say, "I don't know where the generation is going yet but it is definitely not going in a good way by the looks of the whole new youth are just overall very lazy and self centered."By the looks of it, you are stating that the "difference" the youth will make is a negative change. This is an interesting considering you do not think that youth are "too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world."Your argument is very inconsistent so I am unsure about how to counter. Hence I will simply state my case.. I will state my thesis with my definitions I gave in the round for acceptance. Pro's Thesis: Children-Adolescents are too uninterested and in love with themselves to make a real change.Con's Thesis (from what I can gather from your unclear argument): Children-Adolescents are not too uninterested and in love with themselves to make a real change for the worseI simply believe that (generally speaking of course) at the time of Childhood-Adolescence humans have too thin of a scope of the real world. With age comes an expanded knowledge and expanded perspective. While those under 18 can cause great movements and introduce new elements to culture, real change only comes when said youth grow older or have elder support. Therefore, at the time before age 18, Youth do not have enough power or resources to make real changes. Any changes caused by this group must also have the support of those with more power and resources. Therefore I conclude that these youth cannot make any real changes themselves. The only way that could change is if youth had the ability to forfeit immaturity and become intensely interested and completely forget about their self-love and focus on the community (the opposite of apathy and narcissism). Since they do not generally have this ability, they are too apathetic and narcissistic to claim the power and resources needed in order to make real changes in the world. My opponent cannot counter due to his forfeit. I look forward to hearing rebuttals some other time. In the meantime, I have clearly argued for my side while Con has neglected to provide any substantial debate.Happy Voting!More sources for fun:http://thenextweb.com...http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.foxnews.com...http://www.todayonline.com...http://www.horatioalger.org...http://hbanaszak.mjr.uw.edu.pl...
Be it resolved that youth are too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world.

I believe that youth are not too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world Now my first point is that millennials are the largest generation to date, so statistically we will have more people who are apathetic and narcissistic, but that means we will have more successful people who strive to compete for high level jobs and spots in universities. Recently there has been many surveys taken, these show that since 1982 Levels in narcissism had risen by 30% . Without a doubt, we all realize that in this new generation we have been exposed to very much more garbage shows on TV , these are shows such as jersey shore. This does influence us to be like them in some extent which is a factor to some of the percents listed above. This is because without a doubt the people on those shows are the representation of the new generation for new kids and everybody , they influence everybody! I don't know where the generation is going yet but it is definitely not going in a good way by the looks of the whole new youth are just overall very lazy and self centered. This is my opinion.
The Legalization of Marijuana

The legalization is more a matter of American values and freedom than it is about health. But if it was about health then legalization of marijuana is an extremely wise choice. It is true that weed had more carcinogens in it but most of these are rendered inactive due to the thc in the plant. THC is one of many canibinoids found in the plant that are scientifically proven to fight cancer. My opponent has brought up that you are more likely to have a heart attach smoking weed. This is simply not true. Marijuana has never caused an overdose and people who have heart conditions shouldn't smoke anyway. My opponents information comes from a government website so of course there going to try to discredit marijuana. Our government receives money from big businesses to keep marijuana illegal(1) so that is in there interests to keep the drug illegal. There is not enough evidence of marijuana being harmful or a danger to society so our government spends huge chunks of out tax dollars funding desperate research studies. Recently they have funded a collage 2 million dollars to find a connection between pot smoking and domestic violence(2). It is very widely known that marijuana causes relaxation and turns you into a pacifist, not a wife beater. This is one of the main reasons the drug war started. During the Vietnam war the government realized that pot makes people peaceful and unwilling to fight there war. So they aimed the war on drugs almost entirely at marijuana. I believe in the rights of the people that is why I support legalization. We are on a rock floating through space and someone is trying to tell me what I can smoke. (1) http://www.opposingviews.com...# (2)http://www.truthonpot.com...
The Legalization of Marijuana

Marijuana should stay illegalized, and should only be used for medical purposes where it is needed. Marijuana has many negative effects on the heart and lungs. The effects of marijuana on the heart are very dangerous. Marijuana is known to increase heart rate 20%-100% only one hour after using the substance. Along with increased heart rate, your chance of having a heart attack is 4.8 times more likely when under the influence of marijuana. (1). The effects of marijuana on the lungs is also counter-productive to your body. Marijuana smoke contains 50%-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Carcinogenic hydrocarbons are cancer cells. With the increase of cancer cells, there is a much higher risk of actually getting cancer than if you were to smoke tobacco. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath which increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue. Epithelial cells are a cluster of cells that protect the thin tissue forming the outer layer of a body's surface and lining the alimentary canal and other hollow structures. (1). Marijuana has lasting effects on the human body, and should stay illegal. (1) http://www.drugabuse.gov...
The Legalization of Marijuana

I absolutely believe that marijuana should be legalized. It is a harmless plant that has less fatalities than Tylenol or other drugs that you trust. marijuana has many benefits and therapeutic values that the people of America want. Marijuana may be illegal but that does not affect the demand for the drug. The laws set on marijuana only incarcerate many non violent people. Marijuana is widely used and I believe that our government should legalize this herb and take it out criminal control.
The Legalization of Marijuana

Legalization should happen because marijuana is extremely safe compare to many things. You mentioned that marijuana intoxication caused distortion. Well that"s the point; people want the effects that marijuana causes otherwise the consenting people of America wouldn"t smoke it. Also weed is non-toxic. That means that you cannot get "intoxicated" or overdose. Unlike alcohol or tobacco which kills tons of people every year. Marijuana is obviously a safer choice than these.(1) Tobacco is the number 1 killer in America. And it"s legal. Guns, tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs and even raw potatoes all kill people. Marijuana does not. Also in an ideal world there would be no intoxicated drivers, but we don"t live in a perfect place, and I would rather be on the road with a bunch of stoners that miss there exits than a drunk slamming into telephone poles. In your argument you said that my sources were made by stoners. You can"t prove that and it doesn"t make your source any less corrupt. The government funds research studies that are supposed to find reasons to keep pot illegal because they accept money from companies like Big Pharma. Big Pharma knows that marijuana can be a cheaper alternative to a lot of their medicines. Legalization has the potential to severely hurt gang and cartel income by removing the illegal need for marijuana. Instead people would buy legally taxed cheaper weed from the nice man in the store. I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to be able to responsibly smoke a harmless plant because they are making the choice that it is what they want to do. Why should the government care? In fact they should care because the government exists to serve its citizens. As the great Thomas Jefferson once said "The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors."(2) Pot is America"s number 1 illicit drug of choice and our government spends tons of money putting nonviolent people in jail. The U.S. spends more on enforcing marijuana laws than all the other drugs put together. (1)http://archive.saferchoice.org... (2) http://www.goodreads.com... And the fact that you are worried about my spelling is probably because you are insecure about your weak argument as it does not affect the validity of my points you tool.
The Legalization of Marijuana

Although I am on a government website, they address both sides of the drug, and is absolutely not bias towards keeping the drug illegal. Both of the sources you used are not approved or reliable, they are just sites made by alleged stoners trying to make things up to try to prove the government and all the proved tests wrong. Although we receive big money from businesses, it is not used to keep marijuana illegal, it is used to produce tests and find out if the drug is harmful or not. You really aren't making any real points, the only thing you have mentioned is that it "calms you down", and if that is a reason to make something legal, then you must think drinking codeine should be legal. You say there is not enough evidence to make marijuana stay illegal, but I have made plenty more points than you have, and I don't see enough evidence to make marijuana legal. Along with lung and heart risks, marijuana also negatively effects the brain. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perception and impaired coordination. It is also proved that marijuana causes difficulty with problem solving and thinking, and problems with learning and memory. Heavy marijuana abusers said that the drug impaired many measures of life achievement, including physical and mental health, thinking abilities, social life, and career status. Also check your spelling and grammar next time pal. college* their*
Rap battle: Truth_seeker vs. JasperFrancisShickadance 1 round

yo, there was a pre-req before you could join the three in one club I, the vital kind of chemistry baptized you like your dog in a bathtub no that wasn't fun, but it was just some brotherly love Rebuking you as you get body slammed from above I'm a different kind of weapon, the most advanced of my time, I'm prototype shifting through a mindsetting, i control 97,it's like heaven, you see the light imma take you back to the first creation and show you what defines relation everything is order, not chaos, so your a negation, fit for personal education like God spirit moves through the chaotic waters, my flow causes your eradication A eulogy in this analogy is that you can't rhyme past me when I spit, disaster speaks as you beat by my mouthpiece Like Zoraster, you will be diffused as worms around your body fester I'm so cruel so vicious I'm like a court jester as I'm the mindtester I'm the equation you can't solve, you the person who won't evolve I will send you so far into orbit that around the earth you'll revolve I'm the catalyst for a new breed of weaponry, the vital chemistry disrespect me, you get the death penalty for a felony let's keep this brevity after this it will be 0 to 70 as I experimentally put you out of misery permanently after this is over, you will never rap again mentally cuz you need psychotherapy you better make this right n make your bars count run out, I destroy you n your cheap bank account
Topic inside.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. Here's how the debate will work: Contender R1: Propose 3 resolutions of varying topics, and pick "PRO" or "CON" for each one. Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate. Contender R2: Choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal.
Topic inside.

"From what I can read, Israel annexed it and then had to fight to keep it." This, my friends, is completely false. While I accept the reliability of Wikipedia for the purposes of this debate, my opponent obviously does not know what happened with the changing of governing forces with regards to East Jerusalem (where I want my policy to be implemented.) Further reading of the article on Jerusalem would lead to one finding out that, "During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured East Jerusalem and asserted sovereignty over the entire city." This fact of information is significant because it shows that East Jerusalem was, before June 10th, 1967, not under the control of Israel, but of Jordan, which was a popularly sovereign government. My opponent considers 'annexing' to be the same thing as 'invading and winning', which is hogwash, and has been recognized as such by organizations such as the United Nations. (UN Security Council Resolution 478) "Right in the middle of a city/Jerusalem? Hm..." Jerusalem is a city that is easily divided into two parts, a partition existed before from 1948-1967. "Here's a reference to religious issues:" Uhm, false, that's just proof that both Jews and Arabs have valid claims to the land. Neither side is restricting eachother's rights in that regard. "Despite if more Palestinians live there, if the land is owned by Israel it should be theirs." BUT ISRAEL STOLE IT FROM THE PALESTINIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "1. Bad example... Let's pretend it wasn't. Should Mexicans control it because there are more of them?" What if Mexicans lived there first, and in greater quantities than other ethnic groups? "http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... It says here that England owned it, but pretty much gave control of it to Israel. It also says that Israel was denied access to parts of Jerusalem despite the contract made by Jordan (which was only recognized by Pakistan)." England owned East Jerusalem for 31 years. Arabs owned East Jerusalem for the 400 years before that. Arabs owned it again from 1948-1967, but then Israel invaded and is still to this day, occupying east Jerusalem.
Topic inside.

Alright so apparently I had no idea what I was talking about and got completely owned. However I will make an effort to refute my opponent's arguments. "Yeah, unfortunately, the land had been lived on for thousands of years by millions of Palestinians. It'd be like if the US walked into London and said "Mine." The land of East Jerusalem is full of Palestinians, who controlled their land for hundreds of hundreds of years, before ISRAEL INVADED AND TOOK IT." http://en.wikipedia.org... From what I can read, Israel annexed it and then had to fight to keep it. "The same should happen in Jerusalem, where the Palestinians should be given land to govern themselves." Right in the middle of a city/Jerusalem? Hm... "I never mentioned religious freedom... I've been talking about political freedom the whole time...." Here's a reference to religious issues: "Israel claims that they ought to have total control over the land, because 'God promised it to them.' The problem is that Arabs have been living there for the past 500 years, and Jerusalem is home to such places as the Dome of the Rock, where Mohammed 'ascended to heaven'." "Although giving up control of Eastern Jerusalem would give Palestinians political control over the land in which they live, which is just and will result in less bloodshed on both sides." Despite if more Palestinians live there, if the land is owned by Israel it should be theirs. "1st. The United States is a melting pot country, so that doesn't make sense. Israel, not so much. 2nd. Whats funny is that the converse happened in Israel. The Palestinians have been living there for hundreds of years, governing themselves, and then the state of Israel is created, having the Jews take over completely. THIS ISN'T FAIR. There needs to be a balance created, so that the Palestinians can still govern themselves, and so can the state of Israel." 1. Bad example... Let's pretend it wasn't. Should Mexicans control it because there are more of them? 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... It says here that England owned it, but pretty much gave control of it to Israel. It also says that Israel was denied access to parts of Jerusalem despite the contract made by Jordan (which was only recognized by Pakistan).
Topic inside.

I accept the definitions my opponent has provided. I will make my case by attacking the points my opponent has provided, sometimes turning them into my own contentions. For this reason I feel I need no separate contentions; only a rebuttal is necessary. "Jerusalem is currently the capital city of the State of Israel, which is a country that is in the geographic area known as Palestine . . . Israel claims that they ought to have total control over the land, because 'God promised it to them.'" I'd like to point out that since Jerusalem is a city in Israel, it is subject to the "law of the land" set by the Israeli government. So Israel should have exclusive control of Jerusalem, because, well, they own it. Their claim is correct (albeit not because "God promised it to them") - they ought to have total control over the land. After all, if Washington, D.C. had milestones from different religions, should we split it with those countries? Of course not. It's OUR capital city. The same goes for Jerusalem. "The problem is that Arabs have been living there for the past 500 years . . . " But they don't control the land now. Native Americans were living in North America before the colonists came. Should we hand over control of the U.S. to them? The religion problem can also be solved, because Israel could simply allow people to go there and practice their religion. You do not need to hand over control to someone else to let them exercise their faith there. "I believe that a solution that involves multiple parties should be implemented because it would result in peace being kept more effectively, and would promote fundamental fairness . . . " Having Israel give up exclusive control of Jerusalem does not make this problem any better or worse. All Israel has to do is let people from other religions worship there. They do not have to hand over any amount of control. " . . . gives power to the Arab Palestinians over areas where they are the dominant ethic group, namely East Jerusalem." So just because an ethnicity is dominant, they should have control over something? What if the U.S. was overrun by Mexicans? Should we let them control part of our capital city, just because there are more Mexicans than whites? "My policy is simple, give East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority, who would ensure that religious freedom is maintained for the sparse few Christians and Jews who live in East Jerusalem." I have a better idea; why not just make Israel provide religious freedom? No "fight for control" would be necessary, just an implementation of basic rights to freedom of religion. I rest my case.
Professional athletes are overpaid

Ok to continue this debate I would like to offer the following sources for my reasoning. http://www.ehow.com......... http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com......... http://sports.yahoo.com......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok according to this the average football professional player gets paid an average of 1.8 million a year. Taken into account the Superbowl winners and hall of fame players. For what these athletes do they are payed much to high considering the ones that some years don't even do anything. I'm talking about the players that sit on the sideline and cheer fr theirs teammates. Now what do they do? They come to practice: ok that is like going to the gym everyday and getting paid over a million dollars for it. I would think that there is something wrong with that. According to my second source the NFL has experienced a need for different programs to be cut because of a loss for money. A money problem that could be associated with the over paid NFL players. Now it is always great to get paid tremendous amounts of money and spend to your heats desire. But what do these NFL people do after they get too old to play? Ok my third source says something very interesting, not only do these players get paid tremendous amounts of money they can't get enough of it. A simple TV dispute and they are asking for 707 million dollars! Seems greedy doesn't it? Well not to them, they get paid so much anyway that money is no option to them and somehow they have to get enough to what? They buy more cars bigger houses. What does this do? It creates a huge amount of our money and economy in the hands of people who can't get enough of it. Don't get me wrong some of the NFL players are very good men and use their money very well, but there are still the others who can't get enough ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here is my case again for lack of anything to say.
Professional athletes are overpaid

Ok to continue this debate I would like to offer the following sources for my reasoning. http://www.ehow.com...... http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com...... http://sports.yahoo.com...... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok according to this the average football professional player gets paid an average of 1.8 million a year. Taken into account the Superbowl winners and hall of fame players. For what these athletes do they are payed much to high considering the ones that some years don't even do anything. I'm talking about the players that sit on the sideline and cheer fr theirs teammates. Now what do they do? They come to practice: ok that is like going to the gym everyday and getting paid over a million dollars for it. I would think that there is something wrong with that. According to my second source the NFL has experienced a need for different programs to be cut because of a loss for money. A money problem that could be associated with the over paid NFL players. Now it is always great to get paid tremendous amounts of money and spend to your heats desire. But what do these NFL people do after they get too old to play? Ok my third source says something very interesting, not only do these players get paid tremendous amounts of money they can't get enough of it. A simple TV dispute and they are asking for 707 million dollars! Seems greedy doesn't it? Well not to them, they get paid so much anyway that money is no option to them and somehow they have to get enough to what? They buy more cars bigger houses. What does this do? It creates a huge amount of our money and economy in the hands of people who can't get enough of it. Don't get me wrong some of the NFL players are very good men and use their money very well, but there are still the others who can't get enough I know this is restated the argument I gave, but I have nothing to say I hope well on tfizzman in case he has any computer or other problems that are causing him to not post his argument.