BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be fully legalized

Con has not proven that people who smoke pot are hurting themselves. I explained that you can minimize most of the physical harms, and I have also shown that pot has a lot of medicinal benefits that help them as well. Con says we should not make it easy for people to harm themselves. People can harm themselves and their health by eating junk food. Obesity is on the rise and killing people but we do not criminalize junk food. http://www.cdc.gov... Con's opinion does not matter in this debate. She has to use facts and so far she has not.
Marijuana should be fully legalized

The government recognizes a woman's right to choose when it comes to her own body, so it should recognize a person's right to smoke pot if they so choose. Smoking pot causes minimal harm and only affect one's self. If one smokes pot from a vaporizer, virtually all physical harm is eliminated. http://www.iflscience.com... Marijuana is safer than alcohol which is legal. Alcohol causes more destruction to the self and has worse repercussions for society. Driving while intoxicated from alcohol is worse than driving under the influence of marijuana. https://www.mpp.org... In fact marijuana is known to have peaceful effects, not harmful or violent effects. http://bigthink.com... If someone does not harm another person, their actions should be legal. Criminalizing pot smokers gives people an arrest record which costs them thousands of dollars in legal fees, and interferes with their ability to find jobs. A lot of people smoke pot and these people do not deserve to be criminals. Police arrest someone for pot once every 51 seconds. These laws do not deter smokers because smokers know it is not harmful. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Pot has a lot of medicinal and social benefits. It reduces pain and anxiety, and helps people be more creative and social. http://www.businessinsider.com... http://greenflowermedia.com... http://herb.co... The effects of pot don't last long and do not impair people significantly. https://en.wikipedia.org... Legalizing pot would add so much revenue to government funds. Taxing pot and legalizing the sale has generated billions of dollars in states where it has been legalized, without throwing society into chaos or danger. http://norml.org... In fact Colorado raised more tax money from weed than alcohol, which was part toward a lot of helpful government programs like schools. http://time.com...
Best decade to live in

I hope we both find it entertaining. I will first state why the 1920's in America would not be the "best age" to live in, then go on to state which age and place I see preeminent. ===================== REFUTATION OF OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT: My opponent states that the 1920's in America would be the best decade to live in. This is quite wrong. In fact, many factors play a part against this argument. I will state two below. 1. Racism: In the 1920s William Simmons created a new Klan, seizing on Americans' fears of immigrants, Communism, and anything "un-American. " He saw it as a money-making opportunity where he could sell memberships, costumes, and life insurance. He hired an aggressive, commissions-based sales force who generated over 2 million members by 1924. Hatred Expands to Catholics, Jews, and Immigrants. Simmons marketed the Klan not only as a white supremacy group, but also a "100% American" organization. He expanded the original Klan's anti-African American position to include Roman Catholics, Jews, and immigrants of all backgrounds. (1) The KKK specialized in making sure that whites stayed on top, and anyone else either serve or die. They lynched countless numbers of people, including innocent children, simply because of their skin color. Racism was not only in the KKK, it was everywhere. If you were not white, you had certain privileges taken away from you. Asians were banned from entering the USA entirely. (2). 2. Economics: Many people overlook what happened in 1929. Yes, most of the twenties were good economically, but in 1929, the stock market crashed, you may know it as the great depression. Riots began to form, people went crazy. Everyone's money was simply gone. (3). ===================== MY ARGUMENT: I would say the best decade to live in would be the 1690's on an island called Clipperton. It was uninhabited, but had food and water. Where there is no man, there is no destruction. There was no worry of government foreclosure. One did not have to worry about army raids, one could simply live in peace. I will go explain in much further detail in later arguments, assuming there is no forfeit. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and I look forward to his next argument. Sources: (1). . http://www.suite101.com... (2). . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3). . http://www.english.illinois.edu...
War, women in war, equality, gender, preferential treatment, tradition.

You challenged me , I disagreed with you on the last debate because you said men and women aren't equal and that men have it harder and women don't have any tough jobs. You were rude in that debate , although you have been civil in this debate. like I said I don't agree with you that men and women are not equal. i do think some jobs are more suited for men and some jobs are more suited for women , however there are always exceptions to the rules. I do not agree that women aren't equal to men and that women don't play a very important roles. My husband may be the soldier , but rest assured he would be lost without me behind him.
War, women in war, equality, gender, preferential treatment, tradition.

"What special laws are you talking about, I can't comment until I know which ones you are talking about." --Maternity leave mandated by congress does not apply to men. --Women are not subject to selective service (the military draft). --Minimum physical standards for police and military training (women are not required to run as fast, run as far, do as many sit-ups, pull-ups…) --Men can't prevent female golfers from entering men's professional golf tournaments to compete for prize money, but women can exclude men from their tournaments. --In a sinking ship (like the Titanic) it's always women and children in the life boats first. --Young women drivers are given lower (special) rates for car insurance than young men get. --Women police officers can "pat" search men, but male officers can't touch females. --Women can get good jobs based on their looks easier than men can. --Equal pay for equal work usually means equal pay for unequal work. At a municipal work site are women holding the flag or in the muddy ditch shoveling dirt? Men and women compliment each other in a variety of social, domestic and commercial roles. That was never my point. I know men can't do certain things that women can do. The problem with our modern, progressive society is that, under the guise of equality, women are forced into roles traditionally undertaken mostly or exclusively by men, and the result is usually a degradation of performance and a reduction in productivity. In war, that can mean death. Think of how a gender based quota system would work in the NFL, to take this example to its extreme. Wouldn't you agree that a team's performance would suffer? To a lesser extent, this also applies to police officers and military soldiers. Women just do not excel at occupations whose main ingredients for success are brute strength and courage.
War, women in war, equality, gender, preferential treatment, tradition.

First off, let me say I respect you as a military veteran and I thank you for your service to our country. What special laws are you talking about, I can't comment until I know which ones you are talking about. In your debate you said "Men who fight and die in wars (99% of war casualties are men). Men who do all the dirty, unpleasant things for women, like taking out the trash, shoveling excrement from the barn, bailing your kid out of jail. Would you like to take over some of those duties?" Yes men make up the majority of soldiers , although now that women are allowed in the military the numbers are increasing. My point however is yes the men go to war , but if you ask most soldiers they will tell you that the hardest job in the military is the silent ranks , the women behind the soldier. I disagree and think my husband is the the true hero , however the women that stay behind may have a different role, but I believe it is equally important. While my husband is at war right now, I am home with our daughter , basically a single parent. I raise her alone while he is gone. I make all decisions about her on my own. I am responsible for her health and welfare. Being a mother is not an easy job. I also am responsible for all the bills and the household, again not an easy task. I have to worry about his safety every minute of everyday and have a heart attack each time the doorbell rings. I think men and women have different jobs and different roles. I think both are equally important. We need men in the world and we need women in the world or our population would die out. You can't have a baby without a man and you also can't have a baby without a woman. Although it takes two to have a baby , the woman then has to carry the child for 9 months and give birth. You say a woman doesn't mow the lawn, that is not always true and I in turn can then say that a man often doesn't do laundry. In both cases, this is not always the case though. With my husband gone I took out the trash every week.So to stereotype like that is wrong. I think men and women are equal and are both important to our society. I found your post to be ignorant and offensive when you debated about men and women not being equal. You may not have been here if not for your dad, but without your mom you certainly wouldn't have been here.I don't think women and men can both do some jobs. However there are most often exceptions to every rule. I do think all the roles of both are equally important.
Smoking ban.

With regards to second hand smoke, look at Nathan's story. http://www.cdc.gov... [1] That right there is a pretty serious case from second hand smoke. In a way, it refutes the source you stated that it takes 30 plus years to get side affects which is clearly not the case. Here is another case in which second hand smoke changed a person's life for the worse. http://www.cdc.gov...[2] From your source: "The study doesn"t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else"s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease." Asthma is pretty serious. And as shown before, it can leave you in a serious condition. " we may as well also complain about barbeques and cars" Cars emit nasty pollution which is not good for you. Also breathing in barbecue smoke is not either. They have their side affects which are known. On how a smoking ban removes freedom of choice, it is because it endangers the lives of others. As with Nathan, you can clearly see what it does, and he never smoked. So if it removes freedom of choice, would it be acceptable to release VX (nerve agent) in a public place? After all, it is your choice. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... In short, 2nd hand smoke does affect a person's life for the worse. Good debate.
Smoking ban.

I would first like to point out that yes, smoking is an unnecessary and harmful habit- for the smoker. A few things are wrong though with anti-second/third hand smoking. To start, and probably the most important, is that affects from second hand smoke are non-existent [1]. "The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as 'borderline statistical significance.'" Another point is that if we DO complain about passive smoke, (which does not exist, keep in mind), we may as well also complain about barbeques and cars, or anything toxic [2]. And yes, smoking is unnecessary, but- A. It is their right to do so. B. There are a number of unnecessary things that people d nowadays. [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.spiked-online.com...
Smoking ban.

My points: 1. Smoking causes a danger to both the smoker and bystanders 2. It is an unnecessary habit. No one needs to smoke, it is a very destructive habit. 1st hand smoke: Smoking causes a danger to the smoker. "Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances.When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700"C at the tip and around 60"C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins."[1] With at least 400 toxic substances/chemicals, this is basically death in a cigarette. This alone would give you a greater risk of lung cancer and other serious diseases. It also affects the person's physical performance. A smoker may have trouble running at a descent pace, walking up stairs, and other basic activities. Cigarettes also contain tar, a cancer causing substance as well as nicotine which can cause high blood pressure, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. This decreases life expectancy and may have the person raking up medical expenses. 2nd hand smoke: Second hand smoke poses the same health risks as smoking directly from a cigarette. This puts your loved ones at risk, as well as other people in the general area. As with first hand smoke, second hand smoke can cause lung cancer, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. It also decreases life expectancy. Here is a link showing peoples stories on how smoking negatively affected their life: http://www.cdc.gov... Pretty serious health complications by any standard. 3rd hand smoke: Third hand smoke has the same severe health risks as second or first hand smoke. All may lead to severe health complications which may lead to hospitalization. [3] [1] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.no-smoke.org... Second argument: Smoking is a unnecessary habit, just like smoking weed. Both have health compilations( weed does, I am learning about them currently in my health class) that not just affect you, but other people. Are there any legitimate reasons to smoke? Back to you.
Best April Fool's day prank ideas.

It's still funny when a guy does it he'll be like peeing and then ahh it's spilling then he'll try to stop peeing thus wetting the whole bathroom. 1. Bottle wizz. Step 1. Buy and drink a bottle of water. Step 2. Poke a hole at the cap of the bottle. Step 3. Fill the bottle with apple juice. Step 4. Pee everywhere. What happens next: Watch people look of disgust and laugh.
Evolution is real

You are correct that nothing is perfect. We are living in a world of sin. Nothing is perfect. Yes, you tried to prove macroevolution to be correct but you said that you think it can be proven by microevolution. I believe that is false and this link does too >>> http://www.john-lee-ministries.org... You also said not to act like I know everything. That makes no sense cause a debater is meant to be confident. Yes I know that has nothing to do with proving macroevolution wrong, but you brought it up. Anyways without sin everything would be perfect. Yes our bodies are meant to self destruct (you could say anyway) but if they never died then there would be no point in living. The earth would be wayyyy over populated and that is just another point that God made the earth. He made it so that you can make life decisions on whether you wanna go to heaven or hell. Logicially and Scientificially something cannot come from nothing. Have you ever seen a dog have a horse. No. No one has. Let's say I had an apple seed. I planted it. An orange tree grew. NO! That is not possible. One cell cannot change to another species. It is just obvious. Thank you for your time. I am done. I know I probably failed at this but I only took five minutes because I have school to do. Have a nice night. I will pray for you. Jesus loves you. He wanted me to tell you that. He loves you just as much as He loves me, even if you are not a Christian. But you cannot get into heaven without his word. He is not dead. He lives in me and He wants to live in you. He is knocking on your door. Please let Him in. OK I am done bye. Sorry if you think I wasted your time. love ya
Evolution is real

I find several things wrong with your argument 1. I have already proven macro evolution to be so near to fact that it is as sound as saying that I can see my hands when I look at them with sufficient light. 2. you list no sources and use no evidence to back up your claims. 3. There was no life for at least just less than 1 billion years after earth existed. I cannot tell you where exactly cells came from, I wasn't there, there are many theories, one is that it was an acidental process, a coincidence of circumstances (which surprisingly makes sense, because of the size of the universe), another theory is that an organism piggybacked itself on an asteroid that hit the earth. I personally don't care which you believe, even if you believe that god created the original life on earth, because where it came from matters little, because their is sufficient evidence In my last statement that there was most likely one shared ancestor between all life on earth. I can look at animals and say their bodies were made imperfectly, I can do that by simply looking at the human body, think about it, and you can find many imperfections. Why are the veins and nerves so close to the surface of the skin? That's one thing I would like you to argue to be perfect, because it isn't. Made incorrectly? Ya, our bodies are biologically PROGRAMMED to self destruct, we have genes that tell us to die, and that prevent us staying youthful, and you call that correct? I know, population control and all, but really? I would argue it COULD come from some random cell, I would suggest you stop making your statements seem like you feel like you are 100% correct. Look at the way the earth turns? What does that mean? And how? Yes, the earth turning is fantastic, but that proves nothing, something being beautiful proves nothing. Death can be beautiful too, does death prove there is a god? No! The Big Bang is what creates gravitational force by the way, if you ask me how I will link you to an article on it, but that isn't what this debate is about (just going to point out that it was the church that actually originally denied gravity completely, just saying) I agree, nothing can come from nothing, but what's your point? And how does you going on to gravity accomplish anything? It's evolution we are discussing, not gravity or how the universe began. I agree you cannot make an apple appear, but I again don't see your point, I am not discussing how the universe began, and for good reason. It matters very little how the universe came to exist, the facts we know from science are still facts, and can still be repeatedly proved by the same experiment. Stuff stays the same in the universe whether you believe in the Big Bang, or if you believe god created everything.
Evolution is real

Alrighty, so now that we kinda have the definitions down we should probably start debating. I am arguing that Macro evolution is not real. You think that in the beginning when the earth was formed there were some cells near the rocks or in puddles (or something of that matter) and somehow those cells turned into animals. The question is, where did the cells come from? Because to me it sounds like we all just came from rocks. Another thing, Look at any species of animal and tell me that their body systems were made incorrectly. They all were made different and unique. That could not have came from some random cell that just appeared. Look at the way the earth turns. It turns because of gravity and God created gravity. It is impossible for something to come from nothing. If I hold out my hand and touch my palm and hope an apple will appear, it is not gonna appear.
Evolution is real

Since these are all points (except creation and the Big Bang, which are both irrelevant) I am simply going to copy, paste and reword part of my arguments from my other debate, just for my own sanity. As for macro evolution This article ( http://scienceblogs.com...... ) explains exactly that, I am not going to go through the whole process, it would take too long, but it is basically a process of mistake and error in the process of mistake and error by the part of your body that can happen causing one of the sides to have missing sections that are added on to another part of the DNA. If you need clarification on what I am talking about, the link is right there if you want to read it. (Here is some more evidence macro evolution exists that I found while searching for proof of a common ancestor http://www.talkorigins.org...... ) Here is an article attempting to prove there is a common ancestor: http://www.scientificamerican.com...... this article basically says that having one common ancestor is 10^2,860 more likely to be what happened than the next most likely theory (the one you proposed in your last statement). Does this prove with complete certainty? No, but it is such a big likelyhood that it may as well be rounded to 100% and call it a day. Micro evolution does not prove macro evolution, but what I have stated above is how it would work AND a scientific study that proved with practically complete certainty that that is what happens.
Evolution is real

I am going to have to disagree. There are actually two different types of evolution. Macroevolution: Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. (In my opinion this never has happened and I do not believe in it) Microevolution: evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species. In my opinion Microevolution does happen because things do change over time. Look at the tadpole for instance. It is born looking more like a fish and it slowly changes into a frog but it does not change species. Creation: That God created the earth and everything in it and around it. God created everything. Big Bang Theory: The theory in which a tiny dot exploded and popped everything into existence randomly. (I do not believe in this)
Evolution is real

It isn't about winning or loosing, it's about making people think differently, showing them a different opinion so they can learn something. In most cases, both sides have something to learn from the other, but not in all cases. Now, let's debate. For this. Let us first come to a consensus about the definition of evolution: Evolution: a process by which living organisms develop (or evolve if you prefer) different traits over time and eventually become so different from the original organism that it is classified as a different species of organism(s). (Summary: change over time) I would like to see if you agree on my definition of evolution before I proceed with this debate, otherwise there will be confusion on what we are discussing.
Sexual Harassment Is Subjective and Uncontrollable

Con did not address the last two sentences of my opening argument. It's not clear how Con goes from "a guy sees a female, thinks she's pretty, and does not 'sexually assault her out of no control'" to "sexual harassment is controllable." The guy's failure to "sexually assault her out of no control" may be uncontrollable. Con's example is too vague; Con uses the word "like" two times in discussing it. Sexual harassment by one person of a second person is dependent on the second person's subjective opinion. The dependence is suggested by the third element located in (1). In the sense of that dependence, the first person is unable to control whether an act he or she performs constitutes sexual harassment of the second person. Work Cited: (1) "CRIMINAL HARASSMENT," revised January 2013, which is a model jury instruction for the Massachusetts District Court and is located at http://www.mass.gov....