BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Confederate Flag.

The civil war was not fought over slavery. It was all about money because the southern states were not the only ones with slaves. people also say that the confederate flag flew on slave ships but NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portuguese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation. The confederate flag was simply a battle flag during the civil war.
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

I'd like to apologize to the readers, the voters, and my opponent for a relatively "meatless" debate. I've been under quite a load of stress as of late and I haven't had the proper time to put real proper effort into this debate. I am not implying that my lack of effort is excusable, but I would like to provide my reason if not only to maintain at least some level of respect. That being said, I will make a brief closing argument here to summarize what has happened in this debate, without violating the rules set out in R1.Final FocusAs I have stated, my opponent makes many vague claims regarding the dangers and harms of marijuana abuse while citing questionable sources. Further investigation reveals that many claims (such as his claim regarding the 99% of all crime being related to marijuana comes only from an incredibly biased site.My opponent brings out three new, different sources in the following round, but fails to show how these sources back-up his argument at all.Finally, my opponent fails to rebut a single point of my argument. Therefore, every point I have made is dropped.
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

I would ask my opponent where an unbiased website that states an opinion exists. Also, if my statements are incorrect please disprove them instead of saying they are incorrect. Finally, here are a few more supporting websites. P.S. look at all of the sources before voting. http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.webmd.com...
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

(A) Marijuana is harmful to the body and mind. 1. According to studies marijuana contains 50-70% more cancer causing substances than tobacco smoke, and can cause up to five times more damage to the throat than a cigarette. Also, long term usage has been linked to bronchitis and respiratory illnesses. Finally, marijuana can cause infertility in men, and can cause severe birth defects in children. Marijuana use can also cause premature birth and reduced mental capabilities in the child. Although it is indeed a person's choice to use marijuana despite known risks, it is not a child's choice to be born with defects or problems. 2. The psychological effects of marijuana are well documented. documented psychological ailments linked to the use of marijuana include: depression, schizophrenia, amotivational syndrome, anxiety, thoughts of suicide, depersonalization, derealisation, a feeling of loss of control, and irrational panic and paranoia. These are documented as occurring during use of marijuana, and after abstinence or in between uses. (B) The link between marijuana use and violence. 1."Marijuana use is a major factor in violent crimes. The National Institute on Marijuana Abuse and Marijuanaism estimates that 95-99% of violent crimes in the United States are linked to the use of marijuana. According to a report from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, that translates to about 100,000,000 marijuana-related violent crimes per year." A nonviolent user of marijuana has a potential to become violent due to the use of marijuana. http://www.mmyvofficial.org... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... http://bjp.rcpsych.org...
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

PROS CASE(A) It is the personal choice of each individual american as to whether or not they smoke marijuana, regardless of the harms (assuming that the persons are informed on the potential harms).Just as is the case with tobacco and alcohol, each US citizen should be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use marijuana. As long as the citizen is informed by the manufacturer of the potential harms (as is the case with alcohol and especially tobacco products), it should be the choice of theirs, not the governments, as to whether or not they choose to use marijuana. Each adult citizen is responsible for making these decisions for themselves.(B) Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses.Another reason marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US is that marijuana has useful medical employments. Marijuana is used to treat symptoms of cancer and chemotherapy. Marijuana is also used to treat glaucoma. Marijuana ought to be legalized to help treat those afflicted with diseases that can be treated with medicinal marijuana.(C) Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates.With Marijuana legalized, the government would no longer need to arrest all marijuana dealers, only the unlicensed ones. Also governments would not have to arrest users of marijuana. Non-violent drug offenders now account for 1/4 of the prison population (1)"The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following:The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000.The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction.It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000.The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs." (2).I await my opponents response response eagerly.Sources1. http://www.cepr.net...2. http://druglibrary.org...
The use, sale, and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US

My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.Please, do not accept this challenge if you merely plan to challenge the premise of this debate.
On the compulsory minimum wage

Minimum wages are economically stupid government policies. The "compulsory minimum wage" is said to be "compulsory" to distinguish it from the "natural" minimum wage. Wage is always less than the value of the hourly produce of an employee's labour. Otherwise, the employee would not be hired. Because of the nature of wage, we can divide the effects of minimum wage into three categories: -When the value of the minimum wage is below what would otherwise have been paid -When the value of the minimum wage is above the real value of the produce of labour -When the value of the minimum wage is between what would otherwise have been paid and the real value of the produce of labour If a minimum wage is lower than a job would otherwise pay, then it has no effect. If a minimum wage is higher than the economic value of a job, then it eliminates that job from economic feasibility. If a minimum wage is higher than what a job would otherwise pay, but lower than the economic value of a job, then the costs of labour increase. If the costs of labour increase, the costs of products the labour produce increase. If the costs of the products that said labour increases, then the price of everything goes up. This price inflation balances out the effect of the minimum wage, so that the real (as opposed to nominal) value of the minimum wage drops again below the price labour would have otherwise paid. So, in no case can a minimum wage have a positive effect. Further, the third said case causes politicians to again raise the minimum wage, eliminating more jobs and creating more price inflation. I await my opponent's case (as he is PRO, he shall present first). I will present the bulk of my case next round.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher

First, let me start out by saying that the murder of Meredith Kercher is truly appalling. My heart goes out to her friends and family. In the spirit of justice for Meredith, I think we would all agree that ensuring that the appropriate parties are held to account for what he/she/they have done. While none of us truly know what happened that night barring being a physical witness or somehow omniscient, I believe that the evidence presented by the prosecutor is faulty and the atmosphere in which the trial was conducted led to an incorrect outcome. My supposition is that Rudy Guede, alone, acted in the murder and sexual assault of Meredith.The evidence that places both Amanda (AK) and Rafaele (RS) at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is the so-called double DNA knife and the bra clasp. The Conti-Vecchiotti Report ordered by Judge Hellman introduces reasonable doubt as to the reliability of this evidence which means that RS and AK cannot be definitively placed at the crime scene. If they are not at the crime scene they could NOT have committed murder. Perhaps a conspiracy charge or some other may be appropriate but there is now considerable reasonable doubt and the pair is innocent.Using a bit of everyday logic – common sense, if you will, Rudy Guede (RG) a man who has broken into homes and been known to carry a knife with him is the most likely sole guilty party. Much has been made of AK's behavior (cartwheels, etc.) but what about RG's behavior? He says that AK and RS killed Meredith while he was on the toilet, so he leaves and spends the night at a nightclub. Then he flees the country on an assumed name? To me, this sounds like the actions of a killer fleeing justice. AK and RS on the other hand had the means and ability to flee but both chose to stay in Italy and assist the police in any way possible. It's a bold contrast between the 3 accused – 2 who stayed in Italy and 1 who fled.Pro: Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito are innocent (did not commit the murder) if not necessarily in law, but in fact.Con: Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito are guilty (did commit the murder) if not necessarily in law, but in fact.
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

"I know it is unreasonable to feed my child battery acid because of the implications it has, and matter determines it, so I know logic, therefore I know reason, because knowing logic is continuous, you can not not experience logic, to suggest other wise is madness" Agreed, knowing logic is an aspect of reason. However, showing logic is not to say that you are reasonable. This is because 'reasonable' is when someone is consistently and aptly using logic. One can use logic inconsistently and incompetently and not be reasonable, because you have noted correctly that everyone uses logic, but not everyone uses it well enough to be classed as reasonable. Furthermore, I dispute your definition of fact. You say a fact is defined as 'memory of personal physical experience' but this would mean that hallucinations and dreams are factual, which is false. Again, it is also a false definition as not all facts need to come from physical experience. For example, that fact that a triangle has three sides does not need to come from physical experience, I know it analytically using reason alone. "facts doesn't exist beyond my own memory" This is also false, I have no memory of researching and finding out about biochemical enzyme reactions (because I never did so), but that does not mean that biochemical facts to do with enzyme reactions do not exist. "if bachelor cant exist without unmarried males, then you are right, cause and effect is absolute" Analytic statements have nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect is an empirical axiom (albeit a disputed one) that epistemologically assist us in understanding sensory experience. A significant attribute of a priori analytic reasoning is that cause and effect are irrelevant principles. For example, you cite this example: 'I know you cant see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect' The relevance of cause and effect is present because your knowledge that you cannot see words on a screen without opening your sides is a posteriori reasoning (coming from experience) and so cause and effect are aptly considered. Yet this is not the case in analytic facts.
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, I know my experience of now fact=Knowledge=memory of personal physical experience where as anything I imagine goes to belief, so its not a fact, as facts are past observations, and you don't know if I just looked at my dog, in fact, I don't have a dog, but am I lying about not having a dog? so is it a fact or not that I just looked at my dog? facts doesn't exist beyond my own memory, that's like saying I can see what others have observed in the past in my imagination now and its true? imagination is 100 percent false I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, as I don't have to imagine if bachelor cant exist without unmarried males, then you are right, cause and effect is absolute, I also know liquid is wet even if I could only imagine it, as know is true and the absolute are no other option I know you cant see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect I know it is unreasonable to feed my child battery acid because of the implications it has, and matter determines it, so I know logic, therefore I know reason, because knowing logic is continuous, you can not not experience logic, to suggest other wise is madness know is cause and effect, if you are blind you cant see these words on your screen, and its absolute
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

I am not arguing against empiricism. So I agree with your arguments but they do not argue against my point. However, whilst remaining an empiricist, I refute your claim that sensory experience has nothing to do with an assumption. You are assuming that your senses are giving an accurate portrayal of reality. This is an assumption because there is no synthetic or analytic evidence to that it is fact. It may well be your only connection to reality, but that does not necessarily mean it is a reliable one. Nonetheless, just because it is an assumption does not mean it is not a reasonable assumption. It is reasonable, but that does not make it not an assumption. Also, your definition of 'know' as 'physical experience of now' is faulty, because that would imply that one cannot know something without physically experiencing it. This is false. I know that all bachelors are unmarried because 'bachelor' means 'unmarried male'. It is true by definition and I do not require physical experience of the romantic relationships (or lack thereof) of bachelors to know that they are unmarried.
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

you just admitted if I can see then I can see I am taller than you. and this is simply a complication, I know its reasonable for you to have your eyes open if you want to read these words on the screen, argue with that reality is defined by experience, so the car goes as fast as I see, hear, know, that is the true speed know=physical experience of now lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one you can tell my anything, i am telling you the moon is made of cheese, and your sensory experience has nothing to do with an assumption, you have no other connection to reality then your senses, you are dead without them
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

You can only see if you are taller than me only if you can see. Just because you know the methodology of comparing heights does not mean that you can actually compare heights. Begging the question is a term in logic where one attempts to use the conclusion as a premise to prove itself. In your case, you are using the conclusion (that you are reasonable) as a premise (that you are reasonable). "the problem is, how do you know the speedometer is right, and how do you tell how fast 50 miles per hour is without a speedometer?" I know things from the axiom of empiricism. Assuming that my senses give an accurate perception of reality then I can tell you how fast 50 miles per hour is by stating that it is the speed at which one can travel for one hour and move 50 miles. A speedometer, conversely, cannot tell you how fast 50 miles per hour is. Only that you ARE going at 50 miles per hour.
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

know is not an assumption, I can see if I am taller then you begging what question, I know I cant see these words with my eyes closed so I know its reasonable to keep them open if I want to read these words on the screen if I know I cant see with my eyes closed, I know I have to open them to see, and it is reasonable to do so if I want to see the problem is, how do you know the speedometer is right, and how do you tell how fast 50 miles per hour is without a speedometer?
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

'how do you know if you are tall?' By measuring your height, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are tall. You could very well be short. 'know=Physical experience of now, I can see that I am taller then others or not' That assumes that you are tall, if you are short and claim to be tall then you don't know that you are tall. Relating back to the statement, you're begging the question by assuming that you are reasonable in order to prove that you are reasonable. 'logic is the measurement of reasonable because if I got the strength of superman over night what is reasonable for me to do would change, it would be reasonable to jump of a building, where as it could be reasonable to jump off a building if I didn't have superman's power and I wanted to die, and it would be unreasonable to jump if I didn't want to die' Agreed, I do not really disagree that logic is the measurement of reasonable, only that 'I know logic, so I am reasonable' is a false conclusion to draw from it. ' cant know information from a machine, imaginary measures, like the speedometer in a car is an imaginary measure how fast is 50 miles per hour?' This is not imaginary. A speedometer informs the observer of how fast it is moving through space. 50 miles per hour is the average speed at which one is travelling through space when one moves 50 miles in exactly one hour.
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

how do you know if you are tall? lies are complicated by separation, and true is simple now as one know=Physical experience of now, I can see that I am taller then others or not cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic) logic is the measurement of reasonable because if I got the strength of superman over night what is reasonable for me to do would change, it would be reasonable to jump of a building, where as it could be reasonable to jump off a building if I didn't have superman's power and I wanted to die, and it would be unreasonable to jump if I didn't want to die certainty=physical experience doubt(belief)=imagination I cant know information from a machine, imaginary measures, like the speedometer in a car is an imaginary measure how fast is 50 miles per hour?
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

Reasonable is defined as 'to have sound judgment' (1) where sound is defined as 'free from logical flaws' (2) In your statement, you logic is stating: "X is the measurement of Y, I know X so I am Y. " In other words, you are stating that knowing the measure of something is equivalent to having that something. Whilst this could often be the case, it is not necessarily true which is what the statement implies. For example, I know the measurement of height is metres. However, this does not mean that I know I am tall. Using your logic, the following would be true: "Metres is the measurement of height, and I know metres, so I know I am high". This statement is not logically valid. Firstly, because knowledge of the measure of something does not mean I can actually measure it. I am a physics student and know what the Tesla (T) is (the measure of magnetic flux density), this does not mean that I can actually measure magnetic flux density. Secondly, just because I measure something does not mean that I will get a high result. In the statement, one could use logic to measure how reasonable they are, but they could then find themselves to be unreasonable based on their logic. For example, let us say that I know what IQ tests are, what they measure and how to do them. I might know all this, but this does not mean I will get a high IQ score. To conclude, you might know logic but that does not mean you can measure how reasonable you are. Also, you may measure how reasonable you are but you cannot guarantee that you will find yourself to be reasonable. (1) . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (2) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

logic is the measurement of reasonable, I know you can't see my physical body if you close your eyes, like I know you can't read these words on your screen if you close your eyes, cause and effect(logic), so its reasonable for you to continue to have your eyes open, if you want to read on till the end of this message, based on the logic that is you cant see these words with your eyes closed
Religion (in general)

I believe in freedom of religion. However, I wish religion had never existed. Religion has been a very negative influence over all, but people fail to see what religion really did to us. Read the argument and don't let your religious belief influence your vote. 1) Prosecution and Religious Wars. A lot of people have been persecuted for their religious belief, millions died this way, and no matter how you color it, that has a negative outcome on the world. The Crusades destroyed historical evidence, killed people, and increased tension between religions. The religious wars in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims, and also Muslims and Muslims, have not only caused death and terror, but are destructive to the whole world. 2) The "truth" to it. I gave negatives, and there are many more. But the point is that the destruction caused by religion is far greater than its positive influence. Religion was a way to answer questions we didn't have the answer to. And how did we get those answers? By making things up. That was very destructive to science. E.g.: Galileo was forced to deny that the earth revolves around the sun, and for many years the world was lied to by the Church. That is now happening with the theory of evolution and the big bang. My question to you religious people is: Can't you just hand down onto the next generations moral values alone? Do you really have to justify moral values with lies such as "If you are evil, you go to hell"? Nobody evens believes half of the stuff religion consisted of a couple hundred years ago, however many remain religious and believing other things religion has taught them. Such as "The Earth was created in 7 days" and so on... We should just throw out religion as a whole and keep only the moral values it taught us. And don't get me wrong, it taught us great things.