BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban plastic bags

Plastic bags are an easy, disposable way to transport goods bought from the market. Indeed, they can harm the environment, but proper disposal of these bags will solve that problem. The only problem here is that some people are too lazy or uncaring to throw away bags, and therefore bags end up everywhere. Instead of banning plastic bags, we should instead find a better way to dispose of them or better educate people or have stricter enforcement on littering laws. If the government were to ban plastic bags, that would have 2 effects (besides banning the plastic bags): 1 That would mean that we trust the government with more power, which gives the government greater abilities to the extent where they may decide that we shouldn't have shopping carts, have bags at all, etc. This is also a liberal action. Giving the government more power is the worst thing you could possibly do. 2 This makes a huge dent in the economy. Think about the people who make the plastic bags. Think about the people who's job is to bag goods in the bags. It would make businesses make more durable bags, which in the long run, increases prices, since the durable bags cost more. Long story short, it would kill jobs, possibly kill profit, and raise overall prices. Remember that load of food you bought at Kroger? The price for that food could be increased, even doubled if plastic bags were banned. So to sum it all up, plastic bags would take away jobs, take away profit, increase prices, and give the government more power. A few alternate solutions include better educating people to dispose of bags properly, find new ways to dispose of them, and/or making prisons do more service hours to clean up the bags and other wastes.
Now that im done with this site, Im not gonna take it seriously.

Harlan, I am disappointed, to say the least, with your actions. If you have grown bored of debate.org, then I suggest you find better things to do with your precious time. Read a book. Write a book. Watch a movie. Take a relative fishing. Call someone you haven't corresponded with in a while. Go to a water park. Dive the Great Barrier Reef. Investigate the Big Bang Theory. Go shopping. Invest in a stock. Write a screenplay. Study law. Bust an internet predator. Volunteer at the Soup Kitchen. Watch TV. Clean your house. Beat a rug. Write a song. Take up an instrument. Donate to charity. Play paddleball. Jog. Attend a concert. Clean out a desk drawer. Become eco-friendly. Pay your mortgage. Do taxes. Adopt a pet. Replace a window pane. Get a check-up. Shovel snow. Make a blog. Take a picture. Scrapbook. Have a child. Get married. Play a board game. Learn Mandarin Chinese. Do any of these things. Pick one, I urge you. But please, I implore you not to pollute a quality, educational website with your word garbage. And before you do any of these practical things I mentioned, I suggest you get started by closing your account. Thank you.
Now that im done with this site, Im not gonna take it seriously.

indubitably. The underlying and persistant, perpetually existing essence of philosophical-sounding babbelig stream of thought is what will waste your time right now. This song is not a rebel song. This song is sunday bloody sunday. If your still rading this, go do something better for your time, like making world peace. Idealistic, patriotic fools. Yep. Metal. Punk rock tried to kill the metal, but they failed,as they were stricken down to the ground. What a waste of time. This here finalizes that I am bored of this site. I am officialy not taking it seriously. "This document has supreme power, and in having supreme power, retains the power to give itself supreme power...if you dont sign this your gay" -My constitution which was signed by a majority of the world (10 people). It was, according to some documents (which have been safely placed in the memory hole), ripped to shreds. If I say it exists still, it still exists...imperial order. He was executed. So it goes. The senate shall pass a bill rearranging the shape of the atom into an "H". Oh god, if your reading this, that means I have decided to post this. Im such a fool, if your reading this. Communication is a tricky business. Much can be lost in translation, as thoughts are translated into words, and then into thoughts again. Here, if you are reading this, you are seeing light from a compter screeen...IM WASTING MY TIME. I am using a rare oppurtunity to have a message communicated too many people, and I am wasting it on this lazy stream of thought. I could post any fundamental and liberating message. Its like when those people find the rare instance of wet cement, and can only think to engrave, in giant letters, to be read by thousands of people through the generations, the message: "**** you". Am I doing that? 9/11 was an inside job, contrary to anything I might have said. And ALAS, even when I do give a message sucj as that one to many people, it makes zero difference to anyhting. I, with that sentance, convinced no one of anything. A suffusion of yellow. Babblig, fascinating, nonsensical, philosophical-sounding, things said as soon as thought of, and much over-analyzed. If you feel attatched to anything: a group a organization a nation a band, you find yourself irrationaly trying to defend it, not out of logic, but out of attatchement. No patriotism, please. When I watch a movie in a movie theater, It is not the AUdience, me, and the movie. It is me observing the movie being watched by the audience, with whom I do not identify. I have little or o self-awareness during this time. If the universe is infinite, but the objects within it are finite, size is only relative to other finite objects. Therefore, if there is only one finite "object", is it "infinitely large" Does i matter? This went on for longer than intended. I would like to apologize, if you are reading this. It is a sincere apology. Yes, I am clogging the internet tubes. My apologies. This is a waste of...anyting...feel free to delete it from your site, webatron (the robot who controls the site). -Bob Loblaw
Gun Control

If you mention that the culture is the problem, it's not like it is impossible to fix. The first step to fix the culture of violence is to enforce gun control. I will acknowledge that the United States has a cultural problem, but we cannot give up there. We must do something about it. And the first would be to enforce gun control. If you say that they would find other ways to be violent, a gun is still the most cheap and effective way to do it. Murder someone with a car? Not so subtle, and would be caught in a matter of hours. Knives are very inefficient, and most criminals rely on guns. Even if it didn't reduce the amount of violence, surely there would be less accidental deaths by guns. You are not mentioning any benefits on keeping guns, only the fact that gun control would not work, which is wrong. Even you have just admitted to the fact that there are no benefits of having guns, so why not take a leap and enforce gun control. Even if it renders useless, there's no harm in trying.
Gun Control

In all the countries I've mentioned, the majority of gun owners are automatic rifle owners. Not for sport, not for hunting, for defence of their country and of themselves. Yet, their violence indexes are very low. This clearly proves that the problem is the culture, not the guns, and if Americans didn't have access to guns, they would find other ways to be violent (explosives, knives, cars, etc.). I can kill as many people with a car or a bomb as with a gun. Gun control wouldn't solve anything because the root problem is not the guns. I can't put it more clearly than this, and I think I argued against all of your main points.
Gun Control

You have not posted a counter argument for my previous argument. Yes, it is a cultural issue that most Americans are thinking that guns are a necessity. That is not the case. It is not required for everyday citizens to own a gun. I am not calling for a complete shutdown of guns. Law enforcement may use a gun, and hunters, but everyday people who own a gun for self-defense is not important. It allows the criminals to blend into the people who have guns at home, and will create many problems. Children getting their hands onto guns, mass-shootings, etc. In Iceland, Switzerland, and Finland it worked perfectly as you stated above. What is so different about the United States than those countries? Why does having guns in the United States be more beneficial than other countries? It is not. We are all human beings and we can all be changed. Please post counter arguments for argument 2 and 3.
Gun Control

Iceland Firearms per 100 people: 30.3 Firearm homicides per 100,000: 0 Finland Firearms per 100 people: 45.3 Firearm homicides per 100,000: 0.45 Switzerland Firearms per 100 people: 45.7 Firearm homicides per 100,000: 0.77 USA Firearms per 100 people: 88.8 Firearm homicides per 100,000: 3.21 Some points about this data. The USA has a significantly higher n" of guns per 100 people, HOWEVER, this does not mean that there are that many more people with guns on the USA, much to the contrary. What happens is that, if we take Switzerland (for example), about 45% of the population has a gun. That means that about 45 in 100 people own one gun, it's normal to have one. Because they chose to. Some have more, of course. But most, one. Still, more people have guns than in the USA, because in USA'S case, those 88.8 guns per 100 people are very far from representing 88 people with guns. It's probably 10 people with a gun, and the other 70 in the hands of 4 or 5 more. What does this tell us? That a country with the same (or less!) number of people with at least a gun (1 or more, that makes little difference in killing ability) as Switzerland, has almost 5 times it's firearm homicides per 100.000. 8 times higher than Finland. Infinite times higher than Iceland. The problem are not the guns. The problem is THE CULTURE. Limiting access to guns would probably work in a culture like Switzerland, Finland, or Iceland. They would probably be fine without their guns. Police in the UK traditionally doesn't carry fire arms. But that's not USA'S culture. Wouldn't work, just as having guns doesn't work as well as in other countries. But it's not the guns' fault.
Gun Control

I am for a stricter policy on gun control. I'm not asking for a complete shutdown of guns, but rather more strict procedures to purchase a gun and use it. Different types of guns should have different levels of enforcement, such as your examples. A machine-gun would have the strictest rules, and only the military should be able to use it.. One the other hand, everyone should have access to knives and baseball bats. When the 2nd Amendment was made, guns could only fire at 1 shot per 3 minutes, now the firing rate is way higher. Times have changed, and the 2nd Amendment is now outdated. I believe that prevention rather than treatment is the way to go, as if you say when everyone has guns then people will be less likely to open fire. But then, you will have a death either on the victim's side or the instigator's side. If no one had a gun in the first place, there wouldn't have been a death there at all.
Gun Control

You say gun control, yet you say so little. Do you mean forbidding the sale of bazookas, machine-guns, handguns, knives or baseball bats? On what terms? What's a "gun"? Do you think that we, because we live in a society, forego the right to protect ourselves, transferring that power solely to the hands of a government? Who signed those papers? Or are you trying to mask the failings of a culture and deliberately forgetting Switzerland and Finland?
The Death Penalty

In my opinion, I believe that if someone murders another person they should be killed too. Once again the 15th amendment supports this statement. Punishment should fit the crime because it is just (Danzig). The death penalty is not to cause someone pain, it is for justice. There are ways to execute criminals that are not always cruel such as a gas chamber and lethal injections (Bohm). Overall the death penalty has been a part of American culture for years, and I do not think it is fair to reconsider things now. If criminals commit inhuman crimes I believe the death penalty is the correct sentence.
The Death Penalty

In your point "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Hammurabi) I believe the message being sent out is encouraging violence. Supporting that statement is like supporting the death penalty. "By supporting the death penalty we send out the dangerous message to impressionable minds that violence is a way to resolve problems. 'Thou shalt not kill' cannot be taught by the state-sponsored execution of criminals" (Williams 42). This is establishing the idea that violence is a way to resolve issues. There are other alternatives to the death penalty where the criminal would be in just as much pain. "Instead of using the death penalty to express society's rage at wanton murder, we would be better off forcing remorseless and callous criminals to confront their depravity and make them realize how much pain they cause to others" (Williams 45). Life in prison without parole is a much cheaper alternative to the death penalty. It is also moral and practical. Life in prison removes the criminal from society and is quickly forgotten.
The Death Penalty

The death penalty is not supposed to protect life because it is designed to kill people that commit an unjust crime, which I believe is fair. In 1792- 1750BC the Code of Hammurabi was established. Within this code I believe in the saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Hammurabi). I think that for every wrong done there should be a just consequence. The death penalty also provides closure for victims. "family members who have witnessed executions " are grateful for the experience, sad that it had to come to that, but satisfied that justice has been fulfilled" (Klaas). As a result there is a less of a threat to the family. Also since the killer is getting the death penalty other families do not have to worry about being a victim.
The Death Penalty

I personally believe that the death penalty is causing more violence to occur and is not protecting human life. "Together with efforts to address the root of causes of violence and to require restitution from criminals, it would help break the cycle of violence and protect human life-- a moral 'bottom line' that we can all support" (Collecchi) By supporting the death penalty we are not supporting the criminals' natural rights and their right to live. The death penalty is also immoral. It is discriminatory, its ability to protect human life through deterrence fails, and it sends the message that violence is a solution and not a problem (Colecchi). Having said this, it fails the moral tests and goes against what our country was built upon.
The Death Penalty

In America the death penalty has always been a form of justice for murders and traitors. Even the Founding Fathers of our nation believed in this form of punishment (Singh). Starting in the 1700s murders and traitors were put to death for immoral crimes so I think this is very much a part of our culture. The likelihood of killing an innocent person is not high. "With new technology and DNA testing we can be extra certain that the true criminal will be put to death" (Rosenkrantz) . As a result the guilty person would be put to death and not the innocent person because the advancement of technology. In my opinion the death penalty is not sending out the wrong message. In fact, it informs people that they will be killed if they commit inhuman murders or crimes such as raping children.
The Death Penalty

I agree with your point that if a person violates another person's natural rights and their rights within the country, their rights should be taken away. But, I believe murdering them is a little too extreme. Unfortunately, innocent people are being accused of the crimes that have been committed. "There are, quite simply, too many errors in the criminal justice system and too many innocent people turning up on death row" (Dudley 13). Those innocent people are being accused for a crime they had absolutely no involvement in and if the crime is extremely harsh, then those innocent people are given the death sentence. You also mentioned that the criminals that take away the life of another (or others) should receive an extreme punishment. If it is not right for the murder to kill people, then isn't it wrong for the state to kill the murderer (Williams 137)? This is sending out the wrong message to criminals and other people. If it is a crime to murder another human being, then isn't it still a crime even if the state does it? This is where views on the subject get contradicting. The state is not exempt from the same laws as the citizens of that state, or the United States as a whole, for that matter.
The Death Penalty

There are many reasonable arguments against the death penalty. However, we are dealing with a life and death issue. When dealing with an issue of this magnitude I believe there should be great consequences. Statistics reveal that the death penalty is very costly. I think that when an issue regards human life all costs must be put aside. The actions that lead to the death penalty further justify the reason to put the aside the price. As a nation, the United States has a priority to stand by people and their rights. A nation that solely focuses on cost is a nation that does not have its priorities in line. Being a nation of the people, I think we must stand beside the victims and protect their violated rights. The 15th amendment states that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (US Constitution). Simply, without the due process of law a person can not be deprived of their natural rights. This amendment stands alongside the victims. If a criminal is willing to interfere, break the law and deprive a person of their rights, I believe they should be punished to the maximum extent. If murderers do not value the rights of others, they should not be allowed to have those rights for themselves. Along with serving justice, the death penalty focuses on reasonable retribution. In order to be in consideration to earn the death penalty, a person must go to great measures to break laws. In the state of Texas to get the death penalty you must have committed a murder of a public officer, multiple persons, a person under 16 years of age and during a felony. Committing a murder in the first degree in Florida makes a person eligible for the penalty (Death Penalty Information Center). What it takes to be deserving of the punishment are the most ruthless and gruesome of crimes. The death penalty takes the lives of inhuman killers and law breakers. Not your everyday shoplifters and car thieves are prosecuted to receive the death penalty. Only the most extreme of criminals are eligible for the punishment. I believe that an extreme law breaker should be punished in an extreme manner. Jails and prisons are for people to be rehabilitated. Death is for those who commit the few and most dangerous of laws.
The Death Penalty

I am very much against the death penalty. I have this stand on this issue for the following reasons. The United States is already over $1 trillion in debt, so we do not need to contribute to that amount with granting death penalty to criminals. According to editor of The Death Penalty, William Dudley, "In a study done in North Carolina, the death penalty costs them $2.16 million more than a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. In Texas, the death penalty costs around $2.3 million, nearly three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a maximum security jail for forty years" (Dudley 38). The death penalty is a very costly punishment compared to keeping criminals in jail, and is granted quite often and contributes to the amount of debt of the United States. In fact, the death penalty does not deter (prevent) any future crimes from happening. "In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment no deterrent effect was found-- in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported" (Dudley 40). This proves that capital punishment does not lower crime rates-- in this case, it increased them. Life in prison guarantees no future crimes; therefore, I think, we should not waste the money on murdering criminals when granting them a life sentence in prison would do the same job at a much less cost.
Dress Codes are Stupid

P.S. I think dress codes are stupid. :) I think dress codes should be banned at PUBLIC schools. However I do think dress codes should be completely 100% legal at PRIVATE schools. 1) makes perfect sense. People don"t dress for nothing, we dress to impress. An example can be that be don"t wear our finest clothes at home, but outside wear people can see them. Girls don"t dress in a sexy way for no reason. By this logic a girl could wear something super sexy that is within the dres code, and you expect boys not to stare. No one in my school elementary, middle, or high school was gay. Or maybe they just didn"t admit it. So what that"s one kid in the whole school who"s staring big deal. It"s one guy compared to the whole school.
Dress Codes are Stupid

Typically, females are targeted by the dress code and for no good reason. One popular argument (or at least the most popular of the one that I have seen) is "you don't want to distract the boys". There are two main problems with this argument. 1) Why would it be the females problem what the males are looking at? If someone is starring at a female because of how they are dressed, it is the person who is looking at hers problem. 2) That argument assumes that all males are straight. Saying that you don't want to "distract the boys", assumes that all males are attracted to females, when that male could very well be looking at the guy next to the girl who is going against the dress code.
Bible is more credible

The Bible is hands down more credible then Darwin's books of theories. Now I'm not saying that Charles' books are not good for observing the difference in species of birds and how they have adapted to certain areas with specific beaks for an example. But if you are looking at historically accurate The Bible hands down wins the fact race, as being that so many pieces of the Bible have been confirmed in other writing from ancient Rome of which have 100% guaranteed the historical accuracy. Now it also depends on what version of the bible you read as well, between Catholic and most Protestant churches the Catholics add the Apocrypha books whereas Protestants believe that isn't part of the Word of God. I've studied both Darwin's Theories and The Bible and from sure fact, I have to say that the Bible is more credible then Darwin's theories.