BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime

The greatest problem for drug users are that they never know what they get. The reason for this is that as the drugs goes from drug cartel to user, it passes through a system of middlemen. These middlemen are eager to make money, and therefore they mix their drug with e.g. sleeping pills. One thing that you might have heard of are the drug krokodil. Krokodil is a cheap syntethic made drug similar to cocaine[1]. What does this have to do with this case? Since it is similar to cocaine and cheaply made, some drug cartels or dealers will mix the two of them. Without telling the user what is in it, dealers sell the drug to a cocaine addict, and the this person takes the drug, their life is ruined. So am I not arguing against myself now? No. I do not mean krokodil should be illegal. I think drug users have a right to know what they are taking. In Portugal [2], they have legalized drugs for personal use. The drug-related justice workload have been decreased. Portugal has also reduced its drug related death and reduced diagnoses of HIV among drug users 17%. These numbers shows the positive reactions that comes with legalizing drugs in the US in 2013 [3] 43,982 people died from drug overdoses. 22,767 of these deaths was due to pharmaceuticals. That is over 50% overdosing from pharmaceuticals that in the principle are legal. In Portugal, the consumers of drugs are no longer looked at as criminals, but instead patients. This have done so that 45% of the Portugal's heroin user have sought medical help. In The Netherlands [4] they have for many years had a loose policy towards cannabis. You should think that they had high numbers of cannabis user by now, but the fact are so different. The Netherlands have the lowest numbers of cannabis users pr. capita. Netherlands have gone towards a more strict cannabis policy during the last few years, but that is towards tourists. The country had a lot of problems with people comming form other countries in the EU, who would go to Netherlands the smoke cannabis. At last i want to thank Jonnykelly for acceping this debate, and thanks for the debate to you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime

At this point I would like to point out that my opponent has failed to cite any sources, nor has he shown evidence as to why legalization itself would be beneficial. My opponent has stated that if legalized drugs were regulated by state, we would not experience abrupt advertisements for these products. This is simply impossible. Today, the public has to face the full force of tobacco and alcohol advertisements. It is, in my humble opinion, the one great downfall of Capitalism. If you allow the sale of an item, you allow the accessories that come with it. That includes marketing, propaganda, and subliminal messages in other forms of media. My opponent states that if recreational drugs were legalized, it would be illegal just as drunk driving, and therefore, would not be a problem. To counter this, I point to statistics provided by MADD.org. [1] According to MADD, nearly a quarter of individuals between the age of 21 and 25 drive drunk. Millions still drive under the influence. Therefore, It cannot be said that making drugs legal, but making them illegal while driving will stop their use on the road. My opponent argues that facilities could be provided where people may take drugs with fumes so as to not force the drugs on to the public. This suggests that drugs will be legal, but not really, because they can only be taken in certain buildings, and not in public. This also would restrict the freedom of the nonuser by creating places that they cannot enter for fear of their own health. The general public should not have to change the way it travels based on the problems of the minority. Never in my arguments have I stated that drug addicts WANT to be drug addicts. But this does not excuse the use of illegal, harmful substances. After all else, it was the user himself who chose to try that first blunt. My opponent seems to think that when a user gets busted, they just get thrown into jail to rot. The United States, and many other western nations have initiated help programs for inmates and parolees. [2] It's not yet a perfect solution, but it is a sight better than making drugs legal and available to the general public. The worst thing that could happen to an addict is for them to continue taking drugs out of check, not for them to get caught. My opponent creates an ultimatum: either a drug addict, or a radicalized criminal. This is not the case. Both federal and state run programs are in place to get ex-convicts back on the right track. [3] I extend my further points that legalizing drugs would encourage widespread use and a breakdown of society. Drug addiction is a problem for the user, and they should get help from professionals to get them off the substance. But we cannot allow these drugs to be considered acceptable in society. Sources: [1] http://www.madd.org... [2] https://www.ncjrs.gov... [3] http://felonopportunities.com...
ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime

My opponent states that legalizing drugs will create a commercial market for drug like heroin and other drugs, showing how great it would be to do drugs. If the sales was controlled by the state, these commercials will not exist. Since the purpose of legalizing drug is not to create a market where it should be possible to earn money on the drug addicts, but instead give the government an easier way to detect drug abusers and offer and give them the treatment they need to become drug-free. We have to face that drugs have, are and will be a problem we have to fight. If we shall be capable of treating addicts, the first step would be to find and detect the addicts. If we state-control the sales of all drugs, we will in an instant be able to detect abusers. After we have detected the abusers, we have to treat them. These treatment programs are expensive and who should pay for them. Today we all tax-payers pay for government treatment facilities and their expenses. If we legalized drugs, the profits from the sales of drug would uncut go to cover some of the expenses. As for the driving under the influence of drugs my opponent stated; it is illegal to drive drunk, so of course it should also be illegal to drive while high on drugs. We have to create facilities (they do already exist) where people can go and take their drug so that non abusers are not exposed to the fumes that the drug would form is they are smoked. Thinking that drug addicts want to be addicts are a sign of stupidity. Many abusers really want to get out of doing drug, but the need of the drugs gives them withdrawal symptoms. Regular users of heroin gets really sick when they have not got their drug for a longer period of time. If these people haven't got enough money to buy the drugs, they either turn to a loan shark (which ends up ruining their lives) or to burglary (which also ruins their lives, if they are caught). Not only would legalizing drugs for personal use, help people break out of their abusive habits of drugs, it would keep the ones that really need their drugs away from loan sharks, drug cartels and prisons. The worst thing that could happen for an addict would be to go to prison, meet some 'real' criminals that would convince the addict that he also should become a 'real' criminal. When the addict then comes out of prison, he will be radicalized into a criminal. Now who's fault is that and who will it have an effect on. In my opinion the answer for both question is; us. As a collective society, imprison ting people only to realize that it has radicalized them, means that we have failed to reintegrate them into our society. In fact we have done the exact opposite.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

I would like to start off saying that America is considered a Constitutional DEMOCRACY and also a Representative DEMOCRACY and an Electoral DEMOCRACY and a few other DEMOCRACIES are also included in that list. So in all sense of the resolution America is considered A DEMOCRACY! Also, now proving America is a Democracy my opponent has agreed with me and saying "The examples that my opponent listed, for the most part, are examples of how civil disobedience has brought about positive changes in America. " POSITIVE CHANGES! !! meaning it was a good thing that they happened and are appropriate in fighting for justice. I really don't get why he said that, but in all honesty a person would never agree with his opponent in a debate. .. So disregarding that statement all together I can still disprove his case. This debate isn't even about how the US government works, or lobbyists, or about money buying power. It's about civil disobedience and how it's important for a democratic society. Second, the statement referring to America "The country is not run by the people. The country is run by the people with the most STUFF, and by people who want that STUFF. " it is an OPINION, NOT A FACT. I have listed FACTS that have proven my point using examples of civil disobedience that have worked in the fight for justice. All my opponent is doing is harping on America and the supposed way that the government works. Thirdly, my opponent has not given any reason why civil disobedience is not appropriate to fight for JUSTICE, he just said that "the exercise of each individuals voting power would be the only appropriate weapon in a democracy". Which says nothing against civil disobedience. And lastly, civil disobedience is an appropriate way to change the governments UNJUST laws or actions toward its people.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

This is my first debate in my return from the grave and the first one I'm participating in with the new site. The examples that my opponent listed, for the most part, are examples of how civil disobedience has brought about positive changes in America. The problem, however, is that America is not an exact democracy. The American form of government is not a true democracy, because not every person has an equal access to equal power. Laws are not passed based on the wants and needs of the American public directly, Laws are passed through money. In a Democracy, rich businessmen practicing immoral acts to acquire wealth would not be able to stand against the majority, who recognize their practices and wish to pass a law restricting them. However, this is one of the most common practices of the American tradition: Using money to buy power. Lobbying is rampant in this country, special interest groups rely more on bribery than by having a uniform voice. The country is not run by the people. The country is run by the people with the most STUFF, and by people who want that STUFF. In a democracy, civil disobedience would not be an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. Necessarily, the exercise of each individual's voting power would be the only appropriate weapon in a democracy. The fact that civil disobedience needs to exist, is because some power is interfering with Democracy and perverting it into something else.
THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom.

Throughout this posting, I will state three contentions in favor of the motion. I will also define the terms within the motion now: Teachers will be any certified instructor within a school system. Concealed weapon will be a lisceneced weapon that is concealed appropriately, without any necessary training. Classroom will be anywhere on the school campus. FIRST ARGUMENT It is understood that school shootings are a rising threat. Yet is this the correct way to combat violence? With more violence? Essentially, to arm a teacher is to add more bullets, more violence, and more death to the scene. Already, policemen have trouble hitting a target, yet what of an untrained, nervous teacher tasked with saving his/her students? What should we do in response to violence? Add more violence? perhaps arm the whole school to the teeth? which leads into my SECOND CONTENTION What about the teachers that sexualy harass students, or feel agression towards them? Although these are extreme cases, think of all of the stressed-out teachers. When armed with a tool with the ability to end multiple lives, a certain physcological effect takes place. Although it would be egregious to say that if a student is upsetting a teacher the teacher will immediately pull a gun on the student in question, possesing a gun in stressful situations makes the user more confident, and endows the posessor with a misleading sense of power. Let us discuss an extreme (but too common) circumstance. If a shooter invades a school and takes a student hostage. A teacher without a gun will call for backup. A teacher with a gun will be much more likely to use it to save the student, although a violent response to a person with violent intent will certainly trigger a chain of events, for hit rates against live targets are low even among policemen, and kill rates low as well, perhaps leading to even more unessecary deaths. Again, fighting violence with more violence simply adds fuel to the flame. Perhaps a different approach is called for. THIRD POINT Already, policemen are seen on campus of many schools. At least these policemen are trained, more detatched, and have more tools at their disposal. Policemen also carry exposed weapons, which may serve as a detterent to any potential shooter. Instead of funding weapons for teachers, enforce security such as gates more closely, or hire more professional policemen. 3 in 4 gunmen (TIMES magazine) turn on their own community. This shows that the problem comes from within. Instead of tearing ourselves apart with the accumulation of even more weapons, more effective ways and programs to rehabilitate the person in question before the violent act is commited would be the most effective in stopping these unessesary deaths. In conclusion, granting gun rights to teachers worsens the situation by adding another aspect of violence to the scene. Also, already-pressured teachers who are granted a gun are more likely to use it. And finally, more peaceful and efffective methods are available.
There is Nothing Wrong with Abortions

"There is Nothing Wrong with Abortions" All I have to do is prove that there is something wrong with Abortions which I can do in one sentence: abortions kill unborn babies. Abortion is defined as: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. http://dictionary.reference.com... Abortions are unsafe and offend god (applies to people if they are religious). In many countries, there are cases where women are forced to have abortions if they are carrying a girl. I believe that all of what I have stated above proves that there IS something wrong with abortions.
Free Will cannot logically be possible.

Hello, sir! Thank you for accepting my debate. I agree, the Grandfather Paradox was a weak first argument. I will use the definition you cited as the universal definition for this debate, agreed? Let's look at physics. At the subatomic level, particles act completely randomly. This is why we can't study them at all; we don't know where they are. Move up to an atom, we have the same issue. Here is a theory I came up with: Kind sir, what is your brain made of? That's correct, cells. Cells are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. By this logic, you can state that everything in this universe is the result of a random occurrence. Yes, it seems that we have free will. I can choose between Arizona and Coke when I need to quench my thirst. But when you look at physics and the evidence there, we see the choice isn't ours. A good example of this theory is with a humanoid robot. A hundred years from now, let's say for the sake of simplicity, scientists can completely replicate the human brain on a computer the size of a human brain. They implant this brain into a perfect humanoid robot, that is completely indistinguishable from a human. They have this brain "programmed" so that he starts life as a 17 year old named Sam. Sam is completely indistinguishable from a human. He blends right in no problem. He might even think he has free will, but here lies the problem: Sam is a robot. He was programmed to have a brain that operates identical to a human's. If this robot does not have free will, then neither do we. I am happy that my first debate is with someone as well though as you, Con. Thank you for your first argument. I am excited to hear from you again.
Free Will cannot logically be possible.

Kind regards for this debate. I will be representing the Con side, meaning that free will can logically be possible. Opening statement:Foremost, 'Free Will' needs to be defined. Merriam Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) defines 'Free Will' as:"the ability to choose how to act"; "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God". As a short rebuttal, analysing Pro's argument, namely the 'grandfather paradox', does not affect the existence of free will in any way shape or form, as there is no proof of time travel, nor is it known how actions while potentially 'time travelling' will influence the present, past or future. Pros argument can be compared to the following:I drive a fast sports car. I drive it on a very curvy road. I can only drive at 60 kmh, as the car would otherwise go offroad. Therefore, reasoning from Pro's case, the car cannot drive faster than 60 kmh.However, this is incorrect, as the car is capable of driving at much faster speeds, the car not being able to be driven faster than 60kmh in one situation does not mean that the car cannot drive faster than 60kmh. This is comparable to Pro's case. Simply because Free Will is not realisable in all situations does not mean that free will does not exist. I can move my arm up and down right now, out of free will. So can anyone else. There is no need to move my arm, nor is anyone forcing me to do it. I chose how to act, therefore was acting out of free will. Conclusion:As Pro's case does not have any validity against the actual existence of free will, other than in one specific case, which is in no way proven or factual, free will thus does exist. Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Free Will cannot logically be possible.

The Grandfather Paradox is as states: If you were to go back in time and kill your own grandfather, you would cease to exist. If you cease to exist, you grandfather would be spared. If the option of travelling back in time were given, you would not be able to logically take it. Going back in time would disrupt the future, which completely disables the idea of free will. This means that time is a completely straight path, and therefore cannot be altered. Einstein's general relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or space-time. This cannot be true, as something cannot effect nothing. Here is my argument: Based on the evidence above, Free Will cannot occur because time is a linear set of events that are not able to be manipulated.
Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad video game.

"Grand Theft Auto 5 is a bad game it has taken mods away mods make the game a better experience for the player,also if you download mods for single player and go online it leads to a 30 day ban to a full lifetime ban. The ratings on steam for the game has dropped to a 6/10 since 2013." Your argument does not prove that "Grand Theft Auto V" is a bad game. You just stated your reason/opinion on why you think the game is bad, no evidence for your assertion, and the rating is old, not new. If it was bad, then provide credible sources that prove that it is a bad game. As of this time, Grand Theft Auto V cannot be declared to be a bad game if there is no factual proof that it is."Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad game, prove me wrong." You have failed to prove that it is, I am wondering as of this time if you possibly could, results seem slim, but I may be making an underestimation. You need to use proof, and not opinion, it is invalid, the point of the debate is for the contender to "prove" the title "Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad game" Try Again.
Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad video game.

Grand Theft Auto 5 is a bad game it has taken mods away mods make the game a better experience for the player,also if you download mods for single player and go online it leads to a 30 day ban to a full lifetime ban. The ratings on steam for the game has dropped to a 6/10 since 2013.They overhyped the game they came out with about 15 minutes and 38 seconds worth of trailers
Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad video game.

I've posted this to the category of "games" Now I've overheard this statement many times "oh GTA 5 is a bad game" "it sucks why do you like it" I am wanting for anyone who has had experience with the game to tell me or be willing to debate on whether the game is good or not. "Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad game" prove me wrong.
Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad video game.

Okay the graphic sucks everything about the game multiplayer is boring the cost is $40 for a game that was released in 2013 its really laggy (not my computer i have a alienware) Micheal is a dick to everyone Franklin is a black guy who gets rich from micheal and trevor he is the biggest dick of them all he wants to kill everyone in sight. its also a timewaster every time you play it its addictive so you lose time of your life when you could be doing something better like playing outside or a better game. My closing statement is that grand theft auto is a timewaster.
Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad video game.

"I want you to prove to me that grand theft auto is a good game I want you to do that prove to me that it is the best game i dont think its possible but give it a try if you can convince me that its a good game then ill give up and give you the w"FACEPALM.Now you are attempting to ask me to prove that it is "a good game". Your moronic behavior will lead to an embarassing failure and defeat if you do not do what is asked. You accepted the challenge to disprove that "Grand Theft Auto V is not a bad game", your statements are highly invalid, will you try to win, or will you be foolish and lose?Do not ask me irrelevant questions, your objective is to disprove the topic, now...Try Again.
People with Stupid Usernames should be kicked

This is withour a doubt the most stupid Debate ever. My UserName is my Tag name for graffiti. What does MachoMan have to do with you. Are you mexican? If not then why do you use that username. I am not making fun of your name it's just that there is no evidence of you being Macho is there. Do you have refrences? If not then please go away because I have never made fun of your username and probably never plan to good day sir.
Civilization should endorse homosexual monogamy for reasons of public health and accountability.

Some of the sources cited in the book "Truth Decay" (the book I cited as a source) concerning homosexual behavior were from studies dating back to the 1980s, though the book itself was made relatively recent (2006 I think). In light of what you have said and the sources you have provided, I must conclude that measures to bring about homosexual monogamy have proven successful. I am personally against homosexual behavior, but that is not what this debate is about. Your point, that homosexual monogamy should be encouraged, has been proven. Therefore, you win this debate. The next round is irrelevant because con has already won. Vote for con! (But nobody's paying any attention to this debate anyway)