BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be legal for recreational use

Pro claims that the fact that people who use marijuana are more likely to use other drugs, is a correlation but not a causation. Though there is a very slight and confusing differential between both causation and correlation, some would say that in this instance, that this is more of a causation rather than correlation. This is because people who are smoking marijuana, have been urged in some way or another to begin using a different hard drug. Therefore, marijuana is the cause of people trying other drugs because it opens up a world of newer, harder drugs with it indeed being a gateway drug. To continue, pro claims that marijuana can be used to treat depression and anxiety, whether or not that is true or not, is not relevant to this debate, as we are debating about recreational use of marijuana, and not medicinal use for it. However, research provided by Mayo Clinic suggests that people who smoke marijuana are more likely to be diagnosed with depression, rather than non smokers. With that being said, pro also claims that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. However, this is untrue because according to the American Lung Association, smoke in itself no matter where it is from, including marijuana can cause all sorts of lung illness ranging from damage of the lung lining, or even chronic bronchitis. Furthermore, marijuana is indeed harmful to our bodies, and can lead people (especially those that do not have very good control over behavior) to try harder drugs out there. Combine that with people that are prone to mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, and then we have got a world of very physically, and psychologically ill people. Maybe a consensus would be for a doctor to prescribe marijuana in some instance, which would be for a different debate, however the debate about whether or not marijuana should be available to anyone for recreational use, is proved to be con by the reasons stated above. Thanks for a good debate!
Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences

Even with training and a certificate of completion from an officer can a gun get into the wrong hands. James Holmes was once enrolled as a PhD student and had a 3.949 GPA. And he went on to kill twelve people in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Once there were two teenagers living in Colorado, and they were considered bright and knowledgeable students with futures ahead of them. They were good with computers and although they butted heads with the law once, they apologized sincerely and went on with their lives. Their names were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and they went on to commit the worst high school shooting in American history in 1999. It's even more disturbing considering Eric was eighteen (Dylan was seventeen) at the time. Bottom line: eighteen year olds cannot be trusted be with guns, even with laws in place. It doesn't matter if those people went to jail or not, they still happened even with everything in place.
Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences

I see where you are coming from, that is why in my starting paragraph I said that you should first have to get training and you would have to get a certificate of completion. from a trusted licensed officer. and plus those shootings were caused by someone illegally buying guns and or selling them on the streets, now granted that they were very unfortunate accidents but those people were arrested and put into jail.
Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences

I oppose the resolution, "Resolved: 18 year olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses." First, an eighteen year-old (or anyone for that matter) can use another means to protect themselves other than firearms, such as pepper spray. This would a.) reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries and b.) prevent firearms from being stolen by others and used for criminal purposes. Second, a firearm in the wrong hands can result in injury and death. Examples of eighteen year-olds killing others with firearms include the Jokela school shooting in which nine people died (including the perpetrator) and the St. Pius X High School shooting, where one person was killed and five others were injured. Due to the number of risks, and other ways for eighteen year-olds to defend themselves, I oppose the resolution that eighteen year-olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses.
Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences

The reason I pick this topic is because there are so many issues with teenagers getting kidnapped, hurt, hospitalized for people trying to either kill or hurt them. Now for me just hearing all of these incidents happening just make me sick and I thing that the 18 year old's should be able to purchase fire arms so they are able to defend them self's if this happens to them. Now They would have to get training and take a class before they are able to purchase a fire arm, so I can understand the concern there and trust me parents I can completely understand your concern with this. But as or me I rather not see my kids get hurt or hospitalized for someone trying to hurt my children. So that is why I believe in letting 18 year old's the right to purchase a fire arm.
Governmental Economic Intervention

Prior to the Great Depression, the US Government"s role in the economy was overall minimal. Since 1930, however, the government has been more concerned with repairing and preventing market failure using fiscal and monetary policies. While the sheer size of the modern US economy requires some macro-economic federal intervention, this intervention should be limited. The role of the government in the economy should simply be to utilize efficient policies in order to uphold the integrity of the free market. Smithian economics has served our nation well, but it is unrealistic to suggest that the government should not intervene whatsoever in the economy. Regulation is very important in order to uphold capitalism and the market economy. (Krugman). It is important to promote free markets, which are conductive to growth, rather than to use governmental intervention and spending as a means of growth. In order for capitalism to thrive, the government needs to promote a stable currency, private property rights, consumer protection, and market regulation. (Holcombe). Smithian economics works idealistically, but realistically, the government plays a major role in upholding the free market system. In conclusion, the government undoubtedly plays a major role in the economy, but its role should be to merely promote the wellbeing of free markets in order for capitalism to thrive. Krugman, Paul and Wells, Robin. Economics, Second Ed. Worth Publishers. Print. Holcombe, Randall G. Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. The Independent Institute. 1 February 1998. Web. 28 September 2013
Governmental Economic Intervention

Capitalism inherently encourages entrepreneurship and the most efficient means of acquiring profit. With this comes the opportunity to profit at the expense of the wellbeing of others. There is indeed a fine line between corporate greed, which is to be expected, and unethical business practices, which are not acceptable by any means. Wall Street champions of private equity and investment banking did indeed engage in unethical derivative investment practices that stifled consumers and average Americans for the sake of corporate profits. (CNN Money). This led to the deterioration of the housing market and the financial collapse of 2007 and the subsequent governmental bailout of firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead of the Keynesian intervention following the collapse, the government should have enforced regulation to prevent the unfair practices used by Wall Street banks and the following recession. Efficient governmental intervention is necessary in order to uphold free markets and the rights of consumers. Although hindsight is 20/20, it would have been ideal for the US government to intervene by regulating unethical banking practices rather than to intervene by bailing out Wall Street Banks after the meltdown. Governmental regulation is much less costly and much more efficient than governmental bailouts. As Ben Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." (Holcombe). Effective regulation is beneficial to the economy because it allows for the health of the market economy. Regulation also entails much less intervention and much less governmental spending than Keynesian government spending does. With our nation"s baffling deficit, America quite literally cannot afford to continue making economic mistakes. While intervention in the form of governmental bailouts of private firms is seen as socialistic, governmental intervention, when used to uphold the free market as with regulation, is far from socialistic. Thus governmental economic intervention is necessary but should only be utilized to promote growth and uphold the free market. Works Cited "Foreclosures up a Record 81% in 2008." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. Holcombe, Randall G. Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. The Independent Institute. 1 February 1998. Web. 28 September 2013
Governmental Economic Intervention

America was founded upon the economic beliefs of Adam Smith as published in his seminal book The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Smith proposed that a free market economy in which governmental intervention is minimum yields the most economic prosperity. Smith argued, and history has proven, that a market economy in which individuals with specialized skills pursue their own interests makes for the most economic success. An environment that promotes economic freedom is imperative to economic growth. Economic freedom consists of: stable currency, private property protection, low taxes, low tariffs, and minimal governmental intervention. Economies that possess these characteristics are the most conductive to growth. History has overwhelmingly shown that capitalism has prevailed over socialism, and thus governmental non-intervention and the market economy have prevailed over governmental intervention and the centrally-planned economy. After World War II, North Korea adopted a socialistic economic system while South Korea adopted the market economy. Today, North Korea is one of the poorest and most oppressive nations on the planet while South Korea has one of the fastest-growing economies on the planet. Similarly, After WWII, Germany divided, and East Germany utilized a centrally-planned economy while West Germany utilized a market economy. East Germany eventually surrendered to West Germany because of the severe poverty it encountered. The results of the Cold War also support the supremacy of the market economy; during the mid-twentieth century, the world"s leading scholars and economists were divided between those who advocated for socialism and those who advocated for capitalism. The Soviet Union's governmental intervention was an utter failure, and the nation collapsed in 1991; America, of course, has not and will not collapse because of the ideals it was founded upon. The competitive market economy has proven superior to the centrally-planned economy, but governmental intervention is arguably necessary in many cases (and governmental intervention is not necessarily synonymous with socialism). Sources: B. Taylor. "Socialism vs. Capitalism." 2006. 7 October 2013. Web. Holcombe, Randall G. Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. The Independent Institute. 1 February 1998. Web. 28 September 2013
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

RefutationsA late response is better than no response. I understand that your priorities are to school first (as should be the priorities of all students) and urge those who vote to judge based on the arguments presented, not on the forfeited rounds. Lets get to my responses, shall we? :)So my opponent's argument still hinges on the "flawed justice system". To this point i refer back to the point of providing correct circumstances. Under the circumstances provided, one denotes that such an action is lawful.On to the "unconstitutional" point, one can refer back to my statements by Kasachkoff, John Locke, as well as Robert Grant which state that if one does not uphold one's own responsibilities, one forfeits all rights under Social Contract, including the right to life. Thus you deduce it is just(under the circumstances i gave) to utilize such an action.The examples she gives do not follow the conditions i set forth.Her statement of reducing crime can occur with the proper use of the death penalty (eradicating those who commit severe crimes).My "cheaper" point stand and can be elaborate to state that the extra money can be used to better the lives of law abiding Americans.My"space in prison" point stands because it allows for less prisons to be made and more room to exist for more criminals.Voting PointsI am winning this debate on several points:1)My outlined conditions and ideological backing prove that the death penalty can exist to do good.2)Her points were all refuted while my points have been expanded.3)I elaborate as to the goods the death penalty can do based on what it has done.4)My opponents condition set forth can be dropped since i refuted hers, but mine was not mentioned by her. Therefore you accept my condition and give the Con the vote.
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

I'd like to apologize for my late response. I am a full time college student with lots going on and haven't been on debate. org in a while. I realize this affects the voting, but I would still like to get my point across. I'd also like to thank my opponent for not making any rude remarks about me not being able to respond in time. Anyway, I feel the issue of the possibility of the wrongly accused being executed for a murder or crime they did not commit and especially our extremely flawed and biased justice system are the main problems with capital punishment. Because of this imperfect system, unnecessary deaths are taking place in the majority of the states throughout our country. Most definitely individuals proven guilty of multiple murders and other serious crimes deserve to be punished, but by being sent to prison, not "capital" punishment. Lots of people see it as less cruel because it's just a legal injection, however, many are unaware that several states still allow electrocution, lethal gas, or the firing squad. But capital punishment is still considered cruel and unusual punishment, therefore making it unconstitutional as well. About 1 out of 10 people executed are exonerated, again proving the justice system is untrustworthy. What if they weren't? Researchers find 38 "reported" innocent people were executed for crimes they didn't commit. But, courts do not dwell on these cases, lawyers rather move on, and the government does not like mistakes getting out. Whether it is a 1 or 1,000 falsely executed, another life is taken away unnecessarily. The controversy with the death penalty is that both Pro-CP and Con-CP understand the value of life, and that taking another's is immoral. But taking one to be proportional or "get even" is just as bad, even vengeful - a personal feeling that civilized government should not engage in. Capital punishment is almost a contradiction in itself. The FBI has found the states that enforce the death penalty that have the highest murder rates. Since most of the states enforce it, that means violence is spreading not only there but throughout America. A national survey of police chiefs show that they feel the death penalty is the least effective way to reduce crime, behind curbing drug abuse, hiring more officers, lowering the barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, improving the economy, and gun control. They also feel that instead of spending taxpayers money on this it should be spent on more effective ways of reducing crime (besides jail time). Furthermore, as a civilized society we need to work together to reduce/prevent crime and violence from occurring instead of killing off other criminals. By doing this, we are only making an "effort" to erase the problem instead of trying to find a solution to it, thus causing more problems to occur. :)
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

I thank my opponet for her response and will dive right into my argument.My opponents states the death penalty should be legal, yet the only valid point i can address is the taking of innocent lives. Everything else my opponent mentions has to do with guilty people walking(a flaw with the justice system, not capital punishment). Yet my opponent bases her stance on historical events. What the Con achieves to do is uphold capital punishment under correct circumstances. Personally, I would feel that the correct circumstances would be as listed:1)The individual has been proven guilty of multiple murders (with evidence clearly linking him/her to the crimes).2)The only alternative for the individual is life imprisonment.3)At least a year before death be given for re-evaluation of a case4)Under lesser crimes, it be given as an alternative.Now, since these circumstances were outlined, I will provide as to why i take my stance. First off, it is much cheaper than life imprisonment since one does not have to provide food for the rest of a convict's life. Second, it allows more room in prisons for the prosecution of future convicts. Third, it follows the conduct of Social Contract. As Kasachkoff writes, "Everything else being equal, persons have the right not to be killed. However, rights, even the right not to be killed, may sometimes be forfeited. [Anyone] who attacks or threatens another without an objectively valid moral reason (as do unprovoked attackers), forfeits his or her right not to be killed." Note that under John Locke's theory of freedom(a person is entitled to do as they please provided it does not infringe upon others' rights to do the same), the state is allowed to punish the criminal using such methods since they infringed upon another individual's freedoms. As Robert Grant notes, "Human rights are the benefits negotiated by reasonable persons and received by each of them as a result of their agreement to accept the natural duties imposed by the social contract. Human rights are the consideration for the obligations assumed under that fundamental agreement. Recall that when parties enter into a contract each becomes obligated to the other and each reciprocally acquires a right to what is promised by the other”. Note that since the offendor did not uphold his obligations(promises), the state is allowed the right to reciprocate the action the offendor commited onto others. Thus I urge a Con vote and await my opponent's reply.
The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.

I look forward to us debating such a controversial topic and am sure we have lots to say :) First off, I would like to say that I am aware that 34 out of the 50 states allow the death penalty and this is appalls me. I have noticed in my 18 years of life, that the justice system in our country is far from perfect. But, it is ridiculous how guilty people can walk free at times and the innocent can be executed when they are wrongly accused of a crime. Recently, a 17 year old boy named Trayvon Martin apparently looked "suspicious" and was murdered - even when young Trayvon was begging for his life. All the poor boy had on him was skittles, an iced tea, the clothes on his back, and a cell phone! The man who murdered him, named George Zimmermann, was part of the neighborhood watch in Florida, an area where the death penalty is allowed, and this man walks free for murder with no arrests, charges, etc. Where is the justice in that? What about Troy Davis? He was executed by lethal injection in Georgia for a crime he "apparently" committed over 20 years ago, which was the shooting of an off-duty Savannah officer named Mark MacPhail. From the moment he was accused to the last minutes of his life, he still swore his innocence and was not even carrying a gun that night. Plus, there was the Casey Anthony trial, also in Florida. All of the signs pointed to her killing her baby, Caylee, but she walks away free, too. To this day, I still feel that cases like these are determined by bribery, tricks played by the lawyer, or by even racism, and Casey Anthony is an attractive, young, Caucasian female. These events are not the first times things like this has occurred in the U. S. It happens way too often, which is why we should not execute any criminals. After all our country has done to fix and improve "the system", these outrageous events should not still be occurring. Since, the legal system often has flaws, who is anyone to truly say whom deserves capital punishment and whom does not? Many argue that the death penalty is decided in an extremely biased manner and are pushed towards lower class citizens, minorities, etc. Adding on, what exactly the justice of killing a killer? He or she should rot in jail for their crime if they commit such a murder. Plus, there are some people who kill out of crime of passion, from the heat of the moment, not being able to take someone's physical/mental/emotional abuse anymore, to protect themselves, or because they have psychological problems and could not control themselves. Not saying that this makes what they have done alright at all, however, they deserve less of a punishment or possibly hospitalization and treatment for mental illness. Some are even executed for other things not even as severe as murder, which isn't even fair. So, what is it that makes capital punishment alright?
hurricane katrina vs superstorm sandy

Katrina destroyed the majority if the gulf Coast. she was more destructive that Sandy ever could've been. so let's add this up. you said 171,000+16,000+27,000+20000= 234,000 homes damaged if not destroyed. you already said that millions were left homeless. so 234,000 people's livelyhoods are more important then the millions who were left with nothing on the Gulf coast? I don't think so. Sandy wasn't as destructive. she wasn't any where near as destructive. look at the pictures of Waveland or Biloxi after katrina. there was nothing left! entire houses were just pushed off their foundation like empty boxes! in Sandy people just got a little bit of water. Sandy was just a superstorm because she threatened the more populated and wealthy area of the country and those wealthy people feel they are more important. so hey let's name this storm that's barely even a hurricane A SUPERSTORM!!! and then say it's worse or equivalent to something 3 times or more as powerful. if you see katrina damage it just looks like 300 mile wide f5 tornado. the only way she could be a SUPERSTORM is because of her size. other than that please....
hurricane katrina vs superstorm sandy

Hurricane Sandy hit on October, 25, 2012 "Sandy's toll on the Caribbean read like a twisted box score: Jamaica: $100 million in damage, 1 dead; Cuba: more than 171,000 home damaged, more than 16,000 of them destroyed, 11 dead; Haiti: more than 27,000 homes damaged or destroyed, 54 dead; Bahamas: $300 million in damage, 2 dead; Dominican Republic: more than 20,000 people displaced, 3 dead" (Zerkel). Hurricane Katrina hit in late aug 2015 and "An estimated 1,836 people died in the hurricane and the flooding that followed in late August 2005, and millions of others were left homeless along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans, which experienced the highest death toll" (Zimmermann). Huricane Sandy was far more deadly as far as livlyhood even if only 2 people died. Yes, Katrina killed more people but that doesn't make Sandy and less destructive. Therefore, your arguement is already invalid...