BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 2nd Amendment.

Now moving right into it. First, I would like to extend my response to my opponents first point. Specifically, the point saying that the American people would have no chance against the US standing army. He says that it is possible, but he does not refute the points I bring up saying why it is impossible, namely the tanks, air force, missiles, trained infantry, and numbers the US army possesses compared to the number of Americans who would rise up with their hand guns. As I said earlier, a hand gun cannot be a tank. I ask the voters to use common sense. American citizens would in no way be able to stop the US standing army if it came to that. This makes my opponent's reasoning as to why guns are important null and you should vote negative based on this alone. But if that is not enough, I move to my offensive argumentation. My opponent once again completely misses my point. Alcohol thrived because alcohol can be made. A mass production of alcohol in your backyard is impossible. I reiterate my point that almost all illegal weapons (the weapons in the hands of the criminals) are originally legal guns. By banning firearms, these legal hand guns would not exist making it impossible for illegal hand guns to exist thereby taking gun power out of the hands of violent criminals. Alcohol is not something that can be passed from person to person like a hand gun. Illegal alcohol did not start off as legal. My opponent has agreed to the fact that virtually all illegal hand guns start off as legal and by my logic which I have clearly shown means that there would be no guns in the hands of criminals making an alarm system, a dog, or pepper spray enough self-defense to protect a home. I urge the voters in this round to look closely to what I argue and what my opponent refutes. I hope they will see that they do not always match up. Please look purely at what we say without adding in your own opinions and I think you will see that my arguments stand upon stronger logical analysis. In conclusion, because I have offered a strong offensive argument and my opponent no longer has any reasons the 2nd amendment is good, I urge a negative ballot.
talks about wanting Public nudity

The debate is titled "talks about wanting Public nudity" I interprit this to mean that this debate will be over whether or not people should talk about their wants for or against public nudity being legal. My oppenent thinks that people should not express their desire for or contempt against the legistlation of public nudity and I think you should be able to speak on that subject freely.My first point is that talking about your desires will usually result in an action. talking about your desire will eventually lead to you actively trying to change the law or keep the law, will result in your voting for a bill that agrees with your position...ect. These actions are good because they uphold the values of a democracy and allow the public to create and uphold a better government.Secondly, talking about your wants is a form of expressing your rights and as such is a way of upholding andn exercising your right to freedom of speech. This is good because we should exercise our freedom of speech as much as possible in order to affirm the existance of our rights, on the flip side, restricting our right to talk about public nudity disaffirms our right to free speech and is, as such, an attack on our absolute human rights.Finally, talking about your wants has no objectively negative consequences and thus there is no reason to side with Con.In conclusion we should express our want or unwant of public nudity legalization because it upholds the values of, and creates for the people a good democratic society and society in general. Secondly speaking about your desires on anything is fundementally good because it affirms and expands your right to expression and freedom of speech. Also banning or disallowing yourself from talking on any topic is a form of destroying your rights which is not good. Finally there are no consequences to not expressing your want/opinion on public nudity.Lastly I would like to point out that Con his or herself is admitting that talks on wanting public nudity are a good thing, as he has litterall started a debate on his or her want for or against public nudity. One only does something they consider benificial or helpfull and thus con themselves have admitted that this conversation and all conversations on wanting public nudity are good.Thank you for reading.
talks about wanting Public nudity

Okay, here is my opinion on all of this talk about public nudity. For one thing, I believe that it will only create a bunch of sexual perverts. We are already fighting a huge battle against sexual perverts; with child pornography. Plus, the internet is so full of unsolicited pictures. Do you really want nude pictures of your children all over the internet? I do believe that the more people see of people in the nude the more desensitized people will become. Nurses see naked bodies all day and it just becomes a naked body. Nothing sexual. But sex will become nothing also. If you have nudity everywhere, you will have sex everywhere too. Do we really want our children seeing that? The cons of this, yes, are that there will be less sexual crime such as Amsterdam and Switzerland and other European countries. And The police will be less likely to arrest people if every one is doing it. They will go after the more hardened criminals. My opinion is that if people are going to talk about it, do it. Otherwise SHUT UP and move on. What I hate is people that talk about something but don't do anything about it. Not that I'm advocating public nudity; I don't want to see it. But I hate when people say that they are going to do something and not do it. Do it! Own it and feel proud of it or shut up about it. That is my opinion. Now for your comments about the subject.
The current federal drug war should be ended

1. "The current federal drug war should be ended" Your proposal is not the current resolution, therefore is irrelavant. Also there is not a 1000$ fine for drug usage... Also as I stated there are milliond of people in jail and on probation that suck gunds from the goverment. [1] find me 44 billion dollars of revanue from the drug wars. [2] Actually, the costs and the possible revanue! SO now oyu need to find 84 billion dollars of revanue from the drug wa that saves us. [3] You will not be able to, hence this is futile. 2 and 3. Inflating fines is against the resolution, CURRENT DRUG WAR. Also 12.7 million people on drugs. [4] Lets be realistic, we fine 3 million people 1000$. 3 billion dollars. Now we have paid for 81 billion. Lets say we jhire chuck norris and get all 12 million, thats only 12 billion. Were still in debt 72 billion. You would need to have a fine of 7000$. But firstly, this is the current drug war, so any change in policies is a red herring. 4. My opponents case is illogical here. If your arrested for crack and they have you for other charges then you'll stay in jail until ou have sevred your time. Drug use is only mainly linked to robbery. [5] Legalization ofdrugs would actually lower crime and save lives. [6] Legalizing even just marijuana would lower crime, save lives, and lower users. [7] Small scale legalizations work, as do larger ones. Portugaul decriminalized all drugs, like a small scale legalizaion, and it works. [8] Why not do it here? Loers crime users lowers deficits increases revanue. All a win!5. I agree, there are to many unconntitutional laws. It would be logical in a conservatives or libertarians mind! Scale back the unconstitutional laws! "Let's obey the constitution!" ~ Ron Paul.10th amendmentHe conceded that it broke this law, hence as its unconstutional it should be ended.VOTE PRO[1] http://www.drugwarfacts.org...;[2] http://articles.cnn.com... [3] http://www.cato.org... [4] http://druglibrary.org... [5] http://www.ncvc.org... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [7] http://www.psychedelic-library.org... [8] http://www.time.com...
The current federal drug war should be ended

Sorry to put my sources first, but my phone can't go far enough down the text to enter them. Speaking of which, in the numbers I use below, 3.8 should be 3.6 and it's too far down to correct. Sorry about that. 1. http://crime.about.com... 2. http://www.alternet.org... 1. It applies to the resolution in as much as even though we agree that the current strategies being used in the drug war aren't working, I am offering changing strategies as opposed to ending it completely. For example, one failed strategy is the mandatory drug sentencing laws (1). This could be replaced by mandatory inflated fines. This would bring in a massive amount of revenue and solve the issues of overcrowding and state supported prisoners as far as drugs are concerned. I will give numbers and sources in the next argument. 2. & 3. As mentioned above, replacing jail time with inflated fines would bring in a much greater amount of revenue. More than 1.8 million people are arrested each year on drug charges (2). If this jail time were replaced by inflated fines then they would be left on the street to get caught again and pay more fines. Users would begin to consider them a cost of the habit and dealers a cost of business. It would be impossible to predict accurate numbers concerning repeat offenders in this situation, but for the sake of the argument I will assume an average of one repeat offense per charge. This would bring the number from 1.8 million to 3.8 million. If you assume an average of $1000 per offense, which is pretty lowball considering the increased amounts for people with higher amounts and dealers. This would create an additional 7.2 billion dollars a year, not to mention the money saved by not putting them in jail. 4. I didn't broach this last round for fear of offending people, but I will this time. If you let everybody out of jail who are in on drug charges, you have to think about who you are letting out. In my experience, the people I knew on drugs harder than marijuana were not above stealing to feed their habits. By letting out everyone on drug charges you are also letting out a certain number of thieves and junkies. Not that everyone on drugs fall into those categories, some do 5. Technically any federal law not covered by the constitution would violate the tenth amendment, so I think changing that would not be logical, as there are many federal laws, too many to change.
The current federal drug war should be ended

1. Just because the current strategy isn't working is no reason to just throw in the towel. When a srrategy fails, you come up with a new one, you don't give up. 2. and 3. There is a huge cost to maintaining justice, but there is also revenue inherent in the legal system through fines and things like that All illegal drugs combined kill 1/10 the people each year that cigarettes and alchohol do. (1) This is due in no small part to the fact that these things are legal and easily accessible. From this you can infer that drug related deaths would skyrocket if they were legalized. http://druglibrary.net.... See headline 3
The current federal drug war should be ended

C1: Drug war isn't workingThe drug war simply isn't working. [1] Further drug decriminalization works. When Portugal did it they had a 50% reduction in just 10 years. [2] The dutch have legalized marijuana (or essentially have) and they have the lowest cannabis rates. [3] This actually I find interesting. Marijuana usage isn't that much lower that in 1975, cigaretts are actually lower then marijuana! And cigarettes are legal, and more easily accesible. [15]C2: CostThe goverment spends almost 1800$ per second on the drug war. [4] This estimate says the feds spent 500$ per second, 15 billion dollars per year. [5] Another estimate says spent 44 billion dollars on thsi drug war! [6] OPERTUNITY TO SAVE MONEY HERE!C3: added revanue If we legalized drugs revanue would icnrease by 33 billion. [6] California will raise billions just from legalization of marijuana. [7] A cato study showed legalization ofdrugs would lead to 40 billion in savings. [7, 8] C4: Would let people out of jailEven China puts less people into jail then we do. We incarnate 2.4 million, them 1.3. [9, 10] Drug offenses are nearly 60% of people in jail. [11] Legalizing drugs meanstting out 59.6% of the people in jail. This ties into cost, this would save money. Over half a million people in jail are there because of drug usage. [12, 13] Since the drug war started prison numbers increases. [14]Conclusion:Legalize all the drugs! Vote PRO I am tired, I will add one more argument (if I remember) next round.Sources:http://www.guardian.co.uk... [1]http://www.linkedin.com... [2]http://www.reuters.com... [3]http://actionamerica.org... [4]http://www.drugsense.org... [5]http://articles.cnn.com... [6]http://www.cato.org... [7]http://www.cato.org... [8]http://drugwarfacts.org... [9]Shapiro, David, "Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration," American Civil Liberties Union (New York, NY: November 2, 2011), p. 38. [10]http://druglibrary.org... [11]http://stopthedrugwar.org... [12]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [13]http://www.drugabuse.gov... [15]http://druglibrary.net... [14]
A hypothetical just society would use the death Penalty as a form of punishment.

It's unfortunate that we weren't able to have more of a debate. If you read this at a later date, I'd love to hear your response to my points in the future. In any case, to sum up, note that I am not denying that there are hypothetical situations in which some hypothetical just society might need to kill someone--this is particularly obvious in "the greater good arguments", where someone might need to die in order to save many other lives. However, the key point to keep in mind here is that this is _not using the death penalty as a form of punishment_. "As a form of punishment" necessitates a punitive factor; you aren't "punishing" someone when you kill them just to prevent some otherwise-unrelated future tragedy, because one could do the same even for an innocent person, at least from a utilitarian perspective or something akin to one. What is most significant is that no argument has been put forward to justify "eye-for-an-eye" revenge committed by a just society; this rules out purely retributive acts by an ethical justice system. As a result, all we are left with are the rehabilitative and preventative values of the justice system for society--the former of which is obviously terminated by execution, and the latter of which has never been shown in studies to have a significant impact on potential criminals. This makes the case for implementing the death penalty, and especially the case that a just society would _have to_ utilize the death penalty (a claim Lostdeathwing makes without qualification in saying "a hypothetical just society would use the death penalty as a form of punishment"), untenable, particularly considering that my points about the costs, dangers, and risks of employing the death penalty have not been refuted.
A hypothetical just society would use the death Penalty as a form of punishment.

To be clear: a just society's goal should be to protect and further the wellbeing of its people (and, indeed, of all people, since being just requires a lack of bias toward or against other societies). Killing people as a form of punishment does not, as a rule, serve the interest of such a society. In addition to the obvious fact that it robs the criminals themselves of a chance at happiness (which, if done merely out of spite or "eye-for-an-eye" rather than for the betterment of people in general, is decidedly unbefitting a just society), and the even more troubling fact that a horrifying number of people sentenced to death turn out later to have been innocent, it also deprives society of the resources which could be gained back from a prisoner's labor; of, at least in some cases, a real potential for rehabilitation and the eventual re-introduction of a functional member of society; of the enormous amount of money wasted in the process of getting someone executed (which indeed exceeds the cost expended on someone serving a life sentence by many times); of the "moral high ground" in international affairs (in addition to the martyrdom issue, although we are dealing with hypotheticals, it behooves us to remember that no developed nation in the Western world, other than the United States, still makes use of the death penalty); and of a clear, simple moral statement to the populace that it is never--never!--OK to kill someone just because they've wronged you in some way. All of those costs, in the long run, are not outweighed by whatever value we might get out of making it 100% impossible for someone to commit a crime again (which is sufficiently well ensured for people serving life sentences anyway), nor by whatever emotional satisfaction anyone might get out of seeing a criminal "get what he deserves" (an unhealthy way to deal with one's hurt or trauma if I ever heard one! forgiveness and rising above the criminal, rather than perpetuating the cycle of violence and death, is the only healthy way for victims to ever truly move on), nor by whatever miniscule deterrent effect capital punishment might have on potential criminals (which studies to date have failed to consistently demonstrate; even if it would make _sense_ if the death penalty scared more people away from committing crimes, this doesn't seem to be the case--remember that people actually committing crimes are rarely thinking or acting like ideal rational agents).
The right wing and fox have used fear to gain influence in America

First of all I would like to start off with one of the prime ways that the current administration causes fear in its own people. After 9/11 the country was full of grief. The people were scared and wanted revenege. Although we knew Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, we also knew Saddam was going to begin charging for oil in Euros. Bush needed a reason to invade. What scares everybody? WMD. Who isn't terrified of having themseleves destroyed by a nuke? Pretty much nobody. Do you remember on the news a few years ago when they had those terror levels with the little colored bars? I can't remember ever seeing a green bar and the yellow was seldom lit up. If they could keep us scared then we would be behind whatever connflict it was 100%.
The right wing and fox have used fear to gain influence in America

It is one that I have been having off and on for many, many years now so doing it in such a controlled and open forum is a real tickle for me. I wish you good luck sir. It has been my experience that the left wing utilizes fear much more often than the right. This is easily proved and I have written many, many articles in the past on this subject. I'll state from the beginning that I believe Bill O' Reilly to be as much of a windbag as George Stephanopolis (sp? )or any other liberal pundit, so I will not be quoting him. If this debate follows the path of the other debates that I've had on this subject, then we will come to the point that we have two different views on what the purpose of government is. You mentioned Socialized Healthcare, we can debate that particular topic of course, but the point of the debate as written is the utilization of fear as a tool to control the citizens. Do we agree on this? If not please let's change the scope of the topic. I respectfully give the forum to my opponent. Thank you.
The right wing and fox have used fear to gain influence in America

Many solutions that would help our citizens are constantly shot down by the threats of their opponents. Change is a scary thing and when Bill O'Reilly tells you that something wont work it scares you even more. Fox and head cheerleader O'Reilly have done a great job of destroying the dreams of health care for all. They applied a tactic of fear which made people think socialized health care would destroy health care. They even scared away the democrat caninidates from supporting it. I wont bring out the big guns until someone accepts the debate. I look forward to defending my point.
Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

This debate will be besides the legalization of marihuana. First round is acceptance. Have fun, no cussing, Bop is shared. Give reasons why current illicit drugs (besides marihuana) should be legalized. Round 2 will be addressing BoP Following rounds will be rebuttals (if you would like to add on to your BoP, you may) This debate is a federal case, however, feel free to add moral views.
Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

We are doing all the current drugs that are illegal and can get you "High". (Including hallucigens).Federal and ecomomic point of view I. Will cause decline in econmy. (As shown by New Hampshire and Vermont) Vermont and New Hampshire has one of the Highest Illict drug problems in the U.S.Yet, its not suprising that they have one of the Lowest GSP. Now, I am not implying that illict drug use is the sole cause for a decrease of GSP. But, rather it is more than a mere coincdidence. From a logical (as well as statistical) standpoint, it is safe to assume an increased drug rate will lead to an unstable society which the risk alone is not worth taking. Also, drug legalization advocates claimed that the money used to legalize drugs can be used for the good. Here is the DEA's response “Ask legalization proponents if the alleged profits from drug legalization would be enough to pay for the increased fetal defects, loss of workplace productivity, increased traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic violence and the myriad other problems that would not only be high-cost items but extremely expensive in terms of social decay." II. Drugs tied to terrisom During the aftermath, of 9/11, the DEA, performed research through drug trafficking. Regarding the train boming in madrid, according to the DEA, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs". III. Drugs and crime There is no doubt that drugs relate to crime. Drug crimes often involve murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, serious motor vehicle offenses with dangerous consequences, arson and hate crimes. We need to break the chain between drug and crime, not make it stronger. 80% of offenders abuse drugs or alcohol. Nearly 50% of jail and prison inmates are clinically addicted. Approximately 60% of individuals arrested for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest. We have one of the higest incaraction rates, and 60 - 80% of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-driven crime) after release from prison. Approximately 95% return to drug abuse after release from prison. IV. Jobs that require drug tests Many jobs do not require drug tests, but that is a big exception when it comes to federal and transportaion jobs. However, one out of five employees were reported for drug tests in Colorado. It is not very shocking that many buisness owners prefere a drug free envirment. It is not unlikly to get fired if you are caught getting drugs in the workplace. This is all for my Federal standpoint. I will do rebuttals in the next round, and include morality in my Bop