BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ.

Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal because the money NZ spends on treating smokers with poor health is ridiculous. Not only that but smoking is time and money consuming, cigarettes cost money, cigarette, cost time, go figure. People should be spending their money wisely on things they need, food, house, clothes, to top that particular argument off, most of the people who chain smoke are people on the benefit, please do not try to argue that point, it has been proven. Smoking causes countless diseases and illnesses, it triggers cancer and several other life threatening diseases. NZ spends far too much money on smokers that need treatment and our health system should be spending money on people who are not careless with their lives.
The Mortal Instruments or The Divergent Trilogy

Divergent angers the reader and everyone reacted like this: http://flavorwire.com... MI has us satisfied as I repeat once again. There is a sudden twist in Divergent but it 'kills' the reader in you. You get upset with the author and the book. You wonder why on Earth Veronica Roth would kill Tris but she did. MI has a satisfying ending. MI is action, adventure, romance, thrill and suspense. Divergent has action, a touch of romance, and suspense.
The Mortal Instruments or The Divergent Trilogy

You really expect people to have a gene that makes them immune to simulations? If something like Divergent ever happened, it would not be in the near future, it would be after some major event that tore Earth apart a very long time from now. MI is a fantasy, that is true, but what I'm arguing is not which one is more realistic, it's which book series is better. *MAJOR SPOILER HERE* The main characters in MI don't die and they live "happily ever after" which leaves the reader satisfied. In the Divergent trilogy, Tris died and Tobias fell in love with Christina which angered most readers including me.
owls are smart

Thank you for posting your argument. Your resolution is: Owls are smart because they wear glasses. Owl: Chiefly nocturnal birds of prey. Smart: Having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability. Glasses: Also called eyeglasses. a device to compensate for defective vision or to protect the eyes from light, dust, and the like, consisting usually of two glass or plastic lenses set in a frame that includes a nosepiece for resting on the bridge of the nose and two sidepieces extending over or around the ears I have nothing else to say on the matter until round two. Thank you. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com...+ (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
owls are smart

Thank you for posting your next argument. You, being Pro, failed to provided a definition in round 1. In a debate, when Pro fail to provide a definition then Con gives it. I do not know where you got your definition, but when an owl is born it is not old as you claim. Remember your resolution? "Owls are smart because they wear glasses." You did not say anywhere that they are CONSIDERED smart. Audience I heavily urge a Con vote.
Gun Free Zone on College Campus

Due to the fact that my opponent forfeited the last round I will keep this argument brief. Respecting the fact that my opponent will hopefully return to the debate. That being said I would like to simply use this round to read a quote that I like that I feel is appropriate for this debate"How poor are they that have not patience, What wound did ever heal but by degrees?” -ShakespeareAnd with that I will close.
Gun Free Zone on College Campus

I can understand letting schools decide if they are private schools. Not sure about public Universities though. The issue with that is Public Universities are funded by the government and so no one really has any entitlement. I believe some universities call "no guns allowed" a "school policy" and not technically a law in for example the state of Utah. I think where our views are differing with this, is that you feel that a democracy (group) should decide whether or not individuals have the right to carry on campus. I have more of a Republic view on things. I believe the minority's rights should be protected from the majority, by a list of individual rights that our country was never designed to take away from anybody, and one of those rights, is the right to keep and bear arms. For example, in a true democracy, the majority can decide that blacks should be enslaved again, and they would win because it's the majority rules. The Republic uses governmental power to keep the majority from ever taking away individual rights. It also divides the government so it cannot use its power to not abide by the constitution. I see it as each individual deciding for themselves whether or not "they" wish to conceal carry a gun, and that their decision shouldn't have anything to do with another individual's choice. I prefer it this way because it gives us more control and responsibility in our own lives. It's one thing to be a victim of a violent crime because you were not smart enough to exercise the rights you have. It's way worse, when that right is taking away from you and you end up being a victim of a violent crime because if that happens, the responsibility starts to lie with the school/government who try to control what rights people can have. At least in the previous case, the right was there and so you have nobody to blame but yourself. A perfect example of somebody's right who was taken away and as a result, was unable to defend herself was a woman named Amanda Collins. She was a student. She also has a concealed handgun permit during the time she was raped at gun point in the parking garage when she left her evening class with her friends. If schools allowed guns, or at least offer a process to carry legally which a person like her would have been more than eligible to, she most certainly would have been more than happy to exercise that right, but because she had to follow the law, being the law-abiding citizen that she is, she became a victim. And since her rapist held a gun to her head, he clearly did not care about whether or not it was legal. The serial rapist went on to kill 19 year old Brianna Denison. Had she have been able to defend herself with the last line of defense(a firearm) she would have prevented to rape, and possibly have saved Brianna's life. Above is a video of her testimony. Of course you could Google her name and find out more.
Gun Free Zone on College Campus

I do not think that "everybody" should be disarmed and I doubt you will find anyone willing to make that argument. My argument is that while I support a persons right to carry a gun, but I also believe that a school should have the right to decide whether or not they want firearms on their property. I think that just like people should have the right to carry firearms, people and properties should have the right to decide it they want guns on there property. In my opinion the fact that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm does not negate the fact that people have the right to say they don't want firearms on their property. Also, the fact that a public university is "public" property doesn't mean that it has to abide to the same laws as the public places you mentioned. I too will get more into stats and facts in later rounds but for now i just want to keep it short. I look forward to arguing with you.
One world government.

1. It's not self-destructing (I covered that) 2. Yes, Countries are like companies. What happens when they fail? Thousands of people die and it ends catastrophically. 3. If everyone chose to unite, No military force would be needed. 4. Not every country has a supreme ruler. So there would be other powerful figures. 5. A bad ruler would be impeached, And dictatorship isn't likely to happen. 6. I agree, All nations will die eventually, But this would possibly be on of the best nations that existed. It would a time of peace, And not war. A one world government will bring change, That will make the world prosper. Thank you for the debate.
One world government.

I do believe that a strong one world would be a good thing. Theres no doubt. But the issue is, It would be impossible. My reasons are as follows: 1 Its self-destructing. 2 Countries are like companies. You need to be able to compete and innovate. 3 The only way it COULD happen is by military force. That would cause even more confusion and discord. 4 Being the ruler of this one-world government would be a spot that people would kill for. 5 It could easily turn into a dictatorship, And I hope you know where this is leading. 6 It would crumble under a bad ruler who decided to turn it into a communist of socialist government. (which sadly is happening to America) 7 Its as simple as this: nations all die eventually. What happens when the nation of the world dies? mb To conclude, If it was possible to have a one-world government, We already would have. Remember the tower of babel? maybe we are just destined to be un-united.
One world government.

In your first paragraph, You pointed out that if a bunch of people disagree, They will form a rebellion. This is not the case for many scenarios. The only time that would actually happen is if the government treats people unfairly, And is similar to the British Vs 13 Colonies situation (yes, I love America). You are failing to realize that rebellions cost a lot of money, People, And often ends with disasters. This is why many people just protest, And signal to the government that they want changes. Even though large amounts of people disagree with capitalism, The good would outweigh the bad. Good Stuff No War Help of Third World Countries Easy Travel Larger Technological Advances Better Space Program Better Nuclear Use Bad Stuff Not everyone agrees
One world government.

I deeply appreciate that you have a love for America. I do to. But sometimes America can't solve the worlds problems. 1 What happens when a bunch of people disagree with the one-world government? They would get together and declare independence from the one world government. Than it would no longer be a one world government. One world governments are self-distructing. 2 Capitalism is amazing. It allows anyone to climb up to a higher life. It means that your financial destiny is in your own hands. Thats amazing. But sadly not everyone agrees with it. When a large enough group of people don't agree, Thats when problems happen. 3 There would be so many benefits to a one world government, Strong military (against who? ), Good economy by allowing companies to harvest rescources from previously third world countries, And all these rescources could allow us to travel the stars. This would be amazing. But sadly impossible. A capitalist one world government would be the best case scenario. There are far worse options out there.
One world government.

Not everyone has to agree on everything. The government will still work even if people do not vote unanimously. Even if more people disagree, You failed to mention that more people will agree. In the US elections, Plenty of people disagreed on the candidate that was chosen. Did they rebel? No! If there was one war, It doesn't necessarily mean the whole society will crumble. The Civil War was huge in America, And the society didn't crumble. Plus, A bunch of countries already agree on a government system. It's called capitalism. There are only 5 of 196 countries that don't support it. Not everyone needs to agree either, Only most people do. Not everyone needs to be the same. The countries' government just needs to support the idea of a new country. This new country, Would have a strong military, A strong economy, Why is that bad?
One world government.

No matter how much flex-tape you use, It still won't be a whole. 1 Thats the problem with a one world government, Everyone always will disagree. The lava refers to disagreement and rebellion. 2 You can hardly compare the 13 colonies of America. The populations are entirely different. Thats the issue with the entire idea of a one-world government, People say "hey it works on the small scale, Lets make it bigger! " The issue with populations is, The more people who are in your government, The more people who will disagree with your government. The only way a one-world government can work is if it was like the book, "the giver". 3 Yes, It would solve these problems if the world was perfect, Everyone agreed, Was willing to work, And everyone was exactly the same. But its not that way. And even one outbreak of war and the entire thing would come crumbling down.
One world government.

The only problem for a One World Government is the fact that many people have different opinions on how a government should be operated. If every country agreed on one operating system, And the same laws, It would be fairly easy for a one world government. Though different nations are different places on the Earth, It was proved that they could be united, When the 13 colonies of America agreed on becoming a country. There was only one outbreak of war in the US which was the Civil War. Proving, That disputes aren't very often. A One World Government would also settle many problems. Such as the need to change currencies to other currencies, With a one world government, All the currencies would be the same. Also, You would not need anything but a passport to enter all countries, And you don't have to file for citizenship in other countries. I won't criticize your analogy, But I have one question: "What's the lava representing? "(so we can thoroughly debate the problems of the one world government)
One world government.

I think that a one world government would be impossible. To start this debate off, I would like to use an analogy. Say that the different nations are the different plates of the earth. What would happen if you flex-taped all the plates of the earth together? Sure the world wouldn't have earthquakes, But eventually the lava would break through the flex-tape and would catastrophically damage the terrain. Please don't start off the round criticizing my analogy. Thats so tacky.
A Bill to require schools to serve "kosher meals"

"You stated: "It has Nothign to do with Judaism" which is completely incorrect. Judaism. a. fit or allowed to be eaten or used, according to the dietary or ceremonial laws: kosher meat; kosher dishes; a kosher tallith. b. adhering to the laws governing such fitness: a kosher restaurant. " --> My opponent is mistaken here. I hope the audience realised I provided the first definition of Kosher, hence her definition is not the one we are using. She never implied at the start of the debate what definition of Kosher we were using. "I*** fail to see how rusty nails or trash bags is revalant to the topic and food itself. " ---> It is entirely relevant, They are not adequate, or kosher, food. "but serving kosher meals would ban that [milk]" ---> Milk is an adequate food, therefore part of an adequate meal. "You seem to be agreeing with me because Kosher meals don't consist of milk. " --> See my above point "What does Rusty nails have to do with anything? Food and nails are in two different categories. So your saying that Lobsters and shrimps are bad? " --> No, what I'm saying is rusty nails aren't an adequate food, and foodstuffs such as rusty nails, which aren't adequate food, shouldn't offered as a meal to student in schools.
A Bill to require schools to serve "kosher meals"

You stated: "It has Nothign to do with Judaism" which is completely incorrect. Judaism. a. fit or allowed to be eaten or used, according to the dietary or ceremonial laws: kosher meat; kosher dishes; a kosher tallith. b. adhering to the laws governing such fitness: a kosher restaurant. "Also, The general populace, last tie I checked, were not content eating rusty nails, lint, old pieces of rubber, trash bags, etc. I*** fail to see how rusty nails or trash bags is revalant to the topic and food itself. --> Milk obviously would be included as adequate food. **** but serving kosher meals would ban that --> See the above point. We are providing adequate, edible food. I do believe cereal would fall under that category You seem to be agreeing with me because Kosher meals don't consist of milk. --> Rusty nails, lint, etc. don't have rights. There build up can be distributed to waste dump sites. And parents who feed their children bad foods such as that shouldn't have children to start with. *** What does Rusty nails have to do with anything? Food and nails are in two different categories. So your saying that Lobsters and shrimps are bad?
A Bill to require schools to serve "kosher meals"

--> See, there's a problem here. I provided my definition first, meaning kosher is "Proper; legitimate. ". Nothign to do with Judaism or the like. "Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh, organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals. Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law. All blood must be drained from the meat or broiled out of it before it is eaten. Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten. Fruits and vegetables are permitted, but must be inspected for bugs Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy. Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat or dairy. (According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat). Utensils that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy, and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred while the food was hot. Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten. There are a few other rules that are not universal. " --> I fail to see how this is a proper or legitimate meal. It may be to minority, be we're dealing with the majority "As you can see this kind of food involves religion, how about if students don't believe in the "Torah", which is the main source of the rules. " --> Adequate food involves religion? "Schools will not make money off of these kind of food. " --> The general populace, last tie I checked, were not content eating rusty nails, lint, old pieces of rubber, trash bags, etc. If schools aren't forced to provide adequate food, students will develop the aforementioned medical problems upon buying school food. "Not every students eat these kind of food. " --> Proof most children don't eat adequate food "Healthy diary products are forbidden such as milk, eggs. .etc Those are healthy, so why would we excempt it from meals. " --> Milk obviously would be included as adequate food. "There's a plethora of food that consist of milk and eggs, for example cereal and eggs are eaten for breakfast, so what would we replace that with. " --> See the above point. We are providing adequate, edible food. I do believe cereal would fall under that category "Seafood such as lobsters, shrimp. .etc are good for you, when a student gets accustomed to that way of eating they'll stop eating and businesses will start to stop making business, think about it, parents ask their child "what do you want to eat today" and if their accustomed to the kosher meals than they won't really eat any type of market food. Also, the animals that aren't eaten will become overpopulated and the ones that are eating will decrease. Students make a lot in the populations and if they start eating this type of food than their parents will also. " --> Rusty nails, lint, etc. don't have rights. There build up can be distributed to waste dump sites. And parents who feed their children bad foods such as that shouldn't have children to start with.
A Bill to require schools to serve "kosher meals"

Kosher meals have certain rules to them: Please look at the rules that follow: Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh, organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals. Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law. All blood must be drained from the meat or broiled out of it before it is eaten. Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten. Fruits and vegetables are permitted, but must be inspected for bugs Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy. Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat or dairy. (According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat). Utensils that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy, and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred while the food was hot. Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten. There are a few other rules that are not universal. I got these rules from: http://www.jewfaq.org... First and foremost. As you can see this kind of food involves religion, how about if students don't believe in the "Torah", which is the main source of the rules. Second: Schools will not make money off of these kind of food. Third: Not every students eat these kind of food. Fourth: how about the students that are allergic to these kind of food? Fifth: Healthy diary products are forbidden such as milk, eggs..etc Those are healthy, so why would we excempt it from meals. Sixth: There's a plethora of food that consist of milk and eggs, for example cereal and eggs are eaten for breakfast, so what would we replace that with. seventh: Seafood such as lobsters, shrimp..etc are good for you, when a student gets accustomed to that way of eating they'll stop eating and businesses will start to stop making business, think about it, parents ask their child "what do you want to eat today" and if their accustomed to the kosher meals than they won't really eat any type of market food. Also, the animals that aren't eaten will become overpopulated and the ones that are eating will decrease. Students make a lot in the populations and if they start eating this type of food than their parents will also. kosher: a. fit or allowed to be eaten or used, according to the dietary or ceremonial laws: kosher meat; kosher dishes; a kosher tallith.
A Bill to require schools to serve "kosher meals"

/ First, some definitions, which are crucial: Kosher: Proper; legitimate. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Obviously, it is only common sense a school should be required to serve student authentic meals. If the food isn't real food, then why should we give it to students? Without such a bill, our students could be serve anyhting from rusty nails to lint. Consequences of the lack of such bill include tremendous health problems for students, including food poisoning and internal organ damage from objects such as the aforementioned rusty nails. It will also deprive them of necessary nutrients required for their growth. I await my opponents response.