BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Drugs be legalized in America

I accept, good luck to you. Now, this is under the assumption you intend to argue ALL drugs be legalized in America, if this is not the case, please say so in you next argument. Many drugs are lethal and kill a very good deal of people per year from their side effects alone. People become addicted to them, and they are often rather expensive to much of the population of America. When people who are addicted cannot afford the drugs, even if sold by the government, they become violent and do stupid things, including murder and kidnapping. It's not just the drugs themselves that make people violent, their lust and addiction to them causes these kinds of actions because they aren't thinking straight. These Mexican cartels you speak of could simply come out under a different identity and also make money selling drugs to America itself, and easily get away with their crimes. With the government now handing it out at the same, or a most likely higher price, these cartels would be swimming in profits, not being punished for their actions as they are now buisness partners with the U.S.. People would still be desperate, and buy from second hand dealers to create a redirected illegal drug black market. Furthermore, the issues created by forced violence by police forces could cause next to anarchy in the streets of America on the basis of police brutality. Drugs would cause chaos in the streets and leave America in horrible shape. Therefore, we should under no circumstance legalize them.
Should Drugs be legalized in America

Right now in Mexico, drug cartels are terrorizing a citizenry, they kidnap woman, and children, take their homes and businesses. The Mexican government sends in the military who do the same if not worse thing. These savages are making money on drugs that are sold here, our government and its gestapo support this, and profit from it. during the prohibtion period in the united states, some dumb liberal thought it best if they out lawed the consumption of alcohol so they did. The only thing that it accomplished was that it spawned organized crime, and caused many deaths. Gangsters killing themselves over terroritory, corruption and millions were made. Sounds just like whats happening now south of the boarder. If we legalized it, regulated it and taxed it, using the money for building schools and educating our children. I guarentee it would stop not only all the killing south of the boarder, but here in the united states, that way we could abolish one gestapo agency like the DEA and putem out of business. The only reason drugs are illegal is because those politician who make the laws are profittig from them. Wake Up America..
Jesus Rose From The Dead

You know what, I'm really offended. I am truly offended by your foul vocabulary. I feel like there is no excuse for what you have called me. 'the teeny bopper'. I feel destroyed, wrecked, how could my God exist when there is this kind of discrimination in this world. 'my dear snugglepuss' ... I'm crying. How could someone have the guts to call me a snugglepuss. I find it hard to even believe that he said that to me. (Btw, just to make sure you understand, that was all sarcasm) To begin round four, I just want to take the time to congratulate my opponent for proving (As a wise man once stated) absolutely nothing. 0. Zip, Nada. I actually want to find out exactly what you have done during the course of this debate. In round one, you did exactly what you needed to, which was to accept the debate (would you like a gold star for that one?). In round two, what was expected of you was to present your opening argument. Let's have a cheeky peek at what work of pure art you produced: It seems that you have copied and pasted your argument let's count how many times, 1,2,3,4 times. A work of art, no. I'm afraid that will have to pass as a work of pure aut (Stems from autistic). In round three, you were able to contain your Parkinson's a little more, even though what you were talking about had absolutely nothing, 0, zip, nada to do about Jesus rising from the dead. You just had an Alzheimer's breakdown and started talking about how Jesus wasn't the Messiah, (Which I proved in my previous debate but nevermind), whereas what would have been a good thing to write about would be why you have faith that Jesus did not rise from the dead. You tried, you didn't succeed, but at least you tried. Then you went on to talk about whether or not Christians know their God (Which couldn't have been further from relevant) I have run the calculations, and it seems that 44.64% [1] of your previous debate isn't even your material, you just stole it from one of your atheist videos that wasn't even relevant in the slightest. I never had in mind to respond like this but you need to be told that you really have a problem dealing with the task at hand - explaining why you have the faith that Jesus rose from the dead. I have no more to say than to ask you finally publish why you don't believe. [1] - Out of 6410 characters typed, 2862 were dedicated to a quote. 2862/6410 = 0.4464.. x 100 = 44.64%
Jesus Rose From The Dead

To begin, when you accepted this debate, you accepted the rules which clearly stated: "- Round 2 will be only for opening arguments. - From round 3 onward you are free to rebuttal and introduce new arguments as you wish" Now obviously you have not kept to these rules, however I will still go on and forgive you, as Jesus would have wanted me to do, and you seem very adamant that you want Jesus being the Messiah to be proven, along with more scripture. As a result I have decided to meet your anger with the facts. Enjoy ;) Proof Jesus was the Messiah: There are over 300 prophesies stated in the old testament that Jesus later fulfilled, however obviously I cannot go through all of them, so I will state 3. 1: Prophecy - Jesus performed Miracles Isaiah 35:5-6 (ESV) says, "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. For waters break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert." Prophecy fulfilled: Luke 7:21 (NKJV): "And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight." 2: Prophecy - Jesus was born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 (NKJV),"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." Prophecy fulfilled: Matthew 2:5-6 (NKJV), "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." 3: Prophecy - Jesus was born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 (NKJV) says, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." Prophecy fulfilled: Matthew 1:23 (NKJV), "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."" Along with many other fulfilment of prophecies these prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah that was talked about in the old testament. In response to you saying that I was not including scripture in my original argument, here is an altered version: "1: This argument is invalid and disprovable, due to the confirmed death of Christ, as documented in the Gospel of John, where a spear was cast into Jesus' side." John 19:34 (NIV) - "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." "The death was confirmed by Pontius Pilate before taking him down to be buried." Mark 15:44 (NIV) - "Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph." I hope that this helps you get over your rage that I wasn't referring to scripture. Please will you now give your reason why you think that Jesus did not rise from the dead, like you should have done during round three...
Jesus Rose From The Dead

Its very clear and disjointed that jesus did not rise from the dead. Its not a belief because you as the the host of this debate cannot test nor demonstrate in any way your hypothesis that he did. Nor can you test nor demonstrate that jesus was the messiah. Indeed the jews have it right and jesus was a false profit. So you've got a lot to prove. RULES: dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Jesus Rose From The Dead

Welcome, contender. I am arguing FOR the fact that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Rules: - Please accept this debate only if you believe/think that Jesus DID NOT rise from the dead. - Refer to scripture as much as possible when composing your argument. - DO NOT post an argument in round one, we will start the debate in round 2 - Round 2 will be only for opening arguments. - From round 3 onward you are free to rebuttal and introduce new arguments as you wish. - In your first response to this argument, simply state the side of the argument that you are on, then we can begin. - Good luck and God bless you.
You do not exist.

“Contradicting P1: Science isn't 100% certain, and neither are your own senses “ Con has nearly all but conceded here con is simply reaffirming my entire case from this we can surely gather that P2 is indeed sound since in con’s words our senses are not certain nothing but the mind is. Therefore reality exists only in my mind for that is only what is truly justified therefore my premises stand and the conclusion is sound. Cons “Point” "It doesn't matter whether you exist in some matrix world or not. “ I am not doubting the existence of my mind I know it exists since this reality is a product of my mind. Oh but it does as I proved with my contentions this world exists only in my mind therefore you don’t actually exist. Conclusion.You do not exist outside of my mind a mere filament of thought.
You do not exist.

Contradicting P1: Your first point states that you must be completely certain of something to believe it. I'd like to ask you where in your life have you ever been completely certain? Science isn't 100% certain, and neither are your own senses. The Sam Harris books you've so obviously gotten these arguments from must be real to you, or why would you believe in them? Why take something that may not be real and base yourself on it? Can you look at your hands and say they are real? Your eyes very well could be deceiving you too, I assume you know about the holographic principle. It states that the world may be in 2D, but you cannot look around and see in such a way. So, I end this with nothing is certain, but some things are more probable than others. (Such as my existence.)My own point:Most of your arguement is about how the world can be doubted, and I found this. "It doesn't matter whether you exist in some matrix world or not. The "realness" of the universe is not in question. The statement "I exist" is absolutely true, because to argue it, you must first assume it is true. (You cannot argue it if you don't exist.) I suggest you think about it some more.- Warren"If I do not exist, how do non-existent beings interact? From the mere moment I started thinking, I existed as much as you. It would be rather odd to talk to someone who didn't exist. If I were to punch you, would you duck? By doing so you would admit I am real.Conclusion:This is a very contradicted point that you picked just because it's hard to refute, but it's rather trivial. I cannot argue with you that I do not exist, because from the moment you started talking I existed. I cannot prove my own existence in the way you would like me to, all I can say is that it's highly probable I exist, and I myself am definite of it.Note that Pro's grammar isn't the best. (not to mess around with Muphry's law though, I am sure I made mistakes too.)
You do not exist.

The case for Solipsism.(And against your physical existence.) Firstly anyone who the solipsist position must have entire epistemic certainty. Solipsism Is take a keyboard or a penny and ask Could that perhaps just be an illusion and not really exist ?. Yes physical senses can and are deceptive whether delusional and hallucinating for example seeing what ones mind projects it cannot possibly be denied that one's senses have a possibility of being wrong. The solipsist admits this and adjusts his metaphysical outlook accordingly. One can never know with certainty that anything outside of one's conscious self certainly exists and thus one would not be justified in believing so. These are my points. P1; One can only be justified in truly believing that which can be known with complete certainty. P2; One's mind is the only thing which can truly be known to exist with complete certainty. C; One is not justified in believing in anything except for one's mind. We can therefore conclude that if my premises are sound you really do not physically exist. Defense of p1 When physical eyes see something, it's justified to believe that something exists , however, realize that the certainty from what physical eyes register is inferior to the certainty derived from logical necessity or reasoning as far as certainty is concerned. It is possible that physical senses are not registering correctly what one is looking at and thus one can possibly have unjustified belief. If one's logical reasoning is correct, it is not possible to hold unjustified belief. The rationalistic method of acquiring knowledge is clearly more justified. Defense of P2 Mothing can be found to necessarily exist with complete certainty other than the mind In order to refute this premise, my opponent would need to show why something other than the mind can be shown to exist with complete certainty, certainty wherein the concept of denying it's existence is self-contradictory. Defense of the Conclusion, Validity The argument itself is clearly valid. P1 and P2 hold.The conclusion is sound if the premises both hold to be true.You do not exist.
POLICY DEBATE: Space Topic.

If there's one thing I love to do is- It's policy debate. I thank my opponent for giving me a chance to give my case a test-run. I will accept the position of the aff. Oh and I had an Idea neg, I'll put my case as a word document and save it as a web page file:///E:/Case/1AC%20scenario%202.htm If you find any problems with accessing it, please post in the comment section and hopefully we can work it out
POLICY DEBATE: Space Topic.

NOTE: If you don't know what Policy Debate is or how to do it... DO NOT ACCEPT. =================================Here is the full resolution:Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.=================================Here is some evidence: http://www.debatecoaches.org...I would prefer to be negative, but I'm willing to be affirmative just post in the comment section.=================================Round 1: Challenge/1ACRound 2: 1NC/2ACRound 3: 2NC/(say hello or something)Round 4: 1NR/1AR (5000 Character Max)Round 5: 2NR/2ARGood Luck!
Buddhism is an obviously incorrect religion

So, the fundamentals of Buddhism were created by some 4 year olds? In order to know about all these "realms", you must know about it, If you know what I mean. I don't think you explained that to me well enough. And another thing which I thought about immediately after I posted my last argument, yes, human souls can multiply from the animals and plants and micro organisms, but they must come from something? When a plant sows a seed in the ground, where is that soul coming from? There are probably more plants and animals and humans then 3000 years ago, so therefore not all organism can have souls, because there are more then before 3000 years ago. Ultimately Buddhism is left with big 2 holes, either of which cannot be logically explained without first-hand experience which only a handful of people have claimed. And another thing, a child remembering some "past life" is hardly evidence of reincarnation, it just means he has a healthy imagination. Coincedences happen all the time, and if we all were remembering stuff from past lives, then and only then would I consider Buddhism as a true religion.
Buddhism is an obviously incorrect religion

Good enough answer, I didn't think about animals and plants and micro-organisms. Ok, heres another question. How is it possible to know about these realms? As far as I know, I can't remember my life 400 years ago, so how did these "realms" and the concept of reincarnation come to be? There are only two possible options, first one, you remember a past life and record all of this information, second, It was all made up.
Buddhism is an obviously incorrect religion

No, they wouldn't. They don't have to "reconcile with themselves", they only have to suffer enough to pay for their crimes, that is, if they commited crimes serious enough to deserve that kind of punnishment, if they haven't, they'd just reincarnate as any other soul - in a better life if they were good, or in a worse if they weren't (remember that Naraka is just for extremely bad crimes), they don't have to believe in reicarnation or any other Buddhist principles to reincarnate. Buddhists believe that animals have souls and reincarnate too, but have you ever seen a Buddhist animal?You asume that everybody who doesn't believe in a certain religion deserves hell according to that religion. That is a Christian idea, Buddhists don't think like that.
Buddhism is an obviously incorrect religion

I appreciate you taking your time to differentiate naraka and the christian hell and the correlation with hinduism, but my main point which you did not rebut is that it appeared AFTER record human civilization. I would like to know how karma affects a population that is religiously apathetic as a whole, this being Mesopatamia, and ancient Greece. Wouldn't all souls become stuck in the purgatory because they all had committed evil without reconciling with themselves?
Buddhism is an obviously incorrect religion

I am going to look at this through various perspectives. First, lets look at my statement scientifically, the world was created around 4 billion years ago through a process abbreviated as the "big bang". Therefore science states that all religions are incorrect. If we look at it from a perspective of any other religion, we can say with assurance that humans have populated the earth for AT LEAST 3500 years, because of the written accounts provided by Mesopotamian scholars. Now, to my main point. how can a religion be correct if it was created after human civilization? What happened to the human souls that lived before the "Buddha" came to be? Did millions of ancient Mesopotamians and Greeks simply go to Naraka? Naraka is to Buddhism like hell is Christianity, just if any of you did not know. And, if humans go through rebirth, "reincarnation", then none of us should exist. If none of the ancient peoples re birthed, then how are we here? My conclusion? Buddhism was created as a lifestyle, an ideology, not a religion, and anyone who thinks otherwise should really think about the origins of humanity and the origins of Buddhism.
Should kids go to school

Pro said: I think that homeschooling is a great idea too, but even if there is more than 5 people homeschooling with yoou, you can't LEARN how to make new friends. cause the only friends you got is the ones in the room that you learn in. Rebuttal: We all learn how to make friends by going out there and talking to people. School is not the only place to do this. Home schooled children can and do socialize. . http://www.lewrockwell.com... Pro said: I thank you Xera for making this th hardest debate I've had, lol, your welcome. I'll post the remainder of my response to this in the comments section. Ladies and Gentlemen: I propose that the resolution : Children should be in school is false. I have shown that children can gain as much from homeschooling as they do from school, and that they will outperform their public school counterparts when they are homeschooled. Therefore Children should be at home.
Should kids go to school

PRO said: Homeschooling dosen work if you donï¿½t have brilliant parents. and because your prents dodnt get certificates of proper teaching, it's not really effective. Rebuttal: No one must be brilliant in order to teach. The only real requirements are knowing the subject matter, which they should do so if they have completed High School, and a willingness to research good curriculum. There are thousands of places to order curriculum from for homeschooling parents. The important thing is to research which one you actually order. There is no reason any person with a grasp of what is being taught, with good curriculum to back them up, in a class size of only 1-4 should have any trouble teaching. PRO said: School can help you socialize with people. Rebuttal: Homeschooled students have formed clubs and social groups. Some have gotten together to form sports teams, utilize field trips, etc. Socialization still occurs. Pro said: how will you do your PAT? Rebuttal: I'm assuming here this is a standardized test similar to our Achievement tests? or would this be more similar to a SAT test? Either way, the students are still required to take the Achievement tests there are several agencies which provide the materials for parents to use. As for the SATs, pretty much those are paid for and taken by the student at a testing site, which may or may not be the child's local school anyway. I took my SATs in a library. My sister took her's in a school. Homeschooled students do better on the SATs than their public school counterparts. http://www.ontariohomeschool.org... Many of the answers to what you are questioning can be found here http://www.holtgws.com...? Now to extend my arguments: The primary argument my opponent has yet to refute is that institutionalized learning has not been proven to be a method that is most successful in any study. In fact solid research suggests that hands on, experimentation, and exploration is the most effective in encouraging students to retain what they learn. http://newali.apple.com... http://www.ncrel.org...
Should kids go to school

Thank you for the challenge IF (do you mind if I call you that?) I've got questions I will direct in the comments section. I propose that kids should NOT go to school. First I will refute my opponants arguments then I will present my own case. "it offers them a lifetime of learning. " So does homeschooling. "It offers them friends and " This is not always a good thing. Take those Texas Cheerleaders in McKinney; being friends was not really a good thing for them. Seeing as you are 11 your parents may have chosen to shield you from this. Basically a group of four cheerleaders somehow nicknamed the Fab 5 (see if school were that great they could have counted to 4) run around drinking and taking inappropriate pictures and posting them on MySpace. There's a movie about it on Lifetime, but I wouldn't think it's overly true seeing as those made for TV movies never are. "a better life for the future " I disagree that this is because of school. I think this is because of education, which can be received from homeschooling. "What's a life without an education." Life without education is ignorance. Ignorance is bliss. Therefore life without education is bliss. Now I will present my case: I.Kids don't learn well in schools There are numerous theories out there about how to best teach children. All of them show different methods that work well with different children. Not one study however has shown children learning well from an intuitional style setting. I propose that students would be better served out of school, learning from hands on, natural experimentation and exploration in the real world (structured of course) II.Homeschooling is good for many kids As much as my boss would love to say differently, studies show that kids with homeschooling can and do perform as well or better on standardized tests than the traditionally schooled counterparts. http://www.hslda.org...