BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug legalization

Before I start I just want to apologize to the readers of this debate, the topic of this debate should've been more detailed. Since the name of this debate is only "Drug Legalization" we'll talk about all drugs in general. But oh I see how you feel, you have very strong opinions on this. There's no doubt that some drugs can make you harmful, aggressive, violent. But do you not know that there are drugs that can help cure mental disorders, cancer, and gonorrhea? Just by your 1st round of statements you make ALL drugs look so awful. Con said: " Drug legalization would truly in my opinion do nothing but cause more chaos then there already is. Because all drugs are are something to alter your mind and when your in that state of mind your not thinking straight. Who knows, you might even end up in jail or something. Or worse for that matter. People are doing dumb things today even though the drugs aren't even legal." Wow, I didn't know all the people I know who take drugs are causing chaos and make people do dumb things. To Con, Have you ever had a cold, or flu, or any other acute illness? if you've ever been sick you most likely took a drug to make yourself feel better right? Are you saying we should ban all medical drugs to? Lets talk about Cannabis, I also want to post this video about legalizing marijuana by Prince EA. I'm not sure if CON will bother to listen to the video so I found the lyric video, just read the lyrics. Everyone keep in mind that even he links we post on here are apart of our arguments so CON take a look at this video. http://www.youtube.com... Con you cannot ague your points out of your emotions and possible experience. All types of drugs should be analyzed and tested to study if it'll have a positive effect medically to help cure more diseases in the world and confirm no human can get addicted to the drug.
Drug legalization

1. Drug legalization would truly in my opinion do nothing but cause more chaos then there already is. Because all drugs are are something to alter your mind and when your in that state of mind your not thinking straight. Who knows, you might even end up in jail or something. Or worse for that matter. People are doing dumb things today even though the drugs aren't even legal. 2. Drug legalization would cause many health problems too. Depending on the drug, it can either damage your liver, lungs, heart or anything inside of you (basically). Which ultimately will age you faster than you already look and cause death rates to raise even higher than they probably are already. So tell me friend, why do you believe (or think) that drug legalization is good and should be implemented?
printers ink why is it so expensive

It appears that Con has taken the position that Printer Ink is expensive, and shouldn't be. As pro my position will be that Con has started from an unsupported false premise, and that Printer Ink is actually very cheap. Con gives no source for the claim that it costs a Billion Pounds(I assume British Pounds) a year to manufacture printer ink, only hearsay. If I were to just buy the Ink what would the cost be for, lets say, the HP920 XL? It would come to about 16 US Dollars on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com... However, that's just the ink. What is expensive is buying an official cartridge which comes to about 40 USD just for the black cartridge. http://www.amazon.com... So why is there this huge disparity between the actual cost of the ink and the official ink cartridge? It actually has nothing to do with the manufacturing cost of the Ink or of the cartridge. The reason comes down to the cost of manufacturing the Printer, and not the ink. The entire printer industry that most people are associated with is the consumer market, and in that market the Printer is Sold at a loss. Profit is only made after a customer buys a few ink cartridges. This is called the Razor and Blade model. This information comes from my personal experience from working with HP, but I can't expect you to take my personal word for it. So here is a lovely article from a few years back documenting the industry wide dependence on the Razor and Blade model, and why it has been a pain for the industry to switch. http://www.cbsnews.com... In order for HP and others to sell cheaper ink they would have to increase the cost of the printers. However, because cheap printers from the Razor and Blade model already permeate the market sales would be extremely low to nonexistent. People would buy used printers and ink kits long before buying the printer that's twice the price they were before with all the same features. Unfortunately, to keep the Razor and Blade model they are stuck with having to change the cartridges so they are harder to refill and are more likely to break if you do. If too many people bought printer refill kits instead of cartridges the printer industry would collapse as it currently is. It is an unfortunate position regardless of which side you take, but it is not caused by the cost of manufacturing the ink as my opponent suggests. Change might come, but they've been trying since 2009, and they still haven't been able to fully change their business models, and avoid financial collapse. Thank you.
printers ink why is it so expensive

debate 2 I have been told printers ink is so expensive because the manufactures have to pay out 1 billion pound a year,to update it,and the cartridges aree very expensive first why do they have to pay 1 billion every year whenyou find the right chemicle either from rock or plant life,you know where to get it,,and they put a amount of powder into a very large vat ,with water,ans stimulate,making gallons of the ink,why do they have to pay 1 billion every year the cartidges are plastic ,found in oil,and land very cheap to buy ,which is poured into a mould turning out thousands of them every day, so they cant make printers ink for less the 1 billion a year ,i really cant beleive this can you
One Piece is the greatest manga of all time

Apparently One Piece is not the greatest manga of all time since you have dropped the case.I'll continue however with a brief overview of a manga I think is better.Death Note Story Line: The story line of Death Note is both engaging, involved, thrilling, unpredictable and witty. It's a mental thriller and puzzle to the very end. You don't find many stories as utterly entertaining to follow and figure out as you go along than in Death Note. Creativity: With a host of mental geniuses, stratagy, death gods, random killings and an investigation unlike any other this manga has the creative bug like no other. The idea that you can kill with the flick of the wrist from anywhere is certainly as intreguing as it is unique. There is nothing else like it.Character Development: The lovable and notable characters Light and L are both deep and lovable. Very few stories can create such an intense rivalry that will have you loving one and hating the other. The development, especially in their mental prowess, is powerful. Popularity: Death Note is wildly popular here in the US as well as in its native Japan. There is a TV show in both English and Japanese, the Black Volume series of re-releases is coming out here in the US and in Japan the manga enjoys a large cult following who indulge in plenty of merchandise and role play. It is far more popular than One Piece. Since my opponent made no effort at all I think this will suffice.
One Piece is the greatest manga of all time

This is my first debate, so I want to use an easy topic to argue for. In this debate, I will contend that One Piece is the greatest manga of all time. The guidelines are as followed: 1. We compare story lines, creativity, character development, artistic ability and popularity. 2. After my opening argument, if my opponent makes a compelling argument that another manga deserves the above title; then logically I lost the debate. The first round is for acceptance only. Please do not troll during this argument and treat it as a lighthearted but serious debate. I look forward to crush anyone who is foolish enough to debate me.
Assault Weapons Ban

I'm all for trying, but the evidence just doesn't show they reduce crime. No problem with having them, but they really are just a placebo. I think a better way to discourage mass shootings is first, to encourage media not to publicize the names of the perpetrator, which would take away their motivation to be famous in death, and to get rid of these "gun free zones" which do nothing but attract people wishing to cause great harm.
Assault Weapons Ban

I own an AR-15 myself, (well legally it's my cousin's but i bought it with my own money) I keep it at my summer home in Florida. I actually have a bumpfire stock which can somewhat emulate automatic but I know the laws in the US. Im pretty much sure almost every law abiding citizen can agree on more background checks. It will most likely won't do anything, but we can at least try to get wackos away from guns.
Assault Weapons Ban

Just FYI, "assault weapons" are nothing more than hunting rifles that look a certain way. They can accept magazines, like almost any other rifle, which means ANY magazine. No gun can only accept low capacity magazines. If a gun can use a magazine, it can use any magazine. They fire at the same rate as any other civilian rifle, because they are NOT military weapons. Militaries use machine guns. Civilians virtually cannot own machine guns. Machine guns are never used in crime in the United States.
Duelling should be legal

My opponnet is cometing an logical falllacy is making arguments from silence. I'm not moving goalposts I am filling silence that could be explained int he comment section. I said duelling pistols not modern guns. All points extended. This boils down to Do you take my opponnets side on the definitions or mine. Either way I hope my opponent had a fun time I sure had and the same goes to the viewers. Let's see the result of our standoff
Duelling should be legal

I'm gonna keep this Round short to avoid beating a dead horse. == Resolutional Analysis ==My opponent changes his proposal back to guns and moves the goal posts once again by responding to my arguments about police corruption and consent by saying that duels would be videotaped. My opponent says: "Two consenting adults go to the police sign the consent and duel with pistols. Pistols (duelling pistols) give an equal opportunity to both parties of winning. Police over sees the duel. Duels are taped. "My opponent has proven once again why the No True Scotsmen is a fallacy. You can't simply move the goalposts every time there is a problem with your argument. In response to my argument about "too many deaths," my opponent could limit dueling to being between 4 pm and 5 pm on Sundays so that there would be fewer deaths. There is no end to how far he could move the goalposts in order for me to win. His only response to "moving the goalposts" is that I accepted the ability for him to say how the duels would be organized because he defined dueling as "the use of organized violence. " However, this stretches the word organized too far and in a way that is not predictable. My opponent says I should have asked what "organized" meant, but it has a pretty standard definition (which I provided last round). "Organized violence" simply means "orchestrated on a large scale. "I also provided reasons to prefer my definition, which my opponent dropped. It is more predictable and more fair. My opponent's definition allows to change the topic every single round, as he has actually done. This is an independent voting issue for fairness. My opponent claims that we can simply have a "no winner" declared, but this isn't fair to me given the significant research burden I put into this debate, whereas my opponent has done almost no research and simply moved the goalposts every round. Extend everything elseMy opponent doesn't respond to anything except to say "that's not the topic, I avoid that with videotaping. " The only thing he responds to is to say that my estimate of 105 million duels per year is too high. My opponent says that five duels per day would be a more fair number than 15 duels per day. So the estimate would only be 35 million duels per year. My opponent then says that duels were rarely lethal in the 1800's. However, the firearms that we use today are far more lethal and have more stopping power (the bullets are fired much faster and are heavier). It is likely that modern gun duels would be far more lethal than those of the 1800's. Therefore, that's 35 million likely deaths per year, which is a lot. All my other arguments about murderers using duels as an excuse defense and gang shootouts still stand. My opponent changing back to guns increases the chance that innocent bystanders will be killed. He never specifies what an "isolated area" would be. If people can have duels in metropolitan areas, even if there area is relatively clear, there is still the potential for innocent bystanders to get shot.
Duelling should be legal

How did the vikings keep the violence from their villages there was a stone circle outsode of town and people would setel tjeir differences there. It was a specific place it is not like they would fight in the streets. This is the same that I propose. I suggest there to be a field where people could duel. By standers would know the risk that they are taking by being there if someone would get hurt it would be there fault. Arms could be swords preventing every deads by bystanders or old pistols. The duel would be overseen by the police. the police would give the weapons. Cheating would Be quasi imposible. It would be good for society people would be politer to each other if they knew they could be challenged. Dead bodies would deposed by the police next to the field
Duelling should be legal

I accept. Pro said in the comments: "I proclaim the definition of dueling to be the use of organized violence between two consenting adults to settle feuds."Pro must argue that it should be legal for two adults to use lethal force against each other, as long as both consent. I will argue that it should remain illegal.For the sake of my own memory: I will argue innocent bystanders, the problem with needing to haul away dead bodies from random places, the problem of proof of consent, and the problem of cheating during duels.
THW legalise abortion.

It may be their body, but now they are sharing it with a whole other human life form. Actually this is not their body, it is the child's body. The baby may feel no pain, and after they will never feel anything. This other person has no say in what happens to them. This is murder, don't believe me? The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another. Abortion does not terminate a pregnancy, it terminates a child. Just because the woman is no longer pregnant doesn't mean they are not a mother of a child, but now the are the mother of a dead child.Their little hearts beat inside their mother. You kill one right after another. Why do you want them dead? It's a brand new life, this baby can not even cry. It's not your place to stop their hearts. This child could have been your best friend, they could have been your own little heaven, they could have loved you, and they could have been the perfect child, but not anymore. The world will no longer be able to enjoy this child. Every baby is a gift and a blessing, this gift should not be returned. While looking for information on abortion, I found two images that broke my heart and made me cry: http://www.orwelltoday.com... http://i.ytimg.com...
THW legalise abortion.

All right, this is awkward.I've accidentally reversed the positions.I'm Pro, she's Con.I expected Con to begin, but let's do this!Let's start with some definitions.Abortion = The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.[1]Pain receptors=Any one of the many free nerve endings throughout the body that warn of potentially harmful changes in the environment, such as excessive pressure or temperature.[2]As stated in comments, it's up to Con to decide what 'legalise' means.POINTSP1The fetus does not feel pain up to 20 weeks.[3]My source for this section is a reputable medical journal. Anyhow, for those who are too lazy to read it, it says (in essence) that at 20 weeks, pain receptors are widespread, and therefore the fetus feels pain(possibly) at that point. However, it goes on to say that the pain receptors are not 'connected' to the brain until 29-30 weeks. This means that most scientists feel that there is no emotional 'pain' until 30 weeks. 28 weeks, which is the standard almost globally, is well short of that, meaning that according to our current science, the fetus does not feel pain, thus refuting a common argument, that of the fetus feeling painP2'My body, my choice'The fetus is completely dependent upon the mother while in the womb for its nutrition etc. This means that the fetus CAN be considered a part of a mother's body. We give freedom, in our society, for people to do what they want with their body (generally).Therefore we should allow mothers to 'abort' a part of their body with that same freedom we allow for, for example, plastic surgery.1.)https://www.google.co.uk...2.)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...3.)http://anes-som.ucsd.edu...;
Police Brutality

No matter how many people complain/riot against the police they won't be able to stop police brutality. This argument has con and pros for both sides. My cons have already been stated. The police are just doing what they are paid to do, and if stopping a women/man from damaging city or putting others at risk then they are authorized to use force. The people need to understand that many of the people the may have been "victims to police brutality" are just overreacting. There's a video where a police officer tazed a man for no reason, in the video you could clearly see that he was getting aggressive towards the officer. When some one is starting to get physical with an officer they are obligated to use force.
Police Brutality

Police Brutality is what this nation really needs. When people say they're rioting to stop police brutality, well what are the supposed to when 150 people are running around their city and destroying things. Cops actually are doing their jobs they are just having to deal with it more forcefully. People say that they are being harassed and when all they are doing is doing their job. I saw a police officer beat a guy and broke his arm, I at first thought that he was just doing because he can, but after I found out that he was part of a drug deal my mind changed really quick. They at first may seem to be using excessive force but once you know why they are doing it, you might rethink your answer.
should tooth brushes be an active sex tool

Firstly, Con contradicts their position by stating "Oh ya" when they're technically supposed to be arguing against the resolution; which is whether or not tooth brushes should be an active sex tool. My Argument-Toothbrushes are affordable. As toothbrushes are generally very affordable, (unlike some sex toys) they make a very practical tool for pleasure. If man was planning on pleasuring his girlfriend/wife with something different, he could select a toothbrush without spending too much money. In addition, if a single woman wanted to pleasure herself with something new, a toothbrush is again a cheap option. -People won't necessarily think you're buying it for pleasure. Unlike going into a sex shop, buying toys, and openly revealing your desires, when you purchase a toothbrush the last thing that people would suspect is that you'll be using it for sexual pleasure. Therefore you can be more a "secret" and discreet about what you plan to do. The same is said for when you order sex toys from online.
Did Apollo 11 really make it to the moon

Yes I most definitely believe they would fake something like that; mostly because they did. I mean the world saw them lift off and return! Suppose I told you I was going to Canada. You then saw me drive away from your house. Eight days later you see me drive up to your house. Now I ask: Does this prove that I went to Canada? Also 400000 NASA workers would be fooled or they would be part of the secret. There were only approximately 36,000 NASA employees who worked on the Apollo 11 project, the rest were contracted by NASA. Including the NASA employees the vast majority of those 400,000 people did small tasks working on components of the program, they wouldn't have any more knowledge than the rest of the American public watching on T. V. Remember the burden of proof is on the Pro position.
Did Apollo 11 really make it to the moon

NASA didn't waste any technology; they were working towards being able to land a man on the moon, and they continued to use what they learned to eventually do so. It is just that Apollo 11 didn't land a man on the moon. As to why they would bother faking the moon landing; they were trying to disillusion the Russian space program, which they did. The timing of the Apollo 11 mission, July 20, 1969, was to keep JFK's promise. "Apollo 11 effectively ended the Space Race and fulfilled a national goal proposed in 1961 by the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy in a speech before the United States Congress, "before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org...... NASA staff and all subcontractors did real work to send up Apollo 11, so they did do what they believed they did; except for the whole actually landing on the moon. The footage of the astronauts landing was filmed in a studio and the radio communications were faked. It would take a reasonably small staff to accomplish this; and they could be kept silent by a sense of national pride, monetary compensation / govermental favors, or more drastic means if necessary. As I said, the Apollo 11 rocket did launch and go into space, it then looped around the moon and came back. The prerecorded video, and the faked radio communications were broadcast while the rocket was in space. "This was to be the last Apollo mission to fly a "free-return" trajectory, which would enable, if necessary, a ready abort of the mission when the combined command and service module/lunar module, or CSM/LM, prepared for insertion into lunar orbit. The trajectory would occur by firing the service propulsion subsystem, or SPS, engine so as to merely circle behind the moon and emerge in a trans-Earth return trajectory." http://www.nasa.gov...... As the burden of proof is on Pro; please give some specific proof that Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Thank you.