BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking should be made illegal

Thank you for returning back to the debate. I procrastinate very frequently as well, so do not worry. Sorry for the misconception, but when I wrote, "we can pass down regulations and laws that can stop parents from smoking at home," I meant "inside the house;" so parents are still permitted to smoke on their lawn, on their pavement, their backyard, etc. The problem with smoking inside the house is that the smoke will likely be trapped inside the house, piercing through the bed sheets, carpet, walls, etc. And children can directly come into contact with the smoke, resulting in second-hand smoke. Laws are laws, and there will always be people who will break them. Just because they break them, it does not mean we should not enforce these rules. For example, when someone grows marijuana at their homes, it may be hard to find out, because "the constitution protects them from unwarranted search and seizure, and police are unlikely to be that stringent." Just because it is hard for the police to capture these offenders, it does not mean we should just let them grow marijuana; we cannot let them do whatever they want. Neighbors can always report these offenders to the police. When I was a kid, my parents used to smoke. Whenever they had a craving, they would simply go outside to the lawn, and smoke. They would never ever come inside the house to smoke, because it causes chemicals to fly through the house. They did not distract me or influence me to smoke in any way; in fact, they made me realize what kind of harm smoking can do to a person. To this day, I have never smoked once. There are always bars and restaurants out there where people are freely allowed to smoke, and this seems like a fine place for a bunch of people to hang out. They understand the harms/consequences, and they continue to go there. It seems unjust for us to ban these groups from doing something they love to do that is not harming anyone else. You stated that you "do not care what people do to themselves," meaning as long as smokers do not harm anyone else, it should be fine. Therefore, we should not ban smoking entirely; because it is something that will not work and it will only be a catastrophic idea.
Smoking should be made illegal

I am sincerely apologetic that I didn't get this in earlier. I've been procrastinating today, and frankly, your argument is really good, so it isn't easy to rebut. I did notice, however, that the Child, family, and community service act was a Canadian act. Well, I have to say that Canada really is a role model that America should really look to more. That being said, what we have is far less comprehensive. Something else I noticed is that you said, "But instead of banning the parents from smoking entirely, we can pass down regulations and laws that can stop parents from smoking at home." That would make sense, except in a previous argument, you wrote, "We can stop smokers from smoking in public places." Then the only logical place they could smoke is a designated smoking area. They'd have to go there every timne they had a craving. That's why they'd need to kick the habit. Also, you say it should be illegal to smoke inside the home, which I obviously agree, but if it is only illegal inside the home, how would thy enforce that. If it was illegal everywhere, there would be much fewer smokers. It is undeniable that illegalizing it works fairly well, as there are many fewer smokers of Marijuana than tobacco. Obviously we couldn't get EVERYONE to stop. That is impossible and unrealistic. They could get cigarettes off the black market, but not legally. They would most likely smoke inside their house, because the constitution protects from unwarranted search and seizure, and the police are unlikely to be that stringent, for lack of a better term. Now, that may have seemed a little self-incriminating, so to speak, but trust me, I had a point. If cigarettes were totally outlawed, maybe 1 percent of everyone would smoke inside their house. Now, if smoking was only legal in designated smoking areas, if someone had a craving at 11:30 at night, smoking inside the home would be comparable to speeding. It's only serious if it becomes chronic. I do understand that you might bring up Prohibition, however, that was passed because almost everyone was drinking a lot because of the depression. 24% of people is much more easily controlled that 95%. I will admit that my plan was a bit ambitious. That is why it would take place very slowly. If cigarette prices go up 50 cents every 2 months, they might be a bit disgruntled, but not as much as if I just spiked it to 10 dollars a pack over one day. Then, I would maybe issue cigarette tax break to those who enter the program. There are many ways to smooth the transition, and I know people would find ways around it, but eventually it would make at least a lasting impact. I don't care what people do to themselves. It's their body, and however revolting it is to me, they get to reap the natural consequences. If they want to tattoo every inch of their body, do every drug under the sun, and get plastic surgery so as to look like a tarantula, fine by me. It's not until they expel a substance that takes away other people's liberties. You might say that I am taking away their liberties. I also believe that the law takes away the liberties for people to rape and murder. Unfair, isn't it.
Smoking should be made illegal

Thank you for returning back to the debate. From your argument, you are worried that parents would smoke inside their homes, resulting in second-hand smoke for their children. You are absolutely right, and I am also disgusted when parents do that. But instead of banning the parents from smoking entirely, we can pass down regulations and laws that can stop parents from smoking at home. We have the Child, Family and Community Service Act and Children's Protective Service. Both of these can easily protect the children's health from being neglected by their parents. These parents will get into trouble if they do any harm, including second-hand smoke, to their children. Children are already protected by the community, so you don't have to worry about a child being contaminated by harmful chemicals. The child may be clueless about their situations, but neighbors can always contact Children's Protective Service and there are countless of investigations carried out by social workers to find out if children are being abused/neglected. You are saying that parents can influence kids. But we cannot outlaw a parents' decision to do what they like in their own life. There are many other worse things that a parent can do in their life that can greatly influence children. For example, parents may go to casinos and gamble, and their children may become aware of this. Should we outlaw gambling? Obviously not. Everyone is guaranteed the right to purse happiness. Even parents have a life, other than taking care of their children; they are like everyone else who have the right to pursue happiness. To legally purchase cigarettes, you have to be 18 years old. Therefore, we trust that our adults are smart enough to realize the harmful effects smoking can do to them. If they are aware of the harmful effects, and yet they are continuing to do it, it's their choice and we should not force them to stop something they are not willing to give up. First of all, they are not harming anyone else and they are just enjoying what they like to do. A person can make their own decisions in life. They shouldn't be forced by the government to follow a "12 step program." It is unfair and unjust for the government to intervene and pose a program that will not solve anything. In US, there are over 46 million adults who smoke, nearly 1 in every 4 people. Do you really think that all of them will comply with the program? To create this program, we will require a lot of funding; it's a program that 46 MILLION people HAVE to join. There would not be enough space or money to fund this program. Even if we can finally come up with billions of dollars, it will merely be a waste of money. I do not even think half of all the smokers will even try to stop smoking. It will simply not work. Bringing the price of cigarettes up by a few dollars will definitely cause disruption and protests from smokers. Out of all 46 MILLION people, there will be outcry and rage at the unfairness of the government.
Smoking should be made illegal

This is my first time debating on this site and I hope itï¿½€™ll go well. From what I read, your air pollution argument is the main reason that you want smoking illegal, so Iï¿½€™m going to rebut that point. There are so much more other pollutants in the atmosphere that can harm the environment other than smoking. Smoking generates the least amount of air pollution, and itï¿½€™s barely recognizable compared to other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels burring and deforestation. The biggest cause for the air pollution is caused by burning fossil fuels and automobiles that combust fuel; these two are responsible for 90% of the air pollution in the U. S. There are power plants and manufacturing units/industries that are clearly related to the air pollution that we have. So frankly, smoking cigarettes would not cause such a catastrophe as you might think. Instead, we should look for different alternatives for saving energy, or buy ourselves cars that are efficient. Maybe, we should reuse different materials, buy recycled products, and use only the amount of energy we need. Banning cigarette just to avoid having air pollution doesnï¿½€™t make sense. ï¿½€œGenerally, it's not that big of a deal, but if someone lights up right next to you and you would be inconvenienced to move, you get a good dose of nicotine, CO, and a bunch of other unthinkable chemicals. ï¿½€ï¿½ Second-hand smoke can be avoided. We shouldnï¿½€™t make smoking ï¿½€œoutright illegal,ï¿½€ï¿½ instead we should pass down regulations, limiting the places where someone can smoke. We can stop smokers from smoking in public places, like in a bus, or in a community center, etc. Restaurants and bars can put signs up where people arenï¿½€™t allowed to smoke. Therefore, individuals who do not want second-hand smoke can avoid having ï¿½€œa bunch of other unthinkable chemicals. ï¿½€ï¿½ Logically, a person, who doesnï¿½€™t want a bunch of chemicals in them, can simply walk away.
Smoking should be made illegal

Everyone knows that smoking kills. That's not why it should be made illegal. Nicotine is very addictive. That is not why it should be illegal. I am not a smoker because I value my own life. However, I believe suicide, should someone want it, should be legal. I consider smoking "prolonged suicide." Honestly, that is why I don't smoke, but that is not why it should be illegal. Okay, I'm done with that weird repetitive schpiel. I'll get to the point ("Get on with it!"). Smokers inhale approximately 10% of the smoke from their smoking device of choice. Where does the other 90% go? Right into the air. Now, regarding the air, we're all communists. I'm sure someday someone will capitalize air ($10 to go to the breathing station. The air is more pure. guaranteed!), but for now, we're communist. It's everyone's air, so whatever a smoker puts in the air, everyone else gets to breathe it in. Generally, it's not that big of a deal, but if someone lights up right next to you and you would be inconvenienced to move, you get a good dose of nicotine, CO, and a bunch of other unthinkable chemicals. My objective in this debate is to: 1) Convince the voters that smoking should be outright illegal, for many reasons. 2) Do so in such a way as to even convince smokers that they are hurting more than themselves. 3) Spell out a reasonable method to outlaw smoking, because it is addictive, and it isn't easy to kick the habit.
A man with a hatchet would beat a grizzly bear in a fight

well i respect my opponents view and i understand how lethal a man with a hatchet is but he has look over the very obvious fact that this is a bear he's fighting you know the bears that were used in order to defeat the germans in world war two. These killing machines have beat men with guns they certainly can beat said man with said hatchet. Also bears rhymes with hairs which rhymes with stairs and my argument is completely backed up by this because these are both allies to the bear. Hair already has invaded the mans head and stairs well stairs are the leading cause of death to men holding hatchets and or have really thick beards. FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A man with a hatchet would beat a grizzly bear in a fight

A man with a hatchet would absolutely murder a grizzly bear. according to hatchet.com hatchets are the greatest weapon of all time and whoever yields one is invincible. Also 91.64% of all grizzly bears are bums who can't fight anyway. so chances are, the grizzly bear would suck at fighting. Hatchets are super lethal and can cause 1000 damage points. all the guy would have to do is a variable flip spin chop and the bear is history. BONG! I dare someone to oppose me on this.
A man with a hatchet would beat a grizzly bear in a fight

That was a very nice rebuttal shmevin shexton ha take that messed your name up any way Male grizzly bears can reach weights of more than 454.5 kilograms (1,000 pounds), but more typically weigh 181-350 kilograms (400-770 pounds).[1] The females are on average 38% smaller, at about 114-160 kilograms (250-350 pounds), an example of sexual dimorphism. On average, grizzly bears stand about 1 meter (3.3 ft) at the shoulder when on all fours and 2 meters (6.6 ft) on their hind legs, but males often stand 2.44 meters (8 ft) or more on their hind legs. On average, grizzly bears from the Yukon River area are about 20% smaller than typical grizzlies. Their colouring ranges widely across geographic areas, from blond to deep brown red or even grey. The grizzly has a large hump over the shoulders, which is a muscle mass used to power the forelimbs in digging. The hind legs are more powerful, however. The muscles in the lower legs provide enough strength for the bear to stand up and even walk short distances on its hind legs, giving it a better view of its surroundings. The head is large and round with a concave facial profile. In spite of their massive size, these bears can run at speeds of up to 64 kilometres per hour (40 miles per hour). However, they are slower running downhill rather than uphill because of the large hump of muscle over the shoulders. They have very thick fur to keep them warm in brutal, windy, and snowy winters. Grizzlies can be distinguished from most other brown bear subspecies by their proportionately longer claws and cranial profile which resembles that of the polar bear. Compared to other North American brown bear subspecies, a grizzly has a silver tipped pelt and is smaller in size. This size difference is due to the lesser availability of food in the grizzlies' landlocked habitats. Now the scary part Grizzly bears make up 73 percent of all forest so no matter where you are a grizzly bear is probably close by feeding on your friends. Grizzly bears have claws that can retract in order to fight of humans far away from them becuase there arms cant reaach it is also true that grizzly bears are sore losers they cant lose so they will kill anything that beats them so even if this " bitch with a hatchet" kills him he is most likely to pull a jesus and kill that man. Grizzzly bears are also skilled at building mines out of pine cones and ram piss these are very deadly and have killed numerous men with hatchets. for every grizzly bear he or she has killed 6734 men with hatchets thats not counting the women with hatchets and babies with hatchets. now for my opponents ranting it was unneeded and here is mine: dude you totally suck and should be pissed on numerous times one day you will go through the woods and step oon a bear mine u should deff suck it Seacrest Out!
A man with a hatchet would beat a grizzly bear in a fight

The hatchet is a single-handed striking tool with a sharp blade used to cut and split wood. Hatchets may also be used for hewing when making flattened surfaces on logs; when the hatchet head is optimized for this purpose it is called a broadaxe. Hatchets are taxonomically differentiated from hand axes by some using one or more of the following characteristics: the addition of a hammer head and a head 1–3 pounds (500 to 1,500 grams) in weight. Hatchets have a variety of uses, such as tasks normally done by a pocket knife when one is not present. The hatchet can also be used to create a fire through sparks and friction. Secondly, COME ON!!! are you serious???!!! no way! get real!!!! a dude with a hatchet is wicked dangerous!!!! he would just be like "BOOM! gush! POW BAM!!!" and the bear would be like "AWWWWWWWWW!!" then the bear would die. I would like to thank my opponent for attempting to beat my awesome debating powers. "never kick a fresh turd on a hot day" - Harry S. Truman
Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports

1. Athletes should NOT be able to take whatever they want, it's not fair, Athletes should do there best by doing it naturally. there are some things in steroids that can make people sick. 2. Steroids do have a psychological effects on a person, its been proven by tests and any health website weather major or minor would tell you the same. "roid rage" has been proven to be true. 3. liver damage kidney damage increased blood pressure and cholesterol (risk for heart disease) headache and stomach ache severe facial and body acne decreased joint flexibility 4.breast enlargement shrunken testicles lowered sperm count increased sex drive decreased sexual performance - difficulty getting and maintaining erections these effects of steroids are true and could be permanent to the user.
The United States should retain the use of the death penalty

First of all, if you go back to your previous argument, it states how Death Penalty is reserved for MURDER as in killing another human being. I'm usually not in favor of such drastic measures in resolving crimes, but when taking someone else's life there can be no other solution. Also, many think the death penalty as something new, but has been around for almost all of history, from guillotines, electric chairs, and to the well-known lethal injection. This is not something new, but has been kept away from the media to stop controversy. If the government were to stop enforcing Death Penalty, it would entice more murderers and rapists to start commiting more crimes. As the most fearful crime they would have to face is a life sentence in prison. Does this punishment really seem as bad as dying from a lethal injection?
The United States should retain the use of the death penalty

I had an excellent debate on this with thett3 a little while back so I thought I might try doing this again.Resolved: The United States should retain the use of the death penalty for murder.I will be negating the resolution.Thus I think the United States should not continue to use the death penalty.Burden of Proof:BoP is shared.Definitions:Death Penalty - a punishment in which the person who committed the offence is put to death by the state. [1]Structure: 1st round: Acceptance. 2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal. 4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.Terms: 1. Each participant should have respectable behavior and good conduct. 2. No plagiarism, sources should be properly cited. 3. One forfeit should result in the loss of conduct point but that is all. If a participant forfeits twice voters can use their own discretion.4. If needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section. 5. Please no semantics. Note this is not a rule but more of a request. I think I have made a semantic proof resolution, but semantics should be allowed in debate. Though I hope we stay out of that so we can have a good debate here.If anyone has any questions, or complaints please feel free to leave a comment or pm me. Good luck to my opponent whoever he or she may be.Sources:[1] http://en.wiktionary.org...
Police officer related deaths are exaggerated by the media and are not a widespread problem.

"…they have never exaggerated any of these numbers. Has the media ever talked about thousands of police officers brutally murdering people? No, they generally talk about the way people are murdered, which may of course be exaggerated, but otherwise, they have not done these things."You admit that they could be exaggerated and then proceed to say they have not done that very thing. Any exaggeration at all has the dangerous potential of creating mistrust and friction between police officers and the population. You can see this in the aftermath of some of the high-profile cases that dominated media waves for days at a time. Coverage is given to these platforms which have the potential to be inaccurate. Combine that with the rapid exchange of information (or misinformation, in some cases) and it can create volatile situations due to the lack of statistical analysis to go with it. It has the ability to impact impressionable and frightened people into believing that they will be the next victim.The media does not present the data. Why would they? Needless to say, certain headlines sell better than others. “1 out of every 800 officers (0.125%) uses lethal force in a given year” does not hold the same shock value as others. Many headlines are designed to initiate an emotional response instead of a logical response. Logic and statistics tell us that the chances of facing lethal force at the hands of a law enforcement officer is extremely low. However, the various media outlets present a different message. The media does not have to be wrong to be misleading. "...The media is basically documenting and talking about these protests but people who can be related to the problem, are actually the 'exaggerators' in this case."Sure, I would be willing to agree that is part of it. But another part of it relies on the responsibility of the media to present statistics to make the argument well-rounded. If we can agree on that, the second part of my debate position still stands: Police officer related deaths are not a widespread problem. I do not see 0.125% as an alarming statistic that warrants distrust in the police related to lethal force.
Police officer related deaths are exaggerated by the media and are not a widespread problem.

Thank you. Police officer related deaths are not exaggerated and here is why... Although the media is as trustworthy as Trump saying that Global Warming is a hoax, they have never exaggerated any of these numbers. Has the media ever talked about thousands of police officers brutally murdering people? No, they generally talk about the way people are murdered, which may of course be exaggerated, but otherwise, they have not done these things. Although the amount of unarmed blacks killed is higher than whites, police "brutality" is generally associated in black neighborhoods, and it is not the media exaggerating the problem, but blacks who are protesting that the death of these unarmed blacks is not justified. Hopefully, you can see my point here. The media is basically documenting and talking about these protests but people who can be related to the problem, are actually the "exaggerators" in this case. Back to Pro.