BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

Many legal things are dangerous and should not be given to certain people. Take guns and alcohol for example. Also, I never stated that it should be given out freely. I do believe that it should be controlled and only given to mentally stable adults in reasonable amounts. There should obviously be rules and laws made to regulate responsible use of the drugs. However, why make it completely illegal? As long as it is being given to responsible, mentally stable adults without a criminal record, I do not understand the harm.
Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

So since it is helpful under certain circumstances for a selected group of people, it should be legal for everyone to use? It should remain illegal. Mind-altering psychedelic drugs are dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands. Do I want a mentally unstable person legally using a mind-altering substance? Do I want them using it while they are driving? Do I want them using it while they're hunting? Performing surgery on me? You didn't specify any limitations to it being legalized - so as of right now - a mentally insane, abusive person to take mind-altering drugs. Or a 5-year old kid, since there are no age limitations. Drugs available to anyone and everyone, legally, is your argument.
Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

Psychedelic drugs were demonised in the nineteen sixties when they became popular with the hippie youth. It was blown out of proportion by the media, causing harmful rumours to start and it being ultimately banned. Psychedelics have been used for thousands of years as a way to understand the subconscious mind and have profound spiritual experiences. In recent times, it has even been shown that psilocybin mushrooms may have positive effects for individuals suffering from PTSD. Yes, it can trigger negative reactions in schizophrenic individuals, but peanuts can trigger negative reactions in people with a peanut allergy. Do we make peanuts illegal?
Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation

Yo! So, I'll defend my case, address my opponent's case, and summarize why I am winning. LtCmdrData: 1. Framework: Con DROPS the framework. Use it to evaluate the round. 3. Overpopulation: Con agrees that overpopulation is a problem. Therefore, whoever solves it best wins. 4. Plan: Con never addresses that eating the poor's babies would cut the population's growth rate in half. Thus, I am solving for overpopulation. Jakeross6: I'll go over my round two arguments against him, and then address his round three points. R2: 1. We agree here 2. Okay, so even if abortions are going up, Con utterly DROPS that abortions for the poor are unsafe, and should therefore be discouraged. Extend this argument. Therefore, we should carry babies to term and cannibalize them instead. Con also entirely DROPS that it doesn't matter what they tastes like. Food is food, a full belly is a full belly. 3. Con DROPS that poverty can never be eliminated. As long as there are 2 or more people in existence, one will always be poorer that the other in some respect, and so there will always be a lower class. Also, keep in mind that my burden is not to solve for poverty, it is to solve for overpopulation. ALL I have to do is show that my plan solves overpopulation. Con also never gives any criteria by which to implement his plan... R3: MP: Already addressed abortions... CP: You cannot get rid of the poor class. As soon as the 1.25 people die, the definition of poor will change to a different level. There will always be a poorer class relative to everyone else. Poverty isn't a fixed number, the number changes in relation to the rest of the world. It's 1.25 now, but if they all died or if incomes went up, the poverty line would just change, but it would go away. Also, weapons would be indiscriminate--missiles kill the poor as well as the rich. My plan is better. Voters: Vote for me, please. Con drops a ton of my arguments, much of my plan can by carried across the flow un-rebutted. Thanks! Reminder to my opponent: You cannot make arguments in this round. Just post "The End" to finish the debate. Gracias!
Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation

The modest proposal will not work The modest proposal of devouring the children of the poor is not going to work still based on the rate of reproduction and hsi source (http://www.guttmacher.org...) actually supports my argument and states that "Abortions are increasing in poor women." We still see the inevitability of the birth rates even with high abortion rates. So this argument still stands as valid. My counter-plan My counter plan would still work because it would get rid of what he describes as the poor class and leaving only the people making more than 1.25 dollars a day left in the world. Also, we would not be overrun if we did it by a region by region basis. If this ever seemed to be a problem, it would be very easy to destroy them with our non-radioactive weapons. A new world order would arise for the rich. My arguments still stand unrefuted. Killing them off is much better than eating them!
Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation

Resolved: Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation Please only accept if you know the essay by Swift to which I am referring. Disclaimer: This is a humorous debate, and not meant to be taken seriously. I do not actually support eating babies. I will assert that cannibalizing babies, not just Irish babies, but all babies, is the solution to not just overpopulation, but also world hunger. It may even have additional ancillary benefits. Round One - Confirm your acceptance Round Two - Cases (no rebuttals) Round Three - Rebuttals and Closing Remarks I look forward to a hilarious round.
Evolution is real and we still are evolving

Secondly it is possible for the theory of evolution and Christianity to coexist. definitions I've included adï¿½apï¿½taï¿½tion;[ad-uhp-tey-shuhn] noun any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. mutation [myoo-tey-shuhn] ; noun the act or process of changing. Now to start, I will first address the earlier issues. "If we are evolving, why are there still monkeys, fish, amphibians, etc. That we came from supposedly? " my opponent states. my source can easily rebut the idea of why there is still monkeys on this earth examining a similar thinking idea "If genealogy is real and my cousins and I share the same grandparents, why do my cousins exist? " By that logic, there could only ever be one species of anything on the earth at any given time. Chimpanzees (which are actually apes, not monkeys) are our species closest living relative, but chimpanzees didn't turn into humans. Rather, we shared a common ancestor millions of years ago (that was neither human nor chimp) that split onto different evolutionary paths; one of these paths led to modern chimps and the other led to homo sapiens. Other related species, such as Neanderthals, evolved alongside our ancestors and later went extinct. Every living thing on earth, from humans to monkeys and from daisies to the cold virus, shares a common ancestor at some point in history. " my other source has collected more than 100 reasons how animals in general are evolving I'm sure this can rebut the earlier last part of the argument my opponent stated. . http://ideonexus.com... Also I am not saying every single animal on the face of the planet can evolve but instead most, most likely are. Which rebuts my opponents earlier statement stating "Mules CANNOT reproduce. .. A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Its a genetic mutation and it cannot have offspring. So, how can one species evolve into another species if the offspring of one species cannot reproduce? " my opponent clearly states "Also, according to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, in the Evolution DVD(available at Bible Baptist Bookstore) states that the odds of accidental life happening(lightning hitting a pool of amoebas) is 1 out of 10 to the 150th power(. http://www.bestbiblescience.org...; obviously the source is extremely biased towards anti evolution theories. Stating basically there is a slim chance of evolution happening but when you multiply all of earths species for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years I'm sure evolution has happened and still is. My sources reinforce the idea no matter the circumstance a change in a adaption is considered evolution. I hate to say but in some ways it is true, the bible shouldn't be used as a scientific document. They are completely two different worlds. I am asking you also to not use my religion or anything on my profile for that matter against me. My sources . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://persephonemagazine.com... . http://ideonexus.com...
Evolution is real and we still are evolving

You can complain that religious attacks are ad hominem but you never said I couldn't use religion as my argument. Besides, if you are a theistic evolutionist, you need to reconcile religion and evolution or your not being honest about what you believe. Now about younger birth ages and the Tibetans, again, you are not mentioning all the circumstances. Were these females required to have children at a younger age? How can you prove genetics influenced women to have children at an earlier age? Why was it only Tibetans? Could the weather in the Himalayas have been a factor? Furthermore, while I am rebutting your arguments, you have failed to address mine on entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Now, listen, here is a fact: Mules CANNOT reproduce.http://luckythreeranch.com... A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Its a genetic mutation and it cannot have offspring. So, how can one species evolve into another species if the offspring of one species cannot reproduce? Also, according to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, in the Evolution DVD(available at Bible Baptist Bookstore) states that the odds of accidental life happening(lightning hitting a pool of amoebas) is 1 out of 10 to the 150th power(http://www.bestbiblescience.org...(good source to read). There are not that many electrons in this universe! Thats the odds of evolution my friend. Mathematics is something that you cannot refute. Furthermore, water is the last place on earth for life to begin because it would kill the amoebas and ribosomes and cytoplasms from even starting. Demographics further weakens evolution. How? "If man has been here one million years, increasing at half a percent yearly(that accounts for war, famine, plague, etc), with less than 3 children per family, the present population would be 10 billion people per square inch of the world's suface"(Peter Ruckman, Evolution DVD, available at Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola, Florida). Listen, Friend, if evolution were true you would have PEOPLE STANDING ON TOP OF EACH THER HALFWAY UP TO THE MOON!
Evolution is real and we still are evolving

First off i would like to say what you said about God was completely irrelevant, and using my religion against me is ad hominem. Besides the fact, I have many sources stating we did evolve and we still are it's most likely true if not completely accepted in the science world. My source states Tibetans in the Himalayas have evolved to better adapt to low oxygen at high altitudes over just a few hundred generations. It also mentions females at which they had their first born child, among the ages the average age dropped from twenty six to twenty two, supporting the idea that younger birth ages were influenced by genetic changes caused by natural selection. to sum it all up the propensity to have a child at a younger age is the result of the inherited traits. evï¿½oï¿½luï¿½tion    [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. my source http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com...
Evolution is real and we still are evolving

Your source said the Dutch are taller than Brits and Americans. They are Europeans too, and Americans were originally Europeans, so now you have exceptions to the rule. Also, a lot can happen between the 9th century and the 18th century creating a lot of different circumstances which you didnt mention. Were the men in the 9th century fed worse or malnourished? Does disease or stress affect body growth? Was there better medical care in the 18th or 9th century? Also, Asians are much smaller than other races, are they having a problem evolving? Blacks are usually the tallest race? Are they evolving faster? Darwin thought blacks were the least developed race on top of that! Since your profile says your a Christian, yet you believe in evolution, you must be a Theistic Evolutionist, right? If so, your going to have a hard time reconciling evolution with the Genesis account of creation. The Bible says God created the earth before the stars. It says there was no rain in the beginning, yet evolution says there was millions of years of rain. I dont know how evolution and religion mix, but maybe you do?
Evolution is real and we still are evolving

A recent study conducted at Ohio State University, based on skeletal data from 30 previous studies, reveals that men living during the 9th to 11th centuries had an average height of about 5 feet 8 inches,today average height in American men is about 5 feet 9 inches and you say we aren't evolving, if you need me to explain to you it's that we are growing taller as a human species. My source http://www.funtrivia.com...
Evolution is real and we still are evolving

If we are evolving, why are there still monkeys, fish, amphibians, etc. that we came from supposedly? Nothing evolves. The Sun is exploding outwards, people are dying everyday, and people's health declines over time. The height of your "evolution" will be a grave. They are going to make fertilizer out of you and everyone else. What about entropy laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy decreases over time and things naturally decay. How could we possibly be evolving with half life affecting you and other materials? Not to mention that man is still killing himself with war and famine and plague. You say, "Look at the technology." Why? We use it to have even more devastating wars by pushing buttons, and hacking codes and such like? Man is not evolving biologically or morally!
Gun ban

A gun ban in the United States of America will not work and will not solve our problems. The gun ban in Austrailia would not translate well to the U.S.A. Austrailia is an island nation with no immediate threats unless NZ turned on them. The US borders Canada and Mexico, Mexico is home to the most dangerous city in the western hemisphere (Juarez) and experiences more threats. The US does have more crime than AUS but it also has a larger population. People get killed every day in both countries, in the United States the highest gun crime/homicide rates come from cities with the strictest gun control laws. (Example: Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit)
Communism is far better then Socialism

Humans are lazy creatures. If offered the choice between free food or working for food, all humans will choose free food. Also, using the boy scouts is a bad example, as they exclude Gays, thus, are not all inviting and including. Secondly, the idea of a happy community does not work. Life is not the SMURFS. Not everyone is happy. Communism, as a rule does not work, as the people
Communism is far better then Socialism

I don't believe you understand what real communism is let me give you a basic idea strait from the communist manifesto definition: Communism is now what people would consider the boy scouts to be. People all work together in real communism people don't own property because there to busy working together as a whole to be bothered with the daily afflictions of greed and hate that can engulf socialism and capitalism that being said. Economics: In REAL communism there is never a restriction on free market all the communist manifesto states is that people must do is provide for the whole if you can provide for the whole then why can't you make money? It seems that con is relying entirely upon the radical ideals of Mao and Stalin and I would prefer that con use the actual communist manifesto. Sources: http://www.anu.edu.au...
Communism is far better then Socialism

Socialism is a better economic system than Communism. In Communism, all private policy is abolished. Thus, no private ownership is allowed. The private sector and free market always work better than government mandated economic systems. The idea of the government knowing what is better for an individual than the individual is ridiculous. Socialism allows some ownership of private property, which allows for some individual control of the economy. This is better than Coomunism, allowing no private ownership at all.
the earth should be square

If the Earth was a square, it would no longer have any gravitational pull on us and we'd all die from the lack of gravity. A square is a two-dimensional object with a height and length and no volume meaning that no mass could possibly exist since mass is volume times density. If the Earth were a square, we would all be standing on a two-dimensional plane. without the gravitational pull of the Earth, the Atmosphere would dissipate and Everything flies into the sun or outer space, we die.
Everyone Who Believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Unfortunately people often make outlandish statements in the forums, & then refuse to defend them in debate, Kudos. (Voters can give him the conduct point for that alone. ) (Although he left out the words "most likely" in the forum, but included them here, at least he's willing to defend the general idea) Without further ado I will begin with my opening arguments, which, for this round will only address definitions. Unfortunately the definitions that my opponent provided is inccorect & I could win by pointing out that according to his definitions the resolution doesn't make sense. The definitions that my opponent provided (from . http://www.thefreedictionary.com......, & that should have been sourced, or actually they shouldn't, as his definitions are not what the dictionary said. ) are for the word delusion a noun, not the word delusional the adjective. (I know it says delusional on top of the definitions, but that's what my opponent wrote, that was not in the dictionary. ) Never the less I'll let that go, (for now unless I need it :)), & I'll even use his source to define "delusional". (See how nice Christians are? not really. I'm agnostic of Jewish decent:p) Definitions: " Adj.1. delusional- suffering from or characterized by delusions psychoneurotic, neurotic - affected with emotional disorder Based on WordNet 3.0, Farley clipart collection. " 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc. " (1) & for good measure: "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. [1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological(the result of an illness or illness process). [1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation,dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception. "(2) (1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org......
Everyone Who Believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Sorry, I used the wrong word, I must have been in a hurry to type it out. For good measure and a more robust debate I got the definitions from. http://dictionary.reference.com......;de ·lu·sion·al adjective1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him. Good Luck! Does talking to imaginary supernatural beings constitute a delusion/ being delusional? Theists talk to God, have relationships with God and know God's opinions about various moral issues. If someone thinks they are talking to an magical being, but this is not actually happening, would they be delusional? Yes, they would. They would have a false belief that they are talking to someone, when actually they are not. Are most theists right or wrong? Most theists are wrong. Every theist has a different opinion about God, they cannot all be right. Some believe in Allah, Budah, Jesus. Some believe the Garden of Eden is in the USA, some do not. Some believe that God hates gays, some do not. Theists hold specific views about what God is right. No two theists have the exact same view. So, not all theists can be right. At most, 1 theist has the exact concept of God and the rest are wrong. Because most people are wrong about there perceptions of God, most people are delusional. SummaryIf you believe something imaginary to be real you are delusional,Every theist has a different view about what God is like,Only one view can be correct,Most views are wrong,Most theists believe something about God to be real that is actually imaginary,Most theists are delusional
Everyone Who Believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Sorry, I used the wrong word, I must have been in a hurry to type it out. For good measure and a more robust debate I got the definitions from . http://dictionary.reference.com......;de ·lu·sion·al adjective1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him. Good Luck! Does talking to imaginary supernatural beings constitute a delusion/ being delusional? Theists talk to God, have relationships with God and know God's opinions about various moral issues. If someone thinks they are talking to an magical being, but this is not actually happening, would they be delusional? Yes, they would. They would have a false belief that they are talking to someone, when actually they are not. Are most theists right or wrong? Most theists are wrong. Every theist has a different opinion about God, they cannot all be right. Some believe in Allah, Budah, Jesus. Some believe the Garden of Eden is in the USA, some do not. Some believe that God hates gays, some do not. Theists hold specific views about what God is right. No two theists have the exact same view. So, not all theists can be right. At most, 1 theist has the exact concept of God and the rest are wrong. Because most people are wrong about there perceptions of God, most people are delusional. SummaryIf you believe something imaginary to be real you are delusional,Every theist has a different view about what God is like,Only one view can be correct,Most views are wrong,Most theists believe something about God to be real that is actually imaginary,Most theists are delusional