BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prohibition on drugs should stop

I watched the following videos. I must agree, and say that the prohibition is not all that amazing. But in the videos, it also showed that legalizing it is not the best either. Most underground drug deals are stopped. Those that are not, are simply very few. Those people who do the illegal drugs are often times taking into court, and convicted of there crimes. It is not the answer to all of our problems, but it does help to stop many bad things from happening.
Prohibition on drugs should stop

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Marijuana is used to treat over 230 illnesses by prescription. No other drugs is used to treat such a wide variety of illnesses. The prohibition has been proven to be a waste of tax payer money as well as the lives of law enforcement. Prohibition causes the drugs to be pushed to the underground market which creates criminal enterprises. People might think that prohibition is effective but the opposite has proven to be true. Im not suggesting that drugs not have rules and regulations they should be treated the same as alcohol.
Prohibition on drugs should stop

These reasons are all the more reason to continue the prohibition on drugs. So many illnesses and other horrible things from happening to people. If we were a little more demanding with the prohibition, then all of this could be prevented. Less people would end up damaged in ways most people are too scared of to imagine. This is not something to be looked upon with happiness. Drugs should not be accepted, and those ho do accept them need to think twice about the decision that they are making.
Prohibition on drugs should stop

Your explanation of the effects dugs have is actually very accurate but on the same token there are countless examples of legal drugs that are prescribed that can cause damage as well. Many anti-depressants actually cause the depression to become worse often times leading to suicidal thoughts. Pain killers and muscle relaxers cause many of their legal users into addicts whose consumption spirals out of control and ruins their lives. Many drugs taken for cancer or aids patients have DEATH as a side effect on the label. Theses are drugs that are completely legal with a prescription and yet they can cause more damage than the ailment they were being used to treat. People taking these often times have to take other prescriptions to counter another. The fact of the matter is prescription drugs carry many of the same risks as illegal ones when abused. http://news.yahoo.com... http://www.webmd.com...
There's nothing wrong or no cons with religion(s)

Pro takes a high burden: that there is absolutely no negatives with being involved in all religous groups. This means if I can show just one counterexample to this statement I have fufiled my burden of refutation, thereby winning the debate. Keeping this in mind, I will use three examples where religion has a negative effect on its members and non-members that religion may target. Seeing that Pro didn't really make an argument, I will make short and sucinct arguments in this round for each of my examples.1) Order of Nine AnglesThis is a cult that praises Satan, encourages and participates in human sacrifice, and embraces Nazism. Terrifying stuff, really.2) Militant Islam (Islamism)This religion has lead to many deaths, including, but not limited to deaths from:-The Six-Day War-The Persian Gulf War-The creation of the Taliban-Terrorist attacks3) Hasidic JudiasmThis denomination is responsible for many Pallistinians untimely death. The Head Rabbi, Dov Lior, has been quoted to say, "A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jews fingernail."I would ask that Pro refrain from using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in his argument, otherwise Pro's argument may be rendered irrelevant.
There's nothing wrong or no cons with religion(s)

So the statement is made that there are absolutely no cons, downsides , negatives and or disadvantages with being involved in a denominational or non-denominational religion in logical consideration.Please anyone come forward and present cases that appear to show somethings that are wrong to any given practice or adherence to a religion or just pure personal beliefs . It can be arguments to show the possible flaws and faults in a belief or having or adopting a particular belief or another.
There's nothing wrong or no cons with religion(s)

The debate is cancelled . I can re-represent the argument and clear up the ERRORS in the particular WORDING that was used and start over with the similar premise . I did not make any rebuttals. Nothing was disproved on either side . This does not mean one side has been validated by admitting an error of wording from the other side after starting a challenge. Please leave it at this and again no further responses are allowed. This is it . I kindly ask the con's side to message pro on any feedback needed to be put out , much obliged .
Race is the driving factor for Hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama.

"- Your own source states that you use a capital letter for 'The names of racial, linguistic, tribal, religious, and other groups of people are capitalized.'" Yes, the names of the groups, e.g. the same with the groups members. A group's name does not imply the total group out of necessity, as you would see if you hadn't ignored the "how do you say two or more Bloods" objection. " - Where does it say this? " Precisely where you quoted. It said they are capitalized, it gave no exceptions. The fact that Hispanic is the name of a racial group does not mean that all uses of the term refer to the WHOLE linguistic group, only some part of it." - "ALL" indications? Except for your own source which indicates it." You seem to have misinterpreted my source- which as the only indication is indeed all indications.
Race is the driving factor for Hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama.

"Capitalization does not in fact make any such indication, and I challenge you to find a grammar source that specifically states such." - Your own source states that you use a capital letter for 'The names of racial, linguistic, tribal, religious, and other groups of people are capitalized.' "According to one source I have (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu......), the use of capitalization in Hispanic is obligatory in all cases." - Where does it say this? "Without the all qualifier, all indications are that the meaning of the words in this resolution is that two or more hispanics have voted against Barack due to his race." - "ALL" indications? Except for your own source which indicates it.
Race is the driving factor for Hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama.

" The resolution would in fact be worded incorrectly had the resolution been "Race is the driving factor for hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama." Hispanics is stated with a capital H in the resolution though, indicating that we are not speaking of 2 or more hispanics, but rather an entire ethnic group. I agree that some people who are hispanic were racially motivated in voting for someone other than Barack Obama. You have not shown that race is a driving factor for the group as a whole though. " Capitalization does not in fact make any such indication, and I challenge you to find a grammar source that specifically states such. Otherwise how could you possibly speak of "two or more" Bloods? "bloods" would be incorrect because then they wouldn't be the gang. According to one source I have (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu...), the use of capitalization in Hispanic is obligatory in all cases, not a matter of any semantics of quantity (which would mean we have now both spoken incorrectly in our arguments, for which I apologize). I did not in any case argue that your resolution was worded "incorrectly," only poorly (e.g. it's good grammar but lends bad meaning). The way to fix it would be an "all" qualifier. Without the all qualifier, all indications are that the meaning of the words in this resolution is that two or more hispanics have voted against Barack due to his race, which means all indications are you have essentially conceded that the pro position on the resolution as actually stated is correct.
Race is the driving factor for Hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama.

The resolution would in fact be worded incorrectly had the resolution been "Race is the driving factor for hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama." Hispanics is stated with a capital H in the resolution though, indicating that we are not speaking of 2 or more hispanics, but rather an entire ethnic group. I agree that some people who are hispanic were racially motivated in voting for someone other than Barack Obama. You have not shown that race is a driving factor for the group as a whole though.
Race is the driving factor for Hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama.

Just for fun, I'm going to illustrate the dangers of a poorly worded resolution. Hispanic gangs that are racist against blacks exist and recruit thousands of members. It is highly unlikely that at least two members out of those thousands are not registered voters who voted for obama because of his race. It is even more unlikely that there are not at least two hispanic people somewhere in the united states who had racially motivated votes against Obama. The resolution does not require that a majority or a significant number of hispanics are motivated so, only that the number of those who do so is plural. Are you telling me that out of the millions of people in this country, no two have the following characteristics: are hispanic, voted for people other than barack obama, and voted in a racially motivated manner?
Race is the driving factor for Hispanics voting for people other than Barack Obama.

I keep reading what are to me surprising pieces about non-black minorities and their supposed issues with voting for Barack Obama because of his race. Lines such as "There's always been tension in the black and Latino communities." (http://www.nytimes.com...) and "Lets face it, Hispanics will vote for a woman president before voting for someone who is African-American." (http://abclocal.go.com...) keep showing up in articles. You even hear about the Asian racism (http://www.time.com...). The percentages have shown some difficulty on Obama's part winning these minority groups over. I contend that Hispanics are not racist, but just do not like Obama's record on the issues. Obama voted against CAFTA. He also co-sponsored a bill to cap the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country at 200,000 - a 66% reduction. Why is it so hard to believe that Hispanics simply like Hillary Clinton or a Republican candidate (in open primaries) better?
prostitution should be legal

prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.legalization makes prostitution safer If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants.
Political debate

Thanks for accepting, We will do Newt Gingrich for president. Really, I wanted a candidate with the economic philosophy of Gingrich and the social/moral philosophy of Santorum. In my opinion, both are incredibly important. However, the economic issues are pressing more at this moment than the social issues, which are constantly present. Furthermore, Santorum would represent a social philosophy which I believe is ideal, however, it would have absolutely no way to pass into law. Gingrich's economic philosophy did have a strong potential for actually being put into place. Mostly, I support Gingrich because of his philosophy on self-dependency and outsourcing. He wanted to prevent outsourcing by instituting protective tariffs and quotas and wanted to bring industry back to the United States. At the moment, I do not know how he planned to bring the industry back, but he at least planned to unlike any of the other candidates. He also, as a republican supported tax cuts which supports Reagan's supply side economics. He also supported little government spending which would help with the deficit. Furthermore, he wanted to combine and reform many government agencies, namely, the EPA. He wanted to convert the Environmental PROTECTION Agency to the Environmental SOLUTION Agency. As opposed to restricting what businesses can do because of environmental restrictions, he wanted to offer practical and innovative solutions for businesses to do what they want to do with as little impact on the environment as possible. As far as experience goes, he was the speaker of the house for many years and can manage them better than most of the other potential candidates. He supports the military, which is vital for our protection. He wanted to make the republican party more outspoken. Supports welfare reform including work requirements for recipients He has a history of being able to get along with democrats without sacrificing his goals. Has a history as a businessman. He knows what is good for business and what is not. While he may not be a Santorum, he does have several ideals that coincide with Santorum's.
Lana Del Rey is one of the best artists in America

I would like to conclude my debate by saying, once again, that his/her entire argument is based solely on his/her own personal standpoint on what defines the best, and her reasoning is considerably flawed when diminishing other artists. He/She makes an attempt to explain why she is he best by saying that she has richer substance than other artists, but fails to provide contrasting examples that delineate other artists as being bad. Her only evidence of this is "I've checked out artists like Alicia Keys, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, etc. nope, sorry, they can't be as original and lack some of these qualities that Lana Del Rey has." which essentially says her only definition of best is originality. but later, she adds in to suit her case that " Richness in substance and power in musical originality make a best artist." She has yet to prove this to be true, or even give background information supporting as to why it is true. It is her personal opinion in fact that these qualities define the best, but there are most likely many conflicting views. For example, one person could define the best artist as the most talented. To actually prove that this artist is better than people all together, she would have to prove that they were better in every aspect, and she has only provided one narrow-minded reason as to why she is the best only by her standards of the word. What my opponent has essentially done is prove to her self that this artist fits her personal definition of the best. I can gather overall that her definition of best can simply be defined as the qualities she likes in this one artist.
Lana Del Rey is one of the best artists in America

Not all artists who are famous and successful are the best, but actually the worst. I gave some examples of artists who are not as good as Lana Del Rey, but I guess I should explain why. Richness in substance and power in musical originality make a best artist. Beyonce might make catchy songs, but the lyrics are unimaginative. " crazy in love " is an example. The lyrics are too simplistic , matching that of an amateur. Title itself is clich""'"'ï¿½ï¿½. The lyrics are too clich""'"'ï¿½ï¿½ and dull. Lana Del Rey mixes poetry focusing on love, but also on human nature. I'll illustrate : "One for the money, and two for the show I love you honey, I'm ready, I'm ready to go How did you get that way? I don't know You're screwed up and brilliant, You look like a million dollar man, So why is my heart broke?" In this, Lana Del Rey expresses her deepest desires to be with a man, but at the last line, she introduces a double meaning. Her man is rich, but won't invest himself in the relationship, thus leaving her empty and at the same time, ruining her heart. The lyrics to "Crazy in love" are too superficial. Rihanna as well make songs that lack power and emotion in comparison to Lana Del Rey. It sounds like a typical pop singer in each song. The tone and style of Lana's voice change in each song. For example, in "cruel world " she adds voice effects to make her sound drunk, thus adding artistic detail to the song. In other songs, she shifts the tone and effects to make it seem like she is expressing a song of sorrow towards a bad relationship. Taylor Swift is just unoriginal period. In one of her songs, she talks about how her guy is like Romeo (everyone knows that), whereas Lana Del Rey compares her men to real people not many people know of. I did not say that her themes are original, i'm simply saying that it's more diverse than artists that just stick with 1 or 2 themes their whole career.
Lana Del Rey is one of the best artists in America

My opponent fails to understand that even though in his/her opinion the artist is original and deep, it does not prove that she is one of the best. To define someone as one of the best, you would be saying that they are better than other musicians, which he/she has failed to do. It is her opinion that she is one of the best, but things that are a matter of opinion are not valid proof for her being one of the best. As for originality my opponent says" Her lyrics focus on themes of love, passion, sex, money, fame, fortune, drugs, greed, lust, beauty, innocence, romance, etc." , which contradicts her statement because it is probable that many people like myself would not find these topics original whatsoever. In the Music Industry the best would most likely be defined a someone who is over the top successful and freakishly talented. None of these aspects have been presented in his/her argument so it is unfair to say she is one of the best based on her personal opinion.
Lana Del Rey is one of the best artists in America

Lana Del Rey is the best because each of her songs are unique (none sound the same) and sound cinematic. She combines elements of pop, rock, sadcore, alternative, trip hop, soul, blues,r and b, hip hop, trip hop, Jazz of the 1900's, Indie, the list goes on. She is way more diverse than modern artists these days. She has a contralto vocal range (a very unique range) so she can go really high down to a low " jazzy " voice easily. As for her cinematic music videos, each one uniquely tells of her personal life. There is power, meaning, and emotion as she is in the video. Her lyrics focus on themes of love, passion, sex, money, fame, fortune, drugs, greed, lust, beauty, innocence, romance, etc. They are original such as "Million Dollar man" and "National Anthem." I've checked out artists like Alicia Keys, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, etc. nope, sorry, they can't be as original and lack some of these qualities that Lana Del Rey has. Not to mention that her album "Ultraviolence" outsold Rihanna's and Linkin Park's.
It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

Why are so many religious people so bent on trying to prove there is a god? Believers are sacrificing nothing if they have to secure proof of God before they are willing to believe. If one believes he has solid proof of God's existence, he has avoided suspending his reasoning in order to believe. He is therefore taking no risk, no leap of faith, and is making no intellectual sacrifice whatsoever. Regardless of whether he is correct, he is nestled in the comfort of his logic. Why is that noble? Believers should not use logic to try to take the easy way out. They should embrace the fact that they believe in magic, miracles and the supernatural. They should cite faith as their motivation and take pride in the fact that they are willing to suspend their need to make decisions based solely on logic. This is true sacrifice. Belief based on faith alone demonstrates humility, courage, and unwavering loyalty. It is noble and commendable in that regard.
It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

I will resubmit: it is not, in itself, noble to follow illogical assumptions. Those who search, find no evidence, but still believe in something are a dangerious entity. I say this because its spreading the idea that logic doesnt have to play a role in importnat decissions about life that makes that person suseptable to other methods of control. Today, religion, tomarrow, politics. Weve seen MANY times throughout history that religion and politics have been intertwined. The faithful are asked to not question, or do question and find no evidence but still have faith, and are taken advantage of. This happens from the grand scale of religious establishments to the small scale of cults or gangs. Religion is far too important a part of life to be left up to illogical conclusions.
It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

"im only saying the act on not asking for proof itself is not noble" I only said one need not "require proof" of God to be noble in his belief. I have nothing against those who ask questions or look for supporting evidence to back their religious views. But these people too may find that they believe only based on faith. For example, a very logical person may (after thorough examination) find there is little or no convincing evidence that God exists. Yet he may decide to believe in God based purely on faith-- if only to hedge his bets in case there is a God. In this case we have someone using faith even though he has decided the existence of God is not likely. One might even argue this to be the purest form of faith, because it is in opposition to one's own logic. A person like this might believe there is simply no useful relationship between logic and the supernatural. This is a perfectly acceptable (and noble) reason to believe in God, if not the most reasonable. In this manner his scientific examiniation need not be compromised to justify his faith.
It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

Youre twisting my words and missing the point. I am not saying you cannot be noble if you base youre beliefs on faith, im only saying the act on not asking for proof itself is not noble. secondly, you assume that there is no way to prove the existence of god. i have heard many compelling arguments in support of religion (in all sects). I am saying that a baseless assumption that god exists or that your religion is the correct way to follow god is not noble. My example is only to ask why it is not plausible to believe your nations leader is a prophet under your assumption that its good to not ask for proof. If we consider it universily noble to disband logic for blind faith, why cant that assumption control all of our decisions? think of how dangerous it is to say that logic is not a necesity and it is in fact more 'noble' to just believe as your told. My position is, simply, that not asking questions or seeking logic is not noble in and of itself. People convert becuase they believe one religion is more logical than their former. Many religious types strive their entire lives to find the answers about their place in life and the universe. Religion and blind faith are not always combined entities.