BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Whole World Should Vote On The US President

okay i really want to find out what i am debating first before i argue back. you haven't made clear what exactly on who the people are. so before i argue, i want to find the specfics.so until then i forfeit this round to. It's only fair i let my opponet some time seeing as he is camping and has no time to argue back. until then i postpone this argument. -Connor
Space Exploration should be huge priority

Evidence: many inventions were created from space research, from cordless tools to water filters. Scratchless lenses to long distance telecommunication. Ranging from small advances to important must have technology. Without the space program, none of those everyday used inventions would have been created. The universe is vast and ready to be explored. When staring up at the sky, I do not see how anyone could not be curious. Space starts only 62 miles up, there's no unexplored territory left on Earth, all we have is up.
Space Exploration should be huge priority

Why would you not want to explore space? Yes, exploring the oceans is important but compared to exploring the universe, it doesn't stand a chance.How so?Exploring space would help us understand our history, let us know our importance in this universe, and over all make humans more informed about the world around usEvidence?Even the president agrees that space resource is a huge priorityhttp://www.space.com......What the president wants is not always what the people want.Space research will lead to more advanced technology, more jobs and more knowledge of our universeSpace exploration will get children excited about science and mathCould you imagine space tourism, it could be possible in the near futureAnd maybe most importantly, we could discover new resourcese or raw material in spaceAny evidence?The advantages of space exploration and research are endless, the real question is why you wouldnt be interested in something as amazing as our own universe?Why? Because the economy isn't doing very well right now, and if we put our money into space exploration we won't have enough to solve problems on earth.
Space Exploration should be huge priority

Why would you not want to explore space? Yes, exploring the oceans is important but compared to exploring the universe, it doesn't stand a chance. Exploring space would help us understand our history, let us know our importance in this universe, and over all make humans more informed about the world around us Even the president agrees that space resource is a huge priority http://www.space.com... Space research will lead to more advanced technology, more jobs and more knowledge of our universe Space exploration will get children excited about science and math Could you imagine space tourism, it could be possible in the near future And maybe most importantly, we could discover new resourcese or raw material in space The advantages of space exploration and research are endless, the real question is why you wouldnt be interested in something as amazing as our own universe?
Space Exploration should be huge priority

many inventions were created from space research, from cordless tools to water filters. Scratchless lenses to long distance telecommunication. Ranging from small advances to important must have technology. Without the space program, none of those everyday used inventions would have been created.So, inventions created via space exploration in the past makes space exploration a huge priority "today"?The universe is vast and ready to be explored. When staring up at the sky, I do not see how anyone could not be curious.I do not see how one's curiosity for the mysteries of the rest of the universe make "Space Exploration a huge priority".Space starts only 62 miles up, there's no unexplored territory left on Earth, all we have is up.This is the most absurd claim that has ever been adressed to me as a debater............Why?-The ocean remains a vast part of Earth that has definitely not been completely discovered: We have explored about 5 to 7 percent of the ocean floor and about a half a percent of the ocean itself. In the deep ocean, it is even less. Part of it is because it is so hard to get to. I am somewhat optimistic that we will be learning more and more because of robotics -- the autonomous vehicles that are out there are really quite extraordinary. There is a program called the ARGO Project. There are 3000 the floats that go up and down the ocean everyday collecting data, mostly temperature data.As you can see, we haven't discovered all of our own planet, space is not a priority.
Marijuana should be legalized in the US

moving on first i would like to start of by laying out my case, since this is 4 rounds i won't use any of this speech to refute my opponent and will simply focus on my own. 1: despite the dangers of any other substance such as alcohol or tobacco, marijuana remains a dangerous drug. As the National Institute on Drug Abuse tells us within just 1 hour of using marijuana the users risk of a heart attack more then quadruples. It also impairs your ammune system's ability to fight illnesses, a side effect indeed, but one that can in the end lead to a permanent effect or disease. In the end they tell us that in general those consuming marijuana have more overall health problems then those using tobacco, and have about a 30% chance of a successfull rehab once addicted to marijuana. 2:even if marijuans can be found to be non-harmful, it leads more often then not to other more dangerous drugs National Institute of Health reports that "very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana" Erich Goode, Drugs in American Society "The marijuana user has a statistically higher likelihood of trying and using a wide range of dangerous drugs than is true of the nonuser" Even if my opponent can prove marijuana has no other negative side effects then it being rapidly available still promotes the addiction to other drugs, clearly a harm in the legalization of it As my opponent said, I will add more as we go, with 4 rounds I felt no need to argue all my points in 1 speech
Marijuana should be legalized in the US

So i know this subject has been pounded to death already but i love it and i'm getting really bored. First off i'll start by saying under a government that allows the use of tobacco (specifically cigarettes) and alcohol, that same government should also allow marijuana (for recreational and medicinal purposes). I'll start with showing that marijuana is safer than cigarettes: Many say a marijuana is worse because it has no filter. But they do not realize that when you cigarette you smoke the whole thing down, whereas with marijuana, you take a few hits and then stop (usually). And you don't even have to smoke it. You can eat it, use a vaporizer, etc. there are a variety of ways to use marijuana, all of them safer than smoking a cigarette (or chewing tobacco, for that matter). Next, marijuana is safer than alcohol. Alcohol impedes your judgment as well as slowing down reflexes, etc. Most ppl are familiar with the effects of alcohol. Marijuana on the other hand, slows down reflexes, but does not impede judgment. You are aware of what you do and possible consequences when you are on marijuana. also, MJ only affects your memory while you use it. once you are done, you can remember what you did. alcohol, however, affects your memory long after you are no longer drunk. I am still randomly remembering bits and pieces of times i have been drunk. You can remember clearly things you do while using weed. Now i don't have enough time to finish an opening argument, so i'll continue to present points throughout this debate, which, by the way, is 4 rounds.
it is better to be nice or honest

You say, "...how can it not be worse for someone to lie rather than tell truth in the first place..." You obviously never read my first argument. You never stated the rules. I can be nice and Honest, as you never stated otherwise. I do get your point, however. Another thing I noticed, you have had the same argument the entire time. Even after I said " You can't directly contradict something that someone else says unless you find proof otherwise." and yet, after this, you again pointed out that " lying gives you no advantage infact I would say lying is a disadvantage why put your self through unessery stress and discomfort."you never made any other mention to my rule, where I can also be honest, and so therefore you are not only contradicting the rules, but also completely ignoring my research. You said that " I would argue that it is a disadvantage for someone not to know they are likely to die so they then miss out on time with the family which is vital if someone is in that situation there for your point does not stand!" I never said she won't die, I was only to give her a little more hope; if she didn't spend that time to be with family, that is not my fault. In this situation, the patient was well aware that she might die. Vote PRO!!!! You say, "...how can it not be worse for someone to lie rather than tell truth in the first place..." You obviously never read my first argument. You never stated the rules. I can be nice and Honest, as you never stated otherwise. I do get your point, however. Another thing I noticed, you have had the same argument the entire time. Even after I said " You can't directly contradict something that someone else says unless you find proof otherwise." and yet, after this, you again pointed out that " lying gives you no advantage infact I would say lying is a disadvantage why put your self through unessery stress and discomfort."you never made any other mention to my rule, where I can also be honest, and so therefore you are not only contradicting the rules, but also completely ignoring my research. You said that " I would argue that it is a disadvantage for someone not to know they are likely to die so they then miss out on time with the family which is vital if someone is in that situation there for your point does not stand!" I never said she won't die, I was only to give her a little more hope; if she didn't spend that time to be with family, that is not my fault. In this situation, the patient was well aware that she might die. Vote PRO!!!! :) -Axelthane
it is better to be nice or honest

I totally disagree with your previous argument first of all a doctor lying to a patient is just ridiculous full stop expesially if it is something as serious as 50% to 80% chances of death I find this to be a great injustice. This would be unfair to this woman she should have the right to know if there is a 50% to 80% chance of death it would be simply wrong for a doctor to lie I mean a doctor should be someone who you can trust and I would argue that it is a disadvantage for someone not to know they are likely to die so they then miss out on time with the family which is vital if someone is in that situation there for your point does not stand!. And as for your argument on causing more destruction how can it not be worse for someone to lie rather than tell truth in the first place. Lying just stops the truth coming out until a later time when the liar either slips or the person being lied to finds out so then lying gives you no advantage infact I would say lying is a disadvantage why put your self through unessery stress and discomfort. And at least when you tell the truth you can not get in to trouble unless you were going to lie about doing soething wrong but not telling the truth just makes it so much worse. Thankyou and that is why i beg to oppose the motion
it is better to be nice or honest

I was only trying to help you. I'm sorry if I was at all rude. I was being nice, by letting you know about all of your spelling errors, not honest, because honestly, I want to win this debate, and if I hadn't pointed that out, I would have had a larger chance at winning. "...if you lie to someone then you just end up creating more destruction than needed and putting unnecessary stress upon yourself..." You say that it creates more destruction. I would have to disagree with this. Being nice to people will get you far. Saying "You look nice today!" to a random stranger will brighten their day whereas being honest and saying "You are really ugly." might get your teeth knocked out. About the stress; did you even read my argument? You can't directly contradict something that someone else says unless you find proof otherwise. "...by telling the truth you then dont have to fo through any fuss and then no blame can go on to you because you are never in the wrong to tell the truth." Sometimes it is better to not tell the truth, and you can get in trouble. I'll give an example. Imagine that you are a doctor, and you are treating a patient that has cancer. There is an eighty percent chance that she will die. No one else will find out about the actual chances. Do you tell her that she will probably die, or that it is a fifty fifty chance. In this case, the consequence for telling the truth is to have a very sad woman. On the contrary, there are no negative results of lying to the woman. I look forward to seeing your argument. :) Again I apologize, for sounding rude and wasting your time.
it is better to be nice or honest

Is your argument so week that you have to point out something that is not currently relevant to the issue in hand and waste time for the both of us. Well you contradicted yourself in you previous argument by being honest about my spelling yourself instead of being nice and ignoring it.And now getting to what we are meant to be discussing, Just to remind you since you must have forgotten it is better to be nice than honest which I disagree with and you agree with. So I think it is better to be honest than nice because if you lie to someone then you just end up creating more destruction than needed and putting unnecessary stress upon yourself and but by telling the truth you then dont have to fo through any fuss and then no blame can go on to you because you are never in the wrong to tell the truth. Sorry to sound at all rude
it is better to be nice or honest

For now, I will completely ignore the grammar and spelling. I will be arguing that it is always best to be nice to someone (con). As my opponent has not laid any ground rules, I will use all sources available; you are now not allowed to set the "terms and conditions" in the second or third round. It is my opinion, that it is always better to be nice. As my opponent has not stated that this isn't allowed, I will say that I can be both nice and for the most part honest, but mostly nice. You can bend the truth a tiny bit, and it will make the world to some people. Some people just cannot handle the truth. Being nice has advantages too. If you are nice to people and (as per the "rules") mostly honest, a lot of good can come your way. Not only from other people who think of you as a kind person, but it can also greatly improve your mental health. After being kind to someone, a heighten in sense of well being, exhilaration, and euphoria are some of many positive symptoms. Being kind is also known to relieve pain, from headaches to back pain. It can give a small burst of energy, and remove excess stomach acid. Sources: http://apps.cignabehavioral.com... Me I wish Alice-is-always-right good luck!!! P.S. Sorry if I sounded mean about the spelling, but no one is going to take you seriously if you have bad grammar. Have someone check over it, a friend, or parent or even you! -Axelthane
I will not contradict myself

Actually (again lol) NO. You need to read your own rules. 10. If PRO EVER fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON EVER fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. You violated the rules FIRST in round 3, and according to YOUR rules, that means YOU AUTOMATICALLY LOST RIGHT THEN AND THERE, further meaning that anything said in any debate round, by any debater, after that can have NO IMPACT on the debate as you have already LOST. And since you lost right then and there everything and anything that was said after your round 3 means virtually nothing and cannot be included or voted on as the debate is already over. VOTERS - As the rules state PRO lost the debate in the first part of round 3, therefore you MUST only vote for CON, any votes that go to PRO will be considered VOTE BOMBING AND YOU WILL BE SUSPENDED AND/OR BANNED for those actions.
I will not contradict myself

It seems we are at an impasse. 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round. This rule Was violated by you. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. This Was violated by myself.Let me provide you with rules 10-11 10. If PRO EVER fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON EVER fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.The rules state ever, not that the rules are not inplay once a rule has been broken. However, You offered me an alternative when you told me to change my answer. Many answer are reanswered in these types of debates. http://www.debate.org...Whether you said this round or not is irrelevant seeing as that would be impossible.And Just to cover all my bases. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.Because you have not specifically pointed out the contradiction none can be said now.The voters can decide whether the rules cancel out and Your lack to find a contradiction gives me the win, or we both are at fault causing a tie. We either tie or Pro wins. There is no room for you to win. So Feel free to contact me for another debate =D
I will not contradict myself

No my friend, YOU LOSE. Re-read the last sentence of my round 3 argument. So either A. you change your last two answers (to questions 9 and 10) to "NO" or B. you forfeit/lose the debate due to breaking the rules. You must make the above stated changes this round or you lose. THIS ROUND (round 3) not NEXT ROUND (round 4). You did not make the necessary changes in round 3 that would have validated my alternative offer, therefore YOU LOSE the debate due to breaking the rules. Since you have lost the debate - On a side note, I would like to point out that when you answered the questions correctly you did contradict yourself. (Although I know this doesn't matter because you lost the debate due to rule breaking, I just wanted you to know that you were going to lose this debate from the get go.) Lastly, I suggest you not refute that you have lost because I have another trick up my sleeve that will put this debate to rest for good, with you as the loser. Thanks for this debate, any time you would like to hand me another super easy win, feel free to contact me. =D
I will not contradict myself

Okay I see your little trick ;) I will re answer the questions. I cannot lose for this since CON has offered the alternative. 9. Have you ever won a debate on this site?No10. Have you ever lost a debate on this site?NoHowever,"1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round.""11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses."You did not ask me 10 questions in round 3, therefore you lose. Not asking them would destroy the purpose of 30 questions being asked. If you were to ask them this round we would not have adequite time to respond to contradictions.
I will not contradict myself

Please re-answer question #9, as it must be answered with a YES or a NO, because one of those is correct. ( The correct answer is NO because you have not won the debate yet, until you are declared the winner at the end of the voting period, you have not won.) Also question #10's answer can only be NO. The rules you stated said that you will answer all my questions with a YES, a NO, or a explanation if neither YES or NO was completely correct, and being that NO is the correct answer, the explanation you provided is breaking the rules. So either A. you change your last two answers (to questions 9 and 10) to "NO" or B. you forfeit/lose the debate due to breaking the rules. You must make the above stated changes this round or you lose.
I will not contradict myself

1. Are you alive? Yes 2. Is there blood inside your body? Yes 3. Can you jump? Yes 4. Can you crouch? Yes 5. Do you play video games? Yes 6. Is today tomorrow? No 7. Do you think you are going to win this debate? Yes 8. Do you think you will lose this debate? No 9. Have you ever won a debate on this site? I have not officially won but the opponent forfeited so the vote time is what is keeping me from a win on the record. 10. Have you ever lost a debate on this site? No, I have tied though due to no votes.
I will not contradict myself

1. Are you alive? 2. Is there blood inside your body? 3. Can you jump? 4. Can you crouch? 5. Do you play video games? 6. Is today tomorrow? 7. Do you think you are going to win this debate? 8. Do you think you will lose this debate? 9. Have you ever won a debate on this site? 10. Have you ever lost a debate on this site?
I will not contradict myself

1. Will you answer every question in this debate only using the words "Yes" or "No?" No 2. Do you have a name? yes 3. Do you own a car? yes 4. Are you a man? yes 5. Can you travel through time? No 6. Do you watch TV? yes 7. Do you watch Movies? yes 8. Do you like music? yes 9. Do you have a job? no 10. Do you have a life? yes
I will not contradict myself

1. Will you answer every question in this debate only using the words "Yes" or "No?" 2. Do you have a name? 3. Do you own a car? 4. Are you a man? 5. Can you travel through time? 6. Do you watch TV? 7. Do you watch Movies? 8. Do you like music? 9. Do you have a job? 10. Do you have a life? NOTE - Question #1 must be answered with a YES or a NO because they are both correct answers.
I will not contradict myself

Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON IN THE SAME ROUND the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
the death penalty is a reasonable punishment

Well, its hard not to mention religion on this issue, especially between two believers. My secular basis is this: Death is not a proper punishment for murder because, essentially, it is a waste of resources. So long as it is possible to reform people and put them to useful and productive work, we should attempt to do so. Dont kill them, and dont lock them away for life. I believe all criminals should work off their debt, doing actual work for the betterment of the community and the nation.