BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

Sir, if you said that by limiting the vihicle per household will do nothing to decrease the traffic, ur arguments totally wrong and totally WEAK ! I have a data about a country who run this programme like Japan (Nippon). And that's totally SUCCESS ! Beside that, I give you a data about a country who doesn't run this programme like Indonesia, and I take the example from Jakarta as the capital city in Indonesia. Do you have a data about a country who run this programme, but still can't avoid the traffic? If you don't have any data about that, just keep silent. You're LOSER. Second, If you said that by using this programme will not help our environment, that's totally wrong! the CO2 from the car itself can give us house glasses effect! So, by limiting the vihicle, we totally decrease the production of CO2 in this world, and it's mean we save our wolrd and prevent it from global warming.
THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

Well, if you limit the number of vehicles per household you still do nothing to limit traffic. Each individual in the household that had somewhere to go before placing a limit on vehicles, still has someplace to go after limiting the vehicles. Someone will have to drive them. So, there is no change except life would be more complicated for members of a household. I would also like to mention that it would punish larger households (such as ones with extended family or many kids) while single individuals would be able to drive as much as they wished. The limiting of vehicles per household would set off a chain of unintended consequences, such as people putting off marriage in an effort to avoid being without a vehicle. If the limiting of vehicles will not change traffic then how would it affect the environment? I do not know that cars affect the environment but if they did your proposal still would not help. It is very possible to be both for less traffic and a cleaner environment while seeing that your proposal will do neither...but the unintended consequences will be great. In addition it cannot be implemented in a fair manner.
THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

That's so funny. You said that you only can drive a vihicle at one time. Of course that's right, but how about ur family? If the member of ur family is 4 - 6 members, does we need the vihicle in ur house until 4 - 6 vihicles? I totally disagree about that. The reason why I can say if we limit the number of vihicel in very household in a country, it can decrease the traffic jam in a country who legalize this programe. In Indonesia, Indonesia doesn't legalize this programme. And the capital city of Indonesia (Jakarta) from 24hours in a day, that 20hours there's happened the traffic jam and every household in Jakarta, they can have the vihicle 3 - 4 vihicles in every household. And because of this, Jakarta is the 1st rank as the biggest donatur of carbon dioxide in Indonesia. That's why, if we limit the number of vihicle in every household, not only decrease the posibility for the traffic jam but also decrease the number of carbon dioxide in the Air. We know, Japan (Nippon) run this prgramme, and in Japan (Nippon) the traffic jam is so seldom. And why not we run this programme in every country in this world, so we can decrease the tic jam and can decrease the number of carbon dioxide in the air of this world and it's one step to avoid this world from global warming. And I believe all of us know the the worst impact from the global warming itself. I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU CARE TO OUR GREEN WORLD!
THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

There are many aspects of your position that are incorrect. First is that limiting the number of vehicles per household will reduce traffic. As an example; I currently own 2 vehicles but I can only drive one at a time. Second; you imply that reducing vehicles will save the planet. I am unaware that the planet needs saving or that less vehicles will help...for all i know the planet may have nutured life with the single goal of intelligent life producing vehicles that will burn oil, because the planet doesnt like that nasty oil inside of it.
THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

Singapore does not limit the number of vehicles per household. They do have a rationing system however. Yet that is not what we are debating. We are debating if vehicles should be limited by household. I maintain that it should not. I have stated previously that the number per household does not have any effect on traffic or the environment. You continue to maintain that it does. Yet your links embedded in your argument do not back this up. You continue to reference that it works in Japan yet still you provide no documentation (one link I had to sign in to see, I wasn't going to do that, if it was that one I am sorry). The link to Singapore discusses rationing but based on income not household. I still maintain that the number per household does not effect the number on the road at any one time. I could give every person 10 vehicles yet each person can only drive 1 at a time. If a person has a need for vehicle transportation that doesn't change depending on how many are in each household, even if that number is zero. .. they will simply pay someone who has a vehicle to take them where they need to go. The miles driven may actually increase under that scenario. I will freely admit that vehicles cause pollution but I also argue that the economic alternative to a petroleum based economy can result in greater pollution. Vehicles increase a person's economic opportunities, resulting in a greater standard of living, resulting in more wealth. .. and wealthy societies can more effectively fight pollution. If you doubt that take a look at wealthy cities verse poor cities throughout the world. And it isn't cheap transportation that makes societies poor. .. its expensive transportation and energy that makes a society poor, or at least some of the main factors. The Pro has not proved how limiting vehicles PER HOUSEHOLD will help her concerns about traffic and the environment. I have even challenged that her concerns are a problem. Yet even if a voter finds her concerns valid and overriding then I still do not see how her proposal will alleviate those concerns.
THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

Actually, you don't know the tacitc of Japan Government to limit the vihicles for every household. Japan run this programme, and with this programme Japan run a new programme that they increase the number of public tranportation. Not only Japan, but also Singapore run this programme. because they know the impact if teh number of vihicle in they country increase extremly. It will give a lot of bad impact for they country. Traffic and global wraming are the only two from a lot of bad impact from the vihicle itself. The other bad impact, their country wil be so full because of this. And we know in every year, the number of citizen increase in every country, so their country will be full by the vihicle and the citizens. About the effect of car, does the gasses from the car itself will give the bad impact for this world? ofurse yes! everyone know about that. The student of elementary school in my country know about the bad impact of car, should I give you the source? if you want, this is it the sites : 1. http://www.racv.com.au... 2. http://online.wsj.com... Sources of my fact : 1. http://www.aseanaffairs.com... 2. http://www.quora.com... Reader, I STRONGLY BELIEVE, HIS ARGUMENTS ARE WORSE THAN MY ARGUMENTS ! SO, VOTE FOR PRO ! BECAUSE I DESERVE TO BE THE WINNER !
what are the pros and cons on this question IS THE LAW TOO SOFT ON THE CELEBRITIES

First of yeah i am new here and second of all i didn't ask you take this debate in the first place you just took it upon yourself because you claim that you were so sick of seeing it up with the other debates. But guess what I say to that I don't give a freak how sick you are because I don't even know you and I can care less about you. If I choose to put something else up here like that I will and I still won't care how sick you are. So take my advice and don't even try to debate my question next time you got that!!!!!
The Republican Party platform is generally harming democracy in America

My argument is that while not every Republican voter 100% agrees with the GOP's stance on issues or every Republican in government either. Or that the Democrats have done everything right. However, the leadership of the Republican party has produced policy that is causing economic stagnation and the degradation of this country's government by doing the following: 1) Obstructing major legislation that would lead to a recovery from the Great Recession, choosing to block such legislation for political reasons rather than talking with the opposing party to work out a long-term recovery to help their constituents, a historical precedent. 2) Creating an artificial debt-ceiling crisis ( a routine procedure since WW2) to hold our economy and the world's hostage until they got what they wanted. 3) By supporting and signing into law the USA PATRIOT act, an act that has greatly encroached on all our civil liberties. 4) By supporting a cut in the National Income Tax brackets, an economic policy that most economists say creates greater economic inequality in America. 5) By supporting legislation that would ban flag-burning, an right guaranteed to all citizens under the first amendment 6) By constantly crying for war when our top diplomats and military commanders advise a policy of diplomacy, a constant war-mongering, that is putting the nation deeper in debt, not to mention the thousands of lives lost in pugilist foreign struggles. 7) By imposing religious dogma (i.e. prayer in schools, etc.) as law when we are all guaranteed a separation of church and state as established in the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education. 8) By attempting to seal off our border with the United Mexican States, instead of putting into law a comprehensive immigration reform, which according to most economists such a law would help our nation grow in economic competitiveness. Sources: http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.americanthinker.com... http://www.alternet.org... http://www.cnn.com... www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=2. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com....
Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org

SUMMARY: I offered the opponent a chance to refute my arguments despite this being the final round, but he has not accepted. The only challenge he has given is to state that we should forget about DDO rules, and norms, yet hasn't given a reason for such besides just asserting it. Last round con said my K was late or something, that's surprising, according to my definition of late, round 2 is not late. To confirm I have been arguing that same point through the round you can simply see my second round argment under the tittle "K". Even if the opponent was right about fogeting the rules of DDO and instead doing this 'whoever goes first wins' thing, I still show that it is immoral to accept that definition which means we should select mine. The opponent has not contested that whoever wins the definition wins the round and thus being that the K is utterly conceded, I don't think I could, in good conscious, be voted against. Thank You
Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org

I disagree with your claim that the round in which the definition is shown is more important than the fact that I provided one before you did. We both posted ours by Round 2, which means that we did the same thing. I don't see how the round the definition was posted on would matter if we literally did so on the same round. Seeing as I beat you to the definition, and seeing as I posted an argument showing you what I am talking about, it's completely unnecessary to provide a definition of your own. What would be the point of debating if people were able to overturn others' definitions? It would make sense to assume what the definition is if I have not presented one by Round 1, but since I beat you to the stairs for providing definitions, and provided an argument sypporting my resolution, you must refute it. If you claim that your argument is unrefuted and stands strong, then I must say the same for my original argument. I believe this is an issue of common sense. Misinterpreting my debate when I specify the details shows a lack of conduct and common sense, thus acting as a method of forfeiture. Not to mention that you acknowledge the fact that I have an original argument without refuting it. You mention that I hurt my own case without specifying why. You even said that you AGREE with me on said topic. If my opponent agrees with me, than that is a result of forfeiture. So I have provided TWO reasons for why my opponent has forfeited.
Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org

definition of bad- not pleasant, pleasing, or enjoyable.I would again like to argue that it is the opponent's duty to define all rules and definitions in Round 1, a duty which has negligibly been left unfullfilled. It would be simply unfair to me as the pro team to still give him this ability to define the terms, as I have already accepted the deabte with the understang of a different definition. It's not about who provides it first, but whether or not it is provided in the first round or not. Had he defined it the way he did, I would not have accepted the debate.My First argument is simple. Imagine the resolution is, we should kick bad people off of the cite, in this example bad people would mean people who behave badly. In that same way, the resolution as I define it, means debators who are behaviorally bad. If debaters have bad conduct repeatedly and indifferently, then after a fair evalution to determine whether they truely are behaviorally bad, they should indeed be removed from the website. The benifit is that it shows the cite's firm resolution to take itself and its users' experience seriously. To help develope good debaters and to keep the cite clean.Even if the resoning I gave for not accepting con's definition is, for some utterly bizzare reason, rejected then I have another reason to prefer my definition which is the Kritik Argument I also gave last round. I do not think we should accept it because it labels debaters as 'bad' as far as their skill and prowess. We should not accept that there are bad debaters, describing debaters as bad gives them no escape from the condition. It is a form of separation wich only serves to cause a split in the DDO community, as there is always a perceived struggle between good and bad. Having such a divide and accepting such a divide undermines the purpose of DDO which is to promote growth in education, learning retention, analytical skills, data collection and other vital functions. It pushes debaters away from the website and is thus unacceptable. Again, this is all another reason to prefer my definition to con's, although mine should be prefered by fault of the broken rules. So I can agree with con, removing debaters which he considers to be of bad skill is a wrong thing to do, and will, as he concedes lead to its popularity collapsing and become an abandoned website. This only hurts his own case.I thank the opponent for his response but none of my arguments have been refted more, My definition and K still stand as well as my argument for removing those debaters who a bad (behaviorally).Thank you.
Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org

Thank you for posting Rebuttals- First of all, trolls and bad debaters are not exactly the same type of people. Since my debate is about removing bad debaters as a whole, removing trolls cannot be applied against my claim, considering the fact that my topic implies that *all* bad debaters should be removed from Debate.org. I also think it's quite melodramatic to assume that "trolls will take over this website". I have not failed my given burden for providing a definition, I have already beat you to it. I explained that a bad debater is one of poor debating quality, especially one that tries so hard but cannot win a debate. Not all bad debaters resort to bad behavioral issues, some of which want to improve but have a hard time doing so. Once again, if Debate.org removes the debaters' rights to freedom, its popularity will collapse and become an abandoned website. I have already set up an argument and a definition for you, and in return, you HAVE to refute my original argument and argue that all bad debaters should be removed, not just trolls.
Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org

definition of bad- not pleasant, pleasing, or enjoyable.This debate should be about preventing trolls from taking over the website. I firmly believe that the officials of DDO should take a solid policy stance towards weeding out those debaters who consistently create dirty or racially provacative arguments, discriminate in their debates and stand only to hurt the debate community. Weeding and removing these bad debaters from the DDO community is benificial. In doing so we can enspire those who want to become better at deates becasuse they will have more positive competition. Removing bad debaters also serves the image of DDO, is shows that we will only tolerate a certain behavioral attitude and shows our serious desire to harbor great debates. I would like to posit that this be the accepted definition, this is what I thought when I joined the round, and because pro has failed his given burden to define and clarify all terms and words, I think that it is only fair that I receieve the power to decide the definition.KBut there is another reason that I do not believe we should accept pro's definition bad, and this is because it is wrong to label any debater as 'bad' in the sense of their skill or what have you. Labeling people as bad at someone only serves to create a social divide in Debate.org which of course undermines the purpose of trying to create an environment of freeflwing ideas. Labeling people as 'bad' skill debaters makes them feel that they are and forever will be the lower class of DDO. It inherently gives out the idea that there is no improvement, for they ARE bad debaters, the description gives no way out of this condition. For this reason I protest the use of the word bad in the sense of skill level. You may consider this as a kritik of the word. This kritik explicitly gives another reason to prefer the first definition I provided.I thank you for reading and I hope to insire a truely thought provoking discussion.
Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org

1. If bad debaters were removed from Debate.org, how are they going to improve? This applies to ALL bad debaters. Some are not taken seriously, and others try their absolute best to argue in debates. Not to mention there is a "funny" section of debates. Bad debaters can often lose debates due to their off the wall silliness. However, if DDO addresses the allowing of silly debates, there is no good reason for why bad debaters should be penalized for doing so. 2. Bad- "low or poor in quality". Basically, a bad debater is a poor debater. One who is inferior to the average debater due to their sub par quality of arguing. So technically, somebody who has lost their first debate is a "bad debater", since they have a losing record. This bad debater could be someone who is actually professional at debating, but lost to someone who does much better at the very subject. Removing bad debaters from Debate.org is entirely destroying the privilege of being allowed to debate. People will no longer be allowed to debate. Negative criticism will pass on to others, and they will never join Debate.org. This site would then become abandoned. Sources: 1]http://i.word.com...
Marijuana should be legalized

Hello,So I'll share my arguments despite my opponent hasn't answered me whether he wants or not restart the debate.My arguments:1. Health riskMost people who assert Marijuana claim that Marijuana doesn't damage body at all and if than slightly. Moreover, they allege that Marijuana is helpful. First of all, there are no reports of people dying after overdosing marijuana. On the contrary, I don't deny that Marijuana cause minor problems but contrary to alcohol which is legalized and which cause 5 000 deaths per year is far less dangerous.[1] Many studies have shown that Marijuana is well utilized in field of pain management that it uptake receptors in brain and block pain. This can be used by people who suffer chronic incurable diseases. Furthermore, Marijuana works properly as Antiemesis (antinausea) medication and helps people from vomiting. It helps to relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients.2. People deserve libertyAccording to UN Declaration of Human Rights every person has right to do with his body whatever he wants. In general, If people want to hurt they body there is no reason to stop them because they are owners of they body. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individual's actions endanger someone else. However, the government has certain right to restrain somebody to injure himself. But this doesn't apply on Marijuana because Marijuana is far less dangerous than other drugs, moreover than alcohol but this subject I will mention in following arguments.3. Keeping marijuana illegal is expensive Every way Government tries to impede Marijuana to spread and to restrain it cost money. Thus making Marijuana legal for instance because of the reason I mentioned above would spare the government a loads of money. In addition, if Marijuana would be legal the Government would be able to collect more money on the taxes. This turns the situation from pointless spending to useful deal of Marijuana. The money, which the government spend on restricting Marijuana and on providing aids for imprisoned dealers, are being spent without any success. According to charts,[3] more and more young people experienced smoking marijuana which proves that money spent by government for restricting marijuana is for this moment useless step.[1]http://www.askmen.com... [2]http://www.mjlegal.org... [3]http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca...
Marijuana should be legalized

Hello, I reckon there have been many debates about this topic. So it should be easier to get free arguments. Rules: 1) Semantics allowed 2) Pro advocates that Marijuana should be legalized, Con stands against 3) 5 rounds 1. Introduction/confirmation 2. each debater presents his arguments 3. rebuttals 4. rebuttals 5. ending 4)72 hours time to argue 5) 8000 characters 6)Winner is determined by quality, development, forming of arguments; semantics etc. Good luck and I am looking forward to thrilling debate Bublifuk
Marijuana should be legalized

Well, here we go. 1. Health Risk I don't believe yahoo answers is a valid source when compared to a government sponsored website on drug abuse. Marijuana effects the cannabinoid receptors, which effect short term memory, coordination, etc. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) 2. People deserve liberty Pro ignored my statement about making LSD legal. If people truly deserve liberty, then all drugs should be legal. However, many people don't want drugs legal, so their liberty would be encroached upon. Many people feel legalizing drugs would make the problem worse, and we can't ignore them. 3. Expense Pro ignored my argument that tougher penalties would solve the problem. I cannot refute a nonexistent counter-example. Tough penalties would discourage dealers from actively selling their poison. Thank you for this debate. MaxZero1496