BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of Drugs

Hi Pro,first of all I thank you for posting such a meaningful debate. I clearly stand on my side that the drugs should not be legalized. I am presenting you some of the disadvantages of drug legalization. They are :- * Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased. *Secondly some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. *Thirdly legalization would increase the chances of the drugs falling into the hands of kids. I am laying stress on the third point because we know about the growing mind of the children. They doesn't know the difference between good and bad. Due to the legalization of drugs and getting addicted to them can make them hazard minded criminals and that's all for today. I referred http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
Legalization of Drugs

'The answer to this point can be said in one sentence,Money cannot stand above the spoiled life of the drug addicts and their families. The money saved from legalization of drugs is of no value it costs many life of innocent people. ' Here my opponent claims that drug addiction takes innocent lifes but my opponent failed to give an example and how prohibition would deal with it , I see that as a pointless argument . After that my opponent uses so obviously copied and pasted description of what it feels like after consuming heroin and what are the possible dangers yet my opponent fails to realize is that alcohol is still more harmful and the big majority of heroin addicts die because of overdose that would be rare if heroin was legal. Than my opponent continues his copy and pasted work and the article that he found the text in talks about high prices many forget that when drugs prices are lower it is less attractive for the black market . 'The DEA argues "Legalization has been tried before"and failed miserably. ' That is not true drugs have been starting to get criminalized at the start of the 20th century many of which are the results of propaganda campaigns like the wood industry was fighting for legalization of cannabis so that less hemp was made because it was taking over the wood industry since hemp is much better for making paper. Also drugs have been decriminalized in Portugal yet it barely affected the numbers 'Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal"s decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents " from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" " has occurred. ' . http://www.cato.org... .
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

As i have stated in my previous round my arguement is not any general response but it has been a talk all over the world among English Giants. As you must have known that English Grammar has now regarded this Rule as a threat to the use of prepositions in the world of Grammar. And this rule never existed in the world not even in the imagination of English Giants. And I have not to say too much further I sign off with a sentence- "prepositions at the end of the sentence are a threat to use of Grammar "
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

However, I must note that he has essentially conceded my R2 arguments, as he has not stated any objections to the premises of my framework (scientific prescriptivism), nor has he challenged any of the substantive arguments I presented. However, he did offer a general response to my argument, and to that I must respond. He claims that the majority of grammarians today disagree with what I have written. While this is an argumentum ad populum and an appeal to authority, the premise is also false: The majority of grammarians today do not agree with prohibition. As the Chicago Manual of Style writes, 'That old prohibition is what we call a grammar superstition. You will not find it in any authoritative grammar book. Please see CMOS 5.176. ' (1)The CMOS is not alone in permitting this usage of prepositions. The New York Times' style guide also allows it; a copyeditor there once wrote, 'Sorry, but those teachers who promulgated those shibboleths were taking an extremely narrow view, one that apparently arose in Victorian times, possibly as people learned Latin in order to understand English grammar. ' (2)Fowler, one of the foremost grammarians of his time, wrote: 'Those who lay down the universal principle that final prepositions are "inelegant" are unconsciously trying to deprive the English language of a valuable idiomatic resource, which has been used freely by all our greatest writers except those whose instinct for English idiom has been overpowered by notions of correctness derived from Latin standards. ' (3)To quote a snarky remark by an Associated Press copyeditor, 'It’s something we’ll put up with. ' (4) ConclusionThe rule that prepositions should not be used at the end of a sentence has never been well-founded. In fact, it is an imaginary rule created by one poet to show the inferiority of another. (5) That it has subsequently been picked up by pedantic grammarians of the 19th century and spread through the Anglophone does not make it correct, reasonable or justified in any way. It is merely a myth, deeply-seated in educated circles till recent times, which is slowly being supplanted with the abandonment of misleading analogies to Latinate grammar. The application and imposition of such a rule in Standard English will spell disaster for communicative efficiency and linguistic elegance alike, as I have sufficiently demonstrated in my R2 arguments. It is about time that this hoary myth went to rest. Finally, I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. In light of the arguments presented, I urge that voters vote Con. Thank you! References (1) . http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org... (2) . http://www.nytimes.com...(3) . https://books.google.com.hk... (4) . http://www.write.com... (5) Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person's guide to writing in the 21st century. Penguin.
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

I have been tired of saying to my opponent that he should apply his knowledge what he understands what is prepositions and must not see the references and this would mean the actual debate . However as my friend has used the reference and expressed his views I must respect , and for the rebuttals I must say that the views he has posted has not been accepted by most of the grammarians of the modern day in their books . thus as I do not have any specific rebuttals I would stick to my previous argument and end my round here and watch how my friend gives strong argument without resources.
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

I will now proceed to my rebuttals. My opponent's main contention concerns the 'textbook definition' of the preposition as a word that precedes a noun. I will assume that he mean a noun phrase, not a noun - we cannot say 'on chair', but we can say 'on the chair', where 'the chair' is a noun. However, even without this slight error, his argument is unsound for three reasons I will outline below. The first is a reductio ad absurdum:P1) If the definition of prepositions necessitates that prepositions precede nouns in a sentence, then the definition of transitive verbs necessiatates that transitive verbs precede nouns. P2) The definition of transitive verbs does not necessitate that they precede nouns. C) The definition of prepositions does not necessitate that prepositions precede nouns. P1) is a simple analogy that I'm sure my opponent will accept. The traditional definition of a transitive verb is a verb that precedes a noun phrase, and the traditional definition of a preposition is a verb that precedes an object (which is also a noun phrase). So the underlying assumption behind the protasis of P1) is that if the traditional definition says part-of-speech X should precede part-of-speech Y, then we must use part-of-speech X before part-of-speech Y in an utterance. Thus, the apodosis follows from the prodasis. P2) is correct because of the following simple counterexample:(1) He is a person whom I respect. This is a correct sentence. 'Respect' is a transitive verb, yet it is not followed by a noun phrase. This is because of a long-distance dependency: The topic of the relative clause, whom, is linked to the object of respect. C) logically follows from P1) and P2). In fact, (1b) of R2, an example of a preposition at the end of a sentence, is pretty much the prepositional analogue of (1) of this round. My second argument is about subcategorisation. What the traditional definition implicitly suggests, in fact, is that a preposition should subcategorise for a noun phrase. This is not at all a problem for prepositions at the end of a sentence, because there is simply a long-distance dependency between the topic of the relative clause and the 'object' (complement) of the preposition. My third argument, related to the second, is about empty categories. Many linguists believe that relative clauses are formed by movement. In other words, a wh-word is extracted from its normal position and subsequently moved to another position. So, (1b) of R2 can be characterised as being formed this way:(2a) This is something ____ I've heard of which. (2b) This is something which I've heard of t . t is an empty category standing for trace. The extraction and subsequent movement of which leaves a trace in the original place. This trace can be said to be a noun phrase, so in fact, (2b) still satisfies the traditional definition of a preposition as a word used before nouns. References (1) Cook, V. , & Newson, M. (2014). Chomsky's universal grammar. John Wiley & Sons.
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

Prepositions at the end of the sentence and the question arises why they should be used at the end of the sentence? Likewise Con has stated the several definitons related to research on the topic but as on the pro side of the topic i would only say some literal definitons relating to this topic prohibiting the use of prepositions at the end of the sentence . As a literal , book definition of the prepositions say that prepositions are those words which are used before Nouns. Yes they are and they should be because they are the only source to describe that what is the present position of the noun or what the Noun is doing at the present point of time . But if you use prepositions at the last part of the sentence then at the first point there are no nouns after the prepositions and at the second one they do not correctly describe what the Noun wants to say or the position of the noun. This has defamed the topic prepositions from the english grammar theory as at the last part of the sentence ending prepositions are not valuable and they do not form a important sentence and this nowadays this has declared as the the grammar which may destroy the essence of the sentence. Therefore prepositions are a destroyer at the grammar rules of the modern world
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

Prepositions must be at the end of the most of the sentences for they are known as the source for the constitution of the sentences.If you look for the examples of the most of the sentences then my friend ,,, I would like to give an example tht "THE CRICKET MATCH HAS BEEN CALLED OFF" or in terms of request or command such as "PLEASE COME IN". iF YOU look at these examples then we, no, Specially I would like to come to an conclusion that mainly prepositions at the end of the sentence look beautiful as they express the beautifullness of the sentence . They are the new grammar rules of the modern day. Be practical my friend , Dont stick to definitons
Prepositions at the end of a sentence

Note: The debate should be impossible to accept. Please express interest in the comments section if interested. If you find a way to work around this, you automatically forfeit all seven points.ResolutionThe full resolution is as follows: 'This house would prohibit the use of any preposition at the end of any sentence in Standard English.'DefinitionsPreposition: In this debate, we will use the traditional definition of a preposition as a unit that precedes (subcategorises for) a noun phrase or pronoun in a sentence. This excludes intransitive prepositions and subordinating conjunctions, even though these are considered by many modern linguists as prepositions.Sentence: A high-level syntactic constituent that is a) finite, b) either contains a subject or is imperative, and c) contains a verb phrase. (This is not a crosslinguistically accurate definition, but for the purpose of this debate, it will suffice.)Standard English: The written variety of English that is used in formal and professional registers in the Anglophone, including but not limited to Britain, the US and Australia.Basically, we are debating on whether Standard English should, prescriptively, prohibit prepositions at the ends of sentences. Rules1. Debate structure: R1: Pro accepts and presents opening arugments. R2: Con presents opening arguments; Pro presents rebuttals. R3: Con presents rebuttals; Pro defends his case and concludes. R4: Con defends his case and concludes. Pro waives. 2. In general, all arguments should be posted inside the debate, but sources can also be provided in comments.3. No trolling, semantics or kritiks.4. If Pro disagrees with any of these rules, he must inform me before accepting the debate so that they can be modified.Good luck!
Diligence is the only way to success

I will refute some of my adversaries remarks. 1st rebuttal"Success means to achieve your great goals in life."This is definitely not true, as i have shown previously. Success is not just to achieve a great goal, it is accomplishing something you set out to do. Success in itself is achieving a desired outcome. I have shown this in my previous argument. While opening a can of coke may not be great, it can be a goal someone set for themselves so accomplishing it makes them successful. 2nd rebuttal "You say the kid gets his father's company and becomes a CEO.However, does he want the company?"In my example i stated a child was given his fathers company and he is immediately successful by most peoples standards. My adversary just completely looked over the point I was making here. It was essentially success in itself, is in the eye of the beholder. Whether he wanted it or not, other people would still consider him successful. Just in having the position alone, he has been granted something most people want. He is successful whether he fails at the job or not, just due to the perception of other people. 3rd rebuttal"You can be successful in the eye of others, but you must be happy in order for it to be true success."There is no way to say this other than that is a incorrect statement. By saying this he is taking his own definition of what success means and applying it other peoples perspectives. He is essentially saying, he does not think they are successful if they do not have diligence to perform the ask. The person themselves however can be successful if they just simply complete a small task that require 0 diligence. He then goes on to share what his idea of true success is. While that may be success for him as I have just shown, it may not mean success to someone else. Just achieving a sense of self worth is success within itself, or just meeting a desired outcome that you set out to achieve. Some of these require 0 diligence. In closingMy adversary has failed to show that diligence is the only one true way to achieve success. He has shown that it is possible to be successful by being diligent, but did not demonstrate or show that in fact this is the "only" way to achieve success. This debate would have better fit his opinion if he stated "Diligence is a good way to be successful". but that is not the case. He has failed to meet his BOP and show that diligence is the only way to be successful. Thank you.
Diligence is the only way to success

Success means to achieve your great goals in life. Is opening a can of coke a great goal? No I doubt so. Is sleeping with girls a great goal? I don't think so. This is in fact very unhealthy behavior which encourages nothing but bad thought or feelings. You say the kid gets his father's company and becomes a CEO. However, does he want the company? Is this the job he wants? You do not state if the kid is happy or not at his job. He might be incompetent, unsure of how to run the company. In a few years time, the company may be forced to close. After all, happiness is also success. You can be successful in the eye of others, but you must be happy in order for it to be true success. This can be achieved by being diligent and working hard to achieving your great goals in life. Once you have achieved it, you will feel a great sense of happiness of finally gaining true success through hard work and labour. That, as they say, is the true fruits of hard labour. Thus, diligence is the one and only way to success.
Diligence is the only way to success

I am kind of confused by pro letting me have the first contention seeing as how he has taken the BOP, but I will make my case for this.Let us examine what pro is claiming. He is saying " Diligence is the only way to success", and this claim if it was worded better would be a an accurate inference to draw. He could state Diligence is the best way to achieve success, or it is a definitive way to be successful, but that is not the case. He is stating it is the "only" way be successful. For him to address this contention he must then show that there is no other way for someone to achieve success other than diligence. So now lets look at what success is. 1. Success(a) Degree of measure of succeeding. (b) Favorable or desired outcome(c) Can be measured in wealthhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...First contentionFor Pros stance to be true, he must show that no one can achieve success by any other means than diligence. As I have also shown success is a very subjective term. It can just be achieving a daily goal of not drinking a coke. Where as this could take some diligence, it is definitely not entirely diligent to deny yourself an urge. Also one can be born into success. Example AA rich kid was born into a his wealthy family. He spends his time after he is 21 drinking his life away and sleeping with random girls and never getting a job or trying to advance himself. His father then passes away and he is left with his families business. He is now rich and the CEO of the company. There are two ways we can look at this(view 1) He has achieved success in his previous life, because he could have met his goal of sleeping with girls, or going out and getting a drink for the night. No diligence is required of this(view 2) After he is granted the position of CEO he is now successful by most people standards. Again no diligence or any act of his own, is required of him. By both of the view points we can clearly see, that he can achieve success without diligence, thus pros statement is false. This is just one example in a wide spectrum of occurrences that can happen to people. Contention 2How someone perceives success and how others perceive them as successful is entirely subjective. So as i have shown above it is entirely viable for someone to be successful by their own standards, or to even be successful by another persons standards. What I mean by that is this. You can have a job you hate, and think your life sucks. To a homeless person you are successful. You literally can work at kfc and have no diligence at all put into the job, but be successful in some other persons eyes. In ClosingIt is quite obvious o see, that someone could accidentally obtain success, or obtain success intentionally without putting forth any diligence at all.
Parents have a fundamental right to elective circumcision of their offspring

CON's response as a video is clearly in violation of rule 5: he is not making any attempt to investigate whether his claim is supported by reason. This is supported as his video has absolutely nothing to do with the ethical acceptability of circumcision, though arguably it provides a good example of why white people shouldn't rap. CON has thus far failed to provide any of his BOP, nor has CON provided any valid form of rebuttal or counter-rebuttal to my arguments. As per the rules, this round CON may counter-rebut arguments from round 3, though has clearly conceded all points in round 2 by failing to rebut in round 3.
Parents have a fundamental right to elective circumcision of their offspring

You did not meet your BOP in proving that anyone has any responsibility whatsoever.I would like you to refute the following prepositions:Fundamental right: A right that is apparent in even the most basic (fundamental) creatures.1) Everybody can kill anybody as a fundamental right2) the only thing in the way of fundamental rights, if we base them on the rights of any species, is that the law assumes humans require more civil behaviour3) it is any animal's fundamental right to do whatever they think will lead their offspring to get laid, especially if it relates to cutting off unwanted skin (unwanted according to parent) on the genitals4) humans are animalsThanks and goodbye