BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alcohol should be prohibited again

CATO Institute As far as consumption goes "it took years after repeal before consumption rates reached those of pre-prohibition." [1] Crime did increase during prohibition, but crime was on the rise before prohibition. [2] "Probably one of the most popular ideas of the time was that the mob held control of the majority of the illegal liquor trafficking. For the most part this is untrue, although in concentrated areas gangsters did run the liquor racket." [1] Concluding, prohibition did increase crime like everything does when it becomes illegal, but as shown earlier there is a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and violent crimes. Freedoms People might not like being told what they can and can't do, but that is necessary for civil society like "You can't murder people". I am sure I argued alcohol was the most harmful drug. [3] I addressed the consumption issue above. I wish I could have seen the article but it tells me "The page could not be found". Government Intervention "During the depression the funding was not there and with only 1,500 agents nationwide they could not compete with the tens of thousands of individuals who either wanted to drink or wanted to profit from others drinking." [1] It was next to impossible to enforce due to lack of funding. I also don't know how much the coast guard did with prohibition. The drug war has been 1.5 trillion for the last 43 years, about 35 billion or 1% of the budget. That isn't a lot. Unfortunately, the source provided also says "PAGE NOT FOUND". Only Marijuana usage has gone up, but cocaine, hallucinogens, psycho-therapeutics are down. [4] Prohibition Goals I have shown in previous rounds that Prohibition did have successes, and many benefited that were not mobsters. It was only because we were not capable of enforcing such vast of an idea. As far as never be tried again, there are numerous counties that are dry. "Nearly half of Mississippi's counties are dry. Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas and Virginia also have a large proportion of dry counties. Kentucky isn't much better for alcohol lovers. Thirty counties are wet and 55 are bone-dry." [5] Sources [1] http://cocktails.about.com...; [2] http://www.cato.org... [3] http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... [4] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [5] http://history.howstuffworks.com...
Alcohol should be prohibited again

Prohibition did indeed fail the first time, but why did it fail? It failed because of lack of enforcement. "In a perfect world, once a law or constitutional amendment is passed, the resources necessary to enforce it are plentiful and effective. Prohibition, unfortunately for its supporters, was not so easily enforced...Fiorello LaGuardia, mayor of New York City, testified before the Senate judiciary committee and had this to say about Prohibition: 'it is impossible to tell whether Prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing. It has never been enforced in this country'" [1] Also I believe prohibition failed partially because it didn't prohibit consumption or possession. Yes, prohibition would make black market stronger how much is unknown, but prohibiting anything makes black markets stronger. To the question on how it would be enforced. The federal government is much more powerful than in the 20s, and we have more technology to help prevent crime. It could be re-enacted through a series of federal laws, or state laws. It would take lots of money it would be difficult but like JFK said We don't choose to do things because they are easy, we do it because it is hard.Not allowing sacramental use would violate the 1st amendment. Yes, many did use church cover to get alcohol, and now we know that so if it does get enacted again we know the places to watch. Sources:http://history.howstuffworks.com...
Alcohol should be prohibited again

Good reasons for prohibiting alcohol. I agree with all of your reasoning. I just don't think that since prohibition failed the first time, it would be reenacted. And even if it were reenacted, I seriously doubt it work this time either. It's too ingrained into our traditions, society. It would go back into the black market. I'm sure it slowed down consumption a bit, but I also think it was easy enough to get and supported organized crime, making it more powerful and corruption rampant. So, shall we turn the discussion as to how prohibition would be enforced? Next, how would you propose it would be reenacted? It would take a multi million dollar campaign to reach everyone. We would need dollars donated by big corporations and millions of people. The campaign could be about the health effects, and everything you've outlined. During the first prohibition, some vineyards were allowed to remain for the use of the church so they would be able to contineu their traditions of sacremental ceremonies, etc. Many corrupt ended using the church as a cover for their activities. I think this would also continue. Which of course, I feel would be sad. Just thought that was worth bringing up.
Alcohol should be prohibited again

1. Health Alcohol has been linked to a multitude of long term diseases including Anemia, Cancer, Cardiovascular disease, Cirrhosis, Dementia, Depression, Seizures, Gout, High blood pressure, Infectious diseases, Nerve damage, and Pancreatitis. [1] There are also short term health effects too such as Unintentional injuries, Violence, Risky sexual behaviors, Miscarriages, and Alcohol poisoning. [2] There is annually 2.5 Million Alcohol-Related Deaths Worldwide. [3] There is even a website that counts alcohol related deaths. [4] Alcohol is also the most harmful drug. [5] With less health problems, health care cost would go down. Concluding, Alcohol should not be legal because of all the terrible health effects. 2. Addiction "National Institutes of Health report that 15% of the people living in the United States are considered 'problem drinkers. '"[6] Alcohol is a very addictive substance. Addiction can easily ruin people’s lives, including their jobs, their friends, their families, and obviously themselves too. "Approximately 30% of people in the U. S. report experiencing an alcohol disorder at one point in their lifetime. " [6] In conclusion, alcohol should not be legal because of the severe addictiveness of it. 3. Drunk Driving "Over 1.2 million drivers were arrested in 2011 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics" [7] Drunk driving is a terrible occurrence. It doesn't help that children have easy access to alcohol. "According to the 2010 Monitoring the Future Study 89% of 12th graders, 78% of 10th graders, and 59% of 8th graders getting alcohol would be "fairly easy" or "very easy" for them to get alcohol. " [8] Victims of drunk driving would have been at an extremely less chance of being a victim if alcohol was illegal because making things illegal decreases access to it. 4. Crime The consumption of alcohol can be directly related to violent crimes. "40% of state prisoners convicted of violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their offense − the more violent the crime, the greater the likelihood that alcohol was involved" [9] With less crimes the judicial cost and workload would decrease. Concluding, alcohol should be illegal because it fuels violent crimes. 5. Prohibition During Prohibition there were significant positive effects. "Alcohol use decreased, cirrhosis of the liver was down 66% in men, and public drunkenness was halved. " [10] Also increased savings, better provided and happier homes, and responsible citizenship. [11] Prohibition did work, but it was poorly enforced in some areas which lead to its repeal. There is still a multitude of counties that are still dry. [12] Sources: [1] . http://www.webmd.com... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov... [3] . http://www.ncadd.org... [4] . http://www.worldometers.info... [5] . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... [6] . http://www.alcoholaddiction.info... [7] . http://www.madd.org... [8] . http://www.centurycouncil.org... [9] . http://www.alcoholandcrime.org... [10] . http://www.phoenixhouse.org... [11] . http://www.jstor.org... [12] . http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Defunding all public schools and encourgaging private school growth would better U.S. education.

Thank you for this debate, and now I'm going to move down some of the key things in the debate.First let me clarify something:I do not have to debate that the current education system is good. I can still debate that it's bad and agree with my opponent that it "sucks." However, scrapping the system and completely privatizing it is not the only possible way to deal with it. Therefore, as long as I disagree with my opponent's way of dealing with the problem, I'm upholding my position.Regarding my opponent's analogy about food:This analogy doesn't work for three reasons1) Food costs money but not as much as private school, and you don't buy all of your food at once for the whole year.2) My opponent makes an incorrect assumption that the government does not provide food. It actually does."SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities" [1].3) There are standard prices for food in grocery store chains and mass-produced products that everyone can count on for cheap food. The same is not true of private schools. Those are all separate business entities, and assuming that all of them will play by the same rules or that at least a couple will have low prices is irrational.Concerning demand:My opponent is only right when it comes to widespread competition. When it comes to the private schools being a student's only choice, they have incentive to raise prices. Since the people have no choice, they either buy the education, or the kid doesn't get educated. It's a business move that we could count on in at least some areas.Let's go over the biggest issue:There are a lot of people who would not be able to get a good education because of this. That is my main argument against his plan, and that's why I didn't really address anything else. If we intentionally create a system that we know will be exclusive to low-income families, we are creating a system that hurts education. I've explained this, and my opponent hasn't rebutted it except for the food analogy, which I've also rebutted.Sure the system has a lot of issues, and we could use some proper reform. This, however, is not reform. It's giving up on all-inclusive education and moving to an education system that would hurt the overall education of American citizens.
Defunding all public schools and encourgaging private school growth would better U.S. education.

This plan would further an elitist society and ultimately wouldn't help education. Definition of elitism: Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite""a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes""are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others [1]. I'm going to explain why this is true, starting with some statistics. Currently, public school is "free. " By free that means everyone has to pay for it through taxes. My opponent is aware of this fact as well, so there is no need for me to go find that in the tax code or Wikipedia. However, this means in order to go to that school you don't have to pay anything extra. So this is how every person in America can go to school. The total fertility rate in America is 2.06 [2]. I suppose we can round this down to 2, because it's difficult to measure 0.06 of a child for what I'm going to argue. The poverty guideline for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia is $23,850 for 4 people in the household. For Alaska it's $29,820, and for Hawaii it's $27,430 [3]. There are plenty of single moms, and since the total fertility rate doesn't necessarily have a monogomous relationship attached to it, I'll provide the poverty guideline for a household of 3. The numbers come out $19,790, $24,740, and $22,760 respectively. The average cost for private school in the USA is $8,549 [4]. Now, since the average number of kids a mom has is two, let's double that. We end up with $17,098. For a single mom who's at the poverty guideline in the continental US, that pus her down to about $2,000 just to have her kids go to school. When a dad is in the house, that's only $6,000. This is obviously a problem for impoverished families. Now, they have to live and buy food, so they have to prioritize. Will they be able to send their kids to school? No, they'll need to feed their family and probably have a house. This means the impoverished won't be able to go to school. This has two negative aspects.1) This created a society of elites. The rich go to school and go to college and get a skilled job. The poor do labor. That just reminds me of how society worked back before the French Revolution. Creating a society of elites both exercises a discriminatory mindset, and it ultimately doesn't benefit a nation. I'll explain in the second negative aspect.2) It won't help education. If we just cut off everyone who isn't rich or upper middle class from education, we lose a lot of people who could be potentially smart. We don't gain anything from this. We just cut off a lot of potentially good scholars. This is most definitely a problem for education. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://kff.org... [3] . http://aspe.hhs.gov... [4] . http://www.edreform.com...
Defunding all public schools and encourgaging private school growth would better U.S. education.

I would like the argue how the theory of replacing the current public education system for a private education system under a libertarian climate, would be a better option than fixing the education system we currently have. I intend to win this debate using only logic, historical events, and personal observations. Sources are welcome but not necessary as this is only a theory and therefore proof would be on having the better logical argument.
When we buy tickets to a movie, we support the content of its message.

I do agree that plenty of people watch a movie for entertainment regardless of agreement with the message. You have shown that upon the purchase of a ticket, people either consciously or unconsciously financially support the message of the movie. This financial support in turn allows more of the same type of movie to be created as it is shown to be lucrative. However, as I have outlined in R2 there is more than one way to interpret the meaning of supporting the message. As you and I both agree that people watch a movie regardless of their agreement on the message presented, you turn on your own argument. Since, taking this point to be true, a person can watch a movie, purely for entertainment reasons, not agree with the message (this agreement was the definition I gave to support in R2) and while still providing finical support to the messaged they still do no ideologically support. Likewise I thank you for the challenge and a good debate as well.
When we buy tickets to a movie, we support the content of its message.

I am thinking primarily of unintended consequences. I believe most people attend movies to be entertained. If they are not entertained they may receive a refund. If they do not agree with the message they may do the same. However, I think you might agree with me that plenty of people watch a movie because it is entertaining regardless of whether or not they agree with the message. This is about market participation. The basic economic unit is a person. What happens in any economy starts with the individual person. The person trades labor for something that represents the value of that labor. In the US the dollar represents labor. The person then spends that dollar on someone else' labor. Where the dollar is spent it will generate more of the same kind of labor it was spent on. The person chooses in what to participate with the dollar. If people are only interested in whether or not a film is entertaining they still support the message content of the film when they purchase tickets, unintentionally or otherwise. Thanks for a good debate.
When we buy tickets to a movie, we support the content of its message.

While it is necessarily true that if people buy a ticket to said movie they are implicitly enforcing the idea to movie producers that they wish to see more of the like, it does not constitute the support of the message contained within the movie. This is true for a couple reasons.1. In the instance where a person goes to a movie with no prior planning and happens to choose a movie they know nothing about, then, regardless of the monetary indication that they "support" the message, it is in no part of the viewer concious support. 2. Second it must be further clarified your definition of the meaning of supporting the message. Since you have not already outlined this, I will take the liberty. If by support, you mean that people, upon providing monetary reason they allow the creation of more movies of the same because it is lucrative for the producers then it is true. However, because of the unclear definition I will take a support of the content of the message to mean that the message, in any other form, would be accepted by the viewers, that they identify with and belive in the content of the message. Using this definition, in no way, if a person goes to see a movie merely for entertainment purposes rather than for edification are they supporting the contents of the message. Let me use an example to further clarify this statement. A person goes to see a new horror film in the theatre. It can be argued that horror films in fact contain the message that murder, or rape, or whichever amoral message you choose, is okay. However, save for the psychopaths among us, the majority of people agree that it is wrong to commit any such of these acts. How then is it possible to say that by paying for the ticket to see such a movie that they are supporting the contents of the message.3. Lastly, there exists a circumstance where a person misinterperts the message of a movie based on a misrepresentation by the producers in previews. Say, upon watching the first five minutes of the movie that this person walked out, deciding that they do not support the message of the movie. The production studio will still register this monetary contribution, making no reference as to whether or not the person actually stayed in the theatre for the duration. Therefore, it is the case, that with succesful advertising, a producer could sway an audience to patronize a movie in where the producer introduces a message not originally stated by the preview.
When we buy tickets to a movie, we support the content of its message.

Thank you. Yes, I suppose I do need to clarify. In my opening statements, I am attempting to demonstrate how the flow of money influences what movies are made and sold to the public. If the public buys in, it sends a message to the movie's producers saying "We like this stuff. Give us more." Now I believe most people do not think this way. I suppose to them it is just a movie and they are simply being entertained and there is no further complexity to it. On the other hand, movie producers do not think this way. In fact, it is there job to consider public opinion. Now, there are no doubt some production companies and some directors who are less concerned with public opinion. However, even they are at the mercy of public opinion somewhere on the string of causation. We may not think about it, but when we purchase tickets to a movie we offer a small monetary contribution. We play a small part in making it possible to produce more films with a particular message. Namely, the message from the film for which we purchased tickets.
When we buy tickets to a movie, we support the content of its message.

First, however, I would like to point out that your opening statement bears no relevance to the question at hand. The topic to be debated is whether or not buying a movie ticket constitutes support for the message presented in the movie. In your statement however, you propose that one influences a string of causation, resulting in monetary gain for some party. Clarification is needed for your statement to maintain relevance to the original topic. I look forward to your argument.
When we buy tickets to a movie, we support the content of its message.

Observe, if you will, that when one buys a ticket to a movie, one influences a string of causation threading backward from the cash register, to the bookkeeper, to management, to the theater"s CEO where is determined the fate of the cinematic production in question. From here, the string does not terminate. It continues its trek perhaps even to the hills of Hollywood where directors and producers must collaborate to make their art palatable to Main St. (average Joe) so that Wall St. (the CEO) and Hollywood can make money. The same is true in reverse. The first round may be a quick rebuttal if preferred by the Con. Later rounds may be reserved for more extensive arguments.
Resolved: The US ought to go to war with North Korea.

Thank you Mr. Nasworthy for this opportunity to debate with you! First off, North Korea does not have any guaranteed allies but it is thought to believe that Russia & China would back them up if anything was to ever happen. Also, I can almost promise you that they would force S. Korea to back them up too. So, N. Korea possess an emanate threat to the U.S. They also have been threatening us for many years and are waiting for the right time to hit us. They have missiles, that's granted, and they are letting us know by dropping them off in the ocean. NYC, Chicago, Boston, St. Louis, Los Angeles and Philadelphia are easy targets. And trust me, they are crazy enough to do it. Oh, btw... The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution encouraging inspections of North Korean ships suspected of transporting weapons and prohibiting the refueling or re supplying of the ships. Now that that's cleared up. You say, "Anything accomplished by going to war with N. Korea would not be worth the thousands of lives lost and families destroyed as a result." Well, this MAY be true, but, if they drop missiles on us, there will be more lost lives than WWII its self. Kim Jong-il is a pshychoand it would NOT surprise me if he started dropping bombs off on N. America! I look forward to your response.
Resolved: The US ought to go to war with North Korea.

The affirmative must prove that the US has just cause to go to war with North Korea. I believe the US should not go to war with N. Korea because: 1. N. Korea is not a threat being that they are isolated from virtually the entire international community. So they have no legitamate allies to protect them if they did want to start a war. 2. N. Korea has not given any reason that I know of for the US to need to go to war with them. 3. Anything accomplished by going to war with N. Korea would not be worth the thousands of lives lost and families destroyed as a result.