BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Full Drug Legalization

Let's say we do realistically legalize all drugs Realistically Instead of a "Street Tax" that people pay now it will include a "Sales Tax" The Tax on the drugs (just like with alcohol and tobacco) will always be subject to legislative increases. (This would make the cost even higher) This would drive people to purchasing illegal versions to avoid the taxes also seen with things like moon shine Government moves to regulate drugs to remain consistent with alcohol laws We put the same restrictions on it as alcohol. This means no one under a certain age is allowed to consume This means there is a consumption limit This means that consumption in certain places or during certain activities (driving) will be restricted This also means we will still have the same problems with drugs as alcohol. Minor in Consumption Minor in Possession Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor The Open container version for drugs (so people are still getting arrested for non violent crimes) The FDA will more than likely be involved in the process of "watering down" most of these drugs (taking away the major reason people would buy them.) This would drive people to buy illegal versions of the drugs still, just cycling the current problems we face with drugs today. Also as you agreed with, causing at least the same number of problems we would see with alcohol and cigarettes. The bottom line is regardless what steps you make to try to safeguard these drugs, people will always try to find the next biggest high. If you honestly believe the legalization of these drugs will decrease the use of them, you are a fool. I showed you what happened in Alaska, and usage just increased. If you believe that the violence associated with these drugs will go away with no drug dealers, once again, fool. I showed you how it is the drugs themselves that cause violent behavior. As for your prohibition argument- I don't know where you got your information or if you made it up from personal reflections but, Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto). Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents. As for your argument that no one has the right to tell us what we can consume, I think you would have been better off starting a debate about getting rid of the FDA. Change for the sake of Change is never good. There is no reason to Fully Legalize Drugs
Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Someone wrote: "I agree with statement 1 trough 8 in the first proof" "I do not agree with statement 4 in the first proof" Your mere agreement or disagreement with any particular statement does not have any effect on the truth of that statement. "It should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the proofs don't work like that" Yes they do. ", because if they did they could be used to prove the existence of literally anything" No they couldn't. " (demonstrated below with gnomes) 1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ). (Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). 2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ. (Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated). 3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ. (If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ). 4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about gnomes. 5. Therefore, subjective opinions about gnomes exist. 6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about gnomes exist. 7. Therefore, valid observation of gnomes exists. 8. Therefore, gnomes exist objectively."" My next-door neighbor has a garden gnome in his garden that he bought at Home Depot. Garden gnomes are a type of gnome, so you're right -- gnomes do exist objectively. Thanks for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) ...but this debate is not about garden gnomes or about gnomes in general, it is about God and about subjective moral ideals: You proved that gnomes exist, but that is not relevant to the actual debate -- it is merely a red herring logical fallacy on your part. You have proven nothing about God, nor have you proven anything about moral ideals. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Thank you Purushadasa for setting up this debate.I agree with statement 1 trough 8 in the first proof if(!) "Moral Ideals" are defined as something like "a moral principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal,". Which means that certain moral ideals are conflicting (because other people might pursue conflicting moral principles or values as a goal).If moral ideals are defined as such than statement 1 in the second proof doesn't follow from anything because in that case moral ideals are created by mortals (and can be in conflict with each other). Rendering the rest of the proof moot.I do not agree with statement 4 in the first proof if(!) "Moral Ideals" are defined as something that doesn't exist, like for example "a law about how mortals ought to act created by a deity.".If moral ideals are defined as such than statement 4 is not self-evident because it could be that those "some persons" possess subjective opinions about the description of moral ideals instead of those moral ideals themselves. Rendering the rest of the proof moot.-------------The trick to understanding where these proofs go wrong is in the following statement:"(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ)"Opinions formed about "moral ideals" aren't actually about moral ideals at all if moral ideals don't objectively exist, they are about some other thing (probably the descriptions of those non-existent moral ideals).------------It should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the proofs don't work like that, because if they did they could be used to prove the existence of literally anything (demonstrated below with gnomes)1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ). (Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). 2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ. (Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated). 3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ. (If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ). 4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about gnomes. 5. Therefore, subjective opinions about gnomes exist. 6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about gnomes exist. 7. Therefore, valid observation of gnomes exists. 8. Therefore, gnomes exist objectively.Surely you could respond with "How do we know self-evidently that some persons possess subjective opinions about gnomes AKA satement 4?" To which I would reply "We do not. They could simply have subjective opinions about the descriptions of gnomes."
Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ). (Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). 2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ. (Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated). 3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ. (If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ). 4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about moral ideals. 5. Therefore, subjective opinions about moral ideals exist. 6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist. 7. Therefore, valid observation of moral ideals exists. 8. Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively. In addition, the conclusions of the above proof also prove that God exists objectively: 1. If God does not exist, then objective moral ideals do not exist. 2. Objective moral ideals do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. QED
Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Thanks again for the quick response."Yes they do: Some people think abortion is morally wrong, while others think abortion is morally right. Those are two moral ideals that definitely exist."If that is the definition of moral ideals that my opponent uses, than indeed; moral ideals do exist, as I have stated in my first response. However, if my opponent uses that(!) definition of moral ideals than moral ideals can all come from mortals and therefore no god is needed. The statement "If God does not exist, then objective moral ideals do not exist." would be untrue if all moral ideals can come from mortals as I have stated already in my first response.I have not proved that either living gnomes or plastic gnomes exist or don't exist. Those examples where simply used to show the flaws in the proof as the proof is a tautology. I haven't used the proof of my opponent to prove or disprove anything.I have shown the subject of this debate, the proof named "Proof of God Via Subjective Morality", to be flawed.The burden of proof is not always 100% on the Pro side and I have not claimed that. But even if it was, a single argument from the Pro side would be enough to win if the Con side did not come up with a respond. So simply showing up and doing nothing would not win anyone any debates.My opponent calls me an ignorant charlatan, I find this amusing and wish him wisdom and happiness.Thank you for the debate and thanks to any readers or judges.
The EU ought to impose economic pressure to prevent the spread of illiberalism in its member states

"The European Union’s fundamental values are respect for human dignity and human rights, Freedom, Democracy, Equality and the rule of law. These values unite all the member states – no country that does not recognise these values can belong to the Union. "- https://europarlamentti. Info/en/values-and-objectives/values/Definition of Liberalism in the context of this debate (Liberalism is the opposite of Illiberalism):"a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, Parliamentary systems of government, Nonviolent modification of political, Social, Or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, And governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "- https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/liberalismIt would be a very simple level of comprehension to draw a parallel with Liberalism and the values and objectives of the EU if one realises that Illiberalism stands against democracy, Equality, Freedom and even at times human dignity and rights. The only core value of the EU that Illiberalism doesn't stand against is the respect of rule of law. Now comes the big question; is it going to increase support of Illiberalism more so than respect for the EU sticking up for its values? I say no it won't. It would also be quite hypocritical for anyone who is against Liberalism to support the liberty of EU member-states to act against the rulings and core values of the organisation since this freedom would be Liberal by its very nature.
Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace

The only places where tattoos can't be covered with clothes are the face, neck, and hands. Applying the cover up to these areas will take no longer than 20 minutes, and its virtually the same as a woman applying and taking off her make up every day. The cover up retails for $37, and a little goes a long way. The price is a bargain for the quality of the product. As for the piercings, I myself have had my lip and nose pierced, and the holes are so small you can't even notice them unless you're looking closely at my face. These holes can be covered with concealer as well, making them nearly invisible.
Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace

There may be ways to cover up tattoos but who wants to sit there an hour before work putting heavy make up on to go to work then having to wash it off every night. It will become tedious and eventually expensive. As for piercings there may be plugs that substitute for the earring itself but if you have an eyebrow ring, nose ring, lip ring or any piercing around your face, that hole is still going to be noticed and look unprofessional in the employers eyes.
Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace

For tattoos that cannot be covered with clothing there is a special cover-up made for tattoos that can be used to conceal them. As for piercings, they can be temporarily taken out for the day and replaced with retainers (plastic, nearly invisible jewelry that is placed in the piercing to keep it from closing. It is not impossible to keep them concealed in the workplace so having them shouldn't be an issue.
The use of phrase "I treat you like a lady" is hypocritical in the modern western society

Garbanza, Thank you for elaborating your point of view further. You mentioned, that in your view, people who subscribe to anti-feminist and anti-egalitarian points cannot be hypocritical in using a phrase "I treat you like a lady". I ask a question: why would people use this phrase? In my view, it's instrumental. Unnecessary, exagerrated and decorative signs of attention in small trivial things associated with being a proper gentleman or lady themselves in treating another person. What do people want? I argue, that they want to: -be proper, thus acting in accordance with societal conditioning which devides everything into proper and improper, acceptable and not acceptable - just as their parents told them to do when they were kids. -using the term "lady" also elevates them into a setting where they consider themselves "a lady" or "a gentleman", thus psychologically raising their status in their eyes (even if the status is anachronistic) -get certain results and favours from the person who they refer to as "a lady". Be it sexual favours, a feeling of guilt, or a feeling of being obliged for all of the "treating like lady". I believe, that "treating like a lady" refers to a particular play, a role that two people are supposed to play, thus making someone who uses the phrase to achieve either emotional satisfaction or other rewards. This is where hypocrisy lies - in manipulation. This is why I believe that the use of the term "I treat you like a lady" is hypocritical in a context of a modern western society. We stopped wearing dresses and suits of the 19th century, riding horses, and going to a post office to send a telegram to a friend. Even if we do it for masquerades and themed parties once a year, it's a game, not a real thing. It's time to stop masquerading with words and start living and having open communication by saying what we really want.
The use of phrase "I treat you like a lady" is hypocritical in the modern western society

"Now I like openin' doors Pickin' up (Yeah) her hanky (Yeah) off the floor Treat her like a lady (Treat her like lady) Light her cigarette if she smokes Even (Help her with her coat), well Treat her like a lady (Treat her like lady)" So goes one oldie song. And this is another illustrative example I use apart from the story from my friend. I'd like to keep the discussion within the context of society at large. We can discuss what a lady means. But in the context of a phrase "treat like a lady" has a special meaning. It's mostly related to an old cultural tradition where a woman is generally regarded as a fair sex (also weak, unable, to put a coat on, or to open the doors for herself - hey I can even agree with this - with the dresses of the 18th century it was difficult indeed. ) The phrase has roots in the times of greater social and economic inequality among men and women. Now in modern Western society we base our social structures and communications on the prevailing principles of democracy and equality, including equality between genders,, even if it's still a work in progress. It has been the main narrative from media for the past 50 years. People under this age have been raised in this period (majority of the population, I would guess). On the other hand, some of the cultural remains and terms of the old system linger. According to the social psychologist, it's could be 40 years or more when the cultural traditions outlive its practical usefullness and context and still continue to be found in the society. As a result, modern Westerners find themselves at odds with the reality of the situation - aim to equality of sexes on one hand, and all cultural terms and misplaced meanings on the other. This is why, in my opinion, a modern Westerner, can not full heartedly use the expression "treat you like a lady" and not been torn between two opposing views of the social system. Furthermore, why use this term at all? Why not use I treated you with respect? I went out of my way to make sure you feel good? I treated you like a very good friend? - all these terms are much more relevant and easily understood in the modern context.
The use of phrase "I treat you like a lady" is hypocritical in the modern western society

I agree that the term "lady" refers to status, but I don't think it's outdated in the way Pro's friend used it. To say she treated Pro "like a lady" means that she treated her with the respect due to a woman of high status. Most people would know what she means, and that is an indication that the term is still in current use.Status still exists in our society. There are people are of high and low status who are treated accordingly. Therefore the concept of treating a guest to your house respectfully and appropriately for their status is not outdated. hypocritical: pretense of having virtues, beliefs,principles, etc., that one does not actually possess (1)To win this debate, Pro needs to show that her friend is pretending to have beliefs that she doesn't actually have. In particular, she needs to show that her friend didn't really think she was treating Pro as a high status woman.(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
The use of phrase "I treat you like a lady" is hypocritical in the modern western society

A friend of mine recently told me "I treated you like a lady", while referring to a welcome I received at her house one evening. I claim, that the use of the phrase"I treated you like a lady" is hypocritical in the context of a modern western society. The term lady is outdated and refers to women of high social class largely before the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, modern westerners (of any gender) do not have a practical day-to-day understanding of what it means to be a lady, as they were not brought up in the social structures that used it consistently. The term "lady" is mostly known to us from a romantic literature and movies with medieval topics. The term and the phrase are idealised and irrelevant to the modern context. Thus, any modern Westerner, who uses the phrase "I treated you like a lady" is hypocritical because she/he does not have a practical understanding of the term and consciously or unconsciously attempts make him/herself and others believe that they treated a woman at exceptional romanticized standards, that in actual fact they do not possess.
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

As you said Your god armor is from the gods you have defeated and I'm stronger than the gods times a googolplex making your god armor vulnerable to my attacks and as you can see my holy dual katana will burn your gates of Olympus to crisps. You have not Specify how fast you are making your light movement useless. Even though you reality warp my surroundings it will not affect me due to my holy armor and my Ultimate Defense. As you said your Infernal Daggers are not your strongest weapons making it impossible to penetrate my shield,armor, and defense. Your Shield of Vindication can only reflect many attacks not, but not all attacks. As I said my Holy dual katana's speed is faster than speed of light, enabling me to attack you more than a googolplex times due to my ultimate stamina. Making all your Skills/Attributes Useless before Jochem the Savior.
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

I'm sorry my friend, but haven't we discussed that all the people of the high council can do anything. I would take in account your statement about me only being able to kill gods, I could say that all you could do is save some people. I'm sorry but you are arguing with another member of the high council, we practically have the same attributes because as we said "The three of us are equal". Let me discuss my skills: Reality Warp: I can control and manipulate the very membranes of reality to do my bidding. As you said your armor cannot be affected by this said attack, I can reality warp your surroundings. Gates of Olympus: Also another type of Ultimate Defense, although this one does not have such a commonly used name. This skill will protect me from anyone or anything that may wish to pass through and only I may manipulate it. Light Movement: This is also one type of Ultimate speed affecting my reaction time, thinking, movements, and judgement. This skill is similar to yours because of it's effects. I'd also like to point out that I do not get affected by fatigue and my stamina is never diminished due to the fact that I am a godslaying entity that may never feel tired. god Armor: This armor consists of the remains of the gods I have slain and still contains their power. This being said I have all the defense I need because this armor may be declared as unbreakable and impenetrable by anyone or anything. Infernal Daggers: These are my primary weapons but they are not the strongest in my vast arsenal. They have a speed factor and is known to have a mind of it's own and only obeys me, Lance the Godslayer. Shield of Vindication: This shield is specialized to reflect or disregard many attack that may hit any part of it. I can also expand and retract to my will if I need further protection. Thank you for your arguments and good luck. Though I do believe that we are not supposed to be omnipotent, as we have discussed and based from your argument I'd say that you are trying to point out that you are indeed omnipotent. If you take in consideration this statement and change some of your arguments, I too will change some of mine as response. I only matched if not surpassed your skills to "fight fire with fire". Please consider this.
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

These are my Skills Ultimate Defense: Obviously Impossible to break, It also reflects and repels all kinds of attacks no matter what. Ultimate Speed: I'm faster than the speed of light or mach 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. This also relates to Reaction speed. Ultimate Attack: My Attacks are 1 hit K. O and I can do it infinity times. Ultimate Stamina: I never get Tired Holy Armor: Impossible to reality warp and repels demons Holy Dual Katana: With this my attacks are also faster than the speed of light and hotter than lightning Holy Shield: Makes invisible and Invincible. Thank you and Good luck .
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

In this debate, I'd like to point out that we will not have sufficient proof to support our points because non of them exist yet. Also, I'd be happy to debate about my own character although it's be better if Romulo the Worldbreaker is included in this argument, thus putting the High Council in a battlefield. We both discussed about our attributes and may the best debater win, especially because were using our designed characters. Good luck my friend.