BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Authors' unfinished work should not be published

I thank con for his response and I apologize for the delay in my response. Also, let's assume that there is nothing stated in the will pertaining to the release of the unfinished work. Obviously whatever was stated is what should be fulfilled. First, you mentioned how you don't see a lower standard of work as justification to publish said work. Later, you stated "if I was working on something and got it only 90% complete… I'd be pissed if it was locked away from the general public that it was originally meant for." This may be how you feel, but I would not want my unfinished or low level work to be released to the public. Quite frankly, I would find it rather embarrassing to have this released because of the standard to which I am expected to meet. I suspect this is the same attitude of high profile authors. They have a quality that the general public expects them to meet. If they do not feel they have met that quality, they will not release the work. Unfortunately, they pass away before they can fulfill this. The beneficiaries should take this into account. Also, I agree that the family (or other beneficiaries) deserve the final say since they will know the will of the author better than others. However, I highly doubt that this decision left for the family alone to consider the preference of the author. Imagine all the requests from the public and those offering money to gain the rights to the author's work. It has to be extremely difficult to turn down a large sum or extraordinary public pressure pertaining to the unfinished works. It is unfair for the author and the family to be pressured like this. I would assume the author would want a low level or unfinished work to be released to those who expect more out of him or her. Also, the curiosity and profitable opportunities of others should not be used as factors in the release of such an item.
Authors' unfinished work should not be published

Pro is saying that Authors' unfinished work should not be published. Pro is saying this because. .. 1) ". .. too often the posthumous work does not live up to the authors usual standard of work. " and 2) ". .. because they would not want their unfinished work to be released to the public. " While I agree with point 1, that they often do not live up to the author's standards, I don't see how this is justification to never publish them. I also must question point 2. How does Pro know that they don't want the unfinished work to be ever released? Unless they have documents that explicitly state that they do not want it released (like a will), it is nothing more then a piece of property that is passed to their children (or other beneficiaries) for them to use as they so wish. If the author does express in his or her will, then that should be upheld, of course. Personally, if I was working on something and got it only 90% complete, whether it be a book or a piece of art or anything that required a lot of effort. I'd be pissed if it was locked away from the general public that it was originally meant for. Bottom line, the only people that should have any say whether an unfinished work should or should not be presented are the author himself (through a will) or through the family that would best know his desires far greater then you or I or the government could.
Authors' unfinished work should not be published

Many authors have passed away before finishing a piece that on which they had been working. This piece may still have words and chapters to be added or it may simply need adjustment. Regardless, too often the posthumous work does not live up to the authors usual standard of work. I argue that despite our extreme curiosity, the authors' work should be left as is, because they would not want their unfinished work to be released to the public.
truth can only be in the past

I can't seem to get through to you. As I stated before , your brain has a fortress of resilient down syndrome protecting it from any logic. I'm afraid to try to convince you again... Lord knows what kind of shjt you'll post in Round 5. But I have to. This is a debate (well, more like teaching a piece of metal simple logic), but even so, I have to try. So... If I died, then yes, it would not be true that I opened the door. Because I wouldn't have. BUT DID I DIE??!?!?!? No, I'm typing this right here. That means that I opened the door, which is true. And I quote you, "yes true remains true." Therefore, if truth always remains true, whether in past, now, or the future, I was ALWAYS going to open that door. Me not opening the door is not true, it is false. Also, I'd like to point out one small error in your vast collection... your main title of the argument is "truth can only be in the past", and yet, in Round 2 and 3, you right "now=true" and "now is true", respectively. Unfortunately, you are too dumb to realize this huge contradiction, so it it pointless for me to point out. ...are you trolling me? There's no way you can be this dumb.
truth can only be in the past

Yes, there are two possibilities: a: I could be hindered in opening the door, possibly by death, or b: I could open the door. But what happened? I opened the door. Even though I didn't know it was going to turn out that way for sure, the truth is that I did. Something does not just become true. True remains true no matter what. Therefore it was predestined that I was always going to open that door, and anything besides me opening the door is false.
truth can only be in the past

Yes, right at this present moment, everything that is happening is true. You are not wrong in that statement. Just please realize that something in the future can also be true... it just hasn't taken place yet... for example, I will leave this room my opening a door. Although it hasn't happened yet, it is true, because that's what will happen. Let me test it out right now. Well, I just left and came back in, using the door. It seems the truth was right, even in the future.
On balance it is beneficial for the citizens of the United States to keep use of marijuana illegal

Basic DDO rules apply. Forfeits lose conduct. No new arguments in the last round. The first round is for acceptence only, unless my opponent wants to have the first word in which case I'll request that he doesn't post in his final round to keep the number of responses equal.Burden of proof: Shared. I must show that legalizing marijuana will have a net benefit, my opponent must show that keeping it illegal has a net benefit. In the unlikely event that neither of us fulfill our BoPs I guess the voters can just laugh at us in their RFDs.Definitions: Marijuana:http://en.wikipedia.org...(drug)USA:http://en.wikipedia.org...Illegal: Contrary to or forbidden by lawBeneficial is open for reasonable interpretation (for example one of us might suggest a utilitarian framework), however, please try to support whatever metric you decide to use.If I've forgotten anything I'm sure my opponent will let me know.
On balance it is beneficial for the citizens of the United States to keep use of marijuana illegal

Thanks for your round. I'll first counter your position then defend my arguments.It is worth noting the majority of my opponents arguments are directly copied and pasted from various websites;http://ksrpaniraj.hubpages.com...http://www.drugpolicy.org... (Ironically this one supports legalizing marijuana - more on this in a bit)http://www.cnbc.com...http://money.usnews.com... (This one also supports legalization)He also does not provide a framework for why making marijuana illegal should be considered "beneficial". I shall assume utilitarianism.My opponent makes 4 arguments:Marijuana has bad effectsMarijuana is untreatableMarijuana causes harm to those "making" itMarijuana is bad for the economy.Marijuana has bad effects.From my opponents own source:"Marijuana has not been shown to cause mental illness.Some effects of marijuana ingestion may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary.That said, none of this is to suggest that there may not be somecorrelation(but not causation) between marijuana use and certain psychiatric ailments. Marijuana use can correlate with mental illness for many reasons. People often turn to the alleviating effects of marijuana to treat symptoms of distress. One study demonstrated that psychotic symptomspredict later use of marijuana, suggesting that people might turn to the plant for help rather than become ill after use."http://www.drugpolicy.org... There is not a causal link between psychological damage and marijuana use. The other effects are very temporary. Whilst there are negative effects, they are minor, and certainly less than the negative effects caused by legal substances.[Iverson, Leslie. “Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis.” Current Opinion in Pharmacology 5(2005): 69-72 for an academic source backing this up - obviously, most don't have access to this source so don't count it in voting]TreatmentNone is necessary. It is essentially harmless.Harmful effects of making marijuanaThis argument is quite amusing. Lots of people are in jail for selling marijuana so marijuana legalization is harmful? This is self evidently absurd. These people would be better off if marijuana were legal. Your source and statistics undermine your own argument.EconomyThe first source my opponent provides does not suggest that legalization will be bad for the economy, but rather not quite as good as some have predicted. Either way, it is still beneficial economically.The second source has nothing to do with the economy, but states that many people are harmed by making marijuana illegal, so again, supports my argument, not my opponents. Defending my arguments:My opponent drops each of my arguments except the economy and marijuana having relatively low harm. He does not justify or respond to the claim that making marijuana illegal is use of force, and via the non-aggression principle (defended round 2) is "wrong".All arguments countered and most of mine dropped.
On balance it is beneficial for the citizens of the United States to keep use of marijuana illegal

Marijuana Ingredients--) --Generally refers to the dried flowers and subtending leaves and stems of the female cannabis plant. The major chemical component of the psychoactive marijuana is Tetrahydrocannabinol which is abbreviated as THC. Effects of Marijuana----) There have been many studies to identify the negative impacts due to the marijuana. Specialists have observed that brain is affected by THC. While smoking marijuana, THC passes from the lungs into the blood stream while the chemicals are carried by it to the brain and other organs of the body. Long-term usage of marijuana may lead to addiction. This has harmful effects on social relationships with family, work, school and entertaining activities. It causes sleeplessness, decreased taste, bad temper and anxiety all of which make it hard to quit. Excessive use of marijuana causes depression, anxiety, suicidal desire and schizophrenia. In youngsters this causes risk of mental illness, vulnerability, and exposure to violence. Treatment----) No medications are available while research has given the hope that there will be some medications to prevent and ease withdrawal of the intoxication results of marijuana. ( http://ksrpaniraj.hubpages.com...) Harmful effects of making marijuana More than 800,000 people are arrested for marijuana each year, the vast majority of them for simple possession. Police prosecuted 858,408 persons for marijuana violations in 2009, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation"s annual Uniform Crime Report. Marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (approximately 52 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. A decade ago, marijuana arrests comprised just 44 percent of all drug arrests. Approximately 46 percent of all drug prosecutions nationwide are for marijuana possession. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 88 percent (758,593 Americans) were charged with possession only. The remaining 99,815 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes virtually all cultivation offenses. http://www.drugpolicy.org... Marijuana bad for the Economy Legalize marijuana will crash prices and the tax revenue will not be what they want. A ballot measure to legalize marijuana in California would so upend supply and demand that pot prices could plummet by as much as 90 percent and possibly undercut the tax windfall that supporters have touted to sell the initiative. Pot prices could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as little as $38 per ounce before taxes as legal pot suddenly becomes available to the public, RAND researchers concluded. "With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?") http://www.cnbc.com... http://money.usnews.com...
Resolved: The USFG should increase construction of mineral accretion coral reefs in the US

Every single objection brought up in the last round was fundementally logically deficent, pushed hypocritical terms, limited the round educationally made an inumerable amount of hasty generalizaitons among other logical fallacies and debased this entire debate. Instead of crafting a debate with disadvantges directly relating to the case and coral reefs, con has intentionally decided to twist the plan text, manipulate connotation as well as denotation of words throughout the manuscript, and has repeatedly fabricated and promoted completely, flabbergastedly false arguments . I can barely express the discontent I hold for the diservice con has done to this debate. Every argument I made from the very begining of the debate has not been detered or challenged in the most minescule bit since con has laid eyes on it. The only mistake I have made through this debate is the lack of evidence supporting the cost of the plan, that is my fault I completely submit however con's actions are unchallangably unjustifiable. I am beyond words.For the reason that con has contorted the value of this debateFor the reson that con has attempted to super inflate the price of the plan uncompromisinglyFor the reason that con has showed slugish and indifferent intonation and argumentation throughout this debateAndFor the reason that this entire debate has been among the grounds of false logic, and has never once touched the True subject matter of coral reefs, disease prevention, nor hurricane destruction:I forfeit and unapologetically look down on anyone who would vote in support or opposition of this utter failure of a debate
Resolved: The USFG should increase construction of mineral accretion coral reefs in the US

In summation:Pro dropped Cost disad.Pro dropped State Protection disad.Pro dropped Trade disad.Con negated Tourism/Fishery advantage.Con dropped medical benefits disad. As far as the debate itself went, pro failed to fulfill their role as the affirmative team. This is a Policy Debate which demands that the pro, or whichever side is the affirmative, fulfill their burden of proof. The con went to great pains to find evidence and even use evidence that the pro presented to attack their case on valid points, somehow not satisfying the pro who claims that there is faulty logic without even pointing at what it is they wish to call cheating or lies this time. Instead of debating, the pro continually complained that the con was being abusive as the pro tried to amend their policy during a debate. What the pro claims was sluggish indifference, the con sees as reiterating facts that the pro either would not negate, drop or understand, particularly those in relation to the structure and general rules of a policy debate itself. As it stands, the con has proven that the plan may cost up to 9% of the US federal budget and there's no one to even execute this. The con has also proven that this presents a massive threat to our trade due to a lack of specificity in the plan text and the explicit exclusion of threatened states from protection. As the pro did not adequately, and in some cases did not at all, disprove, negate or present impact calcs to prove that their case is truly needed, the con can see no other ballot than that of the Negative Team.
a little socialism won't hurt us

The bible is the basis of american morality. . We are secualr in our government but our society was based cultural on judeo chrisitan ethics early Christains live communally for decades till the corrupt catholic church smashed this peaceful way of life, The catholic chrch is basically the mafia. . the bible says if you are moral and you have tow things, You give your extra away to the poor those in need you don't make excuses mock them and rationalize your selfishness as you just have, Jesus was asked by a man such as yourself what he needed to do to get to heaven, The story like many bible stories were allegories, Jesus asked the man had he led a good life and kept all the commandments, He said he had, And jesus told him that was very good but that wasnt enough. . He told the man to sell everything he had, Give the money to the poor
a little socialism won't hurt us

This is really easy. The whole world already has socialism. In correct doses. Its called capitalism. (Taxes and welfare) IF we increase the dosage, It is morally wrong. Just because 3 people agreed to beat another kid and take his money doesnt make it morally correct. You are taking someone's money. If you say I am "Uneducated" I come from Russia, A communistic country and a communistic family.
Islam is currently more dangerous to world peace and free thought than any other religion

Islam is currently more dangerous to world peace and free thought than any other religion because: 1) it suppresses the equal rights of women more than any other religion, 2) its followers are more often intolerant of criticisms or dissent leveled against it than are the followers of any other religion, 3) its followers are demonstrably more inclined to violence and intimidation tactics when faced with criticism or dissent than are the followers of any other religion. These are the broad categories supporting my thesis, each of which has it's own supporting arguments. I eagerly await my opponent's opening comments.
Objective Morality Necessitates a Higher Being

Respond with an introductory argument in your first response, respond to specific points in mine with your second. I will do the same. Clarification: The ambiguous term "higher being" does not necessarily denote a god, but rather any being with cognitive capacity which surpasses that of a human in that it can conceive of an objective morality. This role is usually assigned to a god but does not necessarily have to be. First, consider that humans have yet to come to to total consensus on any moral issue. Regardless of the dilemma, there will always be differing opinions. Even events and practices that seem to be clearly morally reprehensible on any grounds are supported by at least one individual. The obvious, hackneyed example is the Holocaust, which despite its seemingly apparent nefarious intent was supported by thousands. If humans had the capacity to conceive of an objective morality, it would have been implemented ubiquitously and world order would have been achieved. In this light, it is clear that moral objectivity cannot be grasped by the human mind. If it were to be understood, it would apply to all humans regardless of their inclinations and psychological disposition. Secondly, without a mind to conceive of morality there is no morality. Subjective morality is arbitrarily assigned by each individual. Each individual can then choose to adhere to his understanding of morality or to ignore it, but this exact morality does not exist outside of the individual. Consider the case of a man who believes it is his moral duty to massacre all beet farmers because of the vast suffering these vegetables cause among children. His concept of morality does not extend to those around him unless he can convince them to alter their own concepts of morality and join in the eradication of beet farmers. Perhaps he would be able to sway some disgruntled children but he would do so by imparting his ideas and manipulating theirs, not because they transcend the confinement of the mind. Morality does not simply spread via osmosis among individuals, but is rather internally nurtured and groomed and then perhaps shared. An objective morality must follow the same rules. Without an Entity to conceive and maintain such a morality, it has no effect on any beings. It does not exist in the mind of that which conceives and for this reason it cannot be shared with any others. Without a tangible effect or a presence in the mind of some being, there is no room for objective morality to exist. Therefore, for such a moral code to exist, an Entity of some sort must exist to delineate it. Without such an Entity, or some other greater mind in the universe, such an objective morality cannot exist. Humans cannot conceive of this morality, as defended in the first paragraph, and without a mind to inhabit morality does not exist as it cannot be found anywhere and has no effect on anything. Without any kind of presence or vestigial effect, as is the case if a higher being does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
Wrestling being eliminated from the 2020 Olympic Games

First of all wrestling is one of the oldest Olympic sports and that alone should be a good enough reason to keep it. When wrestling was chosen to be one of the sports that may not be on the 2020 Olympic program the wrestling community came together to make sure our dreams stayed alive. Just recently we had the Rumble on the Rails which is a tri-meet between the United State, Iran, and Russia. It took place in Grand Central Station and had very many spectators. It was also broadcasted on television. We brought three countries together in hopes of keeping something we love dearly in the Olympics.
Wrestling being eliminated from the 2020 Olympic Games

I can show you the poll that lists the seven sports competing for a spot on the 2020 program and wrestling is dominating them. You also clearly have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the three different styles of wrestling and their venues. Women's freestyle, men's freestyle, and greco roman are all held in the same venue not is several different ones. Women only having one style has nothing to do with equality. Actually I'm sure if the idea were proposed the FILA Wrestling committee would be more than likely to add it. Especially if it had to do with equality. Women have just never wrestled in greco but in my opinion women are lucky to have a style at all. They were never supposed to wrestle in the first place. As far as corrupt refs, I don't know where you are getting that from. You clearly know nothing when it comes to venues, viewers/competitors in attendance, and absolutely nothing about wrestling. If a referee were corrupt it would be very easy to tell, and they would immediately be gotten rid of. Are you going to make up anymore points?