BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All 'drugs' should be made legal and be controlled by the state.

The early part of the 20th century saw laws and legislation introduced to control narcotics that are still used today. Even though our understanding of the effects of these narcotics, their influence on health and lifestyle have improved greatly and there are scientific studies and statistics that add weight to the argument for legalisation, we are no closer to these antiquated laws being reversed. We are a long way from living in a world where adults are allowed to make choices for themselves in regards to consumption. One point as an example: The root of all 'drug' related crime is prohibition. Product illegality has created a black market which is a very successful business. The success of this business is wholly reliant on the demand for the product. Unfortunately for governments, this industry has shown no sign of weakening. Is it not time for another approach? My argument is PRO legalisation. Please provide a counter argument that includes references and facts as support.
All 'drugs' should be made legal and be controlled by the state.

===My opponent dropped argunments!=== 1. He bender defended his round one case from my attack 2. Dropped C1 of my case last round. ===My opponents main case failed=== 1. Never proved my statistics where flawed 2. Using science I showed my case is credible ===Why C1 stands=== 1. I proved using evidence legalizing drugs increased consumption 2. My opponent offered NO counter evidence 3. He dropped the point before he forfeited ===Why C2 stands=== 1. He never proved drugs didn't cause crime 2. His worries looked into a black market, I showed a black market would still exist under legalization, so point null. ===Forfeit=== Conduct point con ===Voting issues=== Arguments: obviously con Sources: depends on the view, I cited a peer reviewed study and websites with credible backing, but he had more total sources. Conduct: con (pro forfeited) S/G: you choose. 4 - 0 (or 6 - 0) in favor of con.
The Democrats won the Vietnam War for North Vietnam

I am going to use this round to teach everyone a history lesson. Late in the war in 1972 the US decided to begin bombing The North Capital. Hanoi and the port city Haiphong. We told them we would stop if they agreed to attend the Paris peace talks, and it worked. We attended, North Vietnam attended, and the Viet Cong attended. The end agreement was that the communist invasions would immediately halt, and they did. And we made sure that North Vietnam wouldn't try to invade again by making a public agreement with South Vietnam, stating that if the North where ever to invade again, then we would supply South Vietnam with a piece by piece replacement deal. This effectively ended the war. No one should be chasing peace anymore, because peace has already been achieved. The deaths of that war, while tragic, meant something. We had helped the South Vietnamese escape communist tyranny. That day was known as Victory in Vietnam Day. But it wasn't over yet. You see, the Democratic peace activists were upset, the war was over, but they were still mad. These people had invested in Americas failure, since we won the war, their whole movement would be labeled as a failure and they wouldn't be remembered. But they were thrown a huge life preserver when Watergate went down, effectively ruining Nixon's reputation and the reputation of the Republican party. Do to this, the democrats had a landslide victory in the congressional elections. And they used their majority to announce to the entire world, fresh out of war, that if North Vietnam were to invade the weaker south, the US would do nothing. Why do this? The North immediately invaded. The deaths that once stood for something, were then thrown away, all because of the Democrats selfish preoccupations. It was with Democratic principles, the support of the Democratic Party and Peace Movement, that this happened. And the rest were powerless. President Gerald Ford nearly begged them in front of the nation to keep the promise of the US, to make sure that we don't throw away all the effort we put into help the South, and the all walked out. Heartless. They selfishly threw the war away, the war that was already won. Tell me now, who lost the war? Did they really bring peace? Was it at all ethical to throw away this war that we won? The answer to all is no. Thank you for reading.
The Democrats won the Vietnam War for North Vietnam

This is not a debate on whether the Vietnam war was worth fighting or not, but simply on whose fault it was that we lost, or if my opponent wants to, that we never could win, his or her choice. I will not be presenting my arguments round one and I don't care whether or not my opponent chooses to do so. All I ask is that they are respectful and stay on topic at all times. I will not ask my opponent to cite sources right away, but if I believe that false information is being used then I will. And if my opponent would like me to cite my sources then I would be happy to.
Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting

While I agree that most of the time it's better to vote than not to vote I also feel that not voting can be a way to send a message in times of great injustice or when there is no good choice available. I don't agree that more voters produces a more democratic result or even a good result necessarily. Perhaps not voting can tell those in power and fellow citizens that your are choosing to not participate in whatever it is that you are protesting.
Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting

Open to any taker. I have heard the oft-repeated pernicious view that voting is an irrational act, and that voting in an imperfect system is somehow a form of selling out. This view is a troubling self-fulfilling policy. Everyone should vote in every election that you are eligible to vote in. Even if your candidate does not win, it is always worth it to try. A high voter turn out makes the democratic body more representative of the people, more efficacious, and it sends a message to those in high office what the people support.
Stress can positive effects

My next argument is to show that whilst stress is said to motivate themselves to get things done, This can also later amount to future stress and rushing to get other tasks done. To further explain, If one is rushing to complete many tasks in a set time period this potentially lead to inaccuracy and poorly done work. It is evident that my opponent"s point made; "Studies show that it also increases you your senses to avoid physically stressful situations, " also hints that you need to endure stressful situations in order to improve one"s reflexes. Study shows that 35 percent of Australians report having a significant level of distress in their lives. Stress also results in bad outcomes like bad eating habits, Overreacting, Sadness and irritability on the human body. To conclude, Whilst my opponent made good points on how stress can have positive effects, Bad stress seems to outweigh the good kind of stress, Leading to future or current mental health issues.
Stress can positive effects

Although my opponent makes great points about the negative effects of stress as she said there are many different definitions some of which say that stress is a positive thing not a negative thing. The physical reactions that she mentioned like headaches and fatigue only occur when the stress cannot be managed even though stress can be easily managed by doing simple exercises that will help future development and problem solving skills. Although the feeling of being nervous to some is uncomfortable this can also be easily channeled to excitement. All of these habits such as anger outbursts and eating habits are not entirely linked to stress, When managed correctly, Stress is a stimulant for doing whatever it is that needs to be done. Homework and work load are difficult to manage but the stress that is endured is essential to success in life. If you develop organisational skills from a young age then the stress that comes from this workload will be much lesser and can even be avoided.
Stress can positive effects

To start of, I will express stress as a state. Though stress has never been given a definition that all people agree with, The most relevant meaning for the word is; the physical, Mental, Or emotional strain or tension that alters one"s ability to function properly. In some instances, Stress is thought to motivate one to complete challenges or desired tasks. Whilst the satisfaction of finishing a task is quite pleasing, This does not disregard the feeling of nervousness. Stress causes physical pains like headaches, Body aches and even fatigue, It also causes behavioural and emotional habits and problems like constant anger outbursts, Alters in eating pattern, Anxiety, Worry, Pressure, Irritability and overwhelmed feeling. All these outcomes somewhat assist to gaining more stress because of the extra attention needed to one"s well being. Statistics show that 16% of Australians (that suffer from stress) report that is majorly from study and homework load.
Stress can positive effects

I believe that Stress can have many positive effects both for your mental and physical health. Stress motivates people to do things that they know they have to do even though they are difficult. It has many mental positive effects such as boosting your brain power by boosting the production of neurons that improves performance and improving your brain strength so you will be better at managing your stress next time you are in a stressful situation. Some of the physical positive effects are that it can enhance child development if the stress is good stress, The children would be more developed and would have more problem solving skills as they grow up than the children born without stress. Stress helps give us a lower risk of early death in life and improves short term immunity. Studies show that it also increases you your senses to avoid physically stressful situations (such as jumping away from a moving car).
Barack Obama is the best choice for '08 president

"I really don't see how you think you're proving me wrong. Ok, maybe Obama does not have executive experience.... So what does that mean? You haven't presented anything for me to debate against. I don't see what to say here." I except your surrender. Like I said there are many candidates that have executive experience. I suggest u take a serious look at a few of them. Any of them are capable of doing the job. I don't agree with many of them, but at least I know they speak from experience and not just full of "good ideas".
Barack Obama is the best choice for '08 president

"Did you really just tell me that Obama has no experience? He is on the Senate. He's involved in the Foreign Relations Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security ,Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Veterans' Affairs committees." Committees are not Executive experience...you've glanced right over that. And all senators must sit on various committees. "He's won the following awards: Best Spoken Word Album, Grammy Award, 2006; Chairman's Award, National Association for the Advancement Colored People, 2005; 100 most influential people in the world, Time Magazine, 2005; 10 people who will change the world, New Statesman, 2005; Harold Blake Walker Award, Christopher House, 2005; Rock the Nation Award, Rock the Vote, 2005; Outstanding Legislator Award, Campaign for Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998; Best Freshman Legislator Award, Independent Voters of Illinois, 1997; Monarch Award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994; "40 Under 40" Award, Crain's Chicago Business, 1993." Again, none of those show any Executive experience, seems like he's politically active. That doesn't qualify as Executive experience. "He also has written the following publications: "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" (1995); "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" (2006) and "It Takes a Nation: How Strangers Became Family in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina" (2006)." See previous response. "He's a favored Democratic candidate and has been in all the recent debates. I honestly cannot beleive you just said that." Again no proof of executive experience. It's not my fault if the Democrats elect ppl like it's the prom king or something. "Also the purpose of this debate is to prove that there is some other candidate that would be a better president something that, no offense, you have failed to do." No read the subject line, "Barack Obama is the best choice for '08 president". It does not reference anyone except Barack. I simply have to prove that he is not the best choice for '08 president, not give a specific candidate as an alternate. My argument is that he doesn't have the needed experience to be president. Anyone having the experience i've listed would be better suited in my opinion. But, you however haven't addressed any of my argument, so it would be you that is "failing".
Barack Obama is the best choice for '08 president

.... Did you really just tell me that Obama has no experience? He is on the Senate. He's involved in the Foreign Relations Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security ,Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Veterans' Affairs comitties. He's won the following awards: Best Spoken Word Album, Grammy Award, 2006; Chairman's Award, National Association for the Advancement Colored People, 2005; 100 most influential people in the world, Time Magazine, 2005; 10 people who will change the world, New Statesman, 2005; Harold Blake Walker Award, Christopher House, 2005; Rock the Nation Award, Rock the Vote, 2005; Outstanding Legislator Award, Campaign for Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998; Best Freshman Legislator Award, Independent Voters of Illinois, 1997; Monarch Award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994; "40 Under 40" Award, Crain's Chicago Business, 1993. He also has written the following publications: "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" (1995); "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" (2006) and "It Takes a Nation: How Strangers Became Family in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina" (2006). He's a favored Democratic candidate and has been in all the recent debates. I honestly cannot beleive you just said that. Also the purpose of this debate is to prove that there is some other candidate that would be a better president something that, no offense, you have failed to do.
Barack Obama is the best choice for '08 president

I have good policies too. I would like your vote for President. That sounded silly, didn't it? That's because I have no experience in the matters of any high level executive position. Neither, does Barack. Ideas do not qualify anyone as a good president. You need experience in running a large company or a government office with executive responsibilities (i.e. mayor, or governor). If you had a company would you hire a guy that came to you with "good" idea's, but no experience in executing them? let alone any experience to learn from attempting to execute them. You should have more respect for the office of President than you would a private company. Your standards should be higher, not lower. The only experience Barack has is with legislation. Even at that he is limited. He hasn't spear headed anything or been a federal official long enough to even have a firm grasp on the inner workings of Washington (that's why he hasn't taken the lead on anything). Lastly, when you apply for a job you may share your views for how you can perform the job, but your experience is what gets you in the door. The reason for that is because the best way to predict a person's future performance is by past performance.
Barack Obama is the best choice for '08 president

Barack is the best choice for president in the upcoming year. This can be easily illustrated by looking at his economic, foreign, and social policies. First off economic. In 2007 Obama stated that he supported "merit pay" for our teachers. For those of you unfamiliar with Merit Pay it is the concept of paying people at how effective they are at there job. This would encourage teachers to help their students that are having problems, dedicate themselves to the school, and ultimatly get rid of any ineffective teachers. Obama also voted in favor fo the BioFeuls Security Act in 2007. This is a bill that calls for the cease of production of single-fuel vehicles in 2016, making our automobile market purely hybrid. Obama doesn't just support the health of our biosphere though, he's also interested in the health of the American people, fully in favor of universal health care. Obama is against favoring the rich in tax cuts too, not wanting to make these estate tax cuts permanent. He also beleives in equal pay, saying "You gotta pay your workers enough that they can actually not only shop at Wal-Mart, but ultimately send their kids to college and save for retirement." Moving on to Barack's foreign policy. Barack's first major speech on foriegn policy was delivered on April 23, 2007 to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He pointed out 5 ways that America can solve it's problems and lead again "Bringing a responsible end" to the war in Iraq and refocusing on the broader region. "Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it." "Marshalling a global effort" to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats," including climate change. "Invest in our common humanity" through foreign aid and supporting the "pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." During the speech Obama also said we should improve our Armed Forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. As far as immigration goes Obama supports a guest worker program. He has said "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population." Finally Barack's social policies, mainly abortion and gay marriage. Obama is in support of abortion and has been highly praised with his votes towards family managment plans and contraceptives. He is also in support of civil unions for homosexuals, sayign all citizens need to have the same rights. With all these good policies and views I see no other canidate that even compares to Obama. I urge someone to convince me otherwise.
The Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

To open the offer and acceptance stage, I will rid any confusion by saying that I will be arguing in favor of The Lord of the Rings and my opponent shall support Harry Potter. For clarification's sake, the arguments for which is better are based on content (characters, setting, plot, etc) and not which sold more. As such, claiming one sold more is not considered a relevant argument. I ask my opponent to rely more on the books, however adaptations are still accepted. If adaptations are used the argument must still focus on content and not trivialities such as special effects.
ectopioc pregnancies: 'removing baby' is the moral equivalent of removing the tubes with baby in it

Well, the procedure is called an abortion or termination. Only using the medical name. I guess that removing a fetus without the tube and removing the fetus with the tube are the same then? Either way, it winds up killing the fetus. I don't see how that's different from a direct abortion however, because even by merely removing the fetus, it's still cut off from the mother's blood supply and will quickly die after that. Both options (simple removal vs. direct abortion) have the same result, so are they that different from a moral standpoint?
ectopioc pregnancies: 'removing baby' is the moral equivalent of removing the tubes with baby in it

that is not the way moral theologians and philosophers describe it. they say it is moral because it is the "prniciple of double effect". this means it is not an ends means sitaution to begin with. this is argued by conservative religious types who do not believe the ends justifies the means. if it were as you said, then anytime the mother is at risk, you could do even a direct abortion and it would be moral. i have my quibbles with the theory, but that' the theory. and, i still take issue with you calling it an abortion. and, im sure in many situations you could just remove the baby, at least in place other than the tube. my point still remains that it is essentially the same as removing it with the tube etc. you haven't really addressed this, other than to say the point is moot due to various factors.
ectopioc pregnancies: 'removing baby' is the moral equivalent of removing the tubes with baby in it

It's still considered an abortion. The medical treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. As I said in round one, the only reason the tube is taken as well is because it's much simpler to remove the entire tube than trying to remove the fetus and leave the tube intact. It's an abortion coupled with the removal of a Fallopian tube. What would make the case of an abortion (and subsequent removal of the Fallopian tube) for an ectopic pregnancy moral is that it's a medically necessary procedure. Without the treatment, the tube will rupture and the mother will die. It isn't moral because you're not directly killing the fetus, it's moral because without the abortion, the mother will die.
ectopioc pregnancies: 'removing baby' is the moral equivalent of removing the tubes with baby in it

i wouldnt classify ectopic pregnancies and tube removal as abortion. in some sense it is. but it is done as a 'moral' alternative. that is, it isn't direct killing so it wouldn't be considered abortion. abortion is direct killing. i'm not arguing to remove the uterus. im arguing to just remove the baby. no tubes, no other organs. if removing the tubes with a baby in it is considered morally legit, just removing the baby alone should be considered legit as well.
ectopioc pregnancies: 'removing baby' is the moral equivalent of removing the tubes with baby in it

With ectopic pregnancies, they must abort the fetus, or else the tube will rupture and possibly kill the mother. Usually, the tube is removed along with the pregnancy because it's easier that way than trying to open and close the thin tissues of a Fallopian tube. Also, the woman has a second tube to release eggs with when one is removed. Removing the uterus is totally different because a woman only has one and removing it would render her infertile. Removing a tube along with a pregnancy isn't done to say "at least I didn't have an abortion...". It's done because it's a simpler procedure with less risks, and won't make the mother infertile. Removing a uterus with a baby is completely different because it would make the woman unable to have any more kids. Either way, you wind up with a dead fetus, but at least by only removing the child you don't make the mother sterile. I apologize if I am debating the wrong argument. Please correct me in Round Two if this is the case.