BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex Offender Registries should be discontinued.

In his closing speech, my opponent gave three reasons why voters should vote for him. He has not been on debate.org for very long, but may I remind the voters: VOTE FOR WHO YOU THINK DID THE BETTER JOB DEBATING, NOT NECESARILY WHO YOU AGREE WITH ON THE TITLE. Voting for Pro or voting for con does not mean you think sex offender registries should be discontinued. Remember, you vote for the better debater so we will know if we need to work on something or not. My closing speech: *Sex offender registries don't hurt people, they help innocent people.* Thank you opponent and voters. This was a good debate.
Sex Offender Registries should be discontinued.

Since this is my closing speech, instead of doing a line-by-line response to your argument, I will present 3 reasons voters should vote for me. First, humanity. By voting Pro, readers will affirm the universality of humanity and reject a world based on demonization and fear. Sex offenders are human, just as the Jews and the blacks were, and deserve our concern. We must treat them equitably: we cannot murder them to preserve our toenails, so to speak. If a punishment imposes a monstrous harm on them for the sake of a minute benefit to society, we should abolish such a punishment. If a punishment upon them is unfair when compared to punishments for other crimes, then we must abolish the punishment. If a punishment is applied indiscriminately to people who pee publicly and serial rapists, then we must abolish the punishment. You will recognize that someone peeing in the gutter is doing a wrong thing by not exercising self-control, but that the punishment should still fit the crime. Second, the safety of the sex offenders themselves. This point ties into my first: sex offender registries encourage vigilantism. Gossip alone would be incapable of fuelling equal levels of vigilantism, because gossip would be unable to discover accurate details about the addresses of the sex offenders (especially if they change location), physical descriptions of the offenders, or perhaps even their names. Such details are necessary for vigilantes to locate their targets. By voting Pro, you will condemn and discourage vigilantism as unlawful and unjust. Third, public safety. By voting Pro you are recognizing that the rehabilitation of sex offenders would benefit society , and that sex offender registries prevent rehabilitation. You will allow sex offenders the chance to get homes, friends and jobs, and a second chance to create a constructive life. You will encourage them to seek therapy as soon as possible (which sex offenders often fail to do, despite Con's assertion that they "should" do so). Thus you will prevent offenders from succumbing to the self-fulfilling prophesy and from COMMITTING FURTHER SEX CRIMES, ironically, because of the registries. These benefits from Pro far outweigh the minimalist benefit of useless hope from registries that Con is claiming. Remember, Con has conceded that the effectiveness of registries is empirically denied. Con only claims that the lists provide parents with a useless sense of security and control; useless hope pales compared to humanity, offender safety, and public safety. "And just answer this: If a sex offender were living by you, would you want to know? " Instinctively, yes; but after applying logic to the issue, I would see that knowledge about sex offenders in the proximity is largely ineffective and even counter-productive, and that it engenders many social harms. And I hope that all rational people, who can overlook their immediate emotional response, will agree with me.
The Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% should be allowed to expire.

This is the debate we know we will be having in 2012. As Pro I will argue that we should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2% income earners (those making $250,000 yr or more) back to the rates they were under Clinton. My opponent will argue that we should make the current tax rates permanent or even a more drastic solution in that direction if he/she sees fit. My basic argument is as follows: 1. As our national debt continues to soar we will inevitably have to make sacrifices. Spending will have to be cut in some areas which will only hurt the lower classes. We need to share this burden as a nation. 2. The Republican and conservative talking point of "taxing the job creators" is a mischaracterization of reality. Individuals do not create jobs, businesses create jobs. A business will hire employees if it is believed that doing so will help the businesses bottom line (profit). The taxes in question are applied the individual after that profit is made and thus has no relation to the number of employees the business employs. 3. As our capitalistic society continues to mature the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. This is harmful to us as a nation and needs to be balanced for the good of the country. 4. I understand the argument that this would hurt a fragile economy but that is irrelevant considering that the question we face is not a matter of if we will have to take a hit but how.
Gun Rights

Meh. With the whole Harry Truman, insulting instead providing intellectual response...well...I don't want to be rude, but I've seen he's against gay marriage, so I can understand. But some guy, donald.keller, did that exact thing. When we debated gay marriage, he kept using his bible as an excuse, even though he was insulting me in every way, and half the things he said in the bible weren't, so I'm kind of used to it. When I debate, usually I just present info I found while not acting mean, just stern.
The United States Should Cut Direct Budgetary Aid to the Palestinian Authority

My Philosophy is the The United States Should Not Be Supporting Terrorism. The reasons listed above prove that the Palestinian Authority is linked with Hamas, (a U.S. designated terrorist group), that they reward terrorists, that the Police Force collaborates and sides with terrorists, and lastly how the government glorifies and promotes terrorism. Rep. Vern Buchanan once said: "This act of cold-blooded violence is an abomination, releasing millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the Palestinian Authority is outrageous. How can we justify this? We need to send an undeniable message to the world that actions do indeed have consequences." And this is really what it comes down to at the end of the day. Should the United States be supporting terrorism? The Affirmative team stands that no, we should not be supporting terrorism. Instilled in every American is the drive to work hard, survive, to make it. America is a country of patriotism and pride in our accomplishments. And yet we are allowing our taxpayer money to be given freely to terrorists. This is not right, and goes against everything that America stands for. By voting Pro you are sending the clear message that actions do indeed have consequences. It is for all these reasons that the Pro side stands firm: That the United States should not be supporting terrorism. Thank you.
Legalizing marijuana will result in degrading the quality of marijuana

SSSSSSSSSSSSMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEE WWWWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Legalizing marijuana will result in degrading the quality of marijuana

Alas! An argument against legalization that isn't completely absurd!Welp, you said anything goes and you didn't say 1st round was only for acceptance so I'll get right into it.ARGUMENTSTo start to understand how marijuana itself might be effected by it's legalization, we have compare the methods they are produced, handled and sold under each system. The main factor deciding these methods is who is selling the marijuana. So, who sells when it is illegal and who would be selling it if it weren't? Unfortunately, due to it being illegal, it's hard to track exactly where all the marijuana is coming from. Usually, on the black-market, you won't even know anything about the pot you're buying. But some research has estimated that, besides in California where medical marijuana has been legalized, somewhere around 2/3rds of marijuana is expected to be imported from Mexico, fueling the cartels [1]. You can be sure that the people running those cartels are not very nice people. I've always made sure I know where my marijuana is coming from so I know I'm not supporting them.And even though domestic growers are a lot more trust-worthy in general, there's still plenty of scummy people on that side as well. Why is this? Because, since marijuana illegal and you can do some serious jail time for growing it, the vast majority of people only willing to do so are those are already involved in other criminal activity. So, due to the secretive nature of the growing and those who it's growing are restricted to, there is a large amount of weariness one could rightly assume about the quality of their marijuana under these conditions.Smokers have often unwittingly bought product that has been laced with other drugs or even poisons. I've seen it myself plenty of times. Particularly recurrent is the lacing of PCP, which, for most people, is NOT a fun experience.[2]Now, in contrast, how would things be once they are legalized?Once marijuana is legalized, it is not longer oligopolized by a few people willing to take on the legal risk. Instead, it will produced by normal business people looking to out-compete others with the best possible product.And that's not the only reason the quality would improve. Now legal, it would also be open to regulations and safety standards through public over-site.That's all I have to say for now.SOURCES1. http://www.fronterasdesk.org...2. Go to any drug forum, there are thousands of personal accounts.
The Wii is the best home gaming console.

First off I apologize to my opponent for not being able to post last round, I had a couple of things going on. ON too the debate! "I cannot find the word "seven" anywhere on the page, nor can I find a relevant "7". Care to point out where it includes seven games?" PAC-MAN Championship Edition, UNO, Luxor 2, Boom Boom Rocket, Feeding Frenzy, Sega Super Stars tennis, and Hexic HD. "There's a lot of fun in a wiggle waggle fest." Maybe at first when the system was new and fresh, but now 3 years into it's life cycle it's been deprived of innovation. Because of the popularity of the Wii people release crap on it as often as they can hoping to make a quick buck. It's full of gimmicks. Xbox 360 games are of a MUCH higher quality. This can be attested to by seeing it's review scores "average of all Xbox 360 reviews cataloged on GameRankings turns out to be almost 70%. The same number for the PlayStation 3 is over 73% and for the Nintendo Wii ... a dismal 64%" http://www.edge-online.com... "I count 110 accessories. For the Xbox, I count 26. Suddenly, I find myself wanting a pair of Wii punching gloves." Once again I question the quality of these "accessories" I mean really a Nerf pack? http://www.bestbuy.com... All it is, is a piece of poorly made plastic. Sure you can have your accessories! Quantity does not beat quality. "The Wii destroys. Super Smash Bros. Brawl beat Halo 3" Nothing could be further from the truth! Super Smash at 8.49 mil, Halo at 9.61! I don't think I have to even tell you what's wrong with using WIKIPEDIA to find your facts! http://vgchartz.com... http://vgchartz.com... "The Wii is smaller than the Xbox." The 360 includes a DVD player, the Wii does not. A Wii + a DVD player = bigger then the 360 "The Wii has backwards compatibility with the ever-epic GameCube." The 360 does with the Xbox too. What are you even going to WANT to play from the Gamecube era? This is a silly point considering the Gamecube was a compete an utter failure compared to the other systems in the cycle. My opponent goes on to list some other barley used features. Once again when it comes to applications they speak for themselves, with a much higher quality of standard on the 360. Let's no forget one of the 360's biggest draws: HD. Beautiful high definition 1080p resolution. Everything can be high def! It's the BEST way to make use out of your HDTV and all it's features at a very low cost. This is a serous lacking component of the Wii. Quality beats quantity.
The Wii is the best home gaming console.

"The Xbox 360 IS the best gaming console. " Alright then, Wii vs. Xbox 360. "Xbox 360 is lower, going for only $200 and not only does it include the console itself, but also includes SEVEN games. If you're going to talk about value, don't even get me started the 360 dominates this category. " Note that that applies only to the Arcade version. I cannot find the word "seven" anywhere on the page, nor can I find a relevant "7". Care to point out where it includes seven games? "Great? The controller is one of the Wii's greatest faults. Sure it's cool to play around with, but all too often all Wii games just end up being a wiggle waggle fest and where's that fun in that? Oh and it has a verity of accessories? Xbox 360 has more. .. " There's a lot of fun in a wiggle waggle fest. Besides, it's not just wiggling. There's the pointer, and the balance, and the ability to use it as a bat/tennis racket/sword/etc. Most games use the Wiimote at appropriate times, such as pointing for many easy menu choices, shaking for an attack, etc. . http://www.bestbuy.com... I count 110 accessories. For the Xbox, I count 26. Suddenly, I find myself wanting a pair of Wii punching gloves. "So let's talk about functionality. " The Wii is smaller than the Xbox. The Wii has backwards compatibility with the ever-epic GameCube. Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection WiiConnect24 BBC iPlayer Internet Channel News Channel Forecast Channel Everybody Votes Channel Wii Shop Channel (including Virtual Console) Check Mii Out Channel Nintendo Channel WiiWare The Wii also beats the Xbox in sales, despite the price thing. And games: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Wii destroys. Super Smash Bros. Brawl beat Halo 3. "Total Wii games sold as of March 31, 2009: 353.02 million. " Finally, the Wii does NOT have a red ring of death. Beat that. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Wii doesn't even have a page of technical problems.
The Wii is the best home gaming console.

"It is my opinion that the Wii is the best home gaming console.? The Xbox 360 IS the best gaming console. - Low price: the Wii is one of the more inexpensive game consoles, going for usually $249.99. Xbox 360 is lower, going for only $200 and not only does it include the console itself, but also includes SEVEN games. If you're going to talk about value, don't even get me started the 360 dominates this category. http://www.toysrus.com... - Game controls: The Wii Remote (Wiimote) has pointer and motion-sensing functionality, as well as the ability to use a variety of accessories. Great? The controller is one of the Wii's greatest faults. Sure it's cool to play around with, but all too often all Wii games just end up being a wiggle waggle fest and where's that fun in that? Oh and it has a verity of accessories? Xbox 360 has more... http://www.xbox.com... So let's talk about functionality. Media center (Stream music, moives and photos from your PC http://www.dailymotion.com... Netflix Streaming http://www.youtube.com... Xbox Live Marketplace (Purchase game add-ons, and extra content) Video Store (Rent and buy movies and TV shows in HD) Xbox Live Arcade (Buy 360 games that appeal to wide verity of audiences.)
The Wii is the best home gaming console.

Nintendo Wii - http://en.wikipedia.org... Home gaming console - http://en.wikipedia.org... Best - excelling all others (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) It is my opinion that the Wii is the best home gaming console. For this debate, my opponent will choose one (1) other home gaming console to be compared to the Wii. From there, we will both present facts about either console, and try to defend or attack the pros and cons of each other's gaming systems. To start, I will present some of the pros of the Wii: - Low price: the Wii is one of the more inexpensive game consoles, going for usually $249.99. (http://www.articlesbase.com...) - Game controls: The Wii Remote (Wiimote) has pointer and motion-sensing functionality, as well as the ability to use a variety of accessories. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I await my opponent's responses. Please, no comments with any facts that may help either debater.
The United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Claim: Foundation of Kingdom of Hawaii is irrelevant. It is very relevant. The monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments. Claim: Annexation is illegal Just because something was against the law in the 1800s does not make it morally wrong. There was a lot wrong with the law back then. My opponent should be comparing the ethics of the Monarchy, the Republic, and the annexation. While the government that overthrew the monarchy was self-proclaimed so was the monarchy. Did people get to vote for their Queen? While I am sure some illegal things did happen on the American side, the monarchy which ruled the country was not exactly democratic and neither was the move by the Queen to abolish the existing constitution and replace it with a less democratic one. What should have happened is that we should have demanded that they allow their people to vote on joining us. If we were in 1900 I would have agreed with my opponent and proposed that we leave the nation. However, it is not 1900. It is 2014. Now the population regards itself as American and is no less patriotic than the rest of our great nation. Its joining the union has resulted in a must greater level of prosperity for the nation. So while the ethical groups of its joining us are shaky, overall good has come from it so in retrospect this action is generally good. Claim: The majority of the people of Hawaii have always been against annexation. I will agree that in 1898 they were against annexation. My opponent makes the claim that only 35% of Hawaiians voted for statehood. However, according to my opponent's own sources 77% who voted, voted yes and only 5% only 8,000 individuals voted no with 18% abstaining and voting on different issues. This 35% number erroneously includes all those who decided not to vote. By that measure, since only half of eligible voters vote in US elections, no recent president has gotten more than 35% of the vote of eligible voters. Even if this 35% number is correct in 1959, this feeling does not represent the Hawaii of today which is a much different place. Hawaiians are just as patriotic as other Americans and there is no evidence that a majority of them want to leave the union. If my opponent wants to kick them out the union can some data be presented showing that they even want it? I would totally support letting Hawaii vote on secession right now and I am confident they will vote overwhelmingly against it like any other state would. Let them decide for themselves. Don't just vacate them without their consent.
The United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

***I am extending my previous arguments.***"My opponent presents an interesting case however the Kingdom of Hawaii itself was formed by the otherthrow of the smaller kingdoms of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and began as a dictatorship. The kingdom became a monarchy thanks to the influence of westerners in the nation with a constitution but giving plenty of power to the Monarchy".Irrelevant, we are not debating Hawaii's foundation."At the time Hawaii had a significant sugar cane trade and a European and American business class had developed in Hawaii. In 1887 a new constitution was established with the American Base of Pearl Harbor decreasing the power of the monarchy. When queen Liliuokalani came to the thrown in 1891 she refused to recognize the constitution of 1887 and replaced it with a constitution increasing her own authority."Irrelevant, this has nothing to do with the legal status of Hawaii. "In 1893 several local Europeans staged a revolt and overthrew the queen."Not true, "January 17. General Interest. On the Hawaiian Islands, a group of American sugar planters under Sanford Ballard Dole overthrow Queen Liliuokalani, the Hawaiian monarch, and establish a new provincial government with Dole as president."[1], "The Republic was not full of saints as their constitution while stripping the Queen of power made voting rights depend on land ownership stripping many natives of the right to vote. Its system basically was based on giving most of the political influence to the Western business class. However, the queen was not a saint either and just wanted more power to herself. So I don't see any good guys in this conflict. The evidence indicates that most Hawaiians did not favor annexation at the time."Irrelevant, the annexation and overthrow was illegal, as I've already stated and proved."At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either."Not true, as I have already proved that the majority of Hawaiians are against it, even from the beginning.[2]"However as time went on, being part of the United States has benefitted Hawaii."Irrelevant, the United States hasn't been authorized to do so by the Hawaiians, as I have already proved this."The last fact I would like to point out is that even if the take-over of Hawaii was completely illegitimate, it was over 100 years ago place has changed"It doesn't matter. This is still an ongoing issue until the United States vacates."With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants."I have already proved that the majority of Hawaii wants the United States to leave, now that the United States are allowing Hawaiians to vote on this issue. "If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it."I have already provided you with evidence. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...
Rap Battle Debate (Because why not)

I'm gonna rap and apply logic, to every little bit. The idea that this plant should be legal is bullsh*t. Marijuana can kill people too, you freaking liar. It can damage people's brains, and make the injured rate higher. It's worse for people's lungs than a cancer machine. Selling a murderous super drug is really cruel and mean. Weed will dumb down our generation, make our kids less smart. Next thing you know, they'll be selling those dang plants at Walmart. A dangerous drug needs to be illegal, that's because they're overly lethal. It's bad for your breathing and stings like an eel, then you'll regret the drug and start to just feel... How bad it is, it's literally the worst around. A terrible drug like this, could wipe out a whole town. So it's not the money or the sales, it's not the popularity. It's just that it's dangerous, and will kill people, guaranteed.
Rap Battle Debate (Because why not)

Fun I get to defend the "Happy plant", Thinking of reasons to hate it I really can't, Marijuana the drug nobody has over-dosed on on, You can be high and not die at the same time! Cigarettes, kills people left and right, Weed doesn't even hurt you, So legalize it tonight, Marijuana is the number 1 cash crop in america, People who think people died from it have a severe case of hysteria,