BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Series 1 Episode 3 : Heroin legalisation .

'All heroin does is kill people ' My opponent claims there is no benefit to heroin use which is entirely off the topic we are discussing if heroin should be legalised not if it has positive or negative effects on the users , I would also like to add that Heroin, like all opiates, is both a pain reliever and a sedative. 'So you just want to make it legal and have more and more people dieing due to overdoses. Even if less people die people are still dieing. ' The statement doesn't even make sense as Con first makes the claim that more and more people would die do you overdose which is incorrect as a legal market would be regulated and than he says less people are dying but people are still dying , so Con's argument is to keep heroin illegal so more people die because of it? am I the only one being confused here? if anything than we should aim to reduce the number of users dying . '. Even if the US has less prisoners it is not like we have an extreme overdose of prisoners. ' What I was reffering to is that the US has the largest prison population in the world it costs millions to keep prisoners alive and we shouldn't put people in prison for a victimless crime like recreational use of heroin . '. Heroin can cause vomiting in the short term. In the long term it can lead to bad teeth, coma, loss of appetite, breathing illnesses I mean the list goes on and on.' Con is making the argument that if somebody wants to put something in their body that doesn't make them aggressive (heroin makes you calm) but affects only their bodies should be stopped from doing a personal choice this is highly immoral the government should have no right to decide what people can put into their own bodies what's next prohibiting junk food? . Sources : http://memoiresofaheroinhead.blogspot.co.uk... https://answers.yahoo.com...;- 'pure heroin actually is good for you for different ailments. a few things it does, is relieves pain obviously, and if you are sick with cold or flu, you will get over it faster being you take aaway the pain and such from the sickness, so your body can rid itself of the toxins faster, also, it halps with alot of smaller symptons that people get from different things(coughing, diarhea, sneezing,etc). now i aint saying it is good for you in the sence that you should do it, but opiates in themselfs, if used for the right purpose and not abused, are wonder drugs ' http://news.bbc.co.uk...; http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://mrmalchick.wordpress.com...
Series 1 Episode 3 : Heroin legalisation .

All heroin does is kill people. So you just want to make it legal and have more and more people dieing due to overdoses. Even if less people die people are still dieing. While we could work to get it out and 0 people would die. Even if the US has less prisoners it is not like we have an extreme overdose of prisoners. Heroin can cause vomiting in the short term. In the long term it can lead to bad teeth, coma, loss of appetite, breathing illnesses I mean the list goes on and on. Yet people like you are basically saying you WANT people to get all of the stuff I just stated above. Sources: drugfreeworld.org
Series 1 Episode 3 : Heroin legalisation .

Do you not understand the rules ? My opponent has broken a rule as he has not been a member for three weeks . I believe this is a conduct violation . Before I present my views I would like to apologise to the audience but my computer often prevents me from structuring my paragraphs very well and this may be the case . Society should make rules that benefit society we should not invent random laws just for the sake of it we have to analyse how these rules would work in our world . Governments around the world spend millions on the war on drugs and why do we have to continue doing so when there is so many benefits to legalising heroin that I could think of right now at the top of my head . Heroin legalisation would lead to 1) The illegal black market for heroin getting much smaller 2) The quality of heroin improving and therefore reducing the number of overdoses 3) less prisoners 4) tax money 5)the cost of heroin dropping therefore heroin addicts will no longer have to commit crime in order to get their next fix . There is simply not a sufficient enough reason to prohibit the use and sale of heroin as a recreational drug . The Pros outweight the Cons . It's time to fight the government for our rights to do whatever we want with our own bodies . I hope my opponenet will present his case next round as the burden of proof is shared .
who will win capt america or iron man

Yes while Iron man is the coolest and has his own suit and we love him for that he is not what you would call a "true hero". Dude has made some mistakes I mean c'mon just think back to Iron man and Iron Man 2 he didn't exactly have his head on straight. And the conflict in Civil War is restrictions being placed on the avengers. Iron man is for the restrictions and Cap is not. Now Iron mans reason for wanting restrictions is because he knows that he is liable to make a mistake. He does not trust himself. He knows he makes mistakes. He knows he cannot be trusted. Cap on the other hand is the perfect soldier who almost never (if ever) makes a mistake and trust himself to make the call. So ask yourself... Who would you want as a leader? Now in combat its not as clear. Iron man can fly he has all these cool gadgets he is pretty much OP. Cap has a shield. Its a little lopsided. But in hand to hand sparing Cap has the advantage seeing as how he has had combat training and Mr. Stark only has his suit. Cap's shield (which is pretty much unbreakable) can deflect anything Iron man can throw at him. Which will force Tony to take the fight to the ground where Cap will have the advantage and ultimately be able to disable the Iron man suit and win the fight.
Transgender Identities Exist And Are Valid

It is amusing that a lot of people make fun of horoscopes, but then believe the thing between a baby's legs will determine its favorite color, who it will love, and what it should wear. For someone who claims it foolish to move from objectivity, the con side of the debate sure likes to use subjective terms like deluded, normal, and abnormal. The analogy of a heart makes no sense in this context, because people who are different aren't faulty. They are merely different. Arguments of objectivity must hold out against all possible examples. There cannot be counterexamples at all. The only way the con's argument can hold weight is if the con were to declare that the people in the examples above are not people, if the con claims that every person's sex is objectively male or female. Gender was never objective. Civilizations throughout history have had different views of sex and gender. The argument of nobody having a problem with it is faulty because from ancient times until now, there have been people who have identified as a different gender than they were assigned at birth. Throughout this debate, the analysis of the subjectivity of gender between cultures has gone untouched by the con. Transgender identities exist and are valid identitigzfdes. There are even some identities that would seem to be outside the traditional gender roles of western society are valid traditional identities in other societies. Even if one were to believe that gender is completely linked to "biological sex", it has been shown that sex isn't objective. And of course transgender identities are valid. Calling them deviant does nothing; deviancy is just a term used by those with power to target those who are different than them. And we see that all the time. Transgender people are on the receiving end of an absurdly high murder rate. In the end, the con's arguments boil down into a belief of what is natural and what is not natural, which doesn't hold up against the variation we see in the world. The con never answers the argument that sex is a categorization created by humans, and enforced by humans. It isn't a mathematical concept like adding two positive integers, it's a doctor looking at a baby's genitalia and trying to find the best match between two choices because that is what society says to do. There is no mathematical equation derived from the relation of different fundamental principles of our universe that results in a mathematical constant that represents the length a clitoris must be before it is too long to be a clitoris but too short to be a penis. That number was made by a group of doctors at John Hopkins in the 1950's. One can make arguments towards whether people can reproduce, but people can still be valid human beings without having kids. To conclude by reiterating the pro's main argument, people can choose how they identify because gender isn't objective. Gender is performance, and people can decide how they wish to perform.
Transgender Identities Exist And Are Valid

Proving me right about only a deluded fool denies that gender is objective and biological, this fool tries to use abnormal biology to negate the rule, but this does not work. A faulty heart value does not mean that healthy heart value does not exist. Again, gender is clearly objective and biological, which is why no one had a problem with it until the deluded and their sympathizers become a protected-victim class. Let us not define deviancy down.
Transgender Identities Exist And Are Valid

The issue with that idea is that you can't assign someone a gender identity that they don't identify as. There is no structure in place that can do such a thing accurately. This is because human bodies have a wide range or appearances and behaviors that make it impossible to divide them into two distinct categories without either leaving characteristics (and therefore people) out, or having people meet criteria to be in both categories. In other words, the problem with your idea in particular (including the wording) is that it's impossible to describe people as either men or women without leaving people out or having people meet the criteria of both. You're essentially drawing a line in the sand. No matter how thin your line is, there will be sand in on that line. Transgender identities are valid because they're the actual reality, instead of an arbitrary binary. Gender is not something pertaining to essentialism, but is a performance and expression. It's an ocean of potential ways to express and identify. And although most societies have tried to split that ocean into two pieces, many have acknowledged more genders as existing. In the Torah, which the Old Testament is based on, there are 6 genders described. People are so unique and diverse. But most of us are taught at birth by our parents that we fall into two groups, and it was determined by the size of a nub between our legs, because that's what their parents taught them. But to someone who wasn't taught this, it would seem so strange to draw a line in the middle of the ocean so arbitrarily.
Who is the strongest DBZ character (unfused) at the end of Z

Son Gohan after his potential was unleashed by Elder Kaioshin is the strongest non fused warrior at the end of Z. I'll give my arguments for why Gohan is in fact the strongest non fused character first, then I'll cover why Boo with Gohan absorbed cannot be a candidate for this discussion. -Gohan Argument- Once Vegeta removed Goten, Trunks, Piccolo and Gohan from Buu's stomach, Goku stated that they would still stand no chance against Evil Boo. Gohan previously was able to destroy Evil Boo in a "fight". -Boo Argument- Boo absorbed Gohan, along with Goten, Trunks and Piccolo, gaining their abilities and integrating them into his own being. In other words, he fused their techniques with himself, along with gaining their physical attire. This may be a nitpick, but the name you give this state of Boo, Boohan, supports my case more on how he's a fused character.
Who is the strongest DBZ character (unfused) at the end of Z

The strongest DBZ character at the end of Z has to be Buuhan. Yes, Vegetto is the strongest character fused, but we are talking about un-fused characters in this debate. Many think that Kid Buu is the strongest of the Buu forms, but Kid Buu is the first form that Buu had. He then absorbed buff kai, and then absorbed the fat kai. This is why buu was in his fat form when he was awoken. Good luck to my opponent
Who is the strongest DBZ character (unfused) at the end of Z

That was never stated, the point of "fusion" to me is that two entities are joined into one body. This contradicts what I stated for Potara Fusion, but that method of fusion is different from the traditional fusion (Metamoran). My first point also goes over why their names are combined. Gogeta's quote also doesn't prove that he's an entirely new character, he only means he isn't Vegeta or Goku, but the combination of them. I never stated anything about how Piccolo and God are a fusion, so I'm not sure where you got that from. I can still make the argument of seeing both fusees in a fusion, since Nail and Piccolo looked nearly identical to each other. I'm pretty sure you can't use Video Games for actual proof for your side of the argument, considering how they aren't created by Akira Toriyama (any statements that come from the creator himself are official). Regardless of how accurate you think that wiki is, there will still always be inaccuracies on ANY wiki, no matter how great the moderators are. You presented some good points but didn't change my view on Boo or Fusion. I look forward to debating with you in the future.
Who is the strongest DBZ character (unfused) at the end of Z

-Fusion Argument- I think that you are confused on the process of Fusion. A fused character is a whole new character in the series. For example, why do you think that Vegetto (Vegerot) is called Veggeto (Vegerot) and not just Goku and Vegeta Fusion. Also Gogetta; he had said multiple times that he is neither Goku nor Vegeta. I think that he meant that in a literal sense. Also, Piccolo and Kami were not a fusion, they were already the same being just split, so they would of had their own type of "re-joining". You can't fuse the same person. Piccolo did however fuse with Nail on Namek, and yet again he did not have any change in appearance, just strength. So you cannot use the argument of "you can see both fusees in a fusion" because that would mean that Nail would have to be present in the fusion. And before you say that Piccolo absorbed Nail, it clearly says in the Budokai series that Nail is an absorption. And according to Dragonball wiki ( Dragonball wiki is the most reliable DBZ site to date, yes anyone can edit this site if they are a member, but the moderators on the site like myself make sure that people do not put unreliable information on the wiki) Video game information is on the list for a source of information. Thank you for your time, and I hope that I have convinved you of the truth of Buuhan being the strongest (un-fused) character in DBZ
Who is the strongest DBZ character (unfused) at the end of Z

-Gohan Argument- Potential Unleashed Gohan is stronger than Evil Boo, considering how Gotenks was arguably on par with or maybe even stronger than Evil Boo, but that's another debate for another day. Evil Boo wasn't able to land a single blow on Gohan, meaning they're both in different leagues. -Boo Argument- I'm not sure you can really consider a wiki official, especially since it's able to be edited by anyone. With your wording of how absorption works, wouldn't that make it sound like Piccolo absorbed God (Kami)? I'll clarify how fusion works in the series, simply because (to me at least) you seem confused on the concept. Vegeta was more dominant in Vegerot, with his personality, attire and even hairstyle all being present, with some tweaks like Goku's bangs and an orange undershirt. You may bring up Gogeta, but it seems the Metamoran technique combines both users 50-50 (obviously not strength wise). A visual example of this is if you were to split Gogeta's face in half in Fusion Reborn, you can clearly see Goku on one side and Vegeta on the other. With this now in mind, how do you know that Boo couldn't have done something similar to the Potara fusion where he was the mostly dominant one, and the users whom were absorbed showed a small bit of themselves in the fusion, such as Gohan's gi being visible on Boo's torso after he absorbs and fuses him into his own power.
Who is the strongest DBZ character (unfused) at the end of Z

-Rebuttal against Gohan argument- - Gohan is probably the second strongest un-fused character, next to Buuhan. Super Buu and Ultimate Gohan are actually very close in power, but as you say Gohan is the obvious winner. Buuhan would be able to destroy Ultimate Gohan. -Rebuttal against Buu argument- - Actually Buuhan is a un-fused character, He absorbed Gohan. If you look at the Dragonball Wiki is says that they are two different things. Fusion is when two individuals become one and make in a sense a whole new character. Absorption just increases the power of the one who is doing the absorbing, and it also gives a special appearance ins some cases and the knowledge of new techniques. Let's look at Cell for instance. He did not fuse with cyborg 18 and 19, but rather he absorbed them still keeping his own mind and personality. Now let's look at Vegetto. Vegetto is a fusion of Vegeta and Goku. He has his own personality and mind, and in the same case so does Kamiccolo. Kamiccolo gained a nuetral personality. Vegetto gained a cocky personality of his own and not like Vegeta's. He also looked different than Vegeta and Goku. Buuhan would just be another impression of Buu. Think of the Trinity of the Christian religion. They are all different persons, but they are all the same God. In this sense: all the Buu's are different persons, but they are all Buu at their core.
' Christianity, Islam, and Judaism abrogate their common religious responsibilities '

So, to sum up, you are saying that religion should be held responsible for these attacks. I counterclaim by saying bigotry is responsible. Bigotry is the refusal to tolerate other beliefs. The Muslim terrorists think the whole world should be Muslim. But bigotry is not exclusive to Islam. Rather, it is universal. There are countless examples of this. I do not think I need to provide eamples, but if Pro insists, I'll post them next round. To conclude, should bigotry be completely eliminated, then these attacks would not occur.
' Christianity, Islam, and Judaism abrogate their common religious responsibilities '

Hi Rami, apologies in advance. It's a funny weekend all round but rather than forfeit this round I will post another argument. I will deal with your submission with more care later in the week. Argument 2 With great power comes great responsibilities We are not talking 'stamp collectors' here. We are not even talking Disney or Microsoft. Multiply them by ten and you might have an approximate of the scope of influence that these people hold and maintain. It they are not going to use it then simply get off the stage. I feel for the people of Paris this weekend.. Be under no illusion that this is anything other than a religious 'phenomena' a purely religious phenomena. I was listening to an analyst on RT news and he stated that we have to stop simplifying these jihadists as hate filled terrorists. He mentioned that they are hooked into a doctrine of 'significance' which I thought was a very profound assessment of what is happening. On a Friday in Paris you can get on with your day to day existence or you can take the step to be part of a specific and well preached religious narrative. You can become a martyr and enter everlasting happiness in the space of one afternoon. This doctrine might seem absurd to you or I but it is in effect the 'espresso' version of a watered down Abrahamic expansion story that is repeated in Mosques, Churches and Synagogues throughout the world. Tell me that moderate Muslims do not carry any responsibilities here. If theie religion is so persuasive to be a form of hallucination then it need to be handled with the care that such a volatile substance warrants. What do you think. Again apologies, written in 5 mins.
' Christianity, Islam, and Judaism abrogate their common religious responsibilities '

Okay, so you asked me what I think. Here's my two cents: Claim 1: "Judaic monotheism was never this. The Israelites were very aware of the existence of many Gods among the surrounding nations and tribes but they affirmed a pact with Yahweh to ignore all others. Therefore, monotheism as purported by Judaism should have read" This is a twisted version of the truth. There are two mistakes my opponent made: 1. The Israelites knew pagans worshiped other gods, but not that they were real. It's as if the pagans had this propaganda of history, and the Jews don't believe in the propaganda. They acknowledge that the propaganda existed, but not that it was valid 2. The gods of the pagans were nature base, so they weren't gods to start with. Let me explain: Since all their gods were basically nature, it is such a removed idea of the Jewish version of what is 'God'. Their gods needed to eat and sleep, but this ran contrary to the doctrines of the Jews. On this basis, you might claim that a Jew could theoretically believe in two all-powerful gods, but that idea is rejected all throughout the Torah. Claim 2: "We have not got room for these perceptions of a 'one God'. I must include the Jews in this unfortunately if only for being by default the parent host to this absurdity" "The march descended into violence and chaos and some people were injured. In truth the event was sabotaged by a collusion between right wing hooligans and 'stiff' authoritarian sources. These possibilities existed before the march began so therefore we must consider the responsibilities and the culpability of the organizers in not protecting their members" There is problem with this analogy. Protests are all about expressing anger against something. There is inherent anger in protest. Although there are many protests that are peaceful, there is still a motive of anger. Anger can spill easily into violence. My opponent will have to prove that there is a proponent of Judaism that would spill into something extreme. In the comments, my opponent said that I need to prove that a full abrogation is realistically impossible. I thought this was pretty simple. The only authority that ALL Christians would accept is God. The pope isn't accepted by all Christians. With some many factions of Christianity, there would be an impossibly low chance of them uniting under one type of pope. And get this: Jews wouldn't accept a change, even from God. One of the 13 principles of faith, recited every day in synagogue, is that God will never change the Torah. So even if it seems clear that God said to abrogate, Jews wouldn't. I think I'm done for this round. I hand the debate mic back to Pro.
' Christianity, Islam, and Judaism abrogate their common religious responsibilities '

abrogate: Abrogate means to abolish or avoid. common: shared byresponsibility: a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible Christianity, Islam and Judaism ie The Abrahamic FaithsJump in and 'hit the tiles running' as it will take more than 5 rounds to ' sort this out '. I will be shooting withall guns blazing when you are finished attempting to defend this indefensible.Good Luck
Communism vs. Capitalism (this is a PHILOSOPHY debate)

Come on, forfeiting? Ugh, that's not very nice of you. :( Anyway, communism is infinitely better than capitalism. In capitalism, it's survival of the fittest, and people will stomp and crush each other in the race to get to the top. Nobody cares about the little guy in capitalism, in fact, the little guy is used up and thrown away, especially with businesses with few government restrictions, the company will strip a person of every right he has and work him to the bone. Companies are soulless, and if you let all these companies compete, they will crush innocent people in their path. Communism is the only way where everybody is happy, and everybody is safe, educated, and well-cared for.