BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be legalized

I'll start with something basic. 1. "People deserve freedom to use marijuana. we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?" From a philosophical point of view, individuals deserve the right to make choices for themselves. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individual's actions endanger someone else. This does not apply to marijuana, since the individual who chooses to use marijuana does so according to his or her own free will. The government also may have a right to limit individual actions if the actions pose a significant threat to the individual. But this argument does not logically apply to marijuana because marijuana is far less dangerous than some drugs which are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco." The prescription drug industry is a joke. They have brainwashed the public into thinking their chemically enhanced drugs are beneficial. Honestly, I used to be against marijuana, but I have realized that classifying it as a drug is not right. It is a plant that is incredibly useful to us. Hemp is a wonderful agricultural source. People think you can get high off of hemp, but you don't. People are so confused about what marijuana does. They just assume it all gets you high, and is the "devil's grass" In fact, it is "one of the most therapeutic active substances known to man" (Former DEA chief) 2. Prohibition doesn't work Take a stroll down memory lane and take a look at alcohol prohibition. It didn't work, hence it was revoked. Marijuana prohibition isn't working, obviously. Or else millions of people wouldn't use marijuana. It shouldn't be compared to hard drugs. They say it is a gateway drug, in a sense that is true. But that is because pot (being illegal) has been forced to be sold on the black market. And usually those dealers that sell pot, sell harder drugs, so obviously they will convince buyers to go up to more expensive harder drugs. Prohibition has caused it to be a gateway drug. As far as how your body reacts to pot, there is no evidence that it physically causes you to crave harder drugs. Am i saying it will never have a negative effect on you? NO. However, if you sit around a campfire for too long, that smoke probably will have a negative effect on you. If you don't like it, don't smoke it. For a country that advocates freedom, we sure put a lot of dumb restrictions on things that frankly, aren't very harmful. People blame weed for violence. True, people get killed in drug deals involving pot. Want to guess why? Its illegal. Anything illegal is bound to cause violence. I mean look what happened with alcohol prohibition. It wasn't much different. Violence is bound to occur when something becomes contraband. That leads to it being extremely profitable which leads to the risk of trafficking it. It generates non-taxable income, that is the problem.
superman beats batman

You are right in that Superman has incredible power and that he uses it frequently enough for many things to not be an issue to him, but we also have to understand that Superman still has a moral code. In the chance that Superman and Batman fought, Superman would not use his abilities to cause incredible damage to Batman, because of his morals, even if Batman became a horrible villain. Batman has less morality than Superman altogether, meaning that Batman has more of a chance to use Superman's mercy against him and take the upper hand. Thanks for the debate!
superman beats batman

Great point. The preparation of the match really comes down to how the match began. If the match happened as soon as Batman and Superman met then Superman would have the infinitesimally better chance at winning the match, but as said before, Batman knows Superman's abilities because of their cooperation in the JLA. Assuming that the fight would just spontaneously begin after their time in the JLA, Batman still has preparations for that scenario (the kryptonite). That brings me to my second point. Superman using a lead suit would be a disadvantage to him. Superman cannot fly as fast as he normally can with the suit, and even if does reach that level of speed, the heat produced by the air friction would melt it in a matter of seconds. A suit made of metal has its limits, meaning it can take its beating and break. This has happened before (Batman/Superman issues #44-#49, Search For Kryptonite). If Batman manages to cause enough damage to the lead suit, the kryptonite will have its effect of Superman.
superman beats batman

Very good points . This would only be if Batman had time to prepare . If you think about it , most of the time when Batman fights an enemy he looses , regroups , finds there weakness and beats them . In a fight with no preparation Superman would easily be the victor on account of his super powers . He would even win if there was time for preparation , because ( proven in the past ) he would put on his led suit he has used many times in battle against kryptonite and again Batman wouldn't stand a chance .
superman beats batman

I'll take you up on this debate. 1) While you may be right that Superman's powers give him an advantage over Batman, Batman has complete knowledge of every weakness and ability that Superman has. Due to their cooperation in the Justice League of America, Batman has experienced firsthand the level of Superman's abilities and has knowledge of how to avoid them, using acrobatics. Superman has openly called Batman "The Most Dangerous Man Alive" 2) Batman has an almost infinite supply of wealth wherein Superman has only his abilities. Batman could more than likely engineer a suit that is made specifically to resist the abilities of Superman. He can also (as he's done before) create a gas out of Kyrptonite and use it to disable Superman. 3) Batman is infinitely resourceful and can use anything to his advantage in a fight. I'd imagine a fight between them would be no-holds-barred. 4) In the vast encyclopedia of published comics, this fight has happened before, several times. Batman has won it most of the time. It is known that Batman always carries a piece of Kryptonite, and as previously stated, is extremely resourceful so he would find a way to use its abilities on Superman.
Atheism IS a religion

Here is why I believe atheism is indeed a religion. The definition of religion goes as following: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." The second definition goes as following: "Details of belief as taught or discussed." Synonyms for this word goes as following: faith--belief--creed--denomination. Now, what is religion? Although there is a dictionary definition, as stated above, where does religion origin? That is the main thing. There would be NO religion if there was not a belief to back up the practice. For example, I am a Christian. My belief in God defines my religion, which is Christianity. If I had no belief in God, I would not be a Christian. Take a Buddhist for example. A Buddhist believes in Buddha. If there was no Buddha, would there be Buddhism, a religion formed in the belief of Buddha? Now as you're reading this, I know you're going to argue the fact that I am using "gods" as a reasoning for religion, not beliefs. Let us flip the table. Say one believes in no god (atheism) which is exact opposite of the examples I used above. One says, "There is no god, I am an atheist." That statement is indeed a creed of faith, the faith part being "I, ME MYSELF AND I, BELIEVE IN NO GOD, NO SUPERHUMAN BEING AND I AM SURE OF MY BELIEF." Nearly every religion has a creed of faith and certain beliefs that makes that religion unique. In the end, BELIEFS, (not gods) define religion. One cannot prove God exists. One cannot prove Buddha exists. Just like one cannot prove that a god DOESN'T exists. What you believe about deities defines your personal beliefs, therefore define your classification. Now what do I mean by "creed of faith"? My creed of faith is, "I am a Christian, I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins, etc. etc.". Now, I am a Presbyterian and I know that creeds of faiths differ mildly from denomination to denomination. You don't have to be a Christian or take a creed of faith in a place of worship to have one. Your creed of faith defines what you believe. The word "creed" simply means "faith". And I'm sure you know what the word "faith" means. The point I am trying to prove here is that atheists have faith in something. They have faith that there is no God. If they didn't have faith in their belief, that would make it a little unstable, don't you agree? Just because atheists do not worship a god does not make them religion-less. Because, like I said above, religion is founded on beliefs about deity, even if they believe there isn't one.
God

I accept. I'll have to be brief as each round has a 500 character limit. P1) Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2) The universe began to existC) Therefore, the universe has a causeThere is both scientific and philosophical evidence to think the universe had a beginning, including the Big Bang theory, the rate of expansion of the universe, and Hilbert's Hotel.In order to win this debate, my opponent must (1) knock down my arguments (2) put forth at least 1 argument in favor of atheism.
The Thimerosal found in vaccines causes autism

This debate is about whether Thimerosal causes autism. I have shown several court cases where litigation has been proven and that Thimerosal was found to be the cause of autism. My opponent says that a few court cases doesn't prove anything. This is a misconception. I only have to provide proof of just one case of where Thimerosal has caused autism, then, my case is adequately proven. Extract from a medical research document http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Living organisms require varying amounts of heavy metals. Iron, cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc are required by humans.[10] All metals are toxic at higher concentrations.[9] Excessive levels can be damaging to the organism. Other heavy metals such as mercury, plutonium, and lead are toxic metals that have no known vital or beneficial effect on organisms, and their accumulation over time in the bodies of animals can cause serious illness. Certain elements that are normally toxic are for certain organisms or under certain conditions, beneficial. Examples include vanadium, tungsten, and even cadmium. Note - Mercury is not considered to be beneficial or necessary for living organisms by medical researchers. Thus, my opponents has provided false and misleading information.
The Thimerosal found in vaccines causes autism

My opponent has ignored the evidence. The evidence has been hidden from the public which is an indication of how the pharmaceutical industry operates. They have plenty of money to spend on lawyers to protect their corrupt practices. Just as large corporations spend millions on lawyers and accountants to hide their income and profits, the pharmaceutical industry spends millions on preventing litigation and blame when things go wrong. You can't produce a vaccine without putting in some toxic chemicals as a preservative. If they don't put in Thimerosal, then they add formaldehyde or aluminium. All these poisonous chemicals have roughly the same effect, which is autism, cancer and general nervous system damage of one variety or another. http://articles.mercola.com... If you think that these chemicals are harmless, then I challenge anybody to drink a small teaspoon of one of these chemicals and see if they can stay alive for more than 10 seconds. Most children receive 21 vaccination shots, so my opponents statement that MMR vaccines doesn't contain Thimerosal is very weak and unconvincing. http://www.naturalnews.com...# The truth is, there have been several court cases where families have been granted damage pay-outs due to what vaccines and their ingredients have done to their children. The cases are directly linked to autism and brain damage. http://www.collective-evolution.com...
The Thimerosal found in vaccines causes autism

"Indeed, looking at the odds ratios the authors report""in which 1 means no effect of vaccine or other variable on odds and less than 1 means reduced odds""the data suggest reduced autism risk among children who received the MMR vaccine." forbes.com "Some other vaccines, including the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) never contained any preservative or any mercury. " cdc.gov As you can see the MMR vaccine never contained any Thimerosal. Thus Thimerosal cannot be the cause of Autism. My opponent's argument relies upon a sole source. "According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, "proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure." prweb.com This is a bare assertion on Hooker's part. Where is the proof? I'm looking at the gpo.gov link. This a pdf. How do I know its really a congressional record? It could just as easily be forgery. Also autism is talked a lot in the link, yet I'm not finding this unequivocal proof Hooker speaks of. I argue that my opponent is using scare tactics to market a low-carb diet. What would be the incentives for this? Who would profit? The meat industry. This industry will stop at nothing to promote their diets. Taking away from the fact that meat production is cruel and harms the environment is devastating ways. Also the funeral homes benefit from this misinformation. As you can see food is big money, 2.45 trillion. 27% of which is processed meat. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.gpo.gov... http://www.foodmanufacturing.com...
The Thimerosal found in vaccines causes autism

Topic: The Thimerosal found in vaccines causes autism I Con will argue against the topic. Pro will argue for the topic. "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes." fda.gov "Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior." wikipedia http://www.fda.gov... https://en.wikipedia.org...
a microbe had a discussion with a bacteria, it lasted 5 rounds

I'll accept vi_spex's challenge.Observation:I might be one of few that understands what vi_spex is saying. So, I'll translate this as I interpreted it.The title is "a microbe had a discussion with a bacteria, it lasted 5 rounds". vi_spex tends to use metaphors a lot, this being no different. 5 rounds is the maximum amount of rounds on DDO.So I believe the resolution is actually "There should be a change in the number of rounds in DDO".Rebuttal:As this is a debate, I can't leave my opponent's statements unexamined. Let's see what vi_spex said."5 round is retarded.. should be 500 as a minimum" I don't think vi actually wants 500 rounds. This is probably just an example number."cant ever get to the positions so its impossible to ever get anywhere in the "discussion"" vi_spex thinks we're unable to be 100% certain about our ideas.However, I find this false. vi_spex wouldn't have posted this debate had he not been certain about his position. And I wouldn't have accepted if I wasn't sure that 5 rounds is good.vi_spex did post this debate, so he's confident that his position is correct. I have also accepted this debate, so I'm certain that DDO's 5 rounds is a good idea. This simple fact alone counters vi_spex's claim.If vi_spex is uncertain about the position he took, then why post? It doesn't make much sense.Argument:I don't think I have to make an argument, since status quo and whatnot. But I think it would be best if I addressed why the resolution is false.The Pro and Con;Every debate has a Pro and a Con. Pro's job is to show why the resolution is true. Con must show the resolution as false. However, you're not always going to be certain that you're arguing a good side. Suppose you're in a debate tournament, where they choose your topics, and what side you're going to be on. I could enter, and get the topic of "Is Donald Trump good?", which I'm not really interested in. But I would do research in that scenario, so I could try to win that round.Non-competitive debate;Debates aren't always about winning, though. Some people might start up a debate so they can learn what the opposing side has.Suppose I wanted to learn about whether Abortion is moral or not. I wondered if it was moral. I would post a debate as Con, so the opposing Pro could make an argument, and I'd be learning about why abortion is moral by reading his/her argument.Conclusion: I know vi_spex likes making 1 round debates, so I won't call him out. But I want to say this to the voters: Make sure your debates are at least 3 rounds long, so you can respond to the contender.Other than that, you guys can decide the winner.
Border Fence

Seeing as it is June 6th, this is appropriate. Through the gates of hellAs we make our way to heavenThrough the Nazi linesPrimo victoriaWe've been training for yearsNow we're ready to strikeAs the great operation beginsWe're the first wave on the shoreWe're the first ones to fallYet soldiers have fallen beforeIn the dawn they will payWith their lives as the priceHistory's written todayIn this burning infernoKnow that nothing remainsAs our forces advance on the beachAiming for heaven though serving in hellVictory is ours their forces will fallThrough the gates of hellAs we make our way to heavenThrough the Nazi linesPrimo victoriaOn the 6th of JuneOn the shores of western Europe 1944D-day upon usWe've been here beforeUsed to this kind of warCrossfire grind through the sandOur orders were easyIt's kill or be killedBlood on both sides will be spilledIn the dawn they will payWith their lives as the priceHistory's written todayNow that we are at warWith the axis againThis time we know what will come6th of June 1944Allies are turning the warNormandy state of anarchyOverlord
Abortion.

A woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body, the foetus exists inside a woman's body, a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body, therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus. Every human being has the right to their own body, a foetus is a part of a woman's body, therefore that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying. No woman can call herself free until she has the conscious decision to abort.
Abortion.

The fetus is NOT the woman's body, it's the child's body. Humans have 46 chromosomes in every cell, but eggs and sperm each have 23 - 23+23 = 46. Meaning at the moment of conceiving a human cell is created, meaning the body is not hers but the body of another human being. What if the mother wants the abortion and the father wants the child? It affects both genders equally on that ground. Abortion not only kills the child, but damages those around the person getting one.
Abortion.

I agree that we need to consider the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn...and Abortion is an important element of Women's Rights and Gender Equality because women are more affected by the abortion debate than men, both individually and as a gender. Many people regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right. If women are not allowed to abort an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right. A woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body.
Abortion.

A woman is not merely a container for a fetus, she made the decision to conceive the child, and abortion is not vital for gender equality, Life is vital for human rights and that fetus has them, the right to life. Women aren't containers for fetuses, a pregnant woman could give a baby up for adoption if she feels she doesn't want to care for him/her. She doesn't have to kill them. Bodily development begins at 3 weeks pregnancy, a beating heart = alive. Abortion is murder, murder is wrong.
Abortion.

Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies, the right to Abortion is vital for Gender Equality, the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential, and banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists. The right to Abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy. regard the woman as a person, not a container for foetus.
Resolved: Civil Disobedience is morally justified in a democratic society.

My opponent's value criterion is protecting the lives of citizens. I would like to extend my third contention from my AC. I stated that civil disobedience is a non violent protest and the government has to be a limited on in order to prevent violence. If violence is prevented, then we will see less deaths. My opponent's first contention is the same as his value criterion. He does offer one example, that referring to Malcolm X. However, he has committed fallacy to hasty conclusions by stating in his value criterion that it very often leads to violence. That may have happened in incidents caused by one person, but I show a different side in where the government causes the violence, thereby violating the citizen's freedom of speech, and that the protestors do not cause violence. Martin Luther King was an advocate of peace and his rallies were non-violent. Greece's citizens did not start violence, the government did. These are two of many examples. My opponent's second contention is the same as the first one. Therefore, that argument should be dropped. I also offered up many points in my AC in which my opponent did not respond to. I would like to extend contention 1 of my AC which is that civil disobedience has led to much great advancement in society. I say this because Greece is in the process of changing. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders gave us civil equality. I would now like to end by turning my opponent's value criterion to fit my first contention. By achieving advancements you are reducing threats from, for example, the Klu Klux Klan, and therefore protecting citizens rights. My opponent also did not respond to my second contention. Working within the system takes too long. And by taking to long, you are allowing change to be delayed, therefore keeping citizen's lives in danger, as well as your freedom of speech. Also, my third contention was not responded to. I stated that the government must be a limited one. This protects both freedom of speech and the lives of citizens. My opponent stated in his first contention that civil disobedience often leads to violence. However, I offered two examples as to why the government was the problem. As well as in my third contention I offered quotes from Thoreau and Martin Luther King. If the government fights back you are endangering their lives and you are making them become afraid. This will lead to a loss of life and a reduction in freedom of speech. Thus I urge you to affirm, because there were no arguments against my AC in which I can respond to as well as the fact that I offered ways in which civil disobedience helps protect the lives of citizens and freedom of speech.