BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I believe that bad has to exist.

That is where you are wrong my friend, there can never be a society without ' bad'. At least a functioning society without it. In a sence ' ying and yang' there has to be a balance of good and evil in order for our society to work properly. Without good there is no evil. [1] As believers of god would see it....evil was put on this world to give man the ability of free will, whether man misuses his free will or not, its all depending on man himself. Where the problem resides is that human beings nowadays are bent on neglecting self-improvement, therefore neglecting self-judgement and continue to point out why that person who is misusing his power of free will or in your words demonstrating bad behavior is the ' bad Pearson'.[2] You should read my debate of purpose of the human being in the world to further understand what I mean when I refer to self-improvement. http://oregonstate.edu... [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]
I believe that bad has to exist.

Ok now it’s clearer that this is about people and our current society. Remember that you need to present a rebuttal to my objections and present a strong case for your position since you have the burden of proof. Without the burden of proof my position is essentially, “I’m not convinced and here’s why.” Argument from personal incredulity [4] That criminals and other bad behavior must exist means that these are vitally important and cannot be replaced. All you have indicated is that bad behavior may be useful, not that it is significantly useful or vital. Even if you were able to prove that bad behavior is vitally important it does not mean that it must exist as you indicate in your resolution. You cannot imagine a solution that could replace bad behavior so you assume there is nothing to replace it. If bad behavior were currently vital we may make a social advancement that could eliminate the need for evil. Just because we are not aware of it does not mean that the solution doesn’t exist. Without moral evil we would not know what the good looks like It still sounds like you are making a form of this argument. You indicate that the majority of people never self judge without an example of bad behavior. I don’t see that this is true or why this would make bad necessary. I can look at someone who is fairly neutral morally and realize that there are much better lifestyles. For instance you could compare your motivation, interpersonal skills and work life balance with someone much more skilled than you. This would inspire the same sort of self-reflection and I think there is a strong argument that this is more effective. Your argument does not match common self-improvement strategies If you’re familiar with self-improvement books and blogs it’s the common advice to surround yourself with good people that are skilled in that area that you want to excel in. People tend to emulate the behavior of those around you so make sure they are the type of people that you want to become like [5]. An old proverb says, “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are.” Comparing yourself with criminals could just as easily lead to apathy or bad behavior If you constantly compare yourself with those that are much worse off than this is always a favorable comparison. I don’t see that this would tend to encourage people to improve when they can always say to themselves, “well at least I’m way better off than that guy,” leading to apathy when it comes to personal improvement. If your main frame of reference for you personal behavior is the most evil it’s likely that you would get lax in your personal behavior. If you are comparing yourself to grand larcenists and violent offenders it is easier to rationalize negative behavior. Lifting batteries from Walmart or lying to friends and coworkers doesn’t seem too bad next to hardened criminals. - I do not see that bad behavior must exist and can just as easily lead to negative changes in behavior. There are more effective strategies to encourage self-improvement and if bad were vital there may be other alternatives. [4] http://rationalwiki.org... [5] http://www.forbes.com...
I believe that bad has to exist.

I thank you for pointing out the ignorant flaws in my opening statement. I will begin by stating my specific position..... Society nowadays is bent on neglecting self-improvement, people in the U.S rely on ' bad people, evil' ( humans who do things that are considered bad in the U.S society) to be able to say there're the reason why we have so much evil in the world. good examples of Bad... Gang member, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, ect. These type of lifestyles are consider bad for the most part to the regular human being living in the U.S. now I ask you, if you we're to point the finger at someone to express that they are bad, would you be able to take a look at your life and ask yourself, could I be the one saying he's bad? Am i doing everything I'm supposed to be doing to be what people in society consider good? Most people never self-judge before judging someone else,therefore bad in this concept must exist for the majority of the people that never self-judge in order for them to be more ok with they're personal problem.
Resolved: The United States ought legalize same-sex marriage.

My opponent claims that legalizing same sex marriage is morally right but doesn’t give evidence for this claim. It is his opinion that it is the moral duty of the government to do so but I will attempt to prove why that is not the case. You cannot legislate against homophobia, just with anything else; you should try to change people’s minds. My opponent claims legalizing same sex marriage will decrees HIV and AIDS but doesn’t explain how that will work. Marriage is not a cure for STDs. My opponent claims Homosexual marriage is economically beneficial; This is not the case, largely due to the fact that homosexuals do not have kids they have no vested interest in the economy or the future. In Fact Hans Hoppe uses the concept of time preference to demonstrate this point. [1] My opponent also brings up civil unions and claims they do not have the same legal rights, however, in many states such as California civil unions have exactly the same state benefits as marriage. Contention 3 is just an argument ad populum and holds no water. In the end though, Government has no authority in the marriage business whatsoever. It is often spoken of tyranny of the majority but there can also be a tyranny of the minority [2], and Homosexuals make up less than 10% of the US population. [3] This is just as bad as the afore mentioned ad populum fallacy. I know that is not reason enough to deny things to them, but they are also in no place to demand special privileges, such as those they request in terms of hate crime laws and the like. When they do that they are bullying the majority into taking their side. Also their effort to redefine what marriage is, but since marriage is a religious and not a legal concept they have no authority to do so. Thanks again to my opponent. 1 . http://mises.org... 2 . http://www.humanevents.com...3 . http://www.gallup.com...
Resolved: The United States ought legalize same-sex marriage.

Alright, since this is the end of the round, I'm going to explain why the judges should vote for me over my opponent in this debate. When it comes to conduct, it looks like my opponent and I were kind of on equal grounds here considering we were both forfeiting rounds, so it looks like we're tied for the vote on conduct. I think that'll be the best thing to do in the voting aspect. Also, my opponent hasn't argued against my previous arguments which defended my position, so extend those across the flow. Because he still doesn't have a case of his own to look at and because he made a pretty poor rebuttal against my case, you should vote for me in the argument aspect. Just to be sure that the judges understand what I'm talking about here, let's just do a quick run through my case:My contentions 1 and 2 are extended because I substantiated my points with more evidence than my opponent has, and I have better supported my contention 3 than my opponent has attacked it. I have also responded to all of his points.
The world would be a more peaceful place if marijuana were legal.

I shall begin by clarifying to my opponents what i meant in my arguments.1. The use of legal marijuana by motorist would lead to more deaths, thus making this world a less peaceful environment since death is usually NOT a part of a peaceful society. This being said, legalizing the use of Marijuana would not lead to a peaceful environment.2. I say to the voter, that my opponent actually agrees with me by saying "Con does raise the issue of potentially dangerous drug deals, and this does relate to voilence/aggression". This being said, the point that my Opponent aims at me about not tying my anecdote to violence is very vague. My opponent goes on to say that if Marijuana were in fact legal, then "dangerous drug deals clearly would not exist." But, does one agree that Marijuana is not the only drug available? My opponent made a fatal mistake in stating that "drug deals would clearly not exist". The fact that Marijuana would be made legal has ABSOLUTELY no effect on what other drugs are being sold. The drug deal in my anecdote was about "Droll', another illegal drug and in fact not about Marijuana. This being said, one must now begin to understand that legalizing marijuana would have no other effect on the use of other drug deals, contrary to what my opponent statedNow, i shall continue by reinforcing my case. Contention 1: The use of Marijuana impairs Motor Skills.One could agree that a peaceful society is one without deaths, correct? So how is the fact that people would be dying due to the fact that Marijuana is legal be PEACEFUL? How is the fact that motorists will be riding our streets while under the influence of Marijuana while they are behind the wheel of a "car, [which] can be considered deadly weapons if they have the ability to cause harm"(1) a peaceful thing? This being said, a deadly weapon in the hands of a person under the influence of Marijuana , which as my opponent stated in his first argument, impairs the use of motor-skills, would not make this world a peaceful place.Furthermore, Violence is defined as being rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment. So a person being killed by a stoned motorist is an act of violence, whether intentional or unintentional.Contention2: Marijuana tends to lead to danger and even death.Marijuana whether leagal or illegal, tends to put the life of a said person in danger. In fact, contrary to what my opponent stated in his first argument, "Studies show that violence can occur more often among people who use marijuana regularly, rather than those who use it occasionally or not at all."(2)In sumation, i belive that marijuana should remain illegal for the reasons above. Making this drug legal does not stop anything violent from occuring while using the drug. Thank you for taking the time to read my case.1)http://www.criminalattorneyusa.com...2)http://adai.washington.edu...
The world would be a more peaceful place if marijuana were legal.

Con has clearly missed the point of this debate, which makes it difficult for me to know where to start. So far, Con has presented two arguments. 1. The use of marijuana impairs motor-skills. Con suggests that legalising marijuana will result in more people driving whilst stoned, which will result in more car accidents. I suspect that I am not the only reader who fails to see the relationship between an inability to drive and violence/aggression. Perhaps Con can clarify. 2. The use of marijuana leads to danger and potentially death. Con offers a singular anecdote about a friend in support of this claim, and almost nothing in the anecdote relates to voilence/aggression. Perhaps Con can clarify. Con does raise the issue of potentially dangerous drug deals, and this does relate to voilence/aggression. However, if marijuana were legal, then dangerous drug deals clearly would not exist. Buying marijuana would be like buying groceries. Unfortunately, Con has completely missed the point of this debate. Con is arguing about whether or not marijuana should be legalised. The debate is actually about whether the legalisation of marijuana would result in a more peaceful (less violent/aggressive) world.
The world would be a more peaceful place if marijuana were legal.

Marijuana.Pot, herb, weed, grass, boom, Mary Jane, gangster, or chronic. Whatever you may call it, it remains the same. It is a drug that is currently illegal in the United States. The fact that it is illegal says something in itself. Contention 1: The use of Marijuana impairs Motor Skills Motor skills are essential for almost everything in life. From playing soccer to driving a car. The problem that Marijuana poses is the fact that it impairs these essential motor skills. I will also take the time to point out that my opponent actually went against himself in stating that Marijuana impairs these essential skills. Now, back to my first contention. When one becomes "stoned", as my opponent calls it, he or she looses a firm grip on reality. They may be able to walk, but i say to the voter and my opponent, that they may not be able to drive. This is precisely the reason why Marijuana is illegal in the first place! In fact "a meta-analysis (a way of combining lots of smaller studies to make one larger and more powerful study) of 60 studies concluded that cannabis causes impairment in almost every performance area connected with safe driving--such as tracking, motor coordination, visual functions, and complicated tasks that require divided attention"(1). The use of Marijuana severely impacts the way a person may be able drive. This being said, legalizing the drug will put motorist in EXTREME danger. Contention 2: Marijuana tends to lead to danger and even death I begin this contention by telling a personal story. I had a friend (that shall remain nameless) that used the said drug. She started of with it. She called me every day with a new story about how she was "high" and went to go steal cigarettes. This soon worsened with each day that passed. One day, i remember that she called me and said she was depressed. She wanted to end her life. I tried talking to her and asking her why she felt like this. She simply said " i'm out of weed". Soon after, she began buying other drugs from unknown dealers. One day, she comes to school after a fight that she had with a dealer that ripped her off by selling her an "ounce of droll", which is another drug. This proves that Marijuana tends to lead to severe problems. My friend could have been killed if the dealer had decided to bring a gun. Why would one legalize a drug that tends to lead to even MORE problems. My former friend wanted to take her life because she was depressed." Marijuana is a Hallucinogenic that takes on the characteristics of a depressant"(2). This being said, the drug acts like an enemy instead as a friend, contrary to what my opponent might say. Marijuana should remain illegal for all the above reasons, thank you. 1)http://www.erowid.org... 2) http://www.squidoo.com...
The world would be a more peaceful place if marijuana were legal.

Okay, so my argument is pretty simple: 1. People who are high on marijuana are less likely to be violent. This is why you have never witnessed a stoned person initiate a fight. It is practically impossible to get into a fight when stoned. Marijuana usually has a sedative effect; it reduces irritability, increases happiness, and increases relaxation [1]. It also makes users more talkative [1], and talking is a less aggressive form of dispute resolution compared with violence. Further, marijuana often impairs users' motor-skills and coordination [2], making it physically more difficult to inflict injury on others. 2. If marijuana were legal, more people would be high on marijuana more often. Marijuana is already the most used illicit drug [3], which indicates that people want to use it. The percentage of a population that uses cannabis tends to increase with decreasing penalties [4][5]. Therefore, marijuana use would increase if the drug were made legal. 3. Therefore, if marijuana were legal, violence would decrease. Follows from 1 and 2 above. 4. In addition, all violence stemming from the illegality of marijuana (e.g. gang wars, resisting arrest etc.) would cease. I don't think further explanation is required here. [1] http://www.drugs.health.gov.au...[2] http://www.drugs.health.gov.au...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(drug)[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

Informal debate, so to speak. General rules:1) Don't be rude. 2) Don't be a kritik (i.e. say that there should be no gov't)3) Sources are required only if you make a scientific claim. 4) Enjoy yourself! This isn't supposed to be an incredibly proffesional debate, just stay on topic.With that, I'll give definitions:Abortion: the killing of a human fetus.Legal: permited by law.SkySky16 will begin arguments in R1, and waive R4 to allow Pro to have the first argument and still have the same amount of arguments as Con.
Challenge me.

Well unfortunately this was not much of a debate. I will summarize my argument by saying that Jefferson's only significant contribution to the founding of the country was the Declaration of Independence. I think I've successfully argued that there were a number of far more significant founding achievements that Jefferson played little or no role in. The fact is, the founding of our country would have occurred sans the Declaration. Based on my argument you can at a minimum conclude that no one founder was most significant. If no founder is most significant CON is the proper vote. I would have liked to have made a case for Washington, Adams, or Franklin as most significant (I think a strong argument can be made for each) but unfortunately did not need to. Thank you.
USA interfering with others

"Syria? why does the US care?"Because Syria could cause instability in other bordering nations including Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, and Lebanon, and could also serve as a new base of operations for Al-Qaeda should the country civil-war itself to death or into a state similar to Somalia. Also the US is the only entity that can actually do something about it..... The UN is about as fearsome as a baby deer, nobody else in the Middle East has the power to intervene and succeed in bringing an end to the violence, Europe doesnt want anything to do with Syria, and Russia is actually rooting for Assad......"Obama supporting terrorism in Egypt"Except that he doesnt, thats just retarded. "US calling upon Arabs as terrorists when bombing and killing families in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Iran by US Soldiers isn't terrorism."The US isnt intentionally trying to bomb families in Afghanistan or Iraq, and we arent even bombing anybody in Iran right now.
Church/Religion is the biggest scam and manipulation of ill informed human minds.

Like i said. I truly do respect of some the religion's philosophies. But the main foundation of religion is the idea of god. I do like some parts of some religions, but for the most part i think church is a complete waste of time. Yes, the church doesn't scam you money anymore, but they do take your time. Now depending on what religions you focus on, the offense could be bad up to barely anything. My problems is that such great philosophies are built on such a phony foundational idea od god/heaven and all that mythical stuff. If a religion didn't have a god and lets just say, their philosophy was to be nice to everyone, it wouldn't be bad at all. But mos religions aren't like that. So when i take about religions i talk about 99% of the religions, not the very few that are reasonable.
Church/Religion is the biggest scam and manipulation of ill informed human minds.

i see your points and it is defiantly true taht protestants are btter in most ways and also today's society and reformed the church even more. But it is the same religion and the apple doesnt fall too far from the tree. Sorry for the short rersponse to such a lengthy and well thought out peice but i think you mostly address a single issue of the protestants not being as bad as the catholic. But to some other of my concerns being the foundation and center of the religions being a fiction figure isn't a good thing And like i said, church today wastes your time because of what your great ancestors fell victim to. Today, people go to church, i hate to say it, but i went to church a couple times, and this is all i heard "blah blah worship god, god is soo great, we bow down to god, god is almighty, i am HONORED to praise god, i a SOO THANKFUL that good has given me the prvilige of worshipping him, i love god, god is the best, i am grateful to be here loving god, god will save me, god is the best thing that ever happened tome" now i know this isn't what the church is about but to me hearing this is soo discouraging that people waste their time to stop and be honored to PRAISE a non-existent figure. Its astounding that people actaully do beleive in this and waste their precious time to do this for "god"
Church/Religion is the biggest scam and manipulation of ill informed human minds.

it's fine man. we all make mistakes and i particualry don't care :) we all make mistakes. Now to the debate... I think we are on the same page as far as the roman catholic church being very disgraceful during a certain time period. As you and i both are unity on many of the horrible acts of the catholic church. Even though in today's society the church isn't as much a scammer as they were. But still i think religion in general is a scam. Like i said, not really today, but defiantly back then. And saying that what you beleive in is a scam and centered around a questionable idea or figure, is not great. The religion today do not sell indulgences, tax (as much at least), or try to reap money out of the people. But i, think, even to the extent of the church wasting time on such a nonsense pratice, that the religion only is alive today due to manipulated early minds. I think if islam, christianity, or any other religion was created today, our much better educated and smarter society wouldn't fall into that trap. But since our ancestors beleived that belief has unfortunately been passed on w/o question and being buildt upon to the point where relgion is a legitment thing. From what the catholics did to our precious time that the church wastes today, religion is a very big conspiracy that miraculously survives in our time and because of the immature minds of religion creating times. thank you again for the debate, i know its not over, but im glad i finally get to express my thoguhts on this subj :) good luck