BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a unique argument for the god of the three Abrahamic religions.

Welcome! Welcome! Welcome to this debate. Allow me to explain my meaning when I say "unique". It might be misleading to some. When I say "unique"; I mean an argument that provides evidence for the god of the three Abrahamic religions that cannot be copy and pasted to another God or higher being. Therefore, any argument presented must be unique to the god of these three religions: Christianity Islam Judaism These three religions are often considered to be the three Abrahamic religions and, hence, they will be the religions which one must present unique argument(s) for. The first round will be acceptance and opening arguments from my opponent (as the BoP [burden of proof] falls to him/her to proof this particular god). The last round will be for closing statements; this leaves rounds two, three, and four for good ol' debating! My opponent will accept the following things: S/he accepts that the BoP solely relies on him/her (in this debate) to prove this god uniquely. S/he accepts that only logical arguments can be given. My personal aim of this debate is to try to prove that any argument presented for the existence of the god of the three Abrahamic religions are not unique arguments. Hence, these three religions are just as logical/illogical as any other. The purpose of this debate is, of course, to try and prove me wrong. Well, that's all for my round one - it's open for anyone. Good luck to my opponent (whomever it may be) and allez!
Derren brown is an amazing person.

In a post on yahoo answers (this is a perfectly acceptible source for an opinionated debate), Pan Zensual said that an amazing person is, "A person with the inner strength needed to stand tall through the hard times in life. The kind of person that does the best they can with what they have instead of moaning and complaining over it and giving up without even trying. Someone that knows how to see the good things in life even when bad times comes and finds ways to spread their hope and optimism to others. A person that gives because of the goodness in the act and not because they expect something back. The kind of person that would offer you to share their last food with you if you were hungry. Someone that sees the need and tries to find ways to fill it and help others so that they in their turn can help too. A person that can be trusted and that you know will do the right thing even though it is tough. The kind of person that will understand your problems and offer solutions and support. Someone that has the experience and the empathy to not only care but also know right from wrong." Even if Darren Brown is an amazing illusionist, magician, artist, skepitcalist, etc., he still does not meed the criteria for an "amazing person."
Derren brown is an amazing person.

On the Derren Brown show, he did a psychic experiment that was simply sick and horrendous. He had, with the help of a video games programmer, developed a game that placed players in a catatonic trance. He placed the game in a pub and waited for a player. Using this trance, and with the help of a hospital bed, carted them to a specially designed setting that was an exact replica of what had been created in the game. The man was quite obviously the most terrified he had ever been, and the situation was horribly realistic. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people had heart attacks if they were placed in a situation like this. Also, everything I have ever seen of his is very easily explainable and/or just plain did not work. The only thing he is good at is making money from idiots. Some things shown on that show are are just so outlandish that I'm now beginning to think that either people are ridiculously suggestible, or some of his stunts are setup/fake. Perhaps I should put up a sign outside my door, asking people to donate $10 checks through my letterbox. But somehow, I don't see my sign having the same effect that DB seems to have on gullible people. At the start of his shows he says "what you are about to see is magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. " After watching the first three of these events, I formed the conclusion that 90% of the stuff he has done in these shows is showmanship, and for that read camera tricks, actors, stooges and set ups. I've seen very little which could be reasonably assumed to be misdirection/psychology/suggestion using the skills he was touted as having from his previous stuff. Stuff like the coffee shop bloke was pure actor bullshine, the only people probably not in on the act where the shop assistants in Dixons or wherever it was. Note the only time when a "no actors or stooges" caption pops up is in the theater bit where if you assume the randomly chosen participant isn't a stooge, then the trick he pulls does look more like traditional magician stuff using his skill, whereas the entire rest of the program is nothing but actor/stooge stuff. I think we are being shown actors, or people who desperately want to be on TV and so are playing along. The way he claimed to have predicted the lottery was definitely false. The chaos that goes on it a lottery machine means that the only way to predict the numbers using humans would be via a psychic premonition, not via some group pattern recognition, because there would be no pattern for the group to recognize. In fact, there is evidence that he rigged the lottery. (See: . http://ninethirtyfive.wordpress.com... )
Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment

My arguments are not plagiarized, they are quoted BIG DIFFERENCE. I specifically quoted and gave sources while you simply copy pasted and didn't even give an immediate source or use quotes. =Hitler= I think that is unfair to compare Hitler to a teacher. Simple as that. --If you have been beaten in your life by a parent you do not forget. It is a fearful memory that is full of pain, I am sure you would not forget this very quickly.-- Look, there are alot of things in life you don't, remember when you had to learn how to swim? If you get this memory, you will never repeat this mistake again and it will teach you a lesson to. =Blind Statements= I use an actual man that has grown up with corporal punishment, you state something completely out of the blue with nothing to support it with. The site I state also has statistics as well as REAL people talking about their experiences if you looked closely. =Suspensions= Oh My Gosh, REASONING! Look, if your taken out of school will you learn? No. If your punished right there and right in the middle of class the learning environment only gets disrupted for a couple minutes at most! =Refuting my closing statement= Don't be stupid. I have refuted all of CONS points and have supported my arguments accordingly. ====VOTE PRO====
Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment

First i'd like to start out with a definition. "Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. " Next ill post a practical example. Lets say a teacher is teaching a class. A student in the class talks out of turn. He is given a WARNING, and then he does it again and is given another WARNING, now, he talks out of turn again, he is called up to the front (or after school, at the teachers discretion) and the teacher would use a ruler to hit the students palms. There, end of story! This is the only way to speak to children these days because if they were punished orally or given detention the student would be more likely to repeat that mistake again. Now, i will bring some evidence to support my arguments. An editor from childdisciplinewithlove. com states "[Corporal Punishment] That's the only language children understand, and they understand it instantaneously. That's how you can prevent children from spoiling. I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me. It has deterrent effect as well. If you beat one child in front of other children, not only that child learns to behave, others also learn a lesson to behave. Children try and test your limits. Show them some physical punishment so that they know it very clearly that each mistake of theirs will attract some physical punishment. •It is only fear which restrains children from misbehaving. Show the something to be afraid of and they will behave. Corporal punishment has instantaneous effect. Children obey and behave absolutely right when punished. Pampering and talking to them lovingly spoils them. There is no point in talking to them regarding solving any of their behavior problem because they are young and have no understanding of the worldly wisdom. So it's better not to waste time on taching them through talking. Just show them the fear of doing something wrong and they will do everything right. History of corporal punishment suggests that it has taught children to behave over last so many ages. " If you look at his last points it states that not only the child being faced with the punishment will learn but other children in the classroom will learn. Thank You.
The Illuminati is real.

They have a Wikipedia page. Yes, but why do you think teachers say that Wikipedia is not a reliable web page to write essays? Wikipedia is not something that can prove the existence of a secret brotherhood. there are social profiles under the illuminati name as there is one mine, and one yours and as there are many fakes profiles... Social profiles does not prove that a real member of the iluminati has created it. Iluminati is just another tool, as god is, to create fear in society, they say the pyramids are a iluminati sign because it has the shape of a triangle, but the pyramids were built thousands of years ago, if they are real what are they waiting for to conquer the world? Why they are taking so long if they crontol everything in society? They are not real, it's just another way, created maybe by the government, to scare the people as Christian people uses god to scare the people!
The Illuminati is real.

In this debate, I will be arguing that the Illuminati is real.There is a multitude of evidence pointing to the fact that the Illuminati is real. For example, they have a Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org...).Also, their symbol is a triangle. Triangles are everywhere. The Illuminati invented the triangle, and it is now everywhere. Clearly, the Illuminati has infiltrated our society.My final point of evidence is the fact that there are multiple social media accounts that prove the existence of the Illuminati. Look up @Illuminati_Stop or @TheIlluminati on Twitter. Both of these give evidence that the Illuminati is a real society.I have proved that the Illuminati exists today and is a hidden society. It is now Con's turn to prove that they don't. *This is a troll debate. Please do not take offense to this.*
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

You have made some great examples in this round! Not what i was expecting :) I shall write my rebuttal in order 1) I agree that it is not necessary, yet drug dealers do it. They use chemicals and other substances to make the plant grow quicker. This in the end ends up in the pot which can harm the user. 2) I agree that marijuana isn't "Physically" addictive, the form of addiction that becomes of the feeling is just as negative. The user will eventually start to not feel the effects and try something harder, this brings on the use of harder and more lethal drugs. 3) I think this debate should be strictly secular, so i would like to not comment anything about that verse from the Bible or YOUR opinion on it. Sorry :) 4) I agree that mandatory minimum sentencing is a horrible system. But I would like to comment on how the banning of booze is not the same as banning marijuana. The banning of booze was done for religious reasons, while the banning of marijuana is because of health reasons (the later effects of quicker decaying neurons and the slowing of synapses, not to mention depression, schizophrenia, anxiety etc.). Also even though many people have died because of drug cartels (related to the transportation of marijuana) the reason that the government has not permitted marijuana is because it is more trouble than its worth. Why would someone spend millions of dollars in an industry which destroys people mentally (yes i agree that cigarettes and alcohol do the same but weed would add to this) when the people can easily live without it. A point i would also like to discuss is the social side of marijuana. Meaning in particular the type of culture and crowd it brings. In the 60's the hippy culture (generally associated with weed so i'm going to use it as an example) was seen as a psychedelic and colorful scheme. While weed usage nowadays attracts a more sort of scummy, unclean environment. Some weed users who smoke with other people view them people as friends, but they are not, they only stick around for the drug and that's it (many past experiences to back this up) . Many users today view weed as a sort of "do it because its cool" ideal (seen also commonly in underage drinking/smoking). This however is a terrible ideal to have when using something recreationally as it defeats the purpose of enjoying something because you want to, it takes the free will out of it. Thats all im going to say this round, looking forward to the next! :)
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

I thank you for posting such an informative topic. Although i agree with some of your arguments there are a few i do not agree with. I will point them out. 1) Now, even though I don't agree with the War on Drugs, I say that things like heroin and crystal meth are really bad. But those are chemically processed drugs. Marijuana is purely the plant, no chemicals. So I propose that we legalize marijuana for recreational use for individuals 21 or older on the idea that 2) Unlike alcohol, tobacco, or even prescriptions, weed is not addictive. 3) NO ONE in human history has ever died from weed. Ever. Alcohol has killed at least 50,000 people a year from direct consumption, let alone the accidents (although that is largely a lack of personal responsibility). Tobacco has killed 450,000. 4) We would have fewer victimless criminals clogging our prisons. I will not rebut these arguments in order. 1) Some Marijuana is chemically enhanced and has many harmful chemicals put into it (when made by drug dealers), I have witnessed myself the caliber of things they put into the plants to make it grow quicker. I do however agree that if it is legalized, only people over the age of 21 may consume it. 2) Weed is addictive. What marijuana does is it releases dopamine in your brain (hence the slang word for marijuana "dope). This is what gives the user the happy high feeling. The more the dopamine is released like this, the less it releases over time, making you want and crave for more and more. This is how depression from weed can sprout, the lack of dopamine makes the body feel sad and lonely, and also schizophrenia can come from weed usage. This is addiction. Cocaine and other hard drugs also release this chemical and this is why some weed users turn to harder drugs, to get more of a rush. I have seen friends and family addicted to this drug. 3) Weed may not have killed people, but weed related incidents have. Such as people driving while high and people operating heavy machinery. I also agree with you about how bad alcohol and tobacco is for your system but they are not on the same level of potency as weed. 4) I agree some people who are put in prison for weed related issues are not necessary, but then you get the drug cartels which weed is a main supplier of their funds. Legalizing Marijuana would only make the drug cartels more and more powerful and easy to sell their drug, making them more of a threat to everybody. My credibility comes from 4 years of psychology study at university. Thankyou, and cant wait to see your argument for the next round :)
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

Before I go into my position, I would like to say thanks to my opponent, whoever he/she would be. Without further ado, time to get into my position. With the Marihuana (it was spelled that way back in the day) Tax Act of 1937, Congress asserted the power to ban marijuana for any use outside medicine and industry. (rope is made from the marijuana plant) The rule wasn't exactly enforced, as it was even easier to get it for "medicine" back then. The Act remained the only national legislation on the plant until 1970, when Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act. This act placed marijuana in the group of Schedule 1 drugs, meaning that the drug has no supposed medical use, with a high potential for abuse, in the same category as heroin. So, thus, the Drug War begins. A lot of criminals get rich from drugs, a lot of kids get messed up by contaminated drugs and overdoses, and a lot of money (our money) is wasted. Now fast forward to 2013, several states, mine included, have recognized medical marijuana. Even though the federal law remains unchanged on the subject of marijuana. 2 have gone as far as to say that they have legalized recreational use. Now, even though I don't agree with the War on Drugs, I say that things like heroin and crystal meth are really bad. But those are chemically processed drugs. Marijuana is purely the plant, no chemicals. So I propose that we legalize marijuana for recreational use for individuals 21 or older on the idea that Unlike alcohol, tobacco, or even prescriptions, weed is not addictive. NO ONE in human history has ever died from weed. Ever. Alcohol has killed at least 50,000 people a year from direct consumption, let alone the accidents (although that is largely a lack of personal responsibility). Tobacco has killed 450,000. We could tax it and help pay down the national debt. We would have fewer victimless criminals clogging our prisons. The police, juries, and courts would have more time to deal with real crimes. We could certainly ease some suffering without killing people. (alcohol will kill you over time) We could regulate the quality so fewer people get sick from contamination or "cut" product. And look who's telling you this; I've never taken a recreational drug, never. Not one joint, inhale, or hit. Never even had a sip of alcohol. Thank you for reading. HoneyBadger
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

Okay ill state my final rebuttal and summarize. 1) yes it doesn't matter if the drug dealer gets busted but the user is not informed of what chemical are being used to enhance the growth rate of the plant. Also some users may be allergic to the chemicals used and the variations of the content of these chemicals making the drug a lot more lethal to some people (because they don't know the content). 2) I would like to say that your statistic should have been referenced to back it up. Not to mention that the people who were given the survey may have been lying or under any different circumstance (who would want to admit they have a drug problem? ) but other than that the statistic does not hold very much merit to it. 3) I'm sorry but if you think that ecstasy and LSD are not harmful, that's just ill informed. They are called hard drugs for a reason and they damage your system irreparably. Not to mention that many Marijuana users smoke tobacco with it, making it more potent. Actually that's the police ha ha. Firstly stating that alcohol and tobacco are the first drugs that people is incorrect as there are too many numerous other drugs to mention. However focusing on those two particular drugs mentioned; alcohol cannot be a gateway to different types of alcohol because you simply just consume more. in regard to tobacco that again cannot accompany further tobacco as there are only other variants. But I will note that tobacco is used with marijuana so in a sense it is a gateway. To summarize the usage of marijuana effects you mentally and can lead to many psychological disorders. And if marijuana is so safe, would children allowed to be EXPOSED to this marijuana culture and usage?
Presidential Debate: Fixing the U.S. Economy

Thank you for this debate.I intend to launch supply-side economic policies to save our economy and let it rise again. We must lower all forms taxes in order to let businesses flourish and rise again to meet economic standards. When businesses receive more money, they will use it to expand to produce more in order to increase revenue. They have the ability to lower prices because with more money they can handle the costs easier. Less regulations means that they will not have to deal with spending money to fulfill the government's needs. Supply-side economics have been proven to have worked before in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. Back in the 1920s, the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts that brought the top rate from 77% to 24% ushered in huge investing and consumption. Take a look at the unemployment rate for the time: Here is the percent of ownership under various goods during the decade: How about during JFK? According to the statistics:The tax rates did rise to a high of 90%, but more to that in my refutations later. JFK wanted to pass his own tax cut and bring the top rate down from 90% to 70%. He was killed (interesting notice: both Harding and JFK were supply-side guys and died), but LBJ passed the tax cuts anyway.The results showed modest improvements. Real GDP grew from 4.6% to 5.1% and unemployment went from 5.6% to 3.9%. The Congressional Budget Office looked into federal budget receipts and found huge increases in billions of dollars that exceeded expectations. And now with Reagan: We all know that Reagan passed major tax cuts during his presidency that expanded the economy dramatically. The top tax rate went from JFK's 70% in 1981 to several lower rates before finally finishing at 28% in 1988. Once again, looking at the some economic figures.Real GDP growth was at 0.9% before the tax cuts to 4.8% after and unemployment decline from 10.8% at its height down to 5.4%. As with the two previous examples, the economy grew rapidly. Finally, I think this country needs a gold standard for currency stability. This helps with the trade deficit:"The gold standard will reduce the "bad" trade deficit, which contributes to job losses. Under the current system of floating currencies, the world is on a de facto paper dollar standard. This creates artificial demand for the U.S. Treasury securities by foreign central banks and corporations." And to refute gold starting the Depression:"What we know as the Great Depression actually started as a recession, similar to the recession of 1919. In both cases, we were on a gold standard, and the Federal Reserve mismanaged it. But what turned the recession of the early 1930s into the Great Depression was a series of additional policy errors that intensified the severity and duration of the the downturn."Sources:Lebergott, Stanley. Annual Estimates of Unemployment in the United States, 1900-1954. 1957.Lebergott, Stanley. Pursuing Happiness: American Consumers in the Twentieth CenturyLaffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.Cain, Herman. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012