BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"The Bubba Scenario"

However, he mentioned something called a NDD. After a quick Google search I could not find out what a NDD was. Perhaps Con was referring to a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction)? Anyhow, I shall begin. 1. Laser Weapons: . http://news.discovery.com... According to this link, this new weapon, though short-ranged, can shoot down a target in less than five-millionths of a second. Also, there's this link: . http://www.navy.mil... According to this link, it is shockingly inexpensive to use the weapon repeatedly. Conclusion: If the range of these weapons is increased exponentially, which is bound to happen, and many of these weapons are manufactured and deployed, these laser weapons will undoubtedly change the very face of warfare. 2. Our Government's Willingness to Violate the Constitution Here's my proof: . http://rt.com... . http://www.globalresearch.ca... 3. The Federal Government's Ability to Track Us and What we Do Well, for starters, our government already "mines" our online data. . http://www.theguardian.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...(surveillance_program) Also, there is what is called "Facial Recognition Software" . http://www.cbs8.com... . http://time.com... Conclusion: Our Government (and eventually other governments) has access to laser technology (even if it's currently in its earliest stages), our government can track us, and our government has greatly increased its "national security" programs since the September 11 Attacks. I await my opponent's response.
"The Bubba Scenario"

Yesterday (as of the time when I am typing this) I saw "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" in a theater. The movie was just your average Marvel movie, until the movie brought up a very intriguing concept (or at least in my opinion). The movie brought up the idea of a weapon which profiles and identifies potential threats in the blink of an eye and eliminates those threats with high-tech weaponry just as fast. After seeing this, I wondered whether this had ever been discussed on Debate.org. So, I did some searching and I uncovered this: http://www.debate.org... The author dubbed it "The Bubba Scenario," obviously after himself. I would like to debate this "Bubba Scenario" with any debater who is willing to accept this challenge. Rules: First round is for acceptance. Burden of proof is shared. Conceding the improbability of one or more aspects of the Bubba Scenario will not result in an automatic loss for me, as I admit some parts of it may be far fetched. I await a challenger who is willing to debate the Bubba Scenario.
Marijuana Legalization

My opponent kept posting links and statistics that are not of any relevance our dispute. Arguments that I presented are based on simple reasoning, and can be reached as conclusions without effort. There is no way to make evidence for if marijuana legalization will increase use or not. Because evidence means statistics of past usage. This statistics are affected by multiple different factors; And some of them were not possible to measure. Here are the reasons why legalization of marijuana would increase number of users: - There are much more tobacco users and much more alcohol users then marijuana users. Effects are pretty much the same, but people prefer to use legal drugs. - For people who are not hanging with thugs, it is currently very hard to find a dealer. - Fear from consequences is currently greater, because people know they will go to prison if they get caught. Voters will excuse me for my typo. My argument still stands. By implying my solution, war on drugs would become super effective. If marijuana was legal, cartels would focus on other drugs. This makes reducing cartels issue by less then 30%. My solution however, would easily disband cartels. At private properties, people who also live in the house, would also breath in the smoke; Including kids. I will not make it even more obvious: Who is more likely to start singing, person surrounded by 9 people who sing, or person surrounded by 9 people who are not making a sound? Evidence for marijuana being addictive: http://www.drugabuse.gov... Big companies are often paying celebrities to advertise their products.; Which they certainly wouldn't if it wasn't affecting people's psyche. Is there any reason why celebrities advertising marijuana in music video would be less effective then in other cases? - No. Lets put that extra money into welfare or healthcare. We can imprison actual criminals by implying my solution. "troll argument"? It is a valid reason why marijuana use has grown. And here is the evidence for last reason: http://world.time.com... Making a credit card for everyone is certainly not a problem. Many people currently use credit cards, and as we can see - money on them is extremely safe. Furthermore, by implying my solution, it would be impossible to steal money, for if you did, everyone could so where the money was transferred to. Who wants all transactions to be public knowledge? - People who don't do crimes. They would be much richer, because this would disable all the big criminals. Of course corrupt politicians would never allow this system, because people would discover that they are criminals; But this is not a problem for my position, which I explained in Round1. Reducing prison sentences is acknowledging sentences are too long; Not that drug users do not deserve sentences at all. Conclusion: Implying my solution would significantly fix many things. If we do imply it, marijuana use can be easily reduced for low amount of money, as long as it is illegal. Making marijuana legal would not do any significant good, and there would be much users.
Marijuana Legalization

Counter-arguments: C1: My opponent has shown that since we prohibited marijuana, it's usage has grown. This however does not imply that there wouldn't be even more use of marijuana if it wasn't prohibited. C2: One trillion may seem like a big number to some people, but America is more then 170 trillion in debt. Money only serves to divide goods. Only real concern is how much people are working in war on drugs. C3: Drug cartels can work without marijuana, with other drugs nearly as well. C4: By consuming marijuana, people are doing harm to other people by: - Making big smoke that is unhealthy to breathe. This is a very serious issue in places such as restaurants, offices, shops... - Making other people more likely to smoke. - Making people produce more of it. And as follows, making producers make more advertising for smoking marijuana. By becoming addicted to marijuana, people become dependent on their providers. This directly reduces their freedom. Many people do horrible things to get money for drugs; Many things that they wouldn't do if they were not addicted. Now I will address reasons why marijuana use is growing. 1. It is promoted in music industry. Many rappers are financed by big drug dealers. 2. There are private prisons. Some people are making money of imprisoning people. It is in their best interest to make drug usage as high as possible. 3. Many government officials want more power of government. Big number of drug addicts is a great excuse for them to make police state. 4. Many drug dealers are working with or for people who are supposed to fight against usage of marijuana. Solution: 1. Abolishing all paper money and coins. Only valid paying method should be credit cards. All transactions should be displayed on official website, to whoever wants to see them. In other words, everyone would be able to see anyone's history of transactions. This way, catching all big dealers would be extremely easy; And not just them but many other criminals. 2. Government buying private prisons and reducing sentences, in order to shut other private prisons down.
Gay Rights

I accept your challenge. First, I will address the issue of rights and marriage. I will then deconstruct your bizarre assertion that homosexual behaviour 'influences kids'. __________________________________ Here is an excerpt of mine from a previous debate on this topic: "The right to engage in a relationship with another person is fundamental to the human condition. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. " [. http://www.un.org...] Furthermore, Article 2 of the same declaration demands "[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind. .. " I also made the case that, - Having relationships with other people is not a privilege, it is a right - Formalising that relationship through marriage is also a right - Two homosexuals getting married does not infringe upon anyone else's rights to marriage - It is the business of those two people. No one else. I will now address your assertion that homosexuality is something that can influence children. The scientific literature is clear on this topic: homosexuality is not a choice [. http://www.iflscience.com...]. As an example, I present this thought experiment. I am a heterosexual male, and I have a girlfriend. I enjoy kissing her and spooning and all the things that go along with being in a relationship with a female. To me, the idea of kissing/having sex with a male does not even remotely excite me, and causes a pretty unpleasant feeling; I would not wish to engage in a relationship with a man. I could not possibly choose to want to have sex with a man, because I am heterosexual and I'm just not built that way. Could you possibly foresee yourself making the CHOICE to sleep with someone of the same gender? Unless you are born homo-, bi- or asexual, you are going to be attracted to people of the opposite gender. However, being born gay would mean that this thought experiment works in reverse. The thought of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex likely repulses them, and yet they are forced to do so to conform to artificial, arbitrary social standards which aren't helpful to anyone. The only two people that are affect by a gay couple are the people in that relationship. Children seeing a gay couple might become more tolerant, or feel more comfortable coming out if they already are gay, but it will certainly not 'turn them gay'. This is just absurd.
A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible.

A most unfortunate thing has occurred - life and work has gotten in the way of my time here on this debate. As I am almost out of time, I will bring my last round forward, and would like to make the point that NOTHING is impossible. If given enough motivation and time, robots could very well take over. This whole scenario is a "what if" idea. Kudos to my opponent for his rebuttal. But i still contend that what is impossible now is not necessarily so in the future. But seeing that 12 minutes is not enough time for me to show this, I must rest my case.
A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible.

- Robot - A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command with artificial intelligence. - Revolution - an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. - Impossible - unable to be done, performed, effected, etc. A few ground rules: 1.Both sides must produce a minimum of 2 points on why they think 'A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible'. Failure to do so by round 2 is an automatic forfeit of the debate itself. A point must not be rebuttal of the opponents points. Doing so is an automatic forfeit of the debate itself. 2. Forfeiting a round is automatically forfeiting conduct. 3. Debating the topic in the comments section is automatically forfeiting conduct. 4. My opponent cannot use R1 for rebuttal. Doing so is automatically forfeiting conduct. 5. Accepting this debate is accepting these rule I have set. Now onto my points: 1. --Computers are programmed artificially, therefore they cannot do things outside of their commands: Robot do not have instincts like humans. They can only do what their software or program enable them to do, and tells them what to do. A robot programmed to be a house cleaner cannot automatically become a soldier with a thirst to kill humans without a software changed done by a human. The title states ' by robots alone', ergo it implies it has to be done by robot machines, not by any humans or by the aid of humans. 2. -- A revolution by robots would be easily quashed: Robots are dependent on energy for almost everything. Cut the robot energy supply, and they cannot function very long. As well, robot's cannot move around like Humans. They are usually restricted to wheels, which can only traverse certain landscape, or legs which are finicky and slow. They do not have the arm abilities like us. Humans can not only use a rifle, but can load artillery guns, lift crates, push things, etc. Robots would be limited to one of the above, and if presented with any other the other, would not know how to approach them. These are the ideas I submit why 'A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible'. I look forward to my opponents response.
The Bible does NOT support the teaching of the Immortal Soul

:(I was looking forward to a good debate!Hopefully my opponent will return to start the next roundSince I have nothing to rebuttaland I have no need to give anymore BoF in till my opponent rebuttals itI have nothing to really say here.But I will not let this part of the debate go uninteresting!Please enjoy this youtube video.Here is one of Julian smiths awesome videos.http://www.youtube.com..."Its always on a Saturday"P.S. Johnny died.
The Bible does NOT support the teaching of the Immortal Soul

I was thinking of some good Debating topics and I think this will be a good debate that both sides can have a civil Debate over.Personal Religion is NOT a factor here.Anything said in round 1 is not to be considered in the Voting, That includes Source Links, Arguments, Grammar,Conduct. You can be a atheist you can be a Catholic Muslim Baptist ect ect.The Bible in this debate will be the MAIN source material Round 1 will be for acceptance, Both Pro and Con will hold the responsibility of BOF and RebuttalsRound 1 AcceptanceRound 2-4 BOF and RebuttalsIf my Opponent has any objection to Definitions provided or rules he must PM me BEFORE he posts his acceptance.You may accept the debate and then PM me but do not post your acceptance in round 1 if you do have a problem, PM me first, and we will talk.This is not a debate on if we go to heaven or hell or what happens after Death this is a debate on is the Soul IMMORTAL CAN it DIEDefinition of Immortal [1] not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting. Definition of Soul [2] a human being; person. Definition The Bible [3]the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. Definition of support [4]to bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part, etc.); serve as a foundation for. (In this case the Bible)Definition Teaching [5]something that is taught.(Again these do not count toward the Source material vote) [1] - http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] - http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] - http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] - http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: The production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for those 18 should be legal.

Rebuttals: "My opponent is already incorrect from the start. Simple possession of marijuana can either result in a misdemeanor or a felony (which is usually given if the person has had possession arrests before), depending on their criminal record." My opponent has clearly misunderstood my original argument, either because he chose not to read my argument or simply did not understand it. I am aware, as are most people, that possession of marijuana is a crime and punishable by up to one year in jail. But for the vast majority of cases, possession simply results in a fine and / or probation: "The Moscone Act, effective January 1, 1976, augmented this process by taking the most common marijuana offense-- possession of a small amount out of Superior Court entirely... This provision meant that marijuana possession offenders did not have to appear even in lower courts. And since the maximum penalty for this offense was a $100 fine (not incarceration), jail as well as prison populations fell." (1) "Overall, the result of the Moscone Act and these other influences was to reduce the marijuana prison population to about half its 1972 level." (1) As you can see, most marijuana charges already don't result in jail time - and as such your contention that legalizing marijuana would decrease the prison population is patently false. Therefore my original contention stands and the rest of my opponent's argument on this contention is rather irrelevant. "...That's $45 million in tax dollars." Assuming we accept my opponents rather naive fiscal statements on taxing marijuana, even if there was "45 million" dollars in revenue, the average cost of just the medical treatment programs for smoking is 8.7 billion dollars per year for California (2). As you can see, your contention that taxing marijuana would produce a profit is absolutely ridiculous, as we all have to pay for the associated medical costs of smoking related diseases through Medicare / Medicaid / Uninsured Patients. "This point is moot as marijuana would not be considered a good cash crop. It requires too much labor to grow large fields of it." This is a ridiculous assumption with no proof to support it. Cotton is a crop that requires arguably more labor and larger land area than marijuana to grow, and it is the archetypal "cash crop". If marijuana is legalized, farmers will grow it to the exclusion of other crops because they can make the most money off of it. Therefore, my original contention still stands and efficiency would decrease if MJ was legalized. "Crime rates does not pertain to my opponents value of efficiency, therefore the point should not be taken as valid." It's rather apparent you didn't even read my argument. Decreasing crime rates resulting in lower associated policing costs, increasing efficiency. My contention still stands. 1: http://www.druglibrary.net... 2: http://berkeley.edu...
Resolved: The production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for those 18 should be legal.

I will first defend my own case, then go on to attack my opponent's. "Criminalizing marijuana distracts the justice system from real issues." My opponent is already incorrect from the start. Simple possession of marijuana can either result in a misdemeanor or a felony (which is usually given if the person has had possession arrests before), depending on their criminal record. Even as a misdemeanor it can carry the sentence of: "a maximum of one year in jail and a $2,000 fine." As a felony the sentence is: "a prison sentence of one year and a day to ten years and a maximum fine of $5,000" (http://www.getsmartaboutdrugs.com...) "A legal market for marijuana could be heavily taxed, like they do for cigarettes, and provide money to the government." The amount spent on prevention is currently about $4.5 million. Since I said they should tax marijuana with a similar rate as cigarettes I will use that to show how much they make. Currently the average price of a pack of cigarettes is about $5 per pack with tax, and the tax is about $1 (http://tobaccofreekids.org...). Making the tax rate about 25%. One unit (.5 grams) of marijuana is usually sold for about $9 (http://economics.about.com...). This would probably decease in a free market, to, lets say $6. A tax rate of 25% on $6 would be $1.50. 14% of the US population is considered to be 'regular users' (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...) who smoke at least once a month. The total US population is 308 million people, that makes about 30 million people that smoke marijuana. That's $45 million in tax dollars. "Legalizing Marijuana will raise the prices of both food and clothing." This point is moot as marijuana would not be considered a good cash crop. It requires too much labor to grow large fields of it. "Legalizing marijuana will not decrease crime rates." Crime rates does not pertain to my opponents value of efficiency, therefore the point should not be taken as valid.
Resolved: The production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for those 18 should be legal.

I've taken this argument because I recently read an article that brought up a point I hadn't considered when discussing Marijuana legalization, and I would like to share it here. My value for negating my opponents resolution will also be efficiency - and will also use my opponents apt definition of "not wasting resources". My value criterion will be the price of various products - the measure of the efficiency of any economic process. Contention 1: Legalizing Marijuana will raise the prices of both food and clothing. If marijuana is legalized as a commercial product, allowed to be grown by private citizens and corporations, food prices will most certainly rise. This is due the agricultural economic principle of "cash crops" - farmers will grow that for which they can receive the most return on their investment. In this case, farmers will abandon growing wheat and grains, and instead will grow marijuana in its place due to its price. This will cause the supply of food to go down, causing prices to go up - a decrease in efficiency. The same principle applies for cotton and clothing. Thus both my opponents and my own value definitions of efficiency demands we keep essential (read: food) prices down by prohibiting MJ cultivation. Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana will not decrease crime rates. A regularly offered argument is that legalizing marijuana will put drug cartels out of business. However, this claim is discounts the adaptability of criminal organizations. They will not simply "fail" as a result of legalization - they will simply move to other avenues of business. We can observe similar behaviors through Prohibition and the Mafia. When Prohibition ended, the Mafia did not disappear, instead they entered more heavily into markets of extortion. Indeed, the legalization of marijuana will force criminal organization to enter into more violent criminal endeavors in order to sustain themselves - raising costs of police work and destruction of personal wealth of victimized citizens, thereby decreasing relative efficiencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttals: "Criminalizing marijuana distracts the justice system from real issues." This statement is false, as possession and use of marijuana rarely results in jail time. Instead, possession charges are used to convict only institutionalized felons and drug barons where other charges cannot be made. Putting them in jail reduces criminal activity and raises societal efficiency and productivity. "A legal market for marijuana could be heavily taxed, like they do for cigarettes, and provide money to the government." This statement ignores the fact that these revenues are most often put into social programs to prevent smoking and medical programs that treat related diseases. So in actuality, there is no net profit from taxation and therefore no increase in efficiency, negating your contention.