BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The legalization of Marijuana would strongly promote a healthy economy.

Thank you for answering. Unfortunately, your arguments in this round were all countered already in my first round. I will therefore make quick summaries here. For longer explanations, see my first round. Anything longer than quick summaries would just be copies of what I said first anyway. 1. As mentioned, the economy will only increase when you improve the efficiency. Marijuana will not improve efficiency. Hence, the economy will not become bigger. Therefore, the rise of the marijuana industry will be followed by a similar decline in other industries. 2. Of course it would be foolish to legalize those things. That's my whole point; you can't use the argument "it would lower crime" to make something legal. 3. Again, although marijuana is less dangerous from toxicity, it is not less dangerous from other kinds of danger, and those dangers are prevalent. When people die or hurt themselves from alcohol, it's rarely from the toxicity of alcohol itself, but because drug use impairs their judgment. Marijuana also impairs judgment. 4. You used marijuana users opinions of marijuana as a basis for an argument, despite you now claiming that it is irrelevant to your argumentation. My point is that those opinions are not trustworthy. You can't base arguments on them, you need to base them on scientific research. Thanks for this debate, and again remember: This is not for or against legalization, but for or against the economic effects of legalization. Legalization will have no significant positive economic effects, as I showed in the first round. There are other, good, reason for legalization, though.
The legalization of Marijuana would strongly promote a healthy economy.

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round, I realize that I have a bit of catching up to do. I will simply try to counter all of my opponents previous counters, starting in reverse order with these statements: 1. They still have the same incomes as before, they would just spending more money on marijuana than on other things. So as the marijuana industry would rise, other industries would fall. Peoples incomes would not remain the same due to the fact that an industry composed of many factories would bring countless jobs to the table. As you will see here (. http://www.corpwatch.org...), the tobacco industry alone employs almost 200,000 American citizens. The same increase would occur inevitably within the marijuana industry. As the demand for marijuana rises, the suppliers would look to expand, giving more jobs to the American people. 2. Murder and rape happens all around the world, and are illegal all around the world, and we could obviously lower the rate of crime by making this legal. But it would also increase the amount of rape an murder, and we don't want that. Making something as violent as murder and rape legal would be foolish. Murder and rape are WAY too serious of crimes to be associated with the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone except for the people that choose to do it. On the contrary, rape and murder are harmful to those not choosing to do it. Therefore, trying to associate murder and rape with the legalization of marijuana would be like comparing apples and oranges. 3. Although it is true that Marijuana is less toxic than alcohol and is safer for that reason, saying that is is less dangerous to be under the influence is another thing. My opponent agrees that marijuana is safer than alcohol and says it right here. He said that it is less toxic than alcohol and IS SAFER FOR THAT REASON. Then he tries to debate his own argument by saying that it is LESS DANGEROUS. Safe - secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk. In the definition, safe means to be secure from DANGER. Therefore making safe and dangerous antonyms. 4. The first thing to know about this is that you can never trust what a mind altering drug user says about the effects of a drug, simply because the drug alters the mind. I never intended to debate on the issue of how marijuana users are effected by the drug, because it is irrelevant to my argument.
The legalization of Marijuana would strongly promote a healthy economy.

The legalization of Marijuana would strongly promote a healthy economy. Personally, I've never even tried Marijuana, but I know that the distribution of Marijuana is FAR less dangerous than the distribution of alcohol. Marijuana leaves you at a state more focused. People claim that they focus better and can even play video games when they're under the influence of Marijuana. I'm not saying that everybody should smoke Marijuana everyday and party non-stop. I'm just saying that: 1. Being under the influence of Marijuana is FAR less dangerous than being under the influence of alcohol. 2. The distribution of Marijuana is already worldwide, and it being illegal only promotes crime. 3. The Marijuana industry would be just as profitable as the tobacco industry, therefore promoting a strong economy, and it would ideally bring crime rates to an all-time low. Just because tobacco is legal, not everybody does it. The same would go for Marijuana, not everybody would have to participate to make the industry flourish.
Gun rights

I have done many debates on this topic, and I have only faced one formidable opponent. To make things straight I will give some criteria for the debate. This debate is about america, and you can use other countries statistics if you would like, but relate the proof to america in one way or another. First round is acceptance and saying where you stand on the topic and provide reasons so the reader can understand this better. I am for gun rights. 1. protected my the constitution 2. lowers crime 3. a gun is not dangerous. Videos are allowed, I will be posting one in the 2nd round.
Gun rights

As this debate comes to a close, I give thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic with you.Rebuttal1. Your entire rebuttal on the first point is based on a false idea of the constitution that has been taught to students. Constitutional Law third edition by John G. Schmalleger, states that "The Constitution has power over all state functions" It also states that "The Constitution however, does not have authority on private industries". With this being said, your entire rebuttal is a false idea.2. Your rebuttal on the second point is still unclear. You never understood what I meant. I recommend you reread the original statements I made on this earlier in the debate.3. This third point is still very strong and without proper rebuttal. To answer your question simply, fire is an inanimate object which presents the possibility of harm. Toxic gas too represents a hazard. Even a loaded gun represents a possible hazard. Therefore, this point stands.Your remaining comments are simply repostings of your original thoughts. And if your refer to my rebuttal in round two, you will see my thoughts.Because my points have gone irrefuted and my opponents arguments are clearly shown to be fallacies, I ask for a vote in my favor.Otherwise, I thank you for your opportunity to debate this topic and I look forward to debating again someday.
Gun rights

Thanks for the intelligible response.First, wikipedia is not allowed as a source at my university so ergo, I don't allow it to be used on here.1. I do not support the first amendment. I do not believe in freedom of religion and we do not have freedom of speech. If we have freedom of speech, we could say "fire" in a theater or yell "this is a robbery" in a bank. Because we cant, we don't have the freedom of speech. Therefore, my first argument stands.2. If you reread my argument you will see that I did in fact clarify as to how this truth is applied. However, if you didn't understand it I will clarify again. If person "X" uses a gun to kill a criminal "person Y" who had a gun, then person "X" still used a gun to kill. Here it is as an equation: GUN -/+ GUN = GUN being used at one point or another, either to be used for crime or against crime. 3. Whether the gun is touched or not, it still is "Able" to be used for harm. Because my arguments were not refuted, I continue them on to the next round. I look forward to the next round of arguments.
Gun rights

Thank you for providing a lengthy presentation. A general note on debates: Wikipedia should not and will not ever be taken as a source. I could have been the person to put that information on there.Rebuttal:1. The Constitution. I don't see why this is even used. Just because some people said it was okay to have weapons 300 years ago, does not mean its right. Protected yes, right no. I also will argue saying that when the Constitution was written, the guns they had were inaccurate, a necessary part of providing food, and because they had no law enforcement, needed weapons on their persons at all times. Because we live in a new society, it is not necessary for us to have weapons. Today, are weapons are more powerful and more accurate, we can buy food, and we have a well established means of law enforcement. With the addition of alcohol and other drugs, violence, and the complexity of some types of guns, it is not the optimal environment for civilians to possess guns or any type of firearms. 2. Think about this, every time a gun is used in lowering a crime, a gun is used as a violent tool to commit a crime. That is, for every time you lowered crime with a gun, you just committed a crime with a gun. Therefore, this point is a fallacy because it nullifies itself.3. Yes, this is the most shaky and controversial issue yet. In order for us both to understand the term "dangerous" we need a proper definition: Dictionary.com defines dangerous as: Able or likely to cause harm. With this definition, it is clear that a loaded gun on a table would indeed be "able or likely to cause harm". Notice how the key word is "cause". If there was no gun, there would be no chance. ConclusionGuns are dangerous. They are not necessary, they are not practical, and they are able to present major harm to our society. With the other variables around us, guns could be used more easily for violence. Therefore, guns are bad and they should be done away with lol.This was fun Pro, I look forward to your rebuttal!
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I will now address the attacks made on my own case and address my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that environmental protection is more important than this social development. First, this overlooks the crucial fact that social development through economic progress brings more advanced human rights as a country moves forward. For example, in America, blacks and women gained their status as equals and as we've seen in the past our ability to tend to these issues has been because of this social development. Therefore, this is the superior value and the most moral one in turn. Then my opponent goes on to talk how this social development is not hindered in the affirmative world; however, putting the regulations that the aff suggests would hinder social development because it also hinders the development of a country. Then the point of the resource curse is brought up once more, what I have proven in my refutation in the last speech is that the resource curse is caused by the mismanagement of resources. Putting regulations on resource extraction does not decrease the mismanagement of resources in a country. It is absolutely crucial to remember that these regulations do not solve the problem of mismanagement if that is how a country is run. Argument talks about how these regulations bring a better quality of life for utilitarianism. You as the reader need to ask yourself this question: which is the preferable situation, impoverished by lack of jobs and wealth or some issues to the environment? Until my opponent can give examples of jobs that come from environmental regulation that could even closely give as much income as extracting resources than this argument completely falls. As a general rule, these truly developed countries already start this deceleration of pollution because of more efficient technologies. Lets look at our own country of the United States, Building Strong Environmental Institutions and Legal Structures, Combating Climate Change by Limiting Pollutants, Improving Air Quality, Expanding Access to Clean Water, Reducing Exposure to Toxic Chemicals, Cleaning Up Electronic Waste (E-Waste). All of these programs have come in to play because we have the resources available as a developed country. Where do you think this empirical data came from? Analyzing countries and how the Kuznets curve correlates to all these countries is where it came from. Meh, lost interest. She can win :)
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

All of my attacks on my opponent's arguments and all of my arguments still stand since my opponent forfeited. I am going to go ahead and address voting issues. 1. Social progress (my opponent's value) cannot be achieved when resource extraction takes precedence over environmental protection for several reasons: the resource curse- This can be proved because multiple countries in Africa have suffered from the resource curse. I broke the concept down in my third contention. "Basically the economy begins to revolve around the industry, and more and more people begin to get jobs that are part of the industry. Then value of the national currency goes down because of high wages and other industries (especially the manufacturing sector) begin to suffer. Developing countries with low amounts of economic growth are often the ones with an abundance of natural resources." Developing countries have extremely corrupt governments. Money is not going to the people, rather it is going to the government. Also, jobs that come from resource extraction have very low wages and commonly use child labor. In Lesotho, 70% of the country's soil is unusable. If Lesotho prioritizes environmental protection, the citizens in poverty can feed themselves and earn money from farming. However, if Lesotho prioritizes resource extraction, the country will have no way of achieving progress. The affirmative is not trying to abolish resource extraction. Only in instances of conflict should environmental protection be prioritized. If it is not prioritized, it will hinder, rather than help developing countries progress into developed countries. My opponent is essentially saying that (as someone commented) economic growth is synonymous with resource extraction. This is not the case because of the reasons above.2. Utilitarianism (my opponent's criterion) can be achieved best on my side.Excessive resource extraction is only going to worsen the conditions of developing countries. The only way to help the greatest number of people is to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.3. And finally the weight of the round, life/quality of life. Only on the affirmative side can we achieve this. According to the OECD, 800,000 people die a year from environmental causes. Developing countries cannot even begin to address this problem unless they prioritize environmental protection.
Frozen or Tangled

Yes but, Rapunzel was also more annoying. I'm sure most people would rather see Anna and Elsa. Plus they show what is the occasional relationship between sisters. Rapunzel has no one to relate to so she doesn't go well with much, neither can she be easily compared to the other Disney Princesses. Anna and Elsa can. But when compared together, both Elsa and Rapunzel have wonderful magic, even if one's can kill someone. And don't forget the others. I'm sure almost everybody would agree that Olaf and Sven, are better than Pascal and Maximus.
Frozen or Tangled

Tangled has a Better Actor than Frozen. Tangled has a Better Script, Repunzel has a better likeable character than elsa and Anna Tangled Has A Much Stronger And More Cohesive ScriptRead more at http://whatculture.com... Tangled Has A Much Stronger And More Cohesive ScriptRead more at http://whatculture.com... Tangled Has A Much Stronger And More Cohesive ScriptRead more at http://whatculture.com... Tangled Has A Much Stronger And More Cohesive ScriptRead more at http://whatculture.com...
Whether America should go back to it's founding principle, Christianity

"Students are learning about evolution, the big bang, and other lies."Saying that they are lies is untrue. Not all of them are confirmed, but if no one knows if something happened because no one witnessed it, you can only say it is unconfirmed, you cannot say it is a lie.Evolution, for example, has tons of evidence. For example, a part of what causes evolution to happen, beneficial mutations, has been observed. [1] In fact, beneficial mutations are not rare. [1] Mutations can also add information to organism. For example, if a gene duplicates and then gets mutated, then it can add information, causing a beneficial, neutral, or negative change. Transitional fossils, the "missing link" between specie, have been observed. [2] This gives even more evidence for evolution.Evolution has evidence. It is unconfirmed, but it is wrong to say it is a lie.The big bang also has evidence.Red shift is caused by the light source moving away from you, due to the doppler effect. [3] Red shift has been observed. Red shifts are evidence of the big bang because the big bang says that the universe is expanding, and if the universe is expanding, then light sources like stars move away from you. One explaination of how matter first came is quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations can cause particles to come out of nowhere, and it is tested and confirmed.[4]Again, the big bang is just unconfirmed. It is wrong to say anything is a lie until it is proven false or it is obviously made up, and something that has evidence, but is not proven false, is not a lie."The democrats are trying to change the Pledge of Allegiance, because of the "one nation under God". America was good with God, we look away, and now look at America, we are struggling so much."Was good? The "under god" was not in the pledge until 1954[5]!We are struggling because we do not believe in God? That is fallacious. Just because two things happen at once does not mean one caused the other. If you ate a ham sandwich and then got a lottery jackpot, then by this "we no longer believe in god, so we struggle" logic, then ham sandwiches make you lucky. Again, just because there are more athiests and we are struggling does not mean athiests are causing us to struggle. Pirates are decreasing and temperatures are rising. Does that mean piracy prevents global warming? There are more and more cars on the street and also the census says that homosexuals are increasing. Do cars cause homosexuality?There are more and more athiests and we are struggling more and more. Do athiests cause struggling?[1]http://www.gate.net...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://machineslikeus.com...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
If your mum asks Mr. Glitter to be your babysitter, hit her!

"However, not every child is so lucky. Many mothers are either alcoholics or drug abusers or both and have to go out on the game every night to earn the money to feed their addictions. For them, they may feel that they have no choice but to employ Mr. Glitter if nobody else was available. In these cases, giving a mum a slap might be the only way to bring an ultra-thirsty, drug-crazed matriarch round to her senses." But, an even better solution in that situation would be to simply get my mother so drunk and stoned that she couldn't leave the house. If I do this, I have insured that I will not get Mr. Glitter or any other creepy person as my babysitter. This is of course the superior solution, as it makes my drug-crazed alcoholic mother and me happy. "Aha! That's just where my opponent is wrong! Most babysitters invite their friends round to the house to keep them company. But who would be Gary Glitter's friend? Nobody, except another former pop star who has been accused of molesting children – like MICHAEL JACKSON! He (allegedly) is only interested in boys, so my opponent could be in really deep trouble after all!" Oh damn!
If your mum asks Mr. Glitter to be your babysitter, hit her!

Well. I thought my argument was irrefutable, but it appears my opponent has found not one, but two objections! I ‘m surprised and impressed, LR4N6FTW4EVA, thanks for joining the debate! My opponent's first contention was that instead of resorting to violence, he would just politely explain to his mother that, in his considered opinion, Gary Glitter represents an unsuitable candidate for the position of babysitter, and that former pop idol paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to look after him, his siblings, or any of the sons or daughters of any other families that his mother may or may not be raising on the sly. Reading between the lines, it would appear that my opponent has benefited from a respectable upbringing and that his mother would listen sympathetically to such a request from her son. However, not every child is so lucky. Many mothers are either alcoholics or drug abusers or both and have to go out on the game every night to earn the money to feed their addictions. For them, they may feel that they have no choice but to employ Mr. Glitter if nobody else was available. In these cases, giving a mum a slap might be the only way to bring an ultra-thirsty, drug-crazed matriarch round to her senses. My opponent's second contention was that, as a boy, he would be in no danger from Mr. Glitter in the capacity of freelance babysitter, as the disgraced former pop star only has a predilection for girls, and he wrote: "I am not a pre-pubescent girl, therefore, I have nothing to worry about, and neither do my parents." Aha! That's just where my opponent is wrong! Most babysitters invite their friends round to the house to keep them company. But who would be Gary Glitter's friend? Nobody, except another former pop star who has been accused of molesting children – like MICHAEL JACKSON! He (allegedly) is only interested in boys, so my opponent could be in really deep trouble after all! I await my opponent's response.
If your mum asks Mr. Glitter to be your babysitter, hit her!

I will make my case, then refute yours. I have two contentions. Contention 1: Hitting my mother would not be an appropriate response to this situation. Instead, I should explain to my mother why this man should not babysit me. By doing so, I would be making sure that this man does not babysit my siblings, any of my mother's acquaintances' children, or a hypothetical second family that my mother could be raising. Hitting her would not produce this result. Contention 2: Mr. Glitter molests little girls, I am a little boy. Mr. Glitter is not attracted to me, and would not molest me, and his stint as my babysitter would be rather uneventful. While I would rather him not babysit little girls, I am not a little girl, so I am not in danger. Your case: "Now Glitter is a convicted paedophile and, on the face of it, he would not seem to be the ideal candidate for a babysitting vacancy. However, there is a shortage of child-minders and it is important for parents to have a night out without the kids once in a while." This is yet another argument for my side. If Mr. Glitter is the only candidate for babysitting, who am I to deprive my parents of the opportunity to eat. "Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that if I left two pre-pubescent girls alone in the same house as a renowned sex-pest, I would be failing in my duty to them as a responsible parent and that the thought of this might put me off my meal." I am not a pre-pubescent girl, therefore, I have nothing to worry about, and neither do my parents. "Therefore, I affirm that any children whose mother expresses her intention to get Gary Glitter round to look after them while she goes out for the night are justified in violently resisting the plan." This is not a good plan, as parents with boys need not be afraid. I would however agree that leaving little girls with a little girl fanatic is not a good plan, but it is fine to leave little boys, therefore, I negate.