BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
money is destroying humans

My opponent has forfeited the previous round. I have made my points. I will now expand on my points, and make them more all encompassing. 1. Money provides a valuable incentive towards progress Now, what my opponent might be trying to say is that he wants a world where people simply get what they need. However, there is no progress in that sort of world. When everybody simply gets what they need, what motivation is there to succeed? If a person could simply sit around and do nothing, or that person could cure cancer but get the exact same benefits as sitting around and doing nothing, why should he cure cancer? He gets no benefit from it. He has no motivation to cure cancer. However, money solves this problem. The person who cures cancer will be able to receive massive monetary benefit, and people are trying to cure cancer for that exact reason. My opponent might argue that doctors should do this out of pure altruism. However, if that is the only reason, then the amount of brilliant minds searching for this cure would be massively reduced. When the amount of people searching for the cure is reduced, the amount of time to find the cure will be raised, thus slowing human progress. Also, in a world where people are simply given what they need, there are other people who still have to produce the goods and services. However, the same argument stands. If a worker would stand to benefit the same from working or sitting around doing nothing, than why should the worker work? He shouldn"t, because he receives nothing in return for his productivity. The elimination of a monetary system and the transition to an economy based purely on altruism would be catastrophic, and would drastically reduce productivity and slow progress. 2. Money promotes overall economic wellbeing Some of the points made in the previous argument stand here as well. If every person were simply given what they needed to survive, then there would still need to be producers for the goods and services required. With no incentive to produce, there would be far less goods and services produced, meaning that far less goods and services will be distributed, meaning that the overall economy would be worse off. I urge Pro to please not forfeit any more rounds, as that really is no fun.
money is destroying humans

Humans are meant to be free creatures. Now they are bound by the Almighty dollar. This piece of green paper decides what a person can eat, what they can drink, where they can live, what they can do in their time away from work, how educated they are and their overall quality of life. Humans are forced to work for this paper which leads to losing time with family and friends and becoming robotic. Their health suffers either from the conditions they are working in or what they have to do to get to work such as not getting enough sleep. The dollar has caused man to lose touch ith nature and spirituality. We only have one earth and we can no longer enjoy it. Trees and other forestry have been destroyed, oceans have been drowned with garbageand the sky has been polluted, all to make a profit. As a being of this earth I feel cheated and ripped off that I cannot experience the greatness this planet once possessed.Money has caused conflict of all types. War is for profit. People kill each other for money or materials. Money has created materialism. Both of these cause people to judge others and ensue violence. No human should be forced to work for paper to define who they are. Materializing the world has caused ourselves to become artificial. We are not creatures now. Just mere robots dependent on updates technology and money.
All drugs should be decriminalized.

As my opponent has forfeited R2, I have no view that has been placed by Pro in order to further this debate. Due to this I will simply place my same points until my opponent is able to produce further argument.Your first point on the decriminalization of drugs is in reference to Portugal. This is an excellent reference to the decriminalization of drugs; however some clarification needs to be made. "All drugs are 'decriminalized,' meaning drug possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a criminal offense, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender's unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. Treatment and further action is decided in these courts, where addicts and drug use is treated as a public health service rather than referring it to the justice system (like the U.S.)" [1]. In the same article, it is seen in the 10 years after the decriminalization that the number of addicts decreased by nearly half the original number in 2001. This is undeniable. However, the implication that the same would happen in America is in many ways fallacious.To further this point, I agree that "if a person wants to do drugs. Chances are, he won't care if it is illegal or not," but based on your argument, that statement is inconsistent. You are using ignoratio elenchi on this premise and as mentioned earlier, your statement on Portugal and the reason "why should we not install this... drug policy in America's system" is irrelevant, for the comparison that the same will occur here in America is illogical. There is no way to determine that the same effects the decriminalization of drugs will prevail in America. Even if it were to positively effect America, it may be in a different manner than that of Portugal.The same manner goes into effect for the prohibition of alcohol. The effects of prohibition were horrendous to America and are being analyzed to find the psychological inevitability that could be produced if drugs America are decriminalized or even legalized [2].The decriminalizing of drugs in America and its effects go indecisive - more or less - as there are many ongoing studies that show the possibility of such would neither provoke the increase, nor the decrease of drug use would occur [3]. Therefore, it is logical to say that drug use would remain the same as it has in the last 16 years [4].My take is that there is no inevitability of any sort, nor are there any statistics that support the increase or decrease of drugs will occur, for the scale is unbalanced from year to year [4]. To decriminalize drugs may or may not benefit the well-being of America.[1] http://www.businessinsider.com......[2] http://psycnet.apa.org......[3] http://norml.org......[4] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov......
All drugs should be decriminalized.

Your first point on the decriminalization of drugs is in reference to Portugal. This is an excellent reference to the decriminalization of drugs; however some clarification needs to be made. "All drugs are 'decriminalized,' meaning drug possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a criminal offense, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender's unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. Treatment and further action is decided in these courts, where addicts and drug use is treated as a public health service rather than referring it to the justice system (like the U.S.)" [1]. In the same article, it is seen in the 10 years after the decriminalization that the number of addicts decreased by nearly half the original number in 2001. This is undeniable. However, the implication that the same would happen in America is in many ways fallacious. To further this point, I agree that "if a person wants to do drugs. Chances are, he won't care if it is illegal or not," but based on your argument, that statement is inconsistent. You are using ignoratio elenchi on this premise and as mentioned earlier, your statement on Portugal and the reason "why should we not install this... drug policy in America's system" is irrelevant, for the comparison that the same will occur here in America is illogical. There is no way to determine that the same effects the decriminalization of drugs will prevail in America. Even if it were to positively effect America, it may be in a different manner than that of Portugal. The same manner goes into effect for the prohibition of alcohol. The effects of prohibition were horrendous to America and are being analyzed to find the psychological inevitability that could be produced if drugs America are decriminalized or even legalized [2]. The decriminalizing of drugs in America and its effects go indecisive - more or less - as there are many ongoing studies that show the possibility of such would neither provoke the increase, nor the decrease of drug use would occur [3]. Therefore, it is logical to say that drug use would remain the same as it has in the last 16 years [4]. My take is that there is no inevitability of any sort, nor are there any statistics that support the increase or decrease of drugs will occur, for the scale is unbalanced from year to year [4]. To decriminalize drugs may or may not benefit the well-being of America. [1]http://www.businessinsider.com... [2]http://psycnet.apa.org... [3]http://norml.org... [4]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
All drugs should be decriminalized.

Drug warriors often contend that drug use would skyrocket if we were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in the United States. Fortunately, we have a real-world example of the actual effects of ending the violent, expensive War on Drugs and replacing it with a system of treatment for problem users and addicts. About a decade ago, Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit substances. Removing the retributions of having prison as a possible punishment, to an administrative one "if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance." Why should we not install this rather liberal drug policy in America's system? Statistics show that drug abuse has been reduced by one-half. Most would expect that it would sky-rocket. But once this drug policy was passed, it only went up a little bit. You must realize, if a person wants to do drugs. Chances are, he won't care if it is illegal or not. As we look back in time to the prohibition of Alcohol, it is self-evident that generally, prohibition does NOT work. It wastes money, it creates crime, it puts plenty of citizens in prisons that do not belong there, etc. The list goes on. (Sources) http://www.emcdda.europa.eu... Hughes, Caitlin; Stevens, Alex (December 2007), "The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal" , Briefing Paper 14, Oxford: Beckley Foundation EMCDDA, 2000. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu... http://www.forbes.com...
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

war isn't pretty. sometimes bad things need to happen to get it finished. the following illustrates that while talking about alteantive methods proposed. con says they had only a few ships left and were producting practically nothing. do you have a source for that? do you at least concede another Okinawa was possible? if so, the bombs were justifiable because even after we dropped one they were still not ready to surrender. we could have fought smaller battles and let our death toll rise, yet they would not have gave in if they wouldn't even give in with an atomic bomb to one of their cities. we could have did another okinawa and let our fatalities majorly rise, and they may have just kept fighting cause they would have thought they had a chance, even if small, at least fighting more on principle. that we dropped one and they didn't give in shows it was necessary. it took two to seal the deal.
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

It is correct that an invasion of Japan would have saved the lives of many soldiers and the most convenient thing to do was to destroy city after city until Japan was forced to surrender. In fact around that time destroying cities was a normal practice at the time and the British and Germans had done it to each other. So when it is very difficult to win a war by purely military means is it acceptable to start slaughtering civilians? It can be argued that such action can save military lives and win wars. However this is exactly the reasoning of Al Quaeda. They justify the killing of innocent civilians by claiming that it will help them win. I agree with the critics of Al Quaeda when I say that attacking innocent civilians is pure cowardice and it is wrong for people with guns to start slaughtering men women and children without them. The same goes for our actions in the Pacific. Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians helped us win but no such action is not morally acceptable. Killing innocents never is. The only possible justification for this is that their government did not have the same high ideals and could conquer us. However, at the time we had their island surrounded and cut off from all resources. They had only a few subs and ships left and were producing practically nothing. They had no chance against us.
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

proportionality. -the battle of okinawa alone caused over 75000 american soldier deaths. that's one battle alone. that is close to one of the atomic bombs. that's pretty proportional. -the bombing could have caused overall deaths to go down... if we had more battles like okinawa, they might have still been figthing as they would have had a chance to win and overall deaths would have gone up. -we could have just waited it out, probably, sure, and not bombed. but at what cost? they weren't surrendering any time soon. and as said, even after the first one, they still weren't ready to surrender. how many americans are you willing to let die while we wait it out? that isn't so much rhetorical. i might value one american lost to 500 to a thousand japanese. it's hard to put limits on an american life. but, as said, okinawa had only seventy thousand ameicans dead. some say we should have just dropped a bomb or two 'close' to japan, or somewhere much less populated, to prove our capacity. however, we only had two bombs ready to be used, and that might not have been sufficient. in fact, when we did drop the first bomb, they still weren't ready to surrender. so that shows dropping them elsewhere would have been a waste of time. they were talking about surrendering with conditions, but weren't willing to do it, even after the first drop. so, the second drop was necessary. even then, when they did surrender, the leader said they wouldnt ever surrender if their social and political systems weren't respected. this shows they were willing to go all the way, which is what was necessary, that we do likewise, if they kept killing our people. we had to do it fiercely to stop them from killing our people. that we gave them a grace period shows that we were humane about it to the most extent we could. the following shows the things i said. http://en.wikipedia.org... it's not like we weren't unaware of the gravity of the situation. "I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb ... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us ... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." "President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

"As I said before, that's me emphasizing B'obo's reign over man. I've not once said B'obo has his focus on humans."But the "and likeness" phrase DOES imply a specific domain of power! It's like if I said, "The gerbils will come and eat anyone who wears a hat." That clearly implies you're safer if you don't wear a hat.So, as I've said, the B'obo concept is humanocentric. So, it's likely been made up. By humans. "But the universe already has an explanation, B'obo.Where do you think the universe derived from?"Pro misses my point. What I mean is that, by using the existence of centaurs as proof that a creator (B'obo) must exist, Pro implies that everything needs to be explained in terms of what created it. But there's no mention of B'obo having a creator.The beginning of the universe is a mystery, but ascribing it to a higher being doesn't solve anything, it just makes it one step more meta. Instead of an unexplained world, we just get an unexplained B'obo.So the logic's empty.
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

"You did not say, "B'obo with his glory reigns over everything." You said it was "over all mankind and likeness." The fact that you added "and likeness" does imply that there is some limit or at least a focus on humans. Ergo, the belief is human-centric, which, as I've said, means it's more likely that it was made up."As I said before, that's me emphasizing B'obo's reign over man. I've not once said B'obo has his focus on humans."My point still stands though. You went on to say that B'obo must exist because centaurs do. That confirms that you WERE saying that the universe's existence is proof of B'obo's existence."Not really, I'm saying that centaurs are a product of B'obo. Like poop is evidence that an anus exist. Just think of the universe as B'obo poop."And that's still bad logic. If B'obo can exist without an explanation, then the universe can too. And possibly centaurs." But the universe already has an explanation, B'obo.Where do you think the universe derived from?
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

You did not say, "B'obo with his glory reigns over everything." You said it was "over all mankind and likeness." The fact that you added "and likeness" does imply that there is some limit or at least a focus on humans. Ergo, the belief is human-centric, which, as I've said, means it's more likely that it was made up.Ah, my apologies, I didn't mean to misquote you about the "begins to exist" thing 'Twas an accident.My point still stands though. You went on to say that B'obo must exist because centaurs do. That confirms that you WERE saying that the universe's existence is proof of B'obo's existence.And that's still bad logic. If B'obo can exist without an explanation, then the universe can too. And possibly centaurs.
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

"The humanocentric aspect is the idea that B'obo specifically rules over "all mankind and likeness [sic]". It doesn't matter how broad your definition of "likeness" is, you've already said that it is based on a similarity, however slight,to humans. That means that B'obo's got his attentions focused on an area centered around humans. That is, by definition, a humanocentric idea."No, that was actually me highlighting the fact that mankind is under B'obo's reign. I never even implied or said B'obo in anyway centers attention deliberately around homo sapiens."You say that 'anything that exists must have a started [sic].'"If the universe needed something to create it, doesn't B'obo? Otherwise, B'obo can't exist, by your logic.What started B'obo?" Here, you are rather obviously making use of false attribution I actually said, "anything that begins to exist must have a started, otherwise, it never BEGAN." The only actually thing you're get right was mine grammar fail.
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

The humanocentric aspect is the idea that B'obo specifically rules over "all mankind and likeness [sic]". It doesn't matter how broad your definition of "likeness" is, you've already said that it is based on a similarity, however slight, to humans. That means that B'obo's got his attentions focused on an area centered around humans. That is, by definition, a humanocentric idea.The fact that the belief system is humanocentric does not prove that the belief system is false. However, it does mean that it's more likely that a person made it up. It's relatively unlikely for an all-powerful being to have such a special interest in humans. On the other hand, if someone just made the supreme being up, it stands ot reason that it'd focus on humans, because that's what's most relevant to the writer. You say that "anything that exists must have a started [sic]."If the universe needed something to create it, doesn't B'obo? Otherwise, B'obo can't exist, by your logic.What started B'obo?
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

"Do you propose that this B'obo created humans in his image?"No, rather, I believe people, if they ever do see B'obo, see him as something they can understand. As you probably guessed. "And if humans are not created in B'obo's image, why would B'obo draw a line between things that are and are not like us?"I don't think you understand, B'obo does not draw lines, he does not need to do that. Another thing you misunderstood, I said likeness (you can look at the definition) I'm talking about everything (as implied by the sample). B'obo of course sees centaurs just as he sees the averge joe and a grilled cheese sandmunch."I believe that the humanocentric aspect of Pro's claim is evidence that this "B'obo" concept is the product of a human imagination, and not some fundamental truth about the universe."What humanocentric aspect? How is human centricity evidence? Even if B'obo was humanocentric, that is B'obo's personal preference, does not disprove a thing.
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

You claim that, apart from being the supreme being of the universe, B'obo "reigns over all mankind and likeness."Do you propose that this B'obo created humans in his image? Human features have purposes that are adapted for use on Earth. We have lungs because we need to breathe; we have eyes because we do not know without seeing. An all-powerful being would have no reason to be constructed like we are.And if humans are not created in B'obo's image, why would B'obo draw a line between things that are and are not like us? What's special about humanlike creatures that would garner such special consideration in the eyes of a supreme being?I believe that the humanocentric aspect of Pro's claim is evidence that this "B'obo" concept is the product of a human imagination, and not some fundamental truth about the universe.
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

Looks like we got ourselves a B'obo-Atheist!B'obo being the supreme being of the universe is greater than that! what exists is greater than what doesn't.And anything that begins to exist must have a started, otherwise, it never BEGAN. Nothing does not spawn the likes of somethingCentaurs are real...If centaurs are B'obo by necessity is real.Therefore B'obo.Please argument me...
B'obo with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe PSG

Hello,Today I will be arguing that, B'obo, with his glory reigns over all mankind and likeness as the one and supreme of the universe! PSGI will debunk any b'obo-atheist that accepts this debate. SEX is involved. .. There is no argument against B'obo, supreme being of beings, is not around. Because he is! B'obo:1. Supreme2. Sexy3. B'obo is the appellation of the ONLY deity in existence. The appellation "B'obo" comes from Basisicus Obovatum. Mankind:All human beings, whether they like and accept it or not. Likeness:Any whatever that's like man, including but not limited to:Grilled cheese sandwiches, children, junebugs, etc. PSG:The insti-dute ah-f de-ch-nah-lah-jeePolysomnography, AKA Panty Stocking Garterbelt, AKA the most profound biography of Johnny Sexy Depp. SEX:Utilized in flotation (adj. SEX-y) The Universe:All matter, space considered as whole; B'obo's creation. Supreme:1. B'oboRules in accepting:Argue the B'obo aspects of the debate.