BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will Not Contradict Myself

11. I did indeed. Power to 'em. 12. well in your question I thought you meant mathematically, as a variable or so. That isn't a yes or no question patsox, however, transformers, transforming furniture, colour changing sprinkles... the list really does go on and on. 13. No. Even though I am a Sox fan, Manny Ramirez is not a deity. 14. I am, he is a crazy lyricist. 15. I don't dislike them, I'd prefer them to not crawl all over me, but I mean, they're just spiders. 16. He would chuck as much as he could....so its really relative to the size of the woodchuck. So, possibly. 17. I have. (Do not grasp at the straw I think you are grasping at, you can do so much better) 18. I do not eat potato chips, my mother will not allow them. 19. Very cynical dude. Yes. 20. No. I find it funny.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

<"1. Hell no."> Pfft. <"7. Yeah, you kinda need to be healthy to stay alive."> *Insert joke about Keith Richards here.* 11: Did you know the Rolling Stones kicked the Who off the Rock 'n Roll Circus for upstaging them? (I clearly have a bit of an agenda here...) 12: What object isn't itself? 13: Is Manny Ramirez a deity? 14: Are you familiar with Wesley Willis? 15: Do you like spiders? 16: Could a woodchuck chuck a lot of wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood? 17: Have you ever eaten steak? 18: Do you enjoy potato chips? 19: Do you know any of Warren Zevon's music? 20: Do you think it's unnecessary when guys get really competitive over an individual girl?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Hell no. 2. No, not really. 3. No. 4. He was talented, and from Maryland, so, sure, why not? 5. Yes. 6. Organism : a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently... http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu.... All organisms do live, its not really my say, so sure. 7. Yeah, you kinda need to be healthy to stay alive. 8. I don't do it intentionally, so no. (I'm sorry if I annoy you) 9. Yes. 10. I mean yes, if you don't you're maladaptive, if you do, people still screw with you. Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Psychedelic drugs should be legalized for recreational use.

Thank you for the reply.Because my opponent did not attempt to rebut my statements about the risk of psychological dependency present in the use of hallucinogens, I will assume that she has conceded this point. Also, because her original argument was that hallucinogens cause zero physical harm and she is now arguing that they cause relatively little harm, voters may consider her to have lost the debate at this point.My opponent claimed that the effects of LSD and other psychedelic drugs are not more dangerous than prescription drugs, other recreational drugs or cigarettes.Prescription drugs compared to hallucinogensThe example my opponent used for this claim was Abilify. However, the list of possible side effects for Abilify are far less serious than those of psychoactive drugs. While increased blood sugar levels, elevated lipid and cholesterol levels and weight gain may cause other health complications over time, they are not immediately dangerous unless the victim has pre-existing health conditions.(1) Because Abilify is a prescription drug, clients with these conditions are not able to obtain the drug by legal means anyway.(2)Contrast this with psychedelic drugs, which have the potential to cause immediate, life-threatening danger with seizures, erratic blood pressure or coma.(3)Methamphetamines compared to hallucinogensBecause methamphetamines are currently illegal, my opponent's argument has little to no weight. It is pointless to say that because one dangerous and illegal drug is less deadly than another that it should be made legal.Cigarettes compared to hallucinogensWhile nicotine may be extremely dangerous over time, it is still not immediately dangerous. Hallucinogens are. The statistics my opponent presented are a far better argument for the outlawing of nicotine products than the legalization of psychedelics.On overdosingAlthough one may assume that hallucinogen OD-related deaths would be relatively low in places where the drug was properly regulated, this is irrelevant as these drugs can trigger lethal side effects even when there is not enough of the drug present to cause an overdose.On the positive effects of hallucinogensA single study is hardly enough to be conclusive and the websites and literature of government agencies around the world still support a connection between psychotropics and mental illness. As for ketamine, it is a legal drug precisely because it has been found to have positive health benefits and lower risks than other hallucinogens. In fact, there are no long term side effects in people who have the drug legally administered to them.(5)Sources1. http://www.mayoclinic.com... 2. http://www.abilify.com...3. http://www.intheknowzone.com...4. http://www.recovery.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Psychedelic drugs should be legalized for recreational use.

I look forward to a good discussionMy opponent has presented two reasons o support her contention that psychedelic drugs, or hallucinogens, should be legalized.1. Hallucinogens cause no physical harm.2. Hallucinogens are not addictive. Her contention stands or falls with these two claims. Argument #1 - Hallucinogens can cause physical harmThere are a number of physical side effects caused by LSD, mescaline and psilocybin/psilocyn mushrooms. These include seizures and abnormal blood pressure. (1) Abnormal blood pressure can lead to other health problems or even be fatal. (2) Seizures, although not usually fatal, can also be quite dangerous. (3)PCP can cause users to slip into a coma. (4) People who succumb to coma are at a high risk for asphyxiation. (5) PCP users are also susceptible to depression and suicide. (6)Argument #2 - Hallucinogens can be addictiveWhile there is little evidence that hallucinogens can cause physical dependence, users can (and often do) build up a tolerance(7) and a psychological dependance upon them. (8)And so, my opponent's reasons for legalizing hallucinogens are not accurate and her contention fails. Sources1. . http://www.intheknowzone.com...2. . http://www.mayoclinic.com...3. . http://answers.webmd.com...4. Ibid. , . http://www.intheknowzone.com...5. . http://research.ncl.ac.uk...6. Ibid. , . http://www.intheknowzone.com...7. . http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au...8. Ibid. , . http://www.intheknowzone.com...
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

I apologize for my confusion at the beginning of the argument, you set up the argument to argue "pro" to a negative statement, which leaves me, the negative, merely disproving your pro-negative statement and allowing the possibility that an "unlimited force" can exist. Once again, let me define force: "an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects " Note that in this definition the force never does anything to itself. A force is not a thinking and creative being, therefore it is meaningless to say "can a force limit itself?" An unlimited force would be such that it would apply unlimited velocity to any free body. If the affirmative wishes to argue that a force can "limit" itself, I would ask for an example of an ordinary force limiting itself in a closed system, with no other forces involved. I will also bring up the case of the so called "four universal forces." These are the weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic. Note that it is a possibility that they may be one unified force. The weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic forces have already been unified, and it seems gravity may be shown unified as well. Since a unified force will encompass all of the forces of the universe, the force in a sense would be unlimited. Therefore we already have evidence for an "unlimited force." Could this force stop itself? Using the definition of force, the unlimited action on a free body would in no sense stop itself. I ask the affirmative to: 1) Provide an example of an ordinary force limiting itself in a closed system, with no other forces involved. 2) Defend his "paradox" with logical explanations, and offer evidence that his "paradox" is not just a logically meaningless statement. Proof is on the claimer. 3) Respond to my contention regarding the unified force. 4) This has nothing regarding the debate, but I am a grammar Nazi, and I would ask if the affirmative could make an attempt to use correct grammar, such as capitalization, punctuation, and thorough sentences. It is a distraction from the debate and makes me ponder whether or not the affirmative is taking his claims seriously. (Perhaps type up your argument in Microsoft Word or equivalent if you need assistance keeping capitalization? Many web browsers also do this for you.)
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

con basically just argues at first, not that the unlimited does exist, but that it could exist. i see no point in bringing up this distinction. even were this a meritorious distinction to make, it doesn't say how 'the unlimited' can overcome the probed questions i gave. if it did exist, could it limit itself, thus showing it is not ever present unlimtied? and so on. again con goes on for no discernable reason to define 'force'. he defines it, but doesn' say why it matters. con ends with 'there's no evidence' to back my claim that the ever present unlimtied doesn't exist, but he just ignoes the questions i gave in the opening post. how does he address those questions? i indeed gave evidence, and he hasn't done anything to refute or address it.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

I negate the following:" 'unlimited paradox' - an ever present unlimited force does not exist". With the phrasing of the topic and the affirmative choosing to support the notion to support a negative, my stand is not that an "ever present unlimited force" does exist. Instead, my stand is that the statement "an ever present unlimited force does not exist" is false, implying that an unlimited force could exist. To define the word force, I will cite the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects " Firstly, using the above definition, there is no creation involved. This rids us of the paradox assumed by the affirmative. Secondly, I will say that the paradoxical logic is meaningless to the betterment of this discussion. Thirdly, I will assert that the proof in this situation is on the claimer, and the affirmative is claiming that an "ever present unlimited force" cannot exist, and there is no evidence to back this claim. The affirmative should also provide more proof than a logically invalid claim.
Resoved: not all property is capital

According to the IRS “Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset”, and “Capital assets include a home, household furnishings and stocks and bonds held in a personal account.” (1) Land is capital, a house is capital, a car is capital, a couch is capital, a bed is capital, a computer is capital, a blender is capital, a TV is capital; it’s all capital. Investorwords.com defines capital as “The money, property, and other valuables which collectively represent the wealth of an individual or business.” (2) In other words, if you own 1,000 books, each one of those books is capital, and can be considered material wealth. Since one is capable of selling their book for money, or trading it for some other product of equal value, the books are considered capital, because the books have a value. If someone collects trading cards, their trading cards are also capital with the rarer cards being of greater value, due to the greater demand and lower supply. One could trade a single rare card for 10 common cards, which is no different than exchanging a dollar for 10 dimes. Currency is simply the representation of material capital, to replace bartering with a system of standardized trade. All property has a value, and so all property capital. If it can be bought or sold, or used to generate revenue, than it is capital. Humans are capital because our skills help to generate revenue; a book is capital because it can be sold or rented. A horse is capital because it can be used for transportational services, in order to generate a profit. A dog can be capital because it can be used for hunting, and may be bought and sold as pets. So long as it has a value, or a usage it can be considered capital. Sources:1. http://www.irs.gov... 2. http://www.investorwords.com...
Percy Jackson VS. Jason Grace

Yes, I forgot to mention that: Percy CAN heal in water. However, if lightning strikes a body of water, everything in that body of water gets shocked just a badly as if they had been struck by lightning directly. Most people who are struck by lightning die; in the rare cases that they survive, they are still knocked unconscious. If Percy gets struck by lightning and becomes unconscious, the water won't heal him fast enough for him to immediately get back up as if nothing happened. There would be plenty of time for Jason to jump in with his sword and finish Percy off. The statement that Percy can use his powers longer than Jason can be said only because we have become much more familiar with Percy's combat than Jason's. After all, Jason has only been a main character in 3 books, whereas Percy has been the main character in 7. I'm sure that Jason has just as much endurance as Percy; it was stated that Jason took down Krios by himself along with all of Mt. Othrys. Thank you for your arguments. I hope to hear from you soon.
Percy Jackson VS. Jason Grace

Thank you Con, you have very good points. Sadly, I have to point out that Percy heals from making contact with water. Even if it was electrically charged, the least it would do is at the most shock him like rubbing his socks on the floor and touching a doorknob. Not to mention the fact that from previous books, we saw Percy being able to use his powers much longer then Jason can. I believe regardless, The electrically charged water wouldn't change the outcome. I pass the stage to you Con.
Percy Jackson VS. Jason Grace

I actually believe that Jason Grace would win in a fight to the death with Percy Jackson. Let's start with reviewing both of the characters' powers. Percy Jackson is a very talented swordsman with considerable physical strength and stamina. Percy also has a special power as the Son of Poseidon to control any water that is nearby as well as summon any nearby marine animals to help him. Meanwhile, Jason Grace is also a very talented swordsman with very above average physical fitness. As the Son of Jupiter, Jason can summon lightning and produce violent electrical shocks, as well as freely fly around by himself in a controlled manner. In "The Mark of Athena", Percy and Jason fought for the first time and showed they have roughly equal levels of skill in physical combat, but they didn't use their demigod powers much at all. Therefore, the only way to figure out who is stronger is by using logic to extrapolate what a clash between their respective elements would look like According to the laws of science, water conducts electricity. Thus, from a purely theoretical standpoint, Jason's lightning would travel straight through Percy's water attacks (which Jason could have dodged by flying) and shock Percy. If Jason were to do this repeatedly, Percy would no doubt die, leaving Jason to be the winner. This is my reasoning for why I believe Jason Grace would win in a fight with Percy Jackson, but I look forward to hearing your reasoning for why you believe otherwise.
Percy Jackson VS. Jason Grace

What? No, that is not how it works. Electricity travels much, much faster than the human mind could possibly react. And even his Percy's reflexes were THAT good, the flow of water can't turn around an electrical current as strong as a lightning bolt! Your argument that "Percy has more experience" is also flawed. It was stated that Jason has been training in Camp Jupiter's Roman Legions since age 2, whereas Percy only started training at Camp Half Blood at age 12. That is a 10 year difference in combat experience. In addition, Jason stayed at Camp Jupiter year long, only leaving for quests, whereas Percy only came to Camp Half Blood during the Summers and during Winter Break. Your turn again, Pro
Resolved: The US founding fathers were Socialist

I accept!I assume Round 1 is for acceptance and terms, because this debate is 5 rounds long and my opponent didn't make an argument in Round 1.To preclude my opponent from debating a straw man, I would like to clarify some terms from the outset. As requested, the following terms come from Princeton Wordnet:1.Founding Father (noun): "a member of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787." [1]As this debate focuses on an important question of constitutional law, "Founding Fathers" should refer to the individuals who actually drafted the Constitution. The views of individuals who were not at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia - like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, or Samuel Adams - are irrelevant. 2.Communism (noun): "a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership; a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society." [2]3.Communist (noun): "a socialist who advocates communism." [3]As Pro, I will not be arguing that the Founding Fathers were communists, because communism is only one extreme form of socialism. I will instead argue that the Founding Fathers could accurately be classified as democratic socialists, a term which isn't defined by Princeton Wordnet. Democratic socialists are characterized by support for heavy government intervention in the economy, including (1) heavy regulation of private industry, (2) redistributive welfare policies, (3) government subsidies, and (4) a nationalized banking system.I trust that my opponent will find this argument acceptable.Good luck!Sources[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...;[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...;[3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...;
Resolved: The US founding fathers were Socialist

All Definitions in this debate will come from Princeton Wordnet; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...Socialism is defined as S: (n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry) S: (n) socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... A socialist is; S: (n) socialist (a political advocate of socialism) S: (adj) socialistic (advocating or following the socialist principles) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... __________________________________________________________________Please keep this debate about the founders; no mudslinging, and no tangents
Demetrius Johnson could win the UFC Heavyweight title

By round 3, Cain would be so exhausted that DJ would be done with the Rocky/chicken strategy, and would be fully into badger v cobra strategy. DJ's points would be insurmountable. See https://m.youtube.com... I like Cain, I appreciate the heart he brings, but it would be like the Flash v a sumo wrestler; such fights end with the demise of the heaviest. See https://m.youtube.com...
Demetrius Johnson could win the UFC Heavyweight title

Again, the visual of Rocky chasing the chicken illustrates my point well. DJ is much larger than a chicken, but the size difference is matched from Sylvester Stallone to Cain Valasquez, and that leaves Demetrius to land only one strike. Add the factor of how grossly underpaid the flyweights are, how much attention such a spectacle would draw for Dana White, and DJ'S added concern against being struck by, or grappling with Cain, and he'd be even more incentivized than ever. This isn't an insult to Cain. Very few of the lumbering giants could do better: maybe Brock Lesnar.
Demetrius Johnson could win the UFC Heavyweight title

Cain Velasquez is a great fighter, but, like most of the heavyweights, is another slow, lumbering giant. If he were ever to strike DJ, he'd crush him. Still, think of it: very few small, quick fighters can keep up with DJ; Cain could never catch him. It would be like Rocky and the chicken. That leaves DJ to stealthily score just one point in 25 minutes and you'll have a 125 lb. UFC Heavyweight of the world!
Juveniles deserve adult punishment for adult crimes.

The point that I raised, which has been consistently ignored by pro, is that if we were to deem juveniles as capable of understanding the wrongness of their acts as adults then we should equally consider them able to vote, to give consent to sex, to drive and many other things that come with maturity.It is also good to note that many courts would punish a 15-17 year much more severely than someone 12 or under so there are already different levels of crime punishment, it's just that until one is 18 they are not eligible to be considered an adult in the world of law, which applies to many other laws such as pedophilia in the same way.The law itself would be hypocritical to punish a juvenile the same as an adult for the same act if then they punish an adult for having sex with a child when the exact same act with an adult would be deemed illegal. I conclude that, if we are to uphold many laws such as pedophilia and the minimum driving age, as well as the concept of an age of consent altogether, we must equally pardon juveniles for their wrongdoings to a greater extent than we would an adult, who already has much more freedom in what they can legally do rights-wise (such as drive and vote).
Juveniles deserve adult punishment for adult crimes.

We all must understand that in today's point f time it is but not possible to consider 15-16 year olds to be not knowing the meaning of rapes, murders and assaults. What i am saying is that those handful of juveniles who have committed Adult crimes like the above mentioned do deserve adult punishment. I don't know what your age happens to be but if you get a chance to speak to a juvenile then ask him do you know what a murder means and what an kidnapping or looting means. I think you'll get your answer. Isn't it but obvious that juveniles in today's date are fully conscious of their doings. You say they are "unaware or the wrongness they are doing" is ridiculous. What then you have to say on that 17 year old who brutally raped and killed a girl on 16th December,2012. What about that boy who was the mastermind behind this all act. Isn't he accountable for the misdoings and the conspiracy that was born on his mind. Does he deserve to live like a free bird just because he is a juvenile. Does the suffers pain not hold any significance in front of a juvenile. I think so each and every person reading it today knows the answer to it. Yes that Juvenile who pulled out the intestines of that 22 year old paramedical student with his bare hands is accountable for his act and therefore he deserves life every other juvenile committing adult crimes , adult punishment. I believe that every one of you present here will be in accord with me. Thank you for patiently reading this argument of mine. Thank you again ladies and gentlemen.
Juveniles deserve adult punishment for adult crimes.

These crimes which you deem of the most sinful nature are only sinful to the level which you imagine if done by a fully conscious adult who truly understood the wrongness of what they were doing whilst doing it. It is the same reason as juveniles getting lighter sentences that retards and any sufferer of a mental disorder gets rehabilitated or something alternative to a severe prison sentence since they also were not fully conscious or aware of what they were doing. In fact, the only reason we have an age of consent for anything other than drugs is that children are less conscious and aware of what they are doing than adults and thus, in a court of law in most nations, it is legally considered impossible for a child to give consent to have sex with someone over 18 and thus it is pedophilia to have sex, however apparently mutual in consent, with a minor.