BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

The legalization of marijuana is an increasing topic in today's society. There are multiple different topics that are associated with it. Should the Federal government decriminalize marijuana completely? should the federal government only legalize medicinal marijuana? Should the use of marijuana continue to be criminalized at the federal and (majority) state level? I am looking for someone to convince me why the government should completely decriminalize marijuana use entirely. Please provide examples backing up your claims so that i may clearly see your viewpoints and relate them to my own opinion on the matter. I believe that it is unsafe for the citizens on the United States to have the complete freedom to use a drug whenever they choose. This is why I am against the federal government ENTIRELY decriminalizing the use of this drug.
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

I can't believe that you think $5,000,000,000 wouldn't do anything for our country! thats enough money to feed the homeless (2+ million) in this country every year at just $3 a day. So do you really think it would not help that much? its cool if you don't want to end hunger but i think that you are not seeing all that that money could do. The legalization of pot has so many benefits for this country that it would be ignorant for the US to not legalize a harmless plant like pot.
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

Thank you for posting another article! I understand where you say the you believe crime will lessen but not be totally gone. I agree with your statement as well, and with this statement I am better able to look into my own view on the issue pertaining to crime with legalization. I am glad that you brought up the topic of monetary incentive when discussing why national legalization of marijuana would be good. my only issue with what you brought to the table is the amount of money. Yes, in theory 70 million dollars sounds like a lot of money. But even if every one of the 50 states, produced 100 million dollars from marijuana tax revenue, this would only be 5 billion dollars. The national Debt is 19 trillion dollars. that means that it would take nearly 400 years to produce that much money from marijuana. So although we would get money from marijuana, it wouldn't be any better than every citizen donating 100 dollars, so why doesn't everyone do that?
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

The article was actually very unbiased. Here's another one http://www.washingtontimes.com... . I am not saying that crime will be gone totally, but I am saying that overall crime will lessen. It's impossible for me to say that there will be no crime. Yes there will be crime, but much less. Aside from crime, what about all of the tax revenue from pot?? think of all the money that is lost because the government cannot get there hands on it. You live in colorado, so you probably know that Colorado had over 70 million dollars in tax revenue last year because of pot. How can you say that this is not good? America could get so much done with that amount of money.
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

I see that your evidence is from a source called "The Cannabist", this makes me a little skeptical of its unbiased views on the issue at hand. I actually reside in colorado, and when you state that dispensaries get rid of criminals, I have to disagree. I know first hand that even though dispensaries do provide a safe purchasing platform for the end user, there are still illegal dealers on the streets selling to people. i will relate this to your point about how legalization will be like "what happened to alcohol after the prohibition". Have you ever heard of the term "moon-shiner"? this is an illegal alcohol producer and seller (like a "weed dealer"). Although alcohol is sold in alcohol dispensaries, there are still illegal and dangerous acts happening in the alcohol community. This is my evidence on that stance http://www.slate.com... .
Women are the more sexually driven gender.

Regardless, comments don't count as arguments. Comments count as, well, comments. You've blatantly chosen to disregard both rounds. You'll notice that as you type your last, and surly, useless response, if you press the "See All Previous Arguments" button, none of your comment 'arguments' will be there. And while we're on the subject of self improvements, it'd be great if you didn't enter an argument without the fullest inclination to actually argue on it. Really, its disrespectful to your opponent. I conclude with all my previous points, clearly stated in round 1, to show that women are the more sexually driven gender. As none of my points were contested, they stand as they are. I remind the audience that no actual response was made by Anonymous to debate whether or not the female gender is not the more sex inclined. Rather, my opponent spent his time attempting to be humorous, then defensive of his bad 'joke'. I've shown more evidence towards my position than my opponent has, thus proving my point better. Any evidence he gives elsewhere is void, not being in the official area to post arguments, and therefore invalid. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Women are the more sexually driven gender.

Wow, way to ruin a perfectly good debate with disgusting "you" trivia. It truly boggles the mind imagining that you think anyone might possibly be interested or amused at such an obvious display of idiocy. However, I will proceed. You have failed to show any actual evidence that the male gender as a whole is more sexually inclined in comparison to the female gender. The only evidence you have shown is that you yourself may have a hormonal dysfunction, I would suggest having that checked out. That aside however, you have two more rounds to attempt and have an intellectual argument. I suggest using it wisely.
Women are the more sexually driven gender.

I will be arguing that women are the more sexually driven gender. The polar opposite of this argument therefore, is to say that men are the more sexually driven gender (women are not the most sexually gender, thus leaving males to be) and will expect my opponent to argue as such. It'd be great if they could be a female, as they will surely have a deeper insight into this topic more so than another male. Women are the more sexually driven gender. By this, I mean they present themselves in more ways than men the want to have intercourse. There are two main behavioral factors I will work on: Jobs: there are more sex driven jobs for women than men. Pornography, prostitution, stripping, modeling, and possibly more that I am missing. Now you say "but those jobs were created by men for men", while there is historical evidence to show this, it has continued to the modern age, and is no longer forced sex slavery (though that is unfortunately still around) rather women willingly partake in these professions. This means that they only survive because of the consent of WOMEN not men. Using their bodies in an erotic way, encouraging sensual feelings. Looks: women, staggeringly more so than men, care more about their appearance. In the animal kingdom, the gender that wants to encourage intercourse has a flashier, extravagant appearance, while the gender that is made to be sexed on is plainer. We see this in many aviary species, an easy example is peacocks, snakes, and some mammals, such as lions. True, within these species, the pretty ones are the males, still the principal applies. Women go out of their way to improve upon their appearance, by way of makeup, fashion, hairdo's, jewellery, etc with rare exceptions. Men, however, go out as they are from when they woke up for the most part. Yes, they groom, but not nearly to the extent men do. Fashion is a large factor in this. As anyone who has not lived in a cave can see, women fashion has begun to highlight the female persona more now than in the past, specifically on the breasts and hip area. This would not matter if women willingly chose to not wear these promiscuous garments. But they do, and it is becoming more widely accepted. disclaimer: this isn't a hate-women debate, its just for fun, much like a "which is better: cats or dogs" thing.
State and Religion need to be kept apart

First off, I would like to state this. I would like all of the voters of this debate to actually read the arguments before voting instead of voting on belief. The winner should be decided on how they present the information, not just what side they are on. With this said, I will finish the debate I would like to point out that except for the incorrect implication that I was thinking this would abolish religion, my opponent has not refuted my points in either one of his arguments. Now to the debate, I am not implying that this would abolish religion. Did I not say in my last argument " I'm assuming when you said "abolish religion" you were referring to me saying taking it out of the picture. In no way did that mean abolish, it meant not letting it become involved with government actions" You say: Putting on the back burner and telling people when and where they can worship and when they can't isn't right either. You obviously do not realize how much religion has a say in Government and law. Most of our laws center around Biblical principals. (I'm probably going to get slammed for saying this, but you can't hide from the truth.) Murder is a crime, guess what the Bible says "Do not Murder" (Exodus 20:13) Burglary and robbery is a crime, oh, guess what, the Bible says "Do not steal" (Exodus 20:15) Government run organizations also benefit from the Bible. Post Offices and banks are not open on Sunday. The Bible says "Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy". (Exodus 20:8) Wikipedia calls the Sabbath "a weekly day of rest and/or worship that is observed in the Judeo-Christian faiths" Miriam Webster's definition of the Christian Sabbath is "Sunday observed among Christians as a day of rest and worship" So, are you saying, by completely separating religion from the Government that murder and robbery should be allowed and that government organizations should be forced to open 7 days a week. Like it or not, religion is all around us. It will be impossible to not let it in government actions. The men and women passing laws in Congress, both on the state and the federal level will bring their personal faith into how they vote or what bills they pass. I've worked on the house floor before. I know that this is true. I will close with this statement. The majority of the founding fathers were Christians and they did intend for citizens to have complete religious freedom. This means wherever, whenever. They did not want us to not be able to pray at football games, or not let little children see the Ten Commandments in a public school for fear of them seeing it and actually listening to it. (Yes, these were real Supreme Court Cases) They certainly didn't intend for Separation of Church and State.
State and Religion need to be kept apart

I'm assuming when you said "abolish religion" you were referring to me saying taking it out of the picture. In no way did that mean abolish, it meant not letting it become involved with government actions. Its interesting that you bring up separation of church and state. I would like to point out that that phrase is not found in any legal, historical document. It is not found in the declaration, the constitution or the first amendment. Furthermore, the discussion of the ninety founding fathers who framed the First Amendment (which the Courts now tell us means "separation of church and state") are recorded in the Congressional Journal from June 7 to September 25, 1789. Interestingly, not once in those months of discussion did one of the founders ever mention that phrase. Doesn't it seem logical that if they had intended today's doctrine of "separation of church and state" that at least one of those ninety men would have mentioned it? So, why is it that the court has decided that that phrase should be the law of the land. Its also interesting that you bring up Thomas Jefferson. He was not even at the constitutional convention when the first amendment was ratified, so how can he be the expert as many people today say he is? But since you quoted him, so will I. " Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever" James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the US supreme court, explained: "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine…. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, mutual assistants" So contrary to what is often asserted today, the founders never intended that God's Word or His principles be separated from public life. They knew these principles were vital to the success of our new government.
State and Religion need to be kept apart

Never did I ever say abolish religion. If religion were to be separated from the government, religion would still be the same it just would not have a say in the governments actions. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both. We must continue this wise policy. As Thomas Jefferson once said "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." I would like to give credit to Americans United for separation of church and state website: www.au.org
State and Religion need to be kept apart

Hello, The pilgrims left England because of religious persecution. But it wasn't simply because religion was involved in the government. The British government forced their religion on the people. America never has, nor ever will be like that. This is why the founding fathers put the establishment clause in the constituion. It says that Government cannot establish a relgion. But it also says that we have the free exercise to practice it. The founding fathers did not want what happened in England to happen here. No where in that phrase is found "separation of church and state" Taking all religion out of the picture is not the answer. In fact it poses the same problem, just on the other end. Without any religion, you are actually practicing and forcing atheism. (The religion of practicing no religion)
State and Religion need to be kept apart

The reason the pilgrims on the Mayflower came over seas, to what was back then 'The new world',was to escape religious persecution by the British government. May I point out that the British government was heavily influenced by the church. I am not in any way trying to insult religion. I have the opinion that if religion were to seep into state again America would only be retrogressing. Now hear me out I think that every one is entitled to their own beliefs and religion is a great way for many people to find themselves. Just for all of you who disagree try to at least consider my point.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

"Gun bans in cities have not been effective." Did they ban all guns? People still can use other guns you know? "If you think concealed carry holders can change into an attacker, I guess police will turn into attackers too." You arent wrong considering the fact that officers have attacked civilians before:https://www.google.com.sg... "They commit crimes less than police." Which means they still do. If you mean they dont commit crimes as compared to officers then just say something like:concealed gun holders do not commit crimes as compared to officers. "Don't strip people of their rights." Im not,just limiting. If you dont want that to happen,name me one right which is unlimited. Conclusion:In conclusion ladies and gentlemen,guns should never have been allowed judging by the mass murders we have heard of globally. When we only ban certain guns, there will still be homicide cases as my opponent showed. We need to ban all guns in order to prevent such homicide cases and with the following points in all 5 rounds, I conclude why guns should be banned.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I am not going to make all rebuttals, because my opponent is going in circles and does not understand the background check system. The point is- Gun bans are not effective. I gave my opponent links for homicide rates before and after gun bans. If you want a total gun ban, then look at australia. There murder rates were not effected by the gun ban. And this is America were talking about. You have completely ignored my point which is- Gun bans in cities have not been effective. The assault weapons ban for 10 years was not effective. We have tried several times, yet it has not worked. And to strip law-abiding people from the right to protect themselves for a gun ban that has proven several times not to be effective in America- is in my opinion stupid. If you think concealed carry holders can change into an attacker, I guess police will turn into attackers too. They commit crimes less than police. They are the most law-abiding group in the country. Gun bans in America have not worked. Don't strip people of their rights. Also, Vox is the most bias org., they completely ignore the other side.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Claim: "Many people think guns kill people, but the truth is people kill people." With? Guns! Rebuttal: Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. You could say that about anything. People use knives to murder. People die because cars crash into them by dunk driving. Claim: "Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same." But compare those numbers to the numbers of countries that allow guns. Rebuttal: I'm confused what you're trying to argue here. Compare what numbers? Please clarify. Cities that have strict gun control laws have some of the highest murder rates in the country. Why? Because they obtain guns from the black market or use knives. People can't defend themselves from such things, because they don't have a gun, especially women. People obtain guns illegally or should not have been able to pass a background check in the first place. Claim: "On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source." Its pretty obvious why. For those who dont see it:Its because guns were legalised. Rebuttal: Sure, but again, in places guns were banned, the overall murder rate did not go down; Proving that a gun ban would not be effective. Claim: "As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life." Saved their lives from a gunman running around killing people am I not wrong? Rebuttal: I have yet to find statistics on the weapon used by the offender. I would be happy to look at your statistics you could site since you seem so sure they are by guns. Either way, if guns were banned, nobody would be able to protect themselves. If a criminal got a gun illegally or used some other object to go at somebody with, it is almost guaranteed that person would be wounded or dead. Claim: "There have been multiple instances in which a good guy with a gun has stopped a bad guy with a gun in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon just to name a few." Ladies and getlemen let me emphasize a few words in this statement. "...bad guy with a gun..." This alone shows that guns should be banned as bad people can get their hands on it and hence guns shouldnt be allowed. Rebuttal: 93% of gun crime is when guns are obtained illegally. Conclusion: Banning guns will not stop criminals from murdering people. Places in America with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. Stripping law-abiding citizens who conceal and carry, who commit crimes 14% less than police officers, would not be an effective way to stop murder, especially since 93% of gun murders are obtained illegally and is due to gang violence. Law-abiding citizens need to protect themselves from other people, but most importantly a tyrannical government, which con has not adressed at all.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Argument: How many times have you turned on the morning news and saw reports of gun violence in mostly america? And why do you think that gun violence happened in america? It was legalized! Thats why! So why dont you wake up and see how many bad things have happened when we allowed guns: 2018:http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... 2017:https://www.google.com.sg... And the years before:http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... Sure we can ban guns if you want all these cases of gun violence to continue. Rebuttals: "Many people think guns kill people, but the truth is people kill people." With? Guns! "Evil people choose to misuse the tool." Which is why guns should be banned to prevent "evil people"(so to speak) to misuse it. "Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same." But compare those numbers to the numbers of countries that allow guns. "This may be a surprise to some people, but guns save more lives than take them. There are over 2 million defensive gun uses annually, which is more than offensive gun uses." But still there were offensive gun uses wasnt there? And why do you think there were so many cases of defensive gun uses? Because of offensive uses. "On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source." Its pretty obvious why. For those who dont see it:Its because guns were legalised. "As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else"s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life." Saved their lives from a gunman running around killing people am I not wrong? "There have been multiple instances in which a good guy with a gun has stopped a bad guy with a gun in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon just to name a few." Ladies and getlemen let me emphasize a few words in this statement. "...bad guy with a gun..." This alone shows that guns should be banned as bad people can get their hands on it and hence guns shouldnt be allowed.