BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lets debate Cannabis

Again, the problem with your reasoning is that since alcohol causes more harm, weed should be legalized. I have finally thought of a comparison to this; Well there are already weeds in the garden that I can't dig up, might as well let more grow. Alcohol, like cigarettes and even guns, cannot be banned in certain countries because they have been rooted there for decades to the point where it would be impossible to uproot. I doubt even the President could place such a ban, or even Congress (if they wanted to) because it is too difficult a subject to stop. But what they would like to do is prevent further drugs from being used. A defense to your claim that it will continue illegally; crime is illegal, but it still happens. Maybe we should make crime legal? Perhaps if some form of regulation was placed on it, then it might work. But you have already suggested that the workplaces associated should deal with it. Would an employer hire weed using employees? Could he fire them for having it in their system the following Monday? And even if the state regulated it, as you've pointed out, people can always ignore bans and regulations. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Lets debate Cannabis

Ok, this'll be interesting. I would like to approach this from a different angle than usual, and will first predict the future; The instigator will speak of how there are no negative effects and how it is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Now, I am aware that cannabis does not kill brain cells, but it does produce a similar effect. Only during the constant use of weed does the effect of slow thinking arrive. Along with the argument that cannabis is not addictive, it could be said that it should be legalized. However, this is the inverse. This is in fact, an argument as to why cigarettes and alcohol should be banned, and the reasons why they have not been is that A; The corporations in charge have influence over the government and would lobby against the ban. B; The users of these products would also protest against the ban, and they outnumber weed users. Now, just because other addictives are already present does not mean any drug can enter. You have proposed an argument as to why other drugs should be banned, but they are already far too widespread to be banned completely (source, the prohibition years) and this does not justify legalizing weed. Now on the topic of addictiveness, it is true that weed is less addictive than alcohol. (not sure how they tested that) However, this is a problem in itself. Since no overdose can occur and it is not addictive, weed users will see no reason to have regulations on weed as there are on alcohol and cigarettes. Their argument will be that since since there is no negative effect, they do not have to limit weed use. It can take weeks to remove cannabis from the system (source www.drugs.ie/) and so if one was even to have some on a Friday or Saturday night, the effects would harm their productivity at work or school. (I have a friend who failed his end of year exams, which could be put down to a mixture of his cannabis use and his lack of study (which is also due to his cannabis use) But any personal stories I give can be ignored by you who will produce someone you know who retains intelligence post weed use. So I will close this speech now. I await your response, Duncan.
Lets debate Cannabis

Finalfan! I knew you'd pull through, and I ask the voters to disreard his dissapearance in their decision. Finalfan, I understand where you're coming from, and I don't have anything personal against users of weed, but I like to give both sides a fair chance. I know the political corruption related to weed has banned it, I know the tests were improper, but I decided to take a different perspective on the debate; how you would enforce and regulate a new advancement, like the 3d printer gun, the idea of googly eyes (google glass) pornograpghy, something that is a coming change, but should be controlled or it may cause even more harm. I hope you bear through annoying debates (more controversial stuff can be annoying) and I hope to debate against you again in the future. Yours sincerely, Duncan.
Lets debate Cannabis

O.K. so I will give this one last shot, I have had some very interesting discussions on this website but the debates are rubbish.. especially the gay marriage debate (and pretty much anything about religion) but the marijuana debate is by far the most ridiculous debate that exists. I guess when I challenge someone to debate this topic I'm hoping someone has actually done the research to discover why cannabis is illegal. It has nothing to do with the dangers, it is political b.s. and is a prime example of oppression and hypocrisy! Sorry to blow up at you I was coming off the tail end of a debate that made me realize that I was debating against control freaks that wanted to dictate the lives of anyone different than them.. anyways I'm pretty busy this weekend but I will be challenging you sometime soon to a proper debate.. Do you research into the politics and maybe we can get some where! Anyways my apologies again for dumping my baggage on you.. I will come better prepared next time!
The Separtation of Church and State is a Falsehood.

How unfortunate, he forfeited his round. So as of now, I will give just a brief argument. Separation of Church and State is an attribute of a democratic society. It prevents a society's government from advocating a religion, and unjustly imposing it upon it's people. A democratic society is based on compromise. People with all different opinions come together and try to persuade and argue to everyone else their positions, and so on and so forth. Compromises will be created, and this will help in creating a more justly governed society. However, by advocating a religion, this takes away the notion of compromise, of debate. Religion is purported to be divine, to be inerrant. Such a doctrine will be impossible to debate on its main tenets, and such a blind adherence is dangerous to an ever changing democratic society. This is all I will say now.
The Separtation of Church and State is a Falsehood.

Separation of church and state: A political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. Democracy: A system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. HistoryNotHistory has challenged me to this debate, so I am Con. I contend that the United States of America SHOULD have the notion of separation of church and state. The burden of proof is on my opponent.
The Nazis are socialists

Henceforth I am able to conclude that Hitler was a socialist.The weight of evidence is overwhelming- Hitler had massive state led public projects and schemes, KDF and Autobahn construction among many (source: various GCSE and A level history textbooks). Hitler's Germany was a very collectivist society- the word Volksgemeinschaft and Volksgenosse could not sound more socialist if one can understand German. Hitler thought he was a saviour of the German people, and spoke of 'German democracy' in his book, Mein Kampf. The name National Socialist German Workers Party was not just a window dressing designed to fool outsiders. As noted by Hayek, Hitler's anti-semitism was caused by his hatred for the capitalist order of Austria at the time (source: F. Hayek, the Road to Serfdom).To finish off, perhaps we should have a look at some Nazi propagandas as a comparison to a similar socialist state, namely the USSR, and look at the revolutionary natures of them (I will not quote the sources because the images can be found just by typing in 'Soviet propaganda' and 'Nazi propaganda' in Google Search): Thank you for the debate and thank you my esteemed opponent and audience.Please, support pro!
The Nazis are socialists

Thank you for accepting the challenge, I shall start off with a quote by Hitler...In 1930, Otto Strasser interviewed Hitler, in which Hitler said, 'I am a socialist'.Source:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...Although admittedly the Telegraph and Daniel Hannan are right-wing, the Indepedent (a central-left paper) wrote a similar article talking about Hitler's 'socialist dream'.Similarly, in Jonah Goldberg's bestselling Liberal Fascism, he argued that Hitler was indeed a leftist. In the early days of the Weimar Republic, a far-leftist would either choose between the Communist and the Nazis. The conversion between the two is very easy. The Nazis and the Communist both hated the liberal values advocated by Weimar officials, and both spoke of collectivism, statism, welfare, mass rallies etc. The similarities are more than superficial- Hitler's programmes, from the Autobahn construction (similar to the gigantomania of Stalinist Russia), to the Volksradio and Volkswagen (People's Radio and People's Car), to his various state directed programmes like KDF, Blood and Soil as well as the DAF (Deutsche Arbeitefront or the German Worker's Front). According to the third edition of the AQA GCSE Modern World History book by Ben Walsh, there was a speech by Goebbels, in which he showed his contempt for their 'capitalist tormentors'. Furthermore, according to a different academic source, Goebbels wanted to create a common front with the Communists to defeat the bourgeois in Germany.Source: Fest, The Face of the Third Reich, p 89The clue is in the name as well: the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS' Party. Moreover, Hitler would often speak to his Parteigenosse or just Genosse during speeches. Genosse in a political context is the German word for 'comrade'.I now turn to my opponents for his counterarguments...
The Nazis are socialists

I am challenging Sottinator to a debate about whether the Nazis are socialist or not. I will be arguing that the Nazis are socialists, and my opponent against.I will not simply define socialism for this round, because the definition of socialism is too broad and that as socialists, myself and Stottinator understand 'what we're talking about'. Having said so, we are not trying to say that the Nazis are good (or bad for that matter). This is simply a debate about how the Nazis should be classfied, as socialist or else, not about whether we support their policies or not. Round one is for acceptanceRound two is for opening argumentsRound three is for new arguments/rebuttalsRound four is for conclusions and rebuttalsI await my opponent's acceptance...
Animals should not be killed for sport.

As con, I will argue that it is acceptable to kill animals for sport. Since it was not specified whether R1 is acceptance only, I will assume it is not and commence to argue in favour of allowing the killing of animals for sport. Pro makes the assertion that "if animals are hunted for sport, they will go extinct". This is demonstratively not the case; just look at pheasants in the United Kingdom, for instance; there's absolutely no way such a stupid and helpless bird would have survived in Britain for as long as it has without humans actively breeding them to shoot for sport. The species only continues to exist *BECAUSE* we kill them for sport. It would of course be a reasonable position to hold that one should not kill animals for sport in a way which is harmful to their populations, but it is clearly possible, as in the case of pheasants, to hunt animals in a responsible way which, quite contrary to depleting the species' numbers, actually *INCREASES* them, or at the very least doesn't diminish them to a severe degree. Pro's assertion that "if animals are hunted for sport, they will go extinct" is a non-sequitir fallacy, and is clearly not true in all- or even most- cases. Another reason hunting can be good is the effect known as a "Trophic cascade". Explained in more detail here: , it occurs when the introduction of a predatory species acts to control the population of a pest species they hunt, which has knock-on beneficial effects on the rest of the ecosystem. For example, deer numbers had skyrocketed in Yellowstone National Park, and as a result of their excessive grazing, much of the vegetation in the park was decimated. This lead to many other species which relied on the vegetation, such as birds and beavers, to severely reduce in numbers. However, when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, they reduced the number of deer, which meant more foliage could grow, which was just generally a good thing for the whole ecosystem. Humans can serve the same role wolves do in this example- pest control. Allowing humans to hunt the deer in Yellowstone would have had much the same effect as introducing wolves, but would have required more effort on our parts. So, to summarise my main points: hunting can be done in a way which is ethical in that it is not unnecessarily cruel and does not threaten a species' numbers, and it can even be used to control a species' numbers in a way that is beneficial to the environment. It is for this reason that I urge the reader to side with me on this issue, and to conclude that hunting for sport should be allowed, at least in some contexts.
Hillary Clinton's honesty.

Politifact doesn't necessarily have every single case Hillary has said something false. While I would use politifact for specific cases where they said something false, it can't be used for every single instance they've said something false since it doesn't seem possible anyone can possibly record every single time someone made a false statement. I would like to point out that in a court of law, all that is needed for reason to convict is: motive, evidence that the person did something illegal, and as a bonus, witnesses. In each case there is a motive for her lying: to get elected. There is evidence she said false things, which I showed above, and there are witnesses(all of the American people who pay attention to news). The most probable explanation for these occurrences, is that she purposely lied in these instances. Unless there is evidence for some other reason, what explanation do you have? I asked before and you offered none. My opponent offered no valuable explanation for why Hillary's statements do not match up with what she should know. Also, in a court of law, if you're caught saying something when you had previous knowledge to the contrary, that is called perjury. If we all thought like my opponent here, no one would ever be convicted of perjury because there "might" be some other reason for the statements not lining up. Unless there is a reasonable explanation for it, such as Hillary Clinton has some illness that is known to cause memory problems(which I know of no such evidence that she has such an illness), or something of that sort, the only logical conclusion is that she lied deliberately.
Hillary Clinton's honesty.

Let's take a look at some people in similar positions to Hillary Clinton. Using politifact.com we can see that:26% of the time statements checked by poltifact.com Hilliary is more than half false. That's a 74% truth rate. [7]Obama gets a 76% truth rate. [8] Donald Trump gets a 30% truth rating [9]. Bernie Sanders a 72% rating. [10]Mike Pence gets a 53% truth rating. [11] Tim Kaine gets an 78% truth rating. [12] Finally, Joe Biden gets a 67% truth rating. These are all people in similar circumstances to Hillary Clinton. This is important because many honest people given the right set of circumstances will deliberately tell a false statement. Most likely me nor my opponent have to live with public scrutiny at the level that Clinton and the others do. Let's make a list from most honest to least honest and see where Hillary fits in. Tim Kaine 78% truthfulObama 76% truthfulHillary 74% truthfulBernie Sanders 72%Joe Biden 67%Mike Pence 53%Donald Trump 30%Out of seven politicians Hillary leans towards honest. Furthermore, it is impossible for my opponent to prove Hillary deliberately made any false statements. The best my opponent can prove is that Hillary made a false statement and had the knowledge before making the statement. Thanks for debating. Sources:7. http://www.politifact.com...8. http://www.politifact.com...9. http://www.politifact.com...10. http://www.politifact.com...11. http://www.politifact.com...12. http://www.politifact.com...13. http://www.politifact.com...
should president john f kennedy been assassinated

Dude kennedy was bad with politics I know but he got man to land on the moon and get a man into space and have you ever read the book rocket boys a memoir of homer hickim Jr. Was the reason why we got people into space he inspired kennedy to get man on the moon he was also the best decision maker for military strategies to have us carry out operation bay pigs A.K.A. the bay of pigs incident he was the reason we avoided a nuclear disaster and I know kennedy cheated on his wife but he was younger then Nixon so he in my opinion was aloud to cheat 1 time but I know he cheated with a lot of women but who cares he ended the war on communism with Vietnam pretty much so he was a hero
should president john f kennedy been assassinated

President Kennedy is one of the presidents next to Washington? Under whose standards? What makes a president great? The thing that makes him great is the fact that he had the "Camelot" life style. This was all a sham though as he cheated on his wife with many women. He was a pretty boy, and that was it. The only reason that he won presidency for his first term against Nixon was the fact that it was the first televised debates in history. If you ask people who heard it on the radio, Nixon gave much better responses to questions and that Kennedy was uneducated with many current events. If you asked people who watched it on the television, most would say Kennedy won because of his well dressed appearance. More people watched it on television so more people though Kennedy won just based on his appearance and that is it. He had bad politics and was just the poster boy for the American public. Going back to The Bay of Pigs, there were many different options available to president Kennedy and he was the first one to instigate the conflict in the first place after he had moved nukes closer to Russia in Europe. I would hardly call him next to Washington.
should president john f kennedy been assassinated

President Kenedy was way over his head a lot of the time. Look at the Bay of Pigs incident. He almost started world war 3 with that incident resulting in the total annihilation of the world. Even look at the Vietnam war. If we were to have learned anything from the Korean war, we would have stopped invading Vietnam. President Kennedy was all about fighting communists yet he didn't even consider the fact that if north and south Vietnam was turned into one faction, than they wouldn't turn to communism in the first place out of anger of when the Chinese had invaded Vietnam. It was a pointless war the JFK going way over his head started. His war actions resulted in near catastrophic world events that costed many peoples lives and endangered the whole world.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

Though the study-bot uses technology in a successful way to capture the attention of children, this is not the only app that is available on any of these devices. Children will be more likely to play a game rather than use the study bot. If the time on their devices is not managed properly, it will lead to an insufficient learning experience. The devices used on a daily basis are not only open to learning experiences. Though there are some apps that try to curve attention of small children into learning, they are also damaging to their focus and more importantly their eyes. If small children read and play on electronic devices for too long, they will have the wrong focus and they will not be able to adjust in some classroom settings. This brings up another aspect of learning. If children are too preoccupied with these devices, they will not have a good social learning skills. This is make it difficult for children to learn and communicate with other students and their teachers, causing a disrupt in learning.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

Of course the study-bot can be insufficient for high school students. However, the subject of this debate is if the technology is interfereing with learning in "young children", usually from pre-school to elementary school students. The children might even be able to adapt to paper works well when they grow up if they already formed a good study habit through study purpose electronic devices, in which they might show more interest when young. Also, even if they grow up, they can still the technology if they think it is helpful to them. They can utilize technology as long as it is beneficial to them, but they do not have to use "only" electronic devices to study. At that point, study-bot is not that harmful to young students. It can attract their attention easily than paper book does, and might cause the kids to have more interest in studying. Some kids might find that they study better with electronics, while others find differently, so it can give them opportunities to find their appropriate study way. Therefore, I don't think it is that bad to give the young children opportunities to study with having fun, eventually increasing the efficiency of education.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

Though it is true that the study-purpose robot poses a good aspect of technology, there are a few down sides to this product. If this is only available on certain tablets, or on certain devices, then some children will not be able to have the same learning experience. This also proves true when the students enter a classroom setting because they will be exposed to different learning techniques. It would be a hard transition for a child to go from reading a book on the study-bot and then trying to focus on a book. Students will become very uninterested in their studies and may pay more attention to their electronics. If all schools were to invest in technology for all of their students, this could prove to help on their current work. However, when students enter higher grade levels, such as high school, the study-bot will prove to be insufficient. Students will have to make the transition from an interactive picture book, to just a plain text. This method will be a hard transition for many and will not help in the aid to direct focus in the long run. Although the direct attention of a young child may prove to be sufficient for the time being, in the long run it will hurt the education of the child.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

It is true that technology has been greatly affecting children these days. Some people would contend that technology has a harmful effect on children, but I'm inclined to believe that it has more positive effect. The first thing that we should recognize is technology does not always mean computer websites which are full of ads and movie trailers. These days the technology has been so developed that there is even an only study-purpose robot. It is called study-bot, and used only for helping children study. It helps children to study more efficiently than studying with papers. It provides sound and recording function, so that they can learn words or other languages fast and easily. It also provides books and stories so children can read from there. Usually, children get bored easily when they read books full of letters. However, as study-bot shows a lot of pictures and screen-effects, children don't get bored easily while reading, rather they can have a lot of fun. Like this, technology helps children learn more efficiently. If we see the technology in narrow range, we might not find any benefits of technology on children. However, entirely, technology is having positive effects on children in education.