BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolution: That CSPI is more interested in spreading vegetarianism rather than food safety

I am Con to the resolution, "CSPI is more interested in spreading vegetarianism rather than food safety." A few quick definitions: CSPI: http://www.cspinet.org... vegetarianism: the principle or practice of excluding all meat and fish, and sometimes, in the case of vegans, all animal products (such as eggs, cheese, etc) from one's diet (see http://dictionary.reference.com... ) food safety: In this case, the information needed to keep consumers safe from harmful or substandard foods. A good selection of articles on this subject can be found here: http://www.foodsafety.gov... and here: http://www.cspinet.org... I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Nothing is inherently a waste of time

Con attacks me by saying that I have narrowed this debate down to only hobbies. I admit that I did not define the topic but to be fair, in a short debate like this we should use the "most reasonable definition". I have already alluded in my Round 2 arguments that "nothing" here refers to any action. That is why I started out with "Everything that you do today can be useful to you in the future, often in ways that you never expected." I was in no way limiting this to just hobbies. EVEN IF this debate is just about hobbies, then perhaps Con should rebut me on that. Since I am Pro here, I do have the advantage of scoping this debate and Con should take me up on that definition by arguing how some hobbies are a waste of time etc. Instead, Con spends an entire paragraph agreeing that the scientist's hobby, although seemingly useless, is in fact not at all a waste of time. Hmm, ok. Regarding the example of someone sitting down in a chair, that too is beneficial and not a waste of time. Although it seems that he is not improving himself nor the community, by virtue of him enjoying that activity, he benefits from it in terms of happiness. Perhaps, he gets to destress from the hustle and bustle of day to day activities. This of course is assuming no-one is actually forcing him to sit in a chair. Con's problems: 1. Something beneficial does not necessarily have direct benefits to the individual or society. Rather, the benefits are abstract or indirect. I have already said this in Round 2 but Con seems to have not read it. 2. This debate is not limited to hobbies but EVEN IF it is, Con should try to rebut me on that if he can. As Pro, I get to take this debate any reasonable way. I think that the direction I have taken is fair and is not at all a "truth bomb". Con can and should have argued on my terms but instead chooses to deflect direct confrontation. 3. Overindulgence is the fault of the PERSON not the activity. The activity itself is beneficial and not a waste.
Nothing is inherently a waste of time

Pro's logic is quite frustrating. They haven't clearly explained a few things, which I will point out in my following arguments. First off, they have not established which actions fall under the category of "nothing". Would everything count as not being a waste of time, as long as it satisfies your own happiness? Their side tries to explain that doing good in your free time can help to develop a person's abilities, and thus would designate him as a contributor to the welfare of society. But if I were to, say just sit on a chair and do nothing but stare ahead, would this be considered as something that hones one of my talents? I find no purpose in doing the example I have stated. It seems to me that Pro wants to narrow the subject matter to be only about hobbies. If so, they have not stated it, and the notion itself implies a limitless viewpoint. I will have to agree about the scientist's leisure activity of public speaking. Yes, he does what he enjoys doing, and yes, this hobby improves his speaking skills. It boosts his confidence and widens his possibilities. I concede to the fact that a public speaking hobby is NOT a waste. By definition, a "waste of time" is something which proves to be useless in the long run. The opposite of this would, therefore be interpreted as something which provides both personal and societal profit. However, Pro does not seem to notice that personal gain does not necessarily equate to societal improvement. Let's take the hobby of playing video games. One may argue that video games can have good effects and may even lead to futures in the programming industry. I will have to agree with that. But, it can cause one to overindulge in the recreation and thus cause loss of focus. Students can apply to this reasoning, with online gaming being the norm in today's society. They lose track of their studies, something which can broaden their careers. One must have a hobby which benefits both himself and society, and must balance between both.
Nothing is inherently a waste of time

Everything that you do today can be useful to you in the future, often in ways that you never expected. Many people seem to think that hobbies are a waste of time. Let's say a scientist enjoys public speaking in his free time. Twice a month he attends a Toastmasters club to practice. His daily activities most of the time in the lab, does not involve speaking to a crowd at all. Sure, maybe in a year, he will probably speak in front of an audience once during a research convention. But that's it. By any logic, the scientist's hobby is a complete waste of time. It doesn't translate into any rise in income. It does not gain him any followers on social media. He's not going to win any public speaking tournaments soon. By any measure, there is no way to quantify how exactly this hobby is useful to him. However, in a person's life time, you never know when exactly some skills could be useful to you in the future. The scientist, with a polished skill of being able to speak in public, could potentially find a new line of work. Without that skill, he could open doors he never even thought of before. Imagine if he had never had this hobby. He probably would not even have the ability to imagine working as something else. My second argument is that something which makes you feel good or something which interests you is, by itself, already worth doing. Success can never just be measured by income. Being happy, meeting friends, and challenging yourself to be better every day is also a big part of life. When a person tells another person that what he is doing is a waste of time, often, that person is just measuring the action by the amount of money it can produce. However, what cannot be measured should also be taken into account. When a person is happy, this motivates him to be a better individual every day who can contribute something to the society. Imagine if everything we do which does not directly translate into money is a "waste of time". That would be a sad life.
Money "does" buy happiness.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this challenge. The resolution states that money “does” buy happiness. If this is true then anyone who has money can exchange it for some level of happiness, and presumably the more money one has the happier they will be. Pro cites a book which states that wealth increases human happiness when it lifts people out of poverty and into the middle class or upper class. I find it odd that it would only mention the effects of giving money to those in poverty, as opposed to giving money to those already in the upper class. I think the reason is obviously because giving money to those in the upper class will not have any affect on their level of happiness. The major flaw with the belief that money buys happiness is that it fails to take into account our adaptive nature as human beings. We get happy when we receive money but once the fact that we have that money settles in, it is no longer satisfying to us. Happiness is not a one time emotional response, but an emotional state of mind. Anything that money can buy will quickly sink in as being normal and we go right back to the same emotional state we were in before. As an example salary.com recently did a survey asking employees what they were most unhappy about and 57% answered that their number 1 complaint was “inadequate compensation”(1). Now this may seem like an indication that if they are paid more money they will be happier, but the issue with that assumption is that the employees being interviewed were coming from many different income ranges. This only shows that employees will generally always be unhappy with their salaries regardless of what they are getting paid because once people make a certain salary they will simply get used to it and want more. Pro states that money “makes you everything” and supports this with his assessment that a rich man has a strength in his life that you don’t see in a middle class or poor man. I agree that rich men tend to carry themselves very differently but this has nothing to do with happiness, this simply a matter of the difference of social classes. Pro also notes that this wealth provides them with cars, TV’s, clothes, etc… This may sound very appealing but again has little to do with happiness. A new car for example might be wonderful at first but it will not be new for long. How many of us know someone who had a car they treated like gold for the first few weeks or months they had it and now they hardly care about it? This could be said for all material possessions such as games, clothes etc… Conclusion Achieving happiness is about many things in life. The relationships we have with family and friends plays a major role, the satisfaction we have with whatever it is we do for a living is another. More money will almost always make us happier but there is nothing money can do for us that we will just wind up getting used to and looking for more. To find happiness we need much more then money. (1) http://www.theepochtimes.com...
Money "does" buy happiness.

I believe that money does buy happiness, because without money in this economy and society we live in, it is a necessary need for happiness and survival. "Psychologists have spent decades studying the relation between wealth and happiness," writes Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert in his best-selling "Stumbling on Happiness," "and they have generally concluded that wealth increases human happiness when it lifts people out of poverty and into the middle class or upper class. My opponent (whoever you are) cannot say that if I hand him 2,000, he won't be "happy." because I'm sure that he has wants just like every other human does, and what do you need to receive your wants...currency. Money is not every thing but it makes you everything, and you can observe this difference in real life. A rich man has a strength in his life that you could not see in a middle class or poor man, and that strength comes the wealth that provides him with his uzurious house and various amounts of wants like cars, TVs, clothes, and cool electronic gadgets. Furthermore, money can theorectically buy you happiness. I await for an opponent, and thank you for accepting whoever accepts.
The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate Morality

I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you are interested, just leave a comment or PM me, thank you. I am curious to see how anyone can argue that the purpose of any law is not to legislate morality. Resolution:The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate MoralityDefinitions:Purpose - the object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goalThe US Constitution - the Constitution and all amendmentsLegislate - make or enact laws. https://www.google.com......Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). . http://en.wikipedia.org......
Marijuana should be legalized

A to your first point, I admit that there would be fewer small time dealers if it were legalized. However, the same could be said if it were decriminalized, which is the con position. But what the CNBC evidence is saying is that legalization won't end criminal marijuana, merely it will encourage dealers to sell more virulent for a of the drug. So just as people will "get creative," so to will the criminals and gangs. Also, I feel that you failed to address my point that legalizing the drug would vastly enlarge the number of marijuana users an abusers, which could lead to it becoming an even greater issue than booze. In regards to your second assertion, to which states are you referring? What was the date of publication for the Huff Post publication? And, Even if we concede to some financial benefit, government has a greater duty to the welfare of its people than just a profit motive. In other words, I feel the other arguments are more crucial than this one. Thirdly, it's true not everyone will use pot if it's made legal. That being said, you only address one of the myriad harms I cite. Furthermore, the only health benefit you've been able to show is one for severe illnesses, which afflict only a small portion of people. That dangers, however, apply to almost everyone. I don't think benefit for a few outweighs dangers for many. I'd like to see a source for the muscle health and depression argument. There is evidence also, provided by the U.S. Dept. of Health that pit can actually make depression worse, especially if that depression has gone on for a few years. This report is from 2009. Finally, it's not just overdoes rates, but the volume of impacted individuals and the abuse rates that matter. To conclude, you never addressed me contention regarding the issues on the road. The gateway drug thing is not a core part of my stand, but the dept. of health also noted in that report that over 60% of hard drug users had smoked cigarettes or pot before transitioning upwards. It found "strong statistical evidence" that it was a gateway drug. And,, we shouldn't give the people what they want if it poses a risk of harm. Well being should trump monetary concerns. I look forward to your replies! Great debate!
Marijuana should be legalized

To start off this debate, Marijuana is a plant that is planted in the ground in places with moderate to high climate and long farming seasons. It can be consumed without chemical components unlike cigarettes, which are man made. Marijuana has been seen for over 2,000 years in china in recored history, but of course it still might have been discovered way before that.In the USA, Marijuana is considered a Schedule 1 drug, which means it is dangerous and does not have any medical use, and whoever gets caught with it or dealing it gets a really long jail time, sometimes longer than murderers and rapists. LSD is also in the same schedule with marijuana, but thats another debate for another time ;) Throughout history and especially in the past decade, many researches has been done to discover medical use of marijuana, and there were many. One of the most important medical benefits of marijuana is that it can help cancer patients deal more easily with the effects of chemotherapy, whereas chemo can cause nausea that can go on for hours, even days, without a moments rest, which can be extremely painfull. Of course there are many factory created medicines that the doctors perscript, but they rarely solve this problem entirely, at lease nothing like marijuana. According to many tests done on real cancer patients, marijuana solves the nausea problem right away, whereas when they smoke cannibas they dont feel the brain wrecking feel of vomiting, which is basically bliss for them. Which beggs the question, why is marijuana a schedule 1 drug when it has proven experiments of its medical success? While other drugs like Meth and cocain are on Schedule 2 which means that they have medical use.Alcohol is even more dangerous than marijuana. Day by day we hear and read of deaths caused by drunk driving and overdrinking, but I havent heard of a death by marijuana. There are approximitely 75,000 kills a year linked with alcohol, so why it illegal? And to all people who say that marijuana is addictive and that is why its dangerous, alcohol has a addicition rate of 15% while marijuana has one of 9%; Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana! Ill leave it at that and await your answer :)
The US president should have the authority to execute American citizens without judicial oversight.

"The president has numerous advisers available. He is not the only one gathering information"He is the one judging the information. He is the person making the decision. At the end of the day, he decided whether or not to kill him. Also,this is not an argument for the president to be exempt from judicial oversight; rather, it is simply arguing that the president is already under judicial oversight. Pro is not arguing for his position, he is arguing that the resolution isn't already in place. By justifying the president making decisions without judicial authority by claiming the president submits to his advisers is circular logic."If he finds the person is a risk to the safety of America, he will likely turn to his advisers"So what, now we have a group of 20 executive advisers making all the decisions without judicial oversight? This is actually taking the power away from the president and giving it to the advisers. If you argue that this is good, then you are admitting that the president should not have the power." The life of a threat against the life of an innocent citizen. Your life against a terrorists."If someone is in the act of committing a violent crime, then I doubt the executive branch would be the decider. However, assassination is not stopping an immediate threat. If the president has the time to make that decision, then the threat is not immeediate. Also, who determines them a terrorist? This is a nice attempt at pathos, but in the end, it is unsubstaniated. A terrorist is a criminal. The executive branch does not have the authority to try a criminal. It is up to a politically impartial judge and jury. That is the way it has worked, going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights.
The US president should have the authority to execute American citizens without judicial oversight.

Before I begin my second argument, let me clear up a moment of misspoken words. I said that the president made laws, and that was an awful mistake. I meant that the president vetoed laws. Now I will continue into refutations and my next argument. a. "He is gathering the evidence, and judging the evidence and punishment by himself." This is absolutely not true. As you will learn in my following argument, the president has numerous advisers available, and he is not the only one gathering the information. 2> Decision made with executive oversight As stated in the resolution, the president should have the authority to execute citizens without judicial oversight, does not mean he randomly executes anyone he chooses. When making the decision to execute American citizens, the president has numerous advisors and the entire executive branch backing him up. The executive branch includes the president himself, the vice president, and the cabinet. The president can seek advice from all of these people, and they can help him review evidence and provide insight. So judge, I am nearly positive my opposition will ramble on about how the president has been awarded too much power, but really, the president has at least 20 people behind his final decision, according whitehouse.gov. If the president receives word of an American threat, he will begin to look into the case. If he finds that this person is a risk to the safety of America, he will likely turn to his advisors. If they discover they cannot be rid of this hazard in any other way, they will turn to execution. Execution is the absolute last resort. If capture is not at all feasible, the threat must be taken care of. This is a matter of innocent lives against the life of a threat. Let that sink in. The life of a threat against the life of an innocent citizen. Your life against a terrorist's.
The US president should have the authority to execute American citizens without judicial oversight.

1> Presidential right and responsibility If the president can"t protect our country, who can? It is the president"s responsibility to protect America from all threats. He is the head of our country, and it is only right to allow him to be able to protect us. It is in his "job description" that he shall protect his country, our country from any and all threats, according to the Constitution and Scholastic. We chose the president, we awarded him power, and it is completely fair to let him use it. And it is currently the president's right to do this, so my opposition must say how they would remove this. And this right would be very difficult to abolish because born president Obama and American attorney general Eric holder support executing citizens with reasonable cause. Another thing, judge, is that the president must have reasonable cause to execute a citizen, according to the New York Time. Police officers use reasonable suspicion, so it is something the government is familiar with. I know that if we can trust our president with making laws, we can trust him with protecting us.
The US president should have the authority to execute American citizens without judicial oversight.

a. " If you argue that this is good, then you are admitting that the president should not have the power." When did I ever say this was good? I merely said that this is what is happening, so the president will not become a tyrant, as you are trying to convince everyone. b. "That is the way it has worked, going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights." When one begins to act against America, as these terrorists have, their rights are stripped from them, even if they are a citizen. This is according to the U.S. passport. One of the terrorists killed so far, Anwar al-Awlaki, was near the top of the most wanted persons list. He was an American citizen, but he worked against America, by joining al-Qaida, stripping him of his rights. Now, on to my final point. 3> Individual accountability Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the most wanted terrorists, according to the Wall Street Journal, and he was a key player in recruiting new members of al-Qaida. In this case, al-Awlaki had been on the run from government officials for nearly two years. He had been a major threat to America. He was increasing al Qaida"s size and magnitude of power. After much thought and overview, the president decided to send in a drone to take Awlaki out and end his reign of terror. This is a case where it was nearly impossible to catch this man, so other actions had to be taken. He was an adult, and it was his responsibility to monitor his actions. In America, you are given adult responsibility at the age of 18. At that point it is your responsibility how you live your life. Anwar al-Awlaki made the decision to cause harm and terror to the American people. He was sought out by the government. They chased him, but he kept running. The same went for ex-LAPD officer Christopher Dorner. These people, especially Dorner, were familiar with the law and the concept of consequences. These men realized, as any adult should, that there WAS a fair trial waiting, and all they had to do was show themselves. So you CANNOT say that these people deserved a fair trial. They had every right to one, but refused the offer. So, in conclusion, you can clearly see that it is necessary and equitable that we allow our president to hold the power to execute citizens without judicial oversight. On our side, we have the impacts of saving thousands of lives and the ultimate protection of our country. Thank you.