BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aid Money Directed at HIV/AIDS Should be more Directed at Prevention than Treatment (ARVs)

Finding a cure for HIV is undoubtedly a noble and worthwhile cause. I agree that a large percentage of money should go towards finding a cure. However, too much money is spent on treating individuals who are HIV positive and not enough preventing people from getting it in the first place. I have been living in Uganda for the last two years. During the early part of the 21st century, HIV/AIDS rates plummeted in the country to a low point of 6.4% in 2006. The country was held up as a success story in the fight against the disease. However, rates are on the rise again, and currently stand at 7.2%. This is occurring despite the very successful circumcision campaign (which can reduce transmission by 60%) in the country. When I asked health professionals about this new trend, they explained that ARVs are making it harder for people to know who is HIV positive. In addition, there is a misconception that ARVs prevent transmission (they reduce it, but don't prevent). ARVs are very expensive, costing hundreds of dollars per person per year. Although I'd love to have money for everything, you must prioritize. I personally think that if those hundreds of dollars can prevent one person from contracting the virus instead, then the money was better utilized.
Aid Money Directed at HIV/AIDS Should be more Directed at Prevention than Treatment (ARVs)

The US government is not something I agree with very often, but this time is an exception. By using the money to go towards prevention, you limit the number of people who are able to be helped by the treatment. But by spending money towards treatment, and eventually the cure to HIV/AIDS, you are able to not only be able to save those already diagnosed with it, but those who could be diagnosed in the future. If we did put prevention first, all of those people who have it already are left to fend for themselves. Sure, prevention is a good thing, but in this case, as of right now, we should focus on treatment.
North and South Korea who will win

Thank you for posting the figures for me. I agree that North Korea is very poor, and do you know why? Because half of it's money goes to it's army!If they get in a war with a country better well off, they dont have much money for the war, like the South has. The south can round up a better army then thhe North can. You re wrong in saying they have old weapons and vehicles. Ty develop tanks that rival the American M1A2 Abrams, thought to be the best tank in the world. Their air force is made mostly of American planes like the famous F-16 and the McDonnell-Douglas Phantom.Where did you hear this? Why would NORTH KOREA have AMERICAN weapons? Their Army has American weaponry like the M1 Carbine, the M4A1 assault rifle and the M203 grenade launcher. They also use the cutting edge of technology, like the newly developed CornerShot from Israel. Their armory also consists of Chinese guns like the K-2 and K-3. So, as I have shown, North Korea has better equipment and vehicles, and also outnumbers South Korea. I dont know where you are getting this. Sources please.Please delay your debate for one day. Im busy.
North and South Korea who will win

Thank you for posting the figures for me. I agree that North Korea is very poor, and do you know why? Because half of it's money goes to it's army! You re wrong in saying they have old weapons and vehicles. Ty develop tanks that rival the American M1A2 Abrams, thought to be the best tank in the world. Their air force is made mostly of American planes like the famous F-16 and the McDonnell-Douglas Phantom. Their Army has American weaponry like the M1 Carbine, the M4A1 assault rifle and the M203 grenade launcher. They also use the cutting edge of technology, like the newly developed CornerShot from Israel. Their armory also consists of Chinese guns like the K-2 and K-3. So, as I have shown, North Korea has better equipment and vehicles, and also outnumbers South Korea.
North and South Korea who will win

South KoreaActive personnel 653,000 Reserve personnel3,200,000 Navy68,000 personnel170 ships, 70 aircraftAir force760 aircraft.North.Active 1,106,000Reserve 8,200,000Navy about 46,000. 3 frigates and 70 submarines: approximately 20 Romeo class submarines (1,800 tons), 40 Sang-O class submarines (300 tons) and 10 midget submarines including the Yono class submarine (130 tons).Air Force1,600 and 1,700 aircraft of different types, mostly of Soviet and Chinese originSouth Korea would win because of the lack of money in the North. Thus, The ground forces will not have the best weapons around. The Navy being smaller then the South. And the Air force. The Air force is jsut some old Chinese and Russian aircraft from the middle Cold War Era. The army also uses old weapons. Con needs to see how low supplies are in the North. People are poor and the first chance they get,they get new leaders.
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

You're dismissing the fact that a rainbow is a natural metereological occurrence, while the Father Christmas, does not actually exist. One can help him understand the concept of the rainbow, with other concepts. Blind people don't only have one sense. One can help them understand the colours, maybe on braille. Or perhaps, one can help a blind man understand the concept through things like music (maybe playing 6 notes on a piano, that would represent each colour), through the sense of touch (for example, comparing the warmer colours of the rainbow to a warm feeling), and one can also be descriptive through his words by using adjectives. A way in which one can explain a rainbow to a blind man is, by comparing electromagnetic waves which have different frequencies, to the different frequencies we hear in sound. The combination of these different frequencies in sound, create a harmonic form of sound, likewise a rainbow, but relating to a different sense, the sense of light. Thank you for initiating this debate, I have really enjoyed it.
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

Vision is one of our main senses. Our senses help us experience our world. As you've stated in round 2 "blind=can't see", which means that a blind man, would lack the ability to see the world around him. This means that he has to rely on his other senses so that he can understand and experience the world around him. Now, a rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon, which is generally made up of six main colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet. Just because he doesn't see it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist to him. One can help a blind man understand the rainbow by emphasizing the senses that he is able to experience. Blind people may not be able to see differences in colors, but they can understand concepts of hotness, softness, etc. A rainbow also is something actually existent. One's inability to see it with his own eyes, does not mean that it does not exist. A blind person may never see a rainbow, but they still have the capability of creating a picture in their mind of what a rainbow might look like.
Gay marriage

Pro said, "This is not a debate a about God, but a debate on politics. " In Round 1 Pro said, "I am challenging you to a debate about gay marriage and if God excepts it. " It seems to be in plain text that God is part of the debate. Pro said, "Why should some get the right to marriage, but not all? " I believe you should let the states decide if they want to co-exist with a policy that the majority of the people in the state feel comfortable with.
Gay marriage

Well said. Pro says: "I choose to acknowledge those verses that state God made all of us equally" Pro also says: "he loves us all more than those that could be interpreted as "hate" You contradict yourself. You say that God made all of us equally. If he made us all equally, then why would he love one more than the other as you state in the second statement? It wouldn't make sense that he would create all of us equally, and not love us all equally. Many Christians say God loves everyone.
Gay marriage

I am a Christian and I do sometimes read the Bible, but I realize that times have drastically changed. Some say that in the Bible it says men are better than women, whites are better than blacks, being gay is wrong etc. Back then all of that may have been true but it certainly is not true today. I choose to acknowledge those verses that state God made all of us equally, he loves us all more than those that could be interpreted as "hate". I stress the word interpreted.
Gay marriage

Personally, I am on the fence about whether God exists or not. But since I am Con, I say that God doesn't exist, so he can't except it. However, I also state that since this debate isn't about God's existence, I shall say that if indeed God has a certain view towards gay marriage, the evidence from the Bible and other sources indicate that God doesn't believe in gay marriage. (This viewpoint is assuming that God exists and examining the evidence that we have)
If A Tree Fell In A Forrest With No One Around To Hear It, It Would Still Make A Sound

The classic question. I guess the most practical way to do these is for the first round to be acceptance and then I can make my case. I don't want this to be an argument about definitions of words, but here is what I mean by sound - and I must ask con to accept it: vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear. If you have questions just leave a comment and I'll be happy to answer it.
Celebrity Rap Battle

Dr. Seuss you can't see me, im unbeatable and charismatic you are no longer with us, wow that was really climatic I will destroy you and your followers, I have Cenation Destroying you and your partner the Lorax will be nothing but depression Bring any one, even Horton the Elephant he will get destroyed too, that's not even Irrelevant my mic skills are incredible, yours are far too unclear come on Seuss the CHAMP IS HERE
Celebrity Rap Battle

Alright here.............we...................GO!! Dr Seuss meet the real Rhyming master When I read your books I die of freaking laughter I'm powerful yes! stronger than a Ram I will wear green to match your green eggs and ham blue fish, red fish, green fish, I don't care I will destroy you Like HBK did to Rick Flair I will give you your turn so I can see how you Rap but becareful Dr. Seuss I might make you Tap
Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime should be executed

So the first guy who accepted this debate left within a matter of hours after accepting. Don't do the same or I'll find you and kill you.This is pretty simple. I think anyone who commits any kind of violent crime against innocent people, or as part of a gang, should be killed. Andwe're keeping thisto North America- let's only talk about Canada and the US of A.For this debate, we will not use the million-dollar death penalty procedures we have grown to love, we will use... cheaper... methods. However humane. The criminal convicted of the crime will face lethal injection the day of, or after, their hearing. They will not suffer (physically, anyway) and it will cost next to nothing, so price will not matter.We will define violent crime as child abuse, elder abuse, sexual assault, rape, murder, theft using a weapon, domestic violence, terrorism, stalking/threatening with intent to harm, any form of physical assault/aggression toward somebody and kidnapping -all except in self defense.Pro (me) argues that it is a good idea for every criminal convicted of a violent crime to be killed via "humane" ways, such as lethal injection. Con (you) will argue that it is not a good idea to kill criminals convicted of violent crime.We will not be arguing on how much it would cost to perform the execution.First round can be acceptance or opening arguments, up to you.Rules:1. No forfeiture. Seriously. If you decide to leave halfway through the debate, you give up a full 7 points. So don't run away.2. No semantics. I gave the definitions, I'm sure we're clear on what physical assault/aggression is. If you decide to say "well I define assault as a high five," then get the hell outta here.3. No trolling. This is a serious debate. We're talking about the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.4. The comments section can not be used for anything other than discussion. Anything added in (extra arguments, sources, etc) will not be counted for anything.5. No new arguments in the final round. Solidify your points and dispute mine, but don't bring up entirely new arguments.I think I've covered everything. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the comments or PM me.
Drug Legalization.

Pro drops nearly all of my R2 evidence, and that is enough to make me the victor - Bars -> admits that marijuana actually causes violence. -> more use = more violence -> opponent dropped use argument (concedes it as true) -> marihuana legalization = more violence - Hard drug prices -> this doesn't even make sense due to the fact marijuana is a gateway drug (1). -> any fall in demand would be temporary --> what would the mechanism to decrease demand even be? People using crack would be the same and increase--due to prices falling--and as noted marijuana users would eventually shift to hard drugs. And their shift would be easier because of soft drug legalization -> RAND study argued the links are not due to demand changes but due to legalized markets making it easier to transport drugs, so any legalization is bad. That conclusion should be preferred by voters because I provide actual evidence. Pro only has assertions. - Violence -> new argument last round = discard -> logic can't hold up. It assumes legalization lowers violence and cartel criminals will become law abiding after. Probably incorrect. Models showing that cartel members stay criminals at some level suggest crime will increase (2). -> drug cartels have multiple sources of income and will still terror the people after legalization. Of drug income, soft drugs aren't even that huge. So legalization of soft drugs won't help (3). Why to vote con (1) PRO drops all of the use arguments, enough for him to lose the debate (2) He drops the cost arguments (3) he made new arguments last round (4) I always offer proof, he never did. My arguments can be favored based on that alone (5) Drops the prison analysis (6) drops rehab analysis -> drug legalization has only cons, all of pros arguments have been demolished or dropped by him. Thus, a clear con vote is in order. 1. http://www.drugabuse.gov... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.sarnia.com...
Drug Legalization.

Cannabis clubs are just like bars. Bars have more crime surrounding them because when people leave them, they are more than likely impaired by a certain substance and therefore more likely to do something stupid, so it should be implied. Legalization of soft drugs would lower the price of hard drugs because there would be less of a demand for hard drugs BECAUSE of the legalization of soft drugs. It's all in supply and demand. So yes, legalization of soft drugs would increase use (of soft drugs), but it would more than likely deter people from using hard drugs because the legalized soft drugs would be easier to get ahold of. Using a similar slogan to the NRA's "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", I will respond to my opponents claim by saying: "Soft Drug Use doesn't kill people, violent ruthless drug cartels kill people." So we need to eliminate drug cartels and open up buissnesses like here that I see in Colorado (and shops on other places like California, Oregon, etc.) that don't kill people.
Drug Legalization.

My opponent now is merely defending soft drug legalization, something I would still oppose. Really, it doesn't make sense to only legalize soft drugs because they often go hand-in-hand. Marijuana is found in 60% of criminals systems when they are caught for their crime, according to the RAND institute. And this number holds true in the US, Australia, and the UK. Long-term marijuana use actually causes irritability, although it causes short-term calmness. In Los Angeles "police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles." [1] Further, Marijuana and cocaine prices are closely linked and the two drugs substitute each other. Legalization would lead to a 10% decline in marijuana prices, which would increase marijuana use. Not only this, but it would lead to a decline in cocaine prices by about 4.4%, meaning there would also be an increase in cocaine use [2]. So any legalization scheme would have to legalize hard drugs in order to cope with the damages caused by soft-drug use--they are linked to hard drugs. So any "moderate" legalization leads to hard drug prices falling and more use. Legalization advocates claim if we just legalize all drugs the government would be able to control all of the drugs, regulate it, etc. But on Portugal, this led to an increase in both use and homicide [3]. - Legalizing soft drugs increases use- Legalizing soft drugs increases hard-drug use- Legalizing all drugs increases use and homicide1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://www.rand.org... 3. https://www.econ.berkeley.edu...
Drug Legalization.

I didn't know that most of the people in prison were actually there for smuggling drugs rather than using them. But, that makes me happy. I agree that drugs like meth and cocaine do harm communities because of they're addictiveness and health effects. So, how about we come to an agreement that all users of hard drugs (as specified with photos on my profile) will be sent to a rehab facility. However. All soft drugs will be legalized.
Drug Legalization.

First off, reaserch shows that eliminating the war on drugs could save us a lot of money. 50.1% of inmates in United states prions are incarcerated for drug offenses. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...] so of you do the math, if there are 332,000 people in US prisons, divide that by two, that makes 166,000, multiply that by $30,000, which is how much it is to take care of inmates per year [http://thelawdictionary.org...], and that makes 4,980,000,000. So we could save almost 5 billion dollars every year if we legalized drugs, which can go to things more important like education, hospitals, programs warning kids not to use hard drugs, and many other things. If anything, we should use that funding for rehab centers for hard drug addicts. Jail will probably help them get off the drug, however chances are it won't really change they're mentality, which is by far the best way to keep someone off drugs. Jail is just unnecessary punishment for something people pretty much just fell in love with for lack of a better phrase, mostly not really something they really actively chose to do like Rape, Murder, Theft, Robbery, etc. Plus, it's only hurting themselves, not other people. And another great idea would be to make more blunt, straight-to-the point campaigns like the meth project to deter people from hard drugs. You can find a list of hard and soft drugs on my profile, and how hard drugs actually really harm people compared to soft drugs. And here are the definitions of drugs: Hard drugs are drugs that lead to physical addiction. Many countries do not allow people to make, sell or use some of them, other than for medical purposes. Examples of such drugs are heroin, methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, alcohol and nicotine. If it is legal to sell them, like with alcohol or nicotine, there are often taxes that need to be paid for them. Soft drugs are not thought to cause physical addiction. Examples of soft drugs are cannabis, mescaline, psilocybin, LSD, and DMT. While they do not cause physical addiction, some of them may still lead to psychological dependence. Some drugs cannot be classified that way, as they have characteristics of both hard and soft drugs. Examples for such drugs are MDMA (known as Ecstasy), ketamine, synthetic cannabis (known as Spice) and caffeine. [http://simple.m.wikipedia.org...]
medical marijuana

Well, my opponet has neglected to respond to my argument in round 2 so I will conclude my argument. First I want to make it clear that I'm not bashing marijuana, I just don't think its right to promote smoking including pot for medicinal use. Once again, my argument wasn't against legalizing marijuana or criminalizing people who use it. I have friends who smoke pot who are good people that agree with me that pot is bad for you and even my opponet has confirmed that pot smoke is bad for you. I only wanted to point out the misconception that marijuana smoke is healthy, therefore we shouldn't call it a medicinal drug. I don't promote smoking marijuana but I know people will so I think they should know the risks. Thank you and please help me out by voting for con.
medical marijuana

i will break my rebuttals down into bullet points that are more easy to understand for people who may currently be taking their prescription ;) 1. once again, the debate is over the use of marijuana (the plant) for medical use. 2. yes i said THC has benefits, so if you would like to put THC in pill form and prescribe that, it would be fine and i believe it is already in existence but no other medicinal drug is smoked. 3. nicotine and caffeine have medical benefits but we dont refer to cigarettes and cola as alternative medicines. 4. tobacco and alcohol can be ingested in many ways as well. you can make a drink out of them, cook with them, and you can even mix alcohol with dry ice and inhale the steam to get drunk which may be fun and all but we still dont call them alternative medicines, they are recreational drugs just like marijuana. 5.smoking a medicine is never a "best way to take it" you could maybe put THC in an inhaler if you want to inhale it though and it would work just like smoke without the side effects. 6.im comparing marijuana smoke to all smoke, not just cigarettes. all smoke is bad just as you said. i could also compare marijuana to tobacco that doesn't have added chemicals. 7.ive heard all kinds of claims, statistics and studies on marijuana that oppose everything youre saying such as marijuana having 3 times the tar that cigarettes have, THC weakening your immune system etc. but unlike you, i choose not to believe everything i hear and read which is why i am not posting all kinds of random stats as you are. i dont want people to have to trust mine or someone elses word, i want them to use their own reasoning and see if they can follow my logic. so my argument allows people to rely purely on their own reasoning while yours forces them to trust someone elses findings. most people including yourself understand that smoke is bad for you and that is all that you need to know in order to conclude that marijuana shouldnt be touted as a medicine, it should be treated like a recreational drug and people should be aware of its dangers. anything else is false advertisement. 8.it doesnt matter how many health benefits pot has, it should be put in pill form like every other medicinal drug. theres no reason to smoke it, we dont live in the stone age anymore. 9.once again, i dont buy into all these stats and studies but i cant believe that youre acting like its not a bad thing that lung function declines after 10 yrs of smoking. 10.i didnt say pot has no pros but just think of how much more unhealthy oxicodone would be if it were taken in smoke form. in pill form you can have the benefits without the harmful side effects. 11.theres medicine that you can and cant overdose on but none of them are in smoke form. 12.my friend that has a card to buy medical marijuana smokes with other people in the room. i could see many idiots smoking in the house with kids or their kids coming in the room before the smoke has cleared up.