BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cigarettes should become illegal-completely

Drugs twist your mind, you really want that drug! Meth Addicts will do anything EVEN KILL to get more Meth. Violent protests would ravage the area, while others will get it illegally smuggled, if you just quadruple the taxes on them, then so many more people would try to protest, get it illegally, or even make it themselves. By banning cigarettes, you are legitimately putting a halt to a whole lot of people who are THINKING about smoking, but you can't do it with addicts. Instead, crack down on illegal smuggling of drugs, and tax the cigarettes like ten times the original amount. You will have an end result of "stopping smoking" without stripping people of their freedoms. Governments should gladly ban things that cause unnecessary safety hazards. Smoking is not a hazard, so don't ban it.
Cigarettes should become illegal-completely

Okay, first of all I can kind of see what you are saying about freedom, however, there are lots of laws in the UK which are stripping people from their freedom however, they are stripping people of there freedom for the better. In think this is what they should do with cigarettes. You take the choice to buy cigarettes, however people know it's illegal the may nor choose to buy them initially and also for some people smoking is not a choice because of such things such as passive smoking etc, which I explained in the last round. Passive smoking is the involuntary inhalation of smoke from cigarettes smoked by other people. Passive smoking occurs when a non-smoker inhales secondhand smoke produced by smokers in his or her vicinity. My second point is that even though you might be saying that laws around cigarettes might stop smoking, in our country laws for cigarettes are being placed all the time, and this is really not stopping smoking completely. If cigarettes were just completely banned, then even though some people might try very hard to get them, most people will be much less tempted to have them if they know they are breaking the law. So, people deserve to be stripped of cigarettes because of not just was cancers and diseases it could cause them, but what diseases and cancers it could cause other people if they take it smoking without opting to do it, either by peer pressure or by passive smoking Also this would be a much quicker process than what you are suggesting and our country has more important things to worry about so time is also a big factor. Peer pressure- social pressure by members of one's peer group to take a certain action, adopt certain values, or otherwise conform in order to be accepted.
Cigarettes should become illegal-completely

Quick Note, Doing any of these signs: * ` ^ will signal a footnote at the bottom of the argument. Cigarettes are bad, we all agree on that. More than twenty countries were part of the British Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org... Most of them are no longer colonies and have become independent. Why? Because they want to be free. To keep the freedoms of the people. So by taking cigarettes you are stripping the people of their freedom. Freedom: The quality or state of being as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action. By completely banning cigarettes you are legitimately putting constraint on the people's choice of action. Cigarettes are also don't alter your point of views as meth, heroin, or cocaine does. (Those are a harm to public safety, and should definitely be banned and enforced) But chances are, if you strip cigarettes from the public, the addicted ones will do a lot to get them back, before they are completely rehabilitated. If you enforce the laws around cigarettes, instead of actually banning them*, then you will end up with an ending result of lower cigarette purchase and usage rates, and you haven't stripped the people of their cigarettes! Thank you for this great debate, and I wish you the best of luck in the second round. (Or third round, whatever you prefer) *outlaw any advertisements of cigarettes, double the tax of cigarettes, turn the open streets into smoke-free zones without letting the media know, etc
Cigarettes should become illegal-completely

Good, and thanks for accepting. So here's my main argument: Well, as you and i will know cigarettes have devastating effects on people, however once people start, the cannot stop, becasue of the nicotine in cigarettes. I'm not going to go into all the effects of cigarettes, however I'm sure you will know that effects include lung infections/cancer and lots of other diseases. Since you live in America, here is some more information, to back up my sources. The 1982 United States Surgeon General"s report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality [death] in the United States." This statement is as true today as it was then. Also tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Because cigarette smoking and tobacco use are acquired behaviors; activities that people choose to do About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 443,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined. You might say well, if a person chooses to smoke, then they can. They can make there own choices, and if they want to potentially be a victim of a fatal disease, that's fine. However there are two things wrong with this statement. The first thing wrong with this statement, is that as you will know there is passive smoking. If one person decides to smoke, there kids or friends could easily start smoking by peer pressure, or by breathing in smoke from a near-by persons cigarette. (passive smoking) The second wrong thing with this statement is the fact that deaths and illnesses due to smoking are costing our health system, the NHS, an extraordinary amount of money. Here is the first paragraph from and article from the independent, written in 2009. Smoking costs the NHS more than "5 billion a year - up to five times the previously accepted figure, researchers have revealed. Now, in out country today, smoking has been banned in public places, however, everywhere else they are still allowed. I think that is smoking was banned in our country, it would save many lives, it would save lots of money, and it would make our country a cleaner place. Even though you might say that some people just can't stop i'm sure if it was illegal and they were confiscated if they were seen smoking, then eventually they would stop and slowly smoking would come down to the level of illegal drugs in the present day. Finally i would like to say, that i think since cigarettes are actually a drug, they should, if they were made illegal, should be treated in the same way as illegal drugs and the same punishment.
Atheism contradicts itself

It is true that nothing forbids an atheist from saying that it is possible God exists, in the same way as nothing forbids a Christian from saying that it's possible God doesn't exist - which happens, and would, according to my opponent's theory, make Christianity null and void. Also, atheism as a belief rejects the possibility of the existence of God - what a single atheist says does not affect the belief system. Furthermore, I was talking about creationism. The young Earth vs old Earth debate is very important for creationism, and since creationists themselves disagree on the topic, creationism cannot be a viable position according to my opponent. Finally, my opponent has in no way proven that, even if one were to admit that an atheist can claim that God exists, atheism would be rendered null and void because of the statement, which is why voters should vote con.
Atheism contradicts itself

Yes, there truly are people who believe that there is a distinct possibility as to the existence of a deity - we call them agnostics. Not atheists. And indeed, "most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ". Atheists do not believe in deities, or a distinct possibilty that one exists. Furthermore, even saying that pro's absurd statement is true - why should that disprove atheism? Many creationists, for example, believe in the young Earth theory, while others don't. Does this contradicton make my opponent consider creationism null and void? No, it doesn't and it shouldn't. A theory is disproved through falsification. That is, one should definitely consider creationism null and void, but not because of the reason stated above. I've shown that even if I were to accept my opponent's argument (which I've refuted as well), he still has no reason to call atheism null and void. Back to pro.
Atheism contradicts itself

Con failed. He says "oh there not true atheists". but there is people who do say its possible and say they are atheists! How? WP say its the rejection of deities. You can still say its possible. Con picked the cherrys . Look further down " Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." You can still say its possible. Why does con get scared? I bet by round 3 he'll be praying he never accepted. My fellow handsome opponent if thee convert to theism i shall accept a tie.
Atheism contradicts itself

To begin with, I had myself a hearty little chuckle at the "poor soul" remark. Ignorance really does fascinate me sometimes. And I wholeheartedly agree that no atheist will ever want to debate my opponent again. As to why that is so, I'll leave it to my opponent to mull over that fact. As for his. .. let us call it an "argument", his statement is null and void due to one simple reason. This is the definition of atheism:Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. [1]An atheist, or a true atheist at least, will not claim that there is possibly a god out there - that would mean denying their atheist worldview. Thus, the argument does not stand. Back to my opponent. I honestly look forward to his reply. SOURCE:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism contradicts itself

Thanks zgb1997, you poor poor soul. He said "oh i dare". Oh he'll be praying that he never accepted. I was hesitant to open this debate because i t will ruin me on DDO because no atheist will want to debate me ever again because the argument is so good. Let's say we have 666 atheists in a house. 333 say it's possible that god exists. 333 say its impossible for god to exist. They are all representing atheism. But are they contradicting themselves? Yes they are. this make atheism null and void because it has 2 contradictory claims.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

You argue that it is wrong that the teacher chooses the content that should be taught, but look around in schools all over the country and all over the world. This for the most part is how it has been taught and continues to be taught all over and seems to be working by producing great minds. Although we are creatures able to determine right from wrong we must first learn the history in the country and determine exactly what went wrong in the past for us to realize that it is wrong now. Not everything has been banned, such as pedophilia was acceptable in Spartan time but is now wrong, for us to realize that it is wrong we must first know the history behind it which is taught in school by teachers or your so called 'tyrants' "Education is the practice of freedom" But to realize what that freedom is we must learn exactly what people had to sacrifice to get that freedom. So in conclusion I believe The Banking Concept is not oppressive and should in fact be the method of education everywhere.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

You've stated, "Men are not born with the knowledge of the world.": It has been proposed that the world has no real value unless it is identified as such. If this is true, and acknowledgement is the key to existence then the students would be in a position of power. If the Educators in control of the system acknowledge something to hold importance, it is beaten over our heads. The imposed concept oppresses the value of said acknowledgement and therefore casts a shadow on its importance. You believe that "The Banking Concept is that while in the classroom the teacher knows all and teaches all the students the crucial facts and life lessons they need to know" but Freire illustrates this as oppressive as well. "the teacher teaches and the students are taught;" He Goes on to point out "the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it;" "the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students; the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects." All points exist, and yet are unflattering when described this way. The Banking Concept of Education creates an all powerful tyrant out of the teacher, and forces upon the students a feeble "Frankenstein Complex". In reality, we are able minded, free willed creatures granted the capability to determine right from wrong and contribute valuable (not "general") information.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

When you say " when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter. " that is just the thing. Freire can not possibly know every student he encounters is so called 'ignorant' nor can he determine that every student is miserable in which the way that they are taught. Men are not born with the knowledge of the world. They don't know math or science or history or even religion. All of these things must be taught in a classroom. What most people are forgetting about The Banking Concept is that while in the classroom the teacher knows all and teaches all the students the crucial facts and life lessons they need to know, but while it is their responsibility to take what they are taught inside the classroom and apply it on the outside in the real world. No one is saying that for the rest of their lives they need to be pushed over and obey direct orders but in order for them to be intelligent individuals they must learn the fundamentals of school.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are "lesser"? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

The banking concept is not oppressive because it is simply individuals who are trained to teach lesser minds such as students and guide them into the world. Students don't know everything and that is why The Banking Concept is a good concept because students need to be taught and molded into functioning members of society and that could not possibly be done without being taught and molded in a classroom by professionals. "Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students."
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

The Banking Concept of Education is fueled by the idea that the students know nothing, and the teacher must deposit information into them. Paolo Freire believed that "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." Freire goes on to state "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. " Who is to say that the students canvas is blank? they have lived, and experienced things as humans that they can offer, and draw from to better facilitate the use of information being taught. Freire takes takes value in the mind of the individual, therefore acknowledging a unique set of information that may be of importance to them.
Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children

To conclude my argument for the debate, we have two arguments being presented. The first by my opponent, who claims there are other things than video games causing violence; and myself that state that video games do technically cause violence. My opponent did not define the topic of the word "violence", making it not mean only one thing but multiple, while I used the definition of violence as an emotion. Violence does occur whenever a person plays a video game for about 40 minutes, even though they may just get angry and not do any criminal action. As well as earlier within the debate, my opponent even admitted on most of my points; meaning that he "dropped" the debate. With the given statement, on the fourth round, being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience". So voters, who do you think deserves the win? My opponent, who dropped the debate within the middle, or I, who pushed on and added more arguments. Thank you for this debate my fellow opponent!
Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children

I first have to state that I will probably bee counted off for the copy and paste thing. If you feel I should be counted off please do so voters, although this is your own action. Also for the last round (The fifth) you do not have to have an official closing, you may continue making new arguments in your respective round. although I am giving con the upper hand. On with the debate. Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience. I have said BoP is shared, and it is. If you feel I have not brought up enough logic on my positive claim than I will start using statistics. Monday 10 November 2014 A recent long-term study by the USA shows the violent games are not the cause for violence in society If you read this study its states that in the first of the two historical evaluations researchers studied the links between violent films and societal violence by looking at the top grossing titles between 1920 and 2005. What they deduced was that film violence went in a rough U pattern during this time period whereas societal violence decreased in the later half of the 20th century. The second study used data from ESRB to estimate the violent content of video games from the time of 1996-2011. It showed that as the popularity of violent video games went up, youth violence went down. you can read more of thisin the sited resources below. To continue on into a more depressing topic, children who commit homicide have different brain structures. This article talks all about it. Apparently researchers found that children who commit murder have lower levels of grey matter in their medial and lateral temporal lobes and the hippocampus and posterior insula, according to news release. If you are wondering what grey matter is its the stuff that helps you process information in the brain. This means the less grey matter you have the more likely you will become confused between violent video games and reality. In another article posted Wed/July23/2014 showed that harsh corporal punishment can knock grey matter levels down in children. If a person receives this, they are more likely to commit violent acts in the future. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but what we can deduce is that when children between ages 10-17 play a violent video game they aren't losing anything beneficial to them and therefor are not violent in the future. Again I will restate a few more points There has never been a link between violent video games and violent acts in kids and teens. The sales rate for video games has quadrupled from 1995-2008 along with a 71.9% drop in juvenile arrest rates and a 49-50% drop in juvenile crimes. Any small correlation between violent youth and violent video games may be explained: Violent games do not cause youth to be violent, instead already violent youth are attracted to violent video games. cites http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.natureworldnews.com... http://www.news-medical.net... http://www.cnn.com... http://videogames.procon.org...
Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children

The debate topic is all about why violent games and games in general is not a viable reason to blame acts and thoughts of violence in children and teens. I forgot to mention some rules regarding BoP and statistics. Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a "fact" must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have "logic" back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves. Wikipedia is a viable source as long as the voters look over it and approve of it. They will count off for it if they dont Im guessing. On with the debate! and "Good Luck". I will just state a few points ahead of time to reinforce future arguments. There was violence before games and the xbox. I become a sarcastic person in the next few lines just a reason why i have so much attitude. Ever read a book? I have many times. And several of them have some of the most disgusting displays of violence in them that you can imagine. TV is a great way to teach grueling, cussing, alcoholic or generally bad lifestyles to children and teens. History class puts a lot of images into the minds of children. Lets read about the gassing of the 6 million Jews children! How fun! Or how in every trench hole you get up to send a letter to the general across the field and boom there goes your precious head off into the dirt and bloody mess that was WW1-2. Mayan and aztecs seem like nice things to study! Lets read about the sacrificing of willing people so they can be with a god that probably doesn't care about them cause he does not exist. Where do good kids learn some of the worst things from? Other kids who think whatever they are doing at the moment is so great. "Look at me I am a waste of good parenting because I think its cool to do stupid things all day long." thats where. Send your children to public school and leave them with kids who have decided to act like idiots all day and pretend to be druggies. I'm sorry why should i be living in an R rated movie? I shouldn't because there is no reason why these kids act the way they do they just do it because to them its a life style, to mama and dada its a "phase". I think I have established the many many many other things that cause violence and stupid acts in kids. I am excited to see CON bring something spicy to the table.