BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be legalized

The government is not "shoving down its morality in law". The government is trying to protect its citizens from stupid people who will do stupid stuff on drugs, and who will do stupid stuff to get those drugs. If the "distribution of weed and how it is dangerously used" is none of the Government's business, then what is? People complain about how crappy the Government is because it is over protective. And in the parts it is not protective, people complain that it needs to be more so. If marijuana was made legal, the Government would immediately get complaints from people against it, saying that they are not being protected from a drug that can do harm to the body, and harm to victims of people addicted to a drug. Prohibition will never completely stop drug abuse, but that does not mean that prohibition should be stopped. Nothing is ever fool proof. According to [1], prohibition has decreased the use of marijuana, even though it has not stopped it. As I mentioned in round two, marijuana is indeed proven to be less of a risk than cigarettes and alcohol, but that does not mean that marijuana should be legalized. That is just a poor decision to not ban cigarettes and drinking too much alcohol. Legalizing marijuana would not change "absolutely nothing". It would make the situation worse. Teenagers would have next to zero consequences (besides physical) when smoking weed, and more teens would be going to school high, not giving a care about school work and getting good grades. School grade point averages across the country would plummet. Also, teachers could smoke marijuana without getting fired. Weed should not be treated differently from cigarettes and alcohol. However, cigarettes and alcohol should be treated more seriously. People are not responsible enough to take their body's health seriously. Having a restraint on these poisons will at least decrease the amount of injuries and deaths because of the abuse of these drugs. "Con is acting as if Marijuana is the equivalent of cocaine." Marijuana IS NOT nearly as dangerous as cocaine. People on weed are almost never as dangerous. I did mention in round two that some dealers line their marijuana with other substances (sometimes cocaine, the source cited in that argument), which could cause the user to act in a similar manner as someone on the other drug. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuana should be legalized

I will be arguing for the legalization of MarijuanaCon will argue for the continuation of the "war on drugs"I will argue for the legalization of Marijuana on the grounds that the prohibition of drugs is not a deterrent, Marijuana is less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol, the drug war costs too much money for its own good, and drug prohibition invades civil libertiesCon will provide arguments to support the war on drugs First round will be acceptance or if the opponent wants, it can be for Con's opening arguments
did god intentionally create evil

http://www.youtube.com... Since you have forfeited the second round, I will simply put up some sources... The first one is a reimbursement of my original post. "... in my belief god did not "create" evil. Evil is non existent. I would say that Evil is simply the absence of good in ones soul." http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... The second source would be one of numerous debates known in the world of religion regarding this particular topic. As you can see from the debates, most negative outcomes of society and nature are "blamed" or "pushed on" an easy alibi, "Satan". Further detail of my belief, the idea of Satan and Evil were "created" by society to remain control over that particular society, and through word of mouth with in the religious times were traveled to all four corners of the world.
Abortion

They are not simply murdering their baby, they are reliving the baby from coming into a world that the mother knows wont go good for the baby because the mother is still struggling in life and will not be able to provide the baby with all its necessities. Babies are expensive, and not having any education or a job will decrease ones chances of being able to survive the land of all the high bills. I understand their is adoption, yet some mothers do not view another family taking care of the child they could not care for. The women that is soon to be mother might have gotten raped and decided that the baby would be better off in gods hands. A baby is no fool, yet it would not be fair for it to come into a world that it cannot be cared for in. Many abortions have been taken into account and our species is not dying off any time soon.
Abortion

Abortion is wrong because it is a direct interference with God's work which is to say the creation of human life. For someone to say that they want to murder their newborn child because they never wanted it in the first place is absolutely heinous and vulgar. There is a far better alternative to abortion known as adoption, and unlike abortion it doesn't pose any threat to the child's life. Though it should be noted that women may not have the same experience when putting their child up for adoption it is still a more humane decision and doesn't involve butchering an innocent child. By the way have you ever thought of what the baby might think about being murdered mercilessly if its ability to speak and comprehend was fully developed? Probably not because as far as your concerned a newborn is just an ignorant fool that is only here for you to do whatever you please with. Abortion also decreases the birth rate which must remain at a stable and constant rate in order to ensure the continuation of our species in the event of a thermonuclear war or some other cataclysm that could thrust mankind towards the brink of extinction.
Abortion

Abortion should not be seen as a crime. Once someone aborts, many view them as a cruel, bad person. A parent who aborts always has a reason behind their abortion. One cannot judge a person if they do not see the situation or know the reason behind their abortion. Many women who abort are young who still have a whole life ahead of them, and are simply unable to provide the baby with all its necessities. Some women get raped, others have health problems, or sometimes the baby has health problems. You have to be able to understand the situation of the parent. No one wants too see a baby suffering along with a young mom who was not able to abort therefore leading to her dropping out of school and living in bad conditions with no education.
Abortion

If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.
Abortion

If you would allow it for rape, why not for the mother condition and how shes doing in life? I understand the protection but some things tend to fail. We just have to look at the mother and how her situation is. If shes struggling she shouldn't bring a baby into the world with her that will cause her to struggle even more. The one carrying the baby should have the decision of aborting or not. And should not be seen any different if she decides to abort the baby.
Abortion

Abortion in my opinion is still wrong and should only be allowed if the woman is raped or her life is in danger. A woman should also not even bother having a baby if she knows she won't be able to take care of it unless she has a family member who is able and willing to take care of the child until she can support and raise the child on her own. Another thing that can be done to avoid abortion is to use protection or birth control except in cases of rape so that the child isn't being killed shortly after it's been born. These options are an excellent alternative to abortion in non-rape related cases and also don't involve the murder of an innocent child.
Obama; OPEN YOUR EYES

I hope you do understand that since Obama has been in office unemployment is at an all time low since Bush left office. We are currently at 6.7% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com...) when Bush left office in 2009 unemployement was already skyrocketing and since obama has been in office it has been consistinely dropping. Do you have any proof we are torturing and holding Osama alive? Also 9/11 occurred while Bush was in office so any attempt to hide or any attempt to say it was a conspiracy is on Bush and not Obama. Obama has had to deal with all of the aftermath Bush caused our country. I too like to indulge myself in conspiracy theories, but attacking someone without hard proven facts isn't going to get you anywhere. Nor is it going to help you prove your claims correct. To close I want to end with a question have you read the full 500 some pages on Obama care? do you know and understand all of its restrictions, requirements, or anything about it at all besides that it gives money to those who cannot get a job? Did you know that it does much, much, and much more than just that. With that I would like to thank my opponent for offering this debate. Thank you.
Obama; OPEN YOUR EYES

Seriously?! cant you guys see what he's doing to our country?! I'm 16 and I can even see what he is doing to our country is wrong! Do you guys know that Osama is still alive and that they are getting information from him by torturing him? Did you know that 9/11 wasn't an accident? NO i bet not, all he is doing is telling you guys the stuff that is not so important but covering up all the important stuff. HE is giving OUR internet rights to a different country! is it just me or do you guys see big red flags going off?!?! Probably not because all you guys care about is the thought of him not what hes doing to our independent country. Obama care is a very bad thing because we already have a pretty lazy country and with Obama care people can be lazy THERE is jobs out there maybe not the ones that everyone wants but its still a job and with that job comes money and people are taking an advantage of what people are making and sitting on their couch probably eating potato chips so you know what you guys are believing in complete bulls**** just saying! So get your head out of your a** and wake up America
shrimp meat better than crab meat

Im not sure how looks got thrown into the mix...but you look like a tiny piece of shrimp to me. I have shown that crabmeat has lots of vitamins and minerals. I am unable to compare taste because I have never tried crab...but I have seen people crack open the shell (easily) and pull out a piece of meat twice the size of your shrimpy bod!... Im sure I will get the ladies vote seeing as I am a dentist and make much more money...and Ive got skills in which I wont speak of.
shrimp meat better than crab meat

Well actually Shrimp is even better for you than crab meat because it has less fat and calories. Shrimp also contains selenium and chromium therefore contributing to good health just as much as the crab does only in a healthier way. Shrmp is more useful than crab because it can be used in so many more recipes and goes well with so many other foods. It is also great on a party tray. http://www.thedailyplate.com... http://www.elook.org... My opponent claims to have blown me away but how could she? She still hasn't proven that crab meat is any better than shrimp. I've shown that crab meat is not as healthy as shrimp. I've also proven that it is easier to eat and might I add taste so much better. It is more useful and versitile. Takes alot less time and resources to cook. Personally I hate crabs all that work to open the shell, and when you finally get it open its just alittle piece of meat. I am just going to leave it at that, there is no way you can beat this debate pro will surely win, especially cause I'm so much better looking than you the guys will def. vote for me.
shrimp meat better than crab meat

This information comes from a site called, Guide to crabs...Crab is a source of many important vitamins and minerals, some of which aid in the prevention of cancer (selenium), raise the levels of "good" cholesterol (chromium), thus lowering the risk of heart disease or circulatory disease and stabilising glucose levels in the blood, which is extremely important for diabetics. Crabmeat is an excellent source of protein, is very low in fat and contains few calories. Crabmeat also contains important quantities of essential fatty acids, iron, zinc, potassium, magnesium, calcium and phosphorous, which are all important for a well-balanced nutritional diet. So, Im pretty sure I've blown you away so far... It has recently come to my attention that crabs have 10 legs...so they are the faster swimmer afterall.
shrimp meat better than crab meat

Well this debate is not about which one is faster but a crab will never be able to outswim a shrimp. Crabs are not made for swimming like shrimp are. Do you have any evidence that crab meat actually has more vitamins than shrimp if you do then could you please share it with me. Crab meat is also harder to obtain than shrimp because shrimp are easier to catch therefore less expensive. Most crab meat is not even real anymore it is all imitation crab meat. Shrimp is just to good to imitate.
Evolution is a religion

Now then - I'd like to clarify something really quickly, the idea of "faith" and "knowledge". My opponent seems to have melded these two terms as the same thing, when they clearly are not. In science, you assume that what you know is right however you still search for something _more_ right. In religion, you know that something is flawed, however you do not search for anything truer. This is what seperates faith and knowledge, in knowledge you constantly search from something to be truer, whereas with faith you accept the flaws and still believe whatever ridiculous ideals you believe. This is what seperates religion and the theory of evolution. Also, I'd like to touch on a point I couldn't (space limit) in my 2nd speech - my opponent said that evolution was an atheist religion. It is not, because it's not a religion, but also the theory of evolution can coexist with christianity or any other religion. It is not a theory designed explicity to appeal to atheists and to disprove other religions. Granted, it depends on your interpretation of the religion discussing, but it still can coexist. The bible uses anecdotes and stories to help explain the events that occur, you don't take everything for literal truth. 6 days could simply mean a time span of 3 billion years - passage of time could be different for a God than for a human. What the point above means is, Evolution is not a religion because it can coexist with several religions. This doesn't classify it as a doctrine, it classifies it as an outside force that can either aid or detract from said religion. Just like carbon-dating is not a religion, it can add or detract from other religions. I'd just like to reiterate my 4 points of analysis before closing the debate: 1) Religion involves faith, science does not. 2) Religion is attempts to explain natural occurences via the supernatural, whereas science uses the natural to explain the natural. 3) Evolution does not link to human purpose, only human formation. 4) Evolution explains the world, not the universe Finally, please keep in mind I have already won the debate via the semantics argument which was never refuted, and only touched on when my opponent conceded to my opinion - therefore as you can see I have clearly won the debate, and I'd like to extend all of my points in my 2nd speech.
President of the USA - place of birth

I see that my opponent has forfeited his round even though he has been online within the last 22 hours. I will now briefly summarise this debate. My contention is that disallowing non-American born citizens of the USA from being President is not fair, just or reasonable. I have presented my arguments for it above. My opponent's argument relied on two contentions. Firstly, he argued that without the said restriction, the Oval Office would be open to foreign influence. Secondly, he claimed that US-born Americans are better qualified to represent the interests of mainstream Americans than those born elsewhere. I have demonstrated in my rebuttal that the candidate's place of birth has little to none bearing on his or her likelihood of being influenced by foreign interests. It may be a factor to be taken into account when determining such an issue. However, it cannot be of itself decisive. There are many examples (some shown above in my arguments) of non-American born citizens who would arguably perform better in terms of the said criteria. Please note that I have not contended that President of the USA should not be carefully screened so as to ensure that (s)he is not committed to foreign interests. That was never my contention. My contention was simply that place of birth is not a criterion that can be reasonably used to decide that question. Other methods should be employed. As for a candidate's ability to deal with mainstream issues, I can only add that this quality in a candidate is quite well screened out in the campaigning process. In the end, it is the people of America who (albeit indirectly) decide who will be their President. Ladies and gentlemen. Please bear in mind that you are to judge this debate based on the merits of what is said within it and not on any external reasoning or evidence. I submit that I have rebutted my opponent's argument and that he then did not even address that rebuttal. Rather, he forfeited his round. I conclude this by saying that I have disproven the resolution and that you should vote Con. Thank you
Abdulmutallab should be interrogated.

[The first time this was posted it was taken by a troll who posted nonsense. I'll post it again without restricting who can take it. At worst, we'll get to kill another troll or two.] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the 23-year-old Nigerian man charged in the botched Christmas Day attempt to blow up Northwest Flight 252 landing in Detroit. He "told investigators that he was given the bomb by operatives of al Qaeda in Yemen." http://online.wsj.com... A well-dressed man assisted him in getting on the plane in Amsterdam without a passport. http://www.mlive.com... The explosive used in the bomb he carried was PETN, which is not easily made or purchased. He did not know how to properly detonate the bomb, which is why the plot failed. That makes it likely he had worked with others in preparing the attempted destruction of the aircraft. Abdulmutallab was provided a lawyer a public expense and apparently afforded all the rights given to citizens charged with ordinary crimes. http://www.deccanherald.com... Accordingly, he may choose to volunteer statements, but he has the right to refuse to talk to investigators from the FBI, CIA, or other government agencies having responsibility for national security. Some have speculated that Abdulmutallab was a test case as part of a larger plot involving many terrorists. He established that security measures were easily evaded. Whether there is a larger plot or not is speculation, but it is a reasonable possibility that makes the disclosure of information from Abdulmutallab time critical. National security, in any case, depends upon tracking down his methods and accomplices. Therefore, he should be treated as an enemy combatant and not afforded the rights of a citizen charged with an ordinary crime. Those opposed to waterboarding claim that ordinary interrogation techniques are just as effective as enhanced interrogation techniques. OK, we should test that with Abdulmutallab. He should be promptly interrogated by the FBI or CIA. This should be done whether or not he is ultimately tried by military tribunal. There is no interest in getting him to confess. There is already plenty of evidence to convict him in any court. The objective is to obtain information on his methods and accomplices. There is some possibility that he is currently being interrogated, but with the appearances of his having been given Miranda rights. If so, that does not affect the debate. If he is being interrogated, then the resolution claims that is the correct thing to do. National security demands that terrorists be interrogated, not protected from inquiries.
lowering the driving age

I am doing a debate on lowering the driving age to 15 instead of 16 this would help us out with our economy too, there would be more cars being bought by younger ages. Because of more cars being bought there would be money being pumped into our economy and with that lowering our taxes a lot. Our biggest problem in this country is money and with m,ore money we open a lot of new doors and opportunities for others. We could open up new jobs for other people, we could lower the food prices in grocery store, the two most important in my opinion is either making homes with the extra funds coming in or feeding the people that have nothing especially if they have children. That is why we should,NO,need to lower the driving age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lowering the driving age

"There would be more driving schools with more intense teachers for that and instead of the driving school only being 6 months it could be 1 year" Call me crazy, but I think that the billions of dollars in additional accidents and insurance costs would be more then enough to erase any benefit by paying driving instructors more.... In fact driving teachers might not teach longer either since thats just hopeful speculation not backed by any actual evidence. When people started going to college more colleges didnt hire more teachers, they just expanded classroom sizes. Same thing would happen with driving classes Pro dropped all other arguments about how costly cars already are to the economy so I extend those arguments as well
lowering the driving age

For one who asked you???? Like for real anyways with the high costs of cars and automobiles 20-25 thousand and guess what some people are smarter that "you" if you are a teenager! There would be more driving schools with more intense teachers for that and instead of the driving school only being 6 months it could be 1 year so at 900 a month for driving school that is plenty of money being pumped into our economy.
lowering the driving age

750 character limit There is no logic behind the claim that lowering the driving age down a year will somehow fix the economy or cause taxes to be lowered at all. In fact lowering the driving age even further would only cause more economic problems since car accidents are the leading cause of teenage deaths and the reason why teenage have such high auto insurance. Lowering the age limit for drivers only puts more bad drivers on the road; which raises insurance costs, the financial burden on parents, and the cost to the economy that car accidents cause would rise even higher. http://money.cnn.com... ^ Current cost of car accidents to the economy = $160 BILLION We should not lower the age limit to drive