BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government tax on cigarettes should decrease if locations where smoking is permitted decrease.

As a nonsmoker, I realize that the US Congress' hand was forced to begin the process of banning cigarette smoking by health issues; however, reducing the amount of smoking sections in public places, such as restaurants and the workplace, will not cause smokers to quit. A person may begin to smoke to be considered "cool"; but later in life, they keep smoking to cut down on the stress and anxiety of not having a cigarette. By that time, health concerns for themselves and others go out the window. The smoke ban is turning into a modern-day prohibition. Companies like RJ Reynolds are now having to step in and give ultimatums to chemical companies which produce acetate filters because the workers have to go certain distances away from the buildings. The truth is, the government should not take advantage of cigarette consumers in this way. All I am saying is, if the government is going tag on a high tax onto already high prices, they should at least give the people a place to smoke.
The Gold Standard should be reestablished

I have a refutation for my opponents claims coming in the next round, unfortunately I have found I did not have time to complete it this round and was racing to complete it with half a day left and so now I will just lay out a small part of my argument. As a result this round will be a little sparse. No countries currently use the gold standard. Instead modern solutions similar to the gold standard are used, this is why nations like China, Russia, Italy, the USA ect stockpile gold reserves [1] not fully on the gold standard but with enough gold reserves to give their currency meaning. When economics experts were in America were polled on this they commented universally that in reality the Gold standard was not something that would have benefit in the US [2]. The main idea of the gold standard is the idea that it provides stability, this is mainly a way of controlling inflation, and the problem with inflation is that it has a link with unemployment [3] [4], therefore when you instigate a policy designed to control inflation you will almost unavoidably massively increase the unemployment rate which would cause chaos in an economy racked by unemployment [5]. So yeah sorry this is a little shorter than probably expected however I will make up for it next time with a full argument and rebuttal. [1] http://3.bp.blogspot.com... gold reserves.png [2] http://www.igmchicago.org... [3] http://www.economicshelp.org... [4] https://figures.boundless-cdn.com... [5] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
The Gold Standard should be reestablished

Hold on a second, my opponent has dropped my entire argument about the consitution! Then he responds to my argument ht a gold standard would hlp the US ecnomy, but with an opinion of economic "experts," these being the same "experts" that say that you deal with nflation by printing more money. {1} I think I debunked the theory of inflation being the antithesis of unemployment, but for some reason during the housing buble and the recession of the 1970's inflation accmpanies unemployment, infat it was the Fed's easy mony policy which facilitated the housing buble, leading to high unemployment rates! {1}. http://commonsenseeconomics2.blogspot.com...
LM Classic round III Ultimate Team War Feverish v Kefka

This is not part of the official debate as per the tournament master's instructions and judges should disregard it entirely. Thanks again for the debate Kefka, sorry if you thought I was unreasonable in any way. I wish I could respond to your points in the last round, especially your new ones but the debate is over. I will just point out that my two street-level characters were significantly upgraded in prep time but resist the overwhelming temptation to say more. Thanks to all UTW fans, hope to see you again soon. *crosses fingers.
Drug Legalization in North America

I'm sorry that I couldn't make it for the fourth round. I had a visit from some family I hadn't seen in a while! I had some good points I was going to bring up, so I'm a little disappointed too. I'll just sum it up. -The productivity of the workforce in countries will lower since more people will be doing drugs, thus, the debt will most likely rise, even though it may seem good in the beginning. -More innocents would die from accidents caused by drug users' poor decisions. -Drug labs and injection sites would be set up, which are eyesores. -The drug wars would probably still happen somewhat because of other countries still wanting to sell their drugs. -People would be stuck with having drug users as neighbors and family. -Diseases such as AIDs would still occur since there will be people who want to get high now instead of wait to get to a "safe injection site." And there's other ways to get AIDs... -Overall, drugs are really bad for people to use and nobody wants a country with drugs and chaos. When drugs are legalized, then people are going to start to want more and more things legalized and pretty soon the whole country is spiraling downward. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 20 million Americans aged 12 or older used an illegal drug in the past 30 days. This estimate represents 8% percent of the population aged 12 years old or older. [1] Just a quote to show an estimate of how many people try illegal drugs when they are illegal. Just imagine how many would try when it is legal. It is easy to get hooked on a drug even after one try. Thank you for a great debate. That was only the second debate I've finished on DDO so far. And again, sorry that I didn't post for the 4th round! [1] https://ncadd.org...
Drug Legalization in North America

Unfortunate. I would love it if you could come back for the final round, so I'll be a nice guy and just sum up my main points.- The revenue generated from taxable drugs will most likely be incredibly high- The $40billion [1] war on drugs will come to a halt, and tax payers will no longer be paying to stop people from destroying their own bodies if they chose- Gang wars over drugs will come to a stand still, and less innocents (as well as gang members) will be shot or injured- The overpopulated prisons will have plenty of room for actual criminals instead of people looking to get high- Diseases will be less rampant, as safe injection sites will open up, stopping the sharing of dirty needles/other devices- Getting across borders won't be nearly as time consuming, as the border patrol won't have to search your stuff for drugs, or use dogs to sniff your car/person- Some may not consider this a good thing, but I'll leave it here... The "unproductive" members of society may cease to exist after a while if they chose to abuse drugsI think these are the main points I wanted to bring up, and considering you didn't have a fourth round, I don't want to give you 20 things compared to your zero.Thanks for a great debate, this was probably one of the more intriguing ones I've participated in! [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Drug Legalization in North America

Maybe in Colorado they are making more money then they are wasting, but that is only one state and only one drug and only right now. Marijuana is known as the gateway drug, or the drug most people use to get into the drug world. It still harms your body and mind, but the effects aren't nearly as severe as other drugs such as meth, cocaine, etc. So the accidents, deaths, and damage done by marijuana users wouldn't be nearly as high as the damage that will come when hard drugs are legalized because it messes with your brain even more. A high person off of marijuana is most likely going to make better decisions than a high person off of cocaine or meth. I couldn't find any sources to really prove this because all drugs haven't been legalized somewhere in North America before, but I know anyone reading this would agree with me. I'm also pretty sure you won't be able to find any sources that prove that the income of taxes on drugs would pay for the damage done. If you can, I would love to see them. If the government legalized drugs and set a price, I'm sure all those drug dealers are not going to be happy. They'll probably lower their prices too because they are not going to just get rid of their business. Then the drug wars would still continue, although I agree, they probably would be not as bad. But I thought you said that druggies dying was not really a bad thing? So now why are you saying that less deaths is good? Where would these government labs be set up? I don't want a drug lab next door. What about all those people in the mountains or that live in the middle of nowhere? I highly doubt they'll go all the way to a drug store to get their drugs and then properly inject them at an injection site. Some people live hours away from the nearest city, and not every small town will have drugs for sale. About 250,000 people die every year in the world because of illegal drugs, mostly in highly developed countries. [1] And those statistics are when drugs are illegal in most countries. I couldn't find any estimates on how many more people would die, but let's assume there would be a few more. That's all for now. Sorry about the shortness and wait. [1] http://www.livescience.com...
Drug Legalization in North America

I would say worldwide but that would be too unrealistic. If my opponent is willing to debate against worldwide drug legalization, then even better! If not, then North America it is. Obviously this wouldn't be as simple as saying "alright, it's legal; have at her!" So I will add a couple points. -ALL types of drugs are legally sold by the government much like cannabis is being sold in Washington-the government will keep track of who has what drug-the harder drug (cocaine, meth, heroin, etc) users will have a police and medical sent to their house/residence occasionally, or when they are just on patrol -drugs will not be sold to people who have a history of any form of attack on another person or social outburst that can be detrimental to another humans health/safety-background checks will be enforced much like they are when buying a firearm or applying for a firearm permit-legal safe injection sites [1] will be set up in some areas-drug use is still prohibited in public areas unless authorized by the government-drugs will not be sold to anyone under the age of 18-taxpayers' money (who do not agree with this) will not be used for funding of any kind toward the legalization of drugs-profits will go toward fighting addiction, mental disorders, and funding the territory (state/province) in any positive way-much like alcohol laws, it will be illegal to be under the influence of drugs in public -- Please present your opening arguments in the first round, and leave the last round blank or briefly present a closing statement.Any questions, please feel free to ask in comments before accepting!If you accept, please stay for the entire debate, I don't know how many times I've started a debate with someone and they forfeit 60%+ of the rounds.Good luck! [1] http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca...
Yugioh is better than Pokemon

Hello! In this debate we will be arguing about which is better, Yugioh or Pokemon. I am a new debater and I would like to try this site out, so I don't if you are a pro or not I just want to have fun. :) Rules: 1. Must be appropriate and actual evidence 2. Don't be rude 3. You may mention anything about your game E.g Success In Market, T.V Shows, Manga etc. Heart of the cards!
Gun Control Prevents Violence

Alright, I will now use this time to give my closing argument. If people as a whole are "violent" in the sense that you are saying, then everybody would be a mass murderer. I understand that humans are inherently not good, but to deny us of a constitutional right because of it is injustice. I for one do not, nor have I ever had the intent to cause injury to those around me. "Guns are a means to inflict violence. Guns enable violent people." This is the most incorrect statement in you r entire argument. Guns were most certainly not created for that intent. Guns were created to protect. Regardless of how you feel about guns now, this is true. The Chinese, who needed a source of protection from outside invaders, as well as internal conflicts. Also, guns don't "enable" people, the simply act as a form of release. Similar to how a knife is a form of release to other murderers, and how a chainsaw was a release in the movie, "Texas chainsaw Massacre". "Con's argument suffers from a couple of flaws. Con has provided a few examples, and then offers the conclusion that gun control cannot prevent violence at all. This is an over-generalization. We cannot draw such a complete conclusion from only a few examples. " This is comical, because you gave virtually no arguments. All of the arguments I have provided support my perspective. " Con is moving the goal posts to invalidate my argument. I concede that gun control cannot possibly prevent any and all violence. But I have shown that gun control would certainly prevent violence when it prevents violent people an access to a firearm" Your argument is invalid, all on it's own. It does not need my help. Gun control would not prevent violence. It would only make murders slower, and more painful. I suppose in a sense, that's more violent than a gunshot to the back of the head. Also, you never showed that. You said it, but as I have learned from past experiences, just saying something does not make it true. "Restriction of guns would prevent violent people from the greatest acts of violence. By controlling access to guns, violence would be limited. Therefore, gun control prevents violence." You never really showed how this would happen, so I can only assume you couldn't find any definitive evidence to support your claims. By controlling access to guns, you ensure that the innocent Americans who would never use their weapons to bad, would lose them. Not to mention the issue of constitutionality. Thanks, I have finished speaking. Good rounds!
Gun Control Prevents Violence

Please consider my closing argument. Violence is often explosive and uncontrollable. Violent people cannot self-impose a limit to their violent acts. It's up to preventative policy to limit such violence. Good policy would limit the means available to violent people. Guns are a means to inflict violence. Guns enable violent people. Con's argument suffers from a couple of flaws. Con has provided a few examples, and then offers the conclusion that gun control cannot prevent violence at all. This is an over-generalization. We cannot draw such a complete conclusion from only a few examples. Con also wants to shift the goal posts in this argument. Can gun control prevent violence? This is the issue. But Con has rephrased the issue to ask if gun control is always effective at preventing violence. Con is moving the goal posts to invalidate my argument. I concede that gun control cannot possibly prevent any and all violence. But I have shown that gun control would certainly prevent violence when it prevents violent people an access to a firearm. Restriction of guns would prevent violent people from the greatest acts of violence. By controlling access to guns, violence would be limited. Therefore, gun control prevents violence. Thank you and I turn over the issue to my opponent for the final word.
Gun Control Prevents Violence

hello and thanks so much for starting this debate! Now I would like to organize my speech into three overarching points, labeled alphabetically, and then wrap it all up with a short conclusion. Let's begin: Contingency A: I'd like to start off with an example of why this argument is false. The infamous Washington Navy Yard shooting. Gun control would not have prevented a situation like this, therefor gun control in ineffective, period based of the sole fact that it cannot stop all violence. Contingency B: Gun control will never fully work because there will always be a black market with a huge supply and demand. Gun control can never truly work because of how impossible it is to stop illegal purchase and sales of these weapons. "Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number"just 1.2%"of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they"re selling guns "off the books" to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 "missing" firearms." http://gunvictimsaction.org... Contingency C: Now let's talk about how immensely impossible it would be. "Handcuffing the ATF: The ATF, the sole government agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws, has operated without a permanent director since the Bush Administration, and operates with just 1,800 agents to monitor approximately 77,000 gun dealers. Given these constraints, it would take ATF 22 years to inspect all federally licensed gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the manpower to inspect most gun dealers, federal law limits the agency to a single unannounced inspection of a dealer in any 12-month period. Congress has made it increasingly difficult for the ATF to revoke licenses of crooked gun dealers." Thank you, I now stand open to rebuttals.
Gun Control Prevents Violence

Simple Rules: R1 is opening statements, R2 is for proof and rebuttals, and R3 is for closing arguments. Pro gets the first word, Con gets the last word. BEGIN! Violence is a lack of self-control that results in a desire to hurt or destroy. It is usually direct outward of the person experiencing the stress and frustration that is at the root of the violent behavior. But it can be self-directed also. It commonly results from a person's loss of rational thought when placed under stress. The overwhelming emotion coupled with loss of rational thought results in a characteristic "outburst" of violence. When violence happens, there is no measured expression of it. It is an emotional expression that is "all or nothing". Violence by its nature is an escalating behavior that is only limited by the person's capability. For example, a child who becomes violent is usually limited to screaming, hitting, kicking, etc. These are usually harmless attacks because a child is weak. While an adult who becomes violent is capable of much more. A man behind the wheel of a car who has a violent episode could crash the car into people, other cars, and structures. Both child and man experience the same outburst on a subjective level. But it is the man in the car who has extreme ability to act violently. Limiting a person's ability to act violently is necessary to reduce violence. There is no practical way currently known to science to eliminate violence from the human condition altogether. It is possible, but the side-effects are too great a price. So, we are left with solutions to violence that handle violence when it's occurring. The simple and direct solution is to render a person experiencing a violent episode to a state of unconsciousness. In other words, just knock them out. This is at one extreme of limitation that could be placed on a violent person. At the other extreme, facilitating their violent behavior in a manner to redirect its destruction is another option. This is commonly called "damage control". Gun control falls close to the "damage control" side of the spectrum. Gun control is a limitation on a means of violence. It will stop a small act of violence from escalating into a larger act of violence. More importantly, it limits the possible consequences from a violent outburst. Guns are very dangerous when used on people and commonly cause great pain, severe injury, and of course death. Gun control applies a necessary limit to how much violence a person can commit when that person has become incapable of imposing a self-governing limit. Therefore, gun control prevents violence.
"Conspiracy Theory" is, in most contexts, a Thought-Terminating Cliché.

Some definitions:A "Thought-Terminating Cliché" is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Cognitive Dissonance" is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g. ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.Here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Dissent: To withhold assent, or to differ in opinion. (Merriam-Webster's)Fallacious Logic: Any argument or proposition that commits either a formal (deductive) or informal (inductive) fallacy. (Various online resources, I highly recommend a study of these to all debaters)Conspiracy Theory: In the context of the topic resolution, the phrase itself. (i.e. the actual pairing and usage of these two words in spoken, written, or typed language) However, for the debate it may be useful to note that the definition of conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful," while the most appropriate definition of theory is "an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action." (Oxford)Conditions:1) First round is acceptance. (Please work out definitional and clarification issues in the comments or elsewhere, as I know this subject matter is somewhat obscure)2) Round two is initial arguments.3) Round three is rebuttals.4) Round four is final arguments, although there may be no new evidence presented.5) No trolling. Dropped points should not be taken as concessions. Overall, the outcome of this debate should be determined not on technicalities of debatecraft, but on who has the most cogent argument and supporting evidence.6) Take it seriously.That's it. I hope this debate becomes a thought-initiating topic.Good Luck to my worthy challenger!
Animal experimetation should be banned around the world

Each person has own opinion and I disagree with you because everything which I have already written it has connection with the main topic called " Animal experimentation should be banned around the world" and I am trying to prove my point of view by several arguments. In fact, have only four rounds and I have to add everything on these a few rounds. I support you that modern technologies are more expensive than animal testing, but I have just emphasized that it is one time investment while animal experimentation, you have to keep paying for it. Moreover, animals need to be breed, they need meal and so on. Yeah, I agree with you that your arguments are strong too but I am sure with a modern technologies we may receive the same result. Why? Because of the fact we want to avoid from cruel relationships with animals. Now I want to tell about the brands which people use, exactly women prefer to use them in a daily life. If the cheaper product, the smaller chance it is tested on animals. All the big brands such as L"oreal, Maybaline and Max Factor and so on tested on animals. Otherwise, there are several brands that are test free such as Yves Rocher and Estee Lauder. And let"s face it, why should we pay for mascara that is just as good as that one of 5 euro"s??? Let"s consider it, why not economy 10 euro??? If we completely use animal testing, we will waste our money. As you remember, I have just emphasized that new techniques need only one time investment. In conclusion, I believe you will consider about my arguments. As you know, the aim of my state is to prove that animal testing should be banned around the world. We just want to avoid from cruel relationships with animal. Yeah, I remember you have told about safe experiments on animals. Otherwise, if we completely use this type of testing, I am sure we will waste much money than only one investment with modern technologies. At the end, I want add that European Union wanted to enforce the ban on animal testing of cosmetics, enters into force on March. It means European Union is against too with animal experimentation. Thanks for interesting debate. (Kazakhstan)