BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be legalized as a spark for small business ownership

My opponent is completely wrong on the economic points of marijuana and shows a complete ignorance of basic economics. If marijuana were legalized the bottom would quickly drop out of the market and those currently engaged in illegal drug related activities concerning Marijuana would see their profits evaporate. The prices of the marijuana trade are artificially high because it's a black market trade and the risks incurred by individuals are high which leads to a profitable trade. While cigarettes are certainly profitable that is primarily because they are extremely addictive and habit forming able to hook new clients after as few as two cigarettes, this provides a good deal of freedom for individuals to avoid high prices and keeps demand at a flexible rate to help drive down prices. Few people would or do smoke 40 marijuana cigarettes a day but the number of two-pack a day smokers is remarkable and consistent. Marijuana isn't habit forming and with proper competitions and individual freedoms would lead to high quality products with very low profit margins. Without massive profits for small business opportunities the trade would become dominated by large corporate growers who could deal properly with the regulations that the government would clearly impose on the trade. Small businesses would be driven out and large corporations such as Starbucks would completely dominate. The large profit margins of today are due to the risk factors involved which drive the prices up and keep them artificially inflated whereas without such factors you could buy a pound of marijuana for a few bucks and the consumers rather than small businesses would be the primary beneficiaries of legalization. Those currently engaged in illegal activities, which do fund black markets and gangs, would quickly die off cutting off funding for these groups. While I fully believe that Marijuana should be legalized as the drug trade serves to currently profit a few nefarious individuals, bringing it into the open would not switch those profits to less nefarious people, rather it would cause the market to suffer real competition and equalize the price of the product at what it is actually worth. We are dealing with a product that can be easily and effectively grown in one's own backyard with little to no effort and produce enough for personal use. Marijuana is nearly worthless and as such would stop being much of a cash crop at all. The paper-trade from the fibers would more than overwhelm the small amount used as drugs and would almost certainly be more profitable. However, again, in this case the large agrabusinesses would profit whereas the small buisinesses would be effectively crushed.
Abortion is Wrong: Change my Mind

Many may not know that abortion can be a threat to a women"s health because all they see or choose to see is the reason why she is going through with the procedure. Abortion has been said to lead to an increasing risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and stroke. These chances are said to be more likely to occur in women who have had any type of abortion rather than a women who has not have any abortions. Also abortion can cause Cervical cancer ,Ovarian cancer and liver cancer Women with a history of one abortion face a 2.3 times higher risk of having cervical cancer, compared to women with no history of abortion. Women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk Of ovarian and liver cancer . These causes are due to the unnatural disruption of hormonal changes .
Feminism is bad for society

Sorry. I had personal issues i needed to take care of, and thus could not get to the internet. Here is my first (and only argument.) Again, sincere apologies. Modern feminism is harmful for many reasons. The first hint at this is the prefix "Fem", or about women. Not about men, because feminism doesn't care about inequality towards men. (Child support, divorce issues, lack of attention to male issues, gender stereotypes (Be a man, don't cry, etc.) Now, I would like to address the issue of the "wage gap". The wage gap of 77% was a statistic measured many years ago. This is just assuming this statistic is true, which it probably isn't anyways, because when you factor in the fact that women take jobs that pay less anyways, this issue goes away. (It has been proven that women take jobs involving social sciences more, which pay less than hard science jobs that men are more interested in.) Next I would like to address the issue of domestic violence. Is domestic violence against women a problem? Yes. Of course it is. However, statistics have pointed out that close to 40% of domestic violence victims are men. Little to no attention has been given to this issue, because of feminist double standards. Finally, I would like to address body image. Are women pressured to stay thin? As with domestic violence, yes. They are. But, again, so are men. Men are also subject to the "body norms" of society. This is an undeniable fact. (Not saying this is a good thing, standards for beauty need to be eliminated for both sexes, and the fact that they are still in place proves what a shallow society we are.) If you took the time to read this, thank you. I don't expect you to respond, but very much welcome one.
Aquinas' first way succeeds as a proof for the existence of God

"Con's proposal that the universe continually destroys itself and is reborn (presumably an infinite number of times) is not possible if one accepts the premises of the first way." I clearly don't accept the premises. I was explaining how the premises could appear accurate while being inaccurate. Pro hasn't showed how his premises are correct. Using simple analogies isn't enough. I can come up with analogies to make many things appear real that are totally false. Also if one accepts the premises of the first way they still have no reason to accept the conclusion. You need to offer a lot more evidence to prove your premises. You need to show how your premises lead to your conclusion. You've failed to do either. At this point it's almost pointless to debate you. I don't think this pattern of you repeating your premises and conclusion each round and then me showing you that you have failed to prove your premises and have failed to show how your premises necessarily lead to your conclusion is going to end. In your final round I suggest you either actually take the time to prove your premises and show how those premises make your conclusion true or just do the honorable thing and concede. "Now, Con may object that the universe can change its own parts, but then Con would just be identifying the universe as the changeless source of change and therefore be accepting the argument I proposed. We could then debate about whether or not it the changeless source of change is a personal being or not." That's ridiculous. How can a changeless cause of change, change its self? Clearly if its changing it's self then it's changing. Why should I even have to point out the absurdity of your statements and contradictory nature of your claims? "So, Con either needs to accept that we both agree that there must be a changeless source for all change or they need to explain why the premises of the argument I gave should be doubted." The premises of you gave should be doubted because they weren't supported with evidence. They were supported with weak analogies. Even if your premises were correct, why in the hell would there need to be a changeless source of change? Why couldn't be a changing source of change? Even if it is a changeless source of change why should we assume that the changeless source of change is a personal God.? You've failed to prove your premises true and you failed to prove your conclusion should be drawn from those premises. You can attempt to switch the burden of proof all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you have the BOP. It doesn't change the fact you've failed to meet it and that you will continue to fail. Go ahead and do what everyone knows your going to do in the final round. 1. Repeat your original arguments. 2. Pretend weak analogies prove your premises. 3. Pretend as if the only reasonable conclusion to those premises is a personal God without explaining why. 4. Then finally pretend as if I have a burden of proving that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, and that I have the burden of showing your premises are wrong.
Aquinas' first way succeeds as a proof for the existence of God

Con did not repeat their alternative proposal. I am going to presume that Con's proposal is "We don't know that something can't actualize itself or that infinite causal dependency is impossible. It's possible time is circular. It's possible that the universe continually destroys itself and then is reborn." Except I explained why it is illogical for something to actualize (change) it's own potential. I also explained why an infinite dependency should be viewed as impossible (ie. the sack and rope analogy). Con's proposal that the universe continually destroys itself and is reborn (presumably an infinite number of times) is not possible if one accepts the premises of the first way. It's not possible because in order for the universe to change at all, its parts need to be changed. Since an infinite dependency is impossible (remember the sack and rope analogy), ultimately the parts of the universe must be changed by something that does not need to be changed. Again, though it is mistaken to imagine the causality being described here as one extending backwards in time. I already said at the beginning of the debate that this argument is not about what caused the beginning of time. Rather, it is about what continually moves reality to change. Now, Con may object that the universe can change its own parts, but then Con would just be identifying the universe as the changeless source of change and therefore be accepting the argument I proposed. We could then debate about whether or not it the changeless source of change is a personal being or not. So, Con either needs to accept that we both agree that there must be a changeless source for all change or they need to explain why the premises of the argument I gave should be doubted. Thanks
Aquinas' first way succeeds as a proof for the existence of God

There is no need for a long rebuttal here. Since pro has failed to get to the core of my arguments and address my rebuttals and instead insists on repeating his arguments then I will just keep this short and sweet and hopefully it forces him to see what I'm getting at. 1.My opponent is arguing that if a and b are correct then c must also be correct. 2. My opponent has failed to show how either a or b are correct. 3. My opponent has failed to show how, if a and b are correct then c must also be correct. 4. I have thrown in an alternative hypotheses for why a and b can appear true while also supporting an alternative hypotheses ( here after referred to as D ). 5. If a and b can equal d then that proves that a and b don't necessarily equal c. 6. Pro's argument is if a and b appear true then c must be true.Not only has he failed to show that, but I went above and beyond to show an alternate hypotheses to prove that a and b doesn't necessarily equal c. In order for pro to win this debate he should show how a plus b must equal C. I hope that pro actually responds to and addresses my rebuttals this time.
Aquinas' first way succeeds as a proof for the existence of God

I thank Con for his rebuttal. It seems that the word "actualize" along with my follow up statements left a level of ambiguity that I think has taken the discussion in the wrong direction. So, I think it is in order that I re-write the argument in hopefully clearer terms and then we take it from there. 1. Something changed is changed by something else. 2. There can only be a finite number of changers in a dependent causal series. C: Change is ultimately produced by a changeless cause that chooses to produce the change for the subsequent changing things. This cause is God. Now P1 is correct because again, something cannot give itself a contrary (ie. an ice cube can't melt itself, it must be melted by a heat source) P2 is correct because again, something like a sack cannot be pulled by an infinitely long rope. Rather, the sack must be pulled by a finite length rope that is connected to something else that is not itself being pulled. So, the conclusion naturally follows. If change occurs, then the things changed must be changed by something else and so on until eventually the change is ultimately caused by something that is not changed itself, but rather produces the change that the rest of the changing things rely upon. Again, this argument is not about extenging cause and effect back to the beginning of the universe and then arguing about what caused the first moment of time. Rather the argument is about what continually produces change in the here and now. For the argument is proposing that reality would not change at all if there were not a first changer producing the change for the rest of reality at each given moment. I want to clarify this because Con made the remark of "It's possible time is circular. It's possible that the universe continually destroys itself and then is reborn." Now, Con should explain why P1 or P2 should be doubted or Con should explain why the conclusion can be accepted without supposing that God is the source of change. Hopefully I have made things clearer and have not frustrated communication too much by re-casting the language. Thank you
Aquinas' first way succeeds as a proof for the existence of God

Before debating this argument some background information must be established. Keep in mind that the argument and information given have nothing directly to do with the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe, that is a different argument altogether. Rather this argument deals with a current cause of the universe. To be actual is for something to be in its present state (eg. a frozen ice cube) To be potential is a possible state for a thing, that is not yet actual for that thing (eg. a frozen ice cube can potentially melt) For something to go from a potential state to an actual state is to actualize (eg. an ice cube that goes from frozen to melted) So again, for example for an ice cube to go from frozen to melted or an arm to go from hanging to raised, would be examples of things in potential states becoming actual (or actualized). Naturally both of these things rely upon something else to actualize them. The cube can't melt itself and the arm can't raise itself. This is because something can't produce a contrary for itself, rather something else which can produce the contrary must produce it for the thing. So, something cannot actualize itself. (Premise 1) For something to be causally dependent is for it to rely upon something else. For example a sack is dependent upon a rope to pull it. But the rope is also dependent upon something else because something has to pull the rope as well. For it makes no sense to say that a rope could pull a sack if only it was an infinitely long rope. So, this sort of 'infinite causal dependency' is impossible. (Premise 2) With this background information in mind. Here is the argument in logical form. 1. Something cannot actualize itself. 2. An infinite causal dependency is impossible. C: The continual actualization of things must ultimately depend on a source which has no room for potential, and so is fully actual. Considering that potential being does not formally exist until actualized, the fully actual source must conceive of what 'the things in potential states' will be actualized as. Furthermore, this fully actual source is the source of existence and so cannot be a divided thing (ie. there can only be one source of existence), and so the source must be singular. Also, since the source does not have room for potential, it does not change and therefore does not diminish. So in conclusion if the argument is successful it proves the existence of a singular, changeless, undiminishing, personal source of all being. This source can only be God as understood in a monotheistic framework. So, if one wants to show that the argument is false, then they must explain why the premises of the argument should be doubted or demontrate that the fully actual source should not necessarily be viewed as God as understood by a monotheistic framework.
My opponent can neither disprove gravity nor an almighty God.

First off, even after thorough examination, I do not understand the code that my opponent has put forth. I ask that he put this into compete sentences. "Something more powerful than almight cannot be CREATED" Correct. I am not arguing that there is anything more powerful than almighty. Gravity is lesser than an almighty God, because it would have been created by an almighty God. My opponent concedes that gravity exists. Therefore, he has agreed that it does exist. Gravity and an almighty God are logically similar. Both have yet to be scientifically observed or even scientifically explained. However, their effects have been observed (orbits, nebulas, etc. for gravity) and (the universe for an almighty God). Both logically have to exist, however. Every effect in the universe is the effect of a cause. (Cause and Effect) Falling, dropping, sinking, etc. are all examples of the effects of gravity. The cause of these effects are universally linked to gravity. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov... The existence of the universe must have a cause, and it is not unreasonable to assume that it is an almighty God. The argument that God must have a cause, too, is void, because an almighty God is not subject to the rules of logic that it created. Further, an almighty God could be outside of the universe (not part of it), especially since it is presumed that this almighty God created the universe. Therefore, both gravity and God exist. I ask my opponent to organize his first argument in a way that can be understood.
My opponent can neither disprove gravity nor an almighty God.

If god is ALMIGHTY, he has any and all POWERS. CREATING something more powerful than almighty constitutes a POWER. Something more powerful than almight cannot be CREATED : 1. A->P (assumption, definition of Almighty) : 2. P->C (Assumption, and pretty darn obvious, that's one heck of a power :D) : 3. ~C (assumption, definition of Almighty) : 4. A (Assumption of the existence of God) : 5. P (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic. : 6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule). : 7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).
My opponent can neither disprove gravity nor an almighty God.

"an almighty God" means just that. It is not specifically the God of Abraham, but can also mean a god not worshipped. The concept of an almighty God is what's being debated. "gravity" is the theoretical force that attracts mass together in our universe. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (definition 3) "My opponent" means CON, also known as the contender. "can neither disprove...nor" means not being able to prove false either concept http://www.thefreedictionary.com... So, in order for my opponent to win, he must either disprove the concept of God or the concept of gravity. There must be no doubt that one or the other exists for CON to win. In order for PRO to win, PRO must keep a possibility of both existing at the end of the debate. As my opponent has this burden of disproof, as it should be called, I will allow CON to go first. I will post my points in the next round.
My opponent can neither disprove gravity nor an almighty God.

First, the universe is an effect. Everything in it is an effect. Further, it is an effect, having brought upon by a cause, being the almighty God. To say that something isn't an effect is less justified than saying that something is. Saying that rain is not an effect or that a ball falling is not an effect is unjustified. Just because a cause is not fully understood does not mean that an effect is not an effect. "If he is Almighty, then he has all powers. If he has all powers, then he has power to create something more powerful than almighty. But, no power to create something more powerful than almighty than almighty is possible. Since we can derive from this that if an Almighty God exists, he has such a power, the premise that such God exists is necessarily false. " Summary: a God cannot be almighty because being almighty means that it can create something greater than almighty, which cannot exist. However, one cannot create something greater than itself. A creater creating such a thing would make himself still greater than what was created. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The creater would still be almighty, and its creation would be lesser than itself. Almightiness is not self-contradictory. Gravity and God being similar in not being able to be fully understood links them. By conceding one, my opponent concedes the other. The logic used to disprove one applies to both. My opponent's logic is voided by this concession. Any logic that voids a truth (gravity) is void. "Without (the laws of logic), everything both is and is not, there can be no concepts, no definitions, let alone a God" To say that an almighty God is almighty means that the God has power over the laws of logic. Therefore, this logic cannot be more powerful than an almighty God and cannot defeat it. "And by definition, since the universe is defined as the totality of existence" Universe-the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated . http://www.merriam-webster.com... My opponent has incorrectly used the definition of universe to make a logical argument. The universe is the totality of physical existence. Since physical existence would be created by an almighty God, that almighty God does not have to physically exist. Since the universe would be created by an almighty God, that almighty God does not have to physically exist among the universe. An almighty God would not be physically limited to anything; therefore it can exist. Both gravity and God exist. Logic proves their existence. Cause and effect poves that they must exist. I ask that the voters vote accordingly. I thank them for taking the time to read this debate.