BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gum chewing should be allowed in school.

I agree that gum should be allowed in schools, but you have to take into consideration that there are some people who would abuse this freedom. Sticking there used gum to walls, throwing it onto the floor, or mashing it to the underside of a desk. This would be quite a big mess. Then there might be complaints from janitors who get on there knees all afternoon scraping up dried gum some of them might even go on strike, then there wouldn't be anyone to clean anything. In conclusion I would really enjoy this idea, its most likely not going to happen.
Pro Sports team in Las Vegas

Point by point rebuttals, which also encompass my own points at the same time: 1. "It would raise money." Pro is somewhat correct. Although, in the long run, Las Vegas GDP would grow from it"s current 34th $95,602,000 GDP, the climb will be long and slow. Like many expansion NFL teams have proven over and over, the climb to relevance is tedious. Let"s take a look at the first playoff win for the post-merger expansion teams in the NFL: Houston Texans (2002): 2011 (Once since have they won 1+ games in the playoffs) Cleveland Browns (1999): Never. Baltimore Ravens (1996): 2000 (6 since) Jacksonville Jaguars (1995): 1996 (3 since) Carolina Panthers (1995): 1996 (2 since) Seattle Seahawks (1976): 1983 (7 since) Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1976): 1979 (3 since) For some expansion teams, glory came long after they became franchises. For others, they started off hot, but success occurred only sporadically. Chances are, the new Las Vegas team will probably be of mediocre quality, at best, for a substantial amount of time in its beginning. This predicted failure won"t be that much of a driving force in Vegas" economy, unless you"re counting paper-bag makers. Plus, it"s not like the stadium for this NFL-caliber team will build itself. Sure, the Locos used UNLV"s current stadium, but its capacity is only 35-40K. To successfully be able to host NFL games, it would have to be almost doubled in size, which I am unsure if the University would sign on to doing. Building a second stadium is also rather pricey. While the NFL makes large profits every year, it has footed only 44% of stadium costs on average. The public ends up footing 56% (http://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com...), which is on average $238.1 million. Given Vegas" current $113 million budget deficit (http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov...) and Nevada"s roughly $1 billion deficit (http://budget.nv.gov...), I can"t see where that money would come from without very unpopular tax hikes, which probably will be blocked by the GOP majority in Nevada"s state legislature. 2. "there would be other things to do other than gamble and drink." Yes, that"s somewhat right, but football is only 3 hours out of 168 in a week. And it probably would add to the gambling levels in Vegas, given the proximity of such a suitable gambling target. What"s worse, it would be harder to restrict resident NFL players from attending casinos in the city and potentially betting on games. 3. "It would also make Las Vegas more kid and family friendly. It would be something a family can do together." I honestly believe, at least as a tourist, that Vegas is already quite family friendly. Circus Circus has the amusement park, other casinos have ones of slightly lesser size, there"s Lake Mead"..quite time consuming for any family, in my opinion. An extra 3 hours of potential football games won"t change much. Most of my arguments have been brought up in rebuttals, that the stadium would be unaffordable, wouldn't substantially add to GDP for quite a while, and might uptick crime (through control of casinos and bookies by shady, organized crime rings) and certainly gambling in the city. Those are my arguments, con.
Physical Punishment

Punishment should not be given as physical assault is illegal and I do not believe teachers want to go to jail. Pro seems to give a number of guidelines to follow, but who will be there to monitor them? No one. Teachers are free to abuse it all they like. Maybe they had a bad day and decide to hit some kids. Who would be there to stop them? No one. How can we judge whether it's 'too violent'? We can't. It is also impossible to rationally deduct that physical punishment will directly lead to a child questioning all future decisions. Pro has given no reasoning or evidence for this.I will now provide some psychological evidence that beating a child is bad for their development.Physical punishments result in long term effects of depression, anxiety, substance abuse in later years, and a slew of other problems[1].They result in a higher incidence of health issues in adult life such as cardiovascular disease[2].Children who are hit are more likely to grow up to be aggressive[3].It simply teachers children to avoid getting caught rather than attacking the heart of the issue - not doing it at all[4].There is no evidence that physical punishment is beneficial[5].[1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[3] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;[5] http://www.cmaj.ca...;
Physical Punishment

Unfortunately, we do not live in a totalitarian world like that of 1984 where everything is monitored by cameras - there are no cameras in classrooms - even if there were, it would be in very few schools. Not every area of the school can be covered by cameras, the teacher can easily take a student to a place out of view and "punish" them. Contrary to popular belief, teachers to not have to be extremely qualified, especially in primary school and high school standards. As Pro has not provided any sources in his claims, I don't believe I need to, it's common knowledge basically. Furthermore, not everyone with academics can be 100% calm 100% of the time, to think so is just stupid. (Note: I am not calling my opponent stupid, I am simply saying anyone who thinks like that is stupid. Unless my opponent thinks like that.) Pro then uses his example of his father which is a fallacy of composition - just because it is true for a part does not mean it is true for the whole. I have clearly rebuffed all my opponent's weak arguments and he has provided no evidence for his claims.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

.. Now, if you notice my opponent's first round, it is as follows:"aCcEpTeDsTaTe YoUr CaSe" If you review the above, you will realize that my opponent did not just accept the debate, but he added and unnecessary statement ("sTaTe YoUr CaSe"). Rule 3 specifically states that the first round is just for acceptance, that excludes any unnecessary statements that aren't an acceptance such as "sTaTe YoUr CaSe".
Communism Will Never Work

Nationalizing certain aspects of society would not be hard as, for example, in England it would only be a process of re nationalizing systems like energy companies and train systems; which unsurprisingly are the companies which are currently causing us the most grief. If the general public were shown this, I don't think it would be hard for them to support it. The Green party are an example of this. They call for the nationalization of the railway. Corruption is rid with democratic communism.
Communism Will Never Work

Hi Pokemon Dude, I made this debate short and sweet because we don't need to get caught up caught up in details of the grand scheme. Every plan you can provide for a communist society requires full cooperation. We are human full cooperation will NEVER happen. Your plan will also require a large government with a great deal of power. Such a government will always be infiltrated by the criminal element. The more power in the hands of Government the power is more power in the hands of criminals.
Communism Will Never Work

By your logic then no government has ever worked. Democracy isn't a broken system it merely needs improvement, politicians just need to be made accountable for their actions and stop being self serving and instead serve the public interest. Communism would go a long way to achieving this as, for example, politicians could not be influenced by big business and banks to support and vote for causes which only serve the rich (like for example George Osborne supporting bankers bonuses*) *in comments
our country should be like when it started and follow the constitution and be way more conservative

I have a feeling my opponent isn't going to debate, I'll make few points just in case.When the country started, slavery was legal. I think this constitutes a good enough reason not to revert back to 1787 policy. There was also no first national bank. Obama- Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.He has reduced the defecit. He combated poverty and created jobs. The stock market is doing well.Well BoP is on you pro. http://www.addictinginfo.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
our country should be like when it started and follow the constitution and be way more conservative

Our country has pretty much gone to hell. Obama is the worst president this country has seen in it's entire history. He has destroyed our economy, let in thousands of illegals aliens and is actually treating them better than actual citizens, promoting homosexuality and bisexuality and try-sexuality and it is all disgusting and unchristian. He should be impeached and someone should turn this country around. I love this country and i love america but i am disgusted by the way it is ran. Theirs all these twisted republicans who say that they are for the people and conservative and then they turn around and stab us in the back by having liberal views and being selfish punks. This country really needs another Reagan or George Washington. The government is trying to take Christianity out of everything so they can have even more control and take away our god given rights. I am completely disgusted with the leaders of this country right now.
Pick your own debate!

1)Around half a million Americans use medical marijuana, also this only includes 12 states given that not many states allow medical marijuana. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... 2)According to everyone who uses medical marijuana it benefits them. Also I've already posted a source that links to a couple dozen studies that show that medical marijuana has real health benefits. Again my opponent is making a huge logical fallacy. He is saying that because medical marijuana doesn't provide medical benefits for every disease that the diseases it does provide benefits shouldn't count. I said this in my earlier post but clearly my opponent decided to ignore it or didn't even bother to read my post. There is nothing wrong with regulating the medical industry; what is wrong is the government banning medical marijuana. This is wrong because it is the government telling doctors how to treat patients and it is an example of the government telling sick people that they cannot have effective medicine. My opponent is using another logically fallacy. Every medicine has its complications, and side effects, this does not make those medicines worthless saying so is ridiculous. My opponent is using another logically fallacy. He is saying that because most societies haven't legalized Medical marijuana that the health benefits of MM are invalid. It would be like saying that in the 1400 since almost no nation had democracy that democracy would be a bad thing. Even my opponent admits there are scientific double blind studies that show MM having medical benefits, therefore even my opponent agrees with my side.
Pick your own debate!

There are 2 stats I would like him to bring up. 1) How many people actually use medical marijuana? 2) What percentage in real life actually benefits from it? The link you provide directly showed that on human studies, te majority of studies didn't actually benefit people. I suggest you read his source voters. Also: what is so bad about the government regulating the medical industry? When it wasn't regulated by them back in the earlier 20th century, companies were known for making false meds until the food and drug administration act was passed to make sure fraud was nonexistent. Ever since then, their regulation of meds has led to very little fraud in the medical industry. So, I'd like an explanation of how governments actually hurt the medical industry. As for the falsified info: What his case is advocating is that marijuana can still provide harms, regardless of whether or not it is filtered or not. The relatively split nature of studies as well show that medical marijuana may not provide the benefits people believe it does. Plus, if it was so beneficial, why hasn't it been legalized worldwide and in the United States? The majority of studies say that medical marijuana reduces pain, but that is an extremely subjective issues because sometimes pain is just mental, and can go away without medicine. Plus, there are many different forms of medicines that can treat pain, so pro will need to show that medical marijuana is superior in this area than the vast majority of other pain medications. For these reasons, a con ballot is urged. Thank you.
Pick your own debate!

My opponent is using a huge logical fallacy; he is claiming that because medical marijuana doesn't have medical purposes for all medical conditions that the medical conditions it does have medical purposes for do not count. The fact remains that medical marijuana has several medical purposes such as alleviating neurpathic pain. A ban on medical marijuana would result in the ban of a medicine that works better than any other medicines, resulting in worse health out comes and a worse off health care system. My opponents post is also lying the source i posted studied the addictive potential of some medical marijuana the studies found that certain medical marijuana extracts do not result in addictive properties or addictive behavior. medical marijuana is different then regular marijuana because in medical marijuana they take out the harmful and addictive chemicals and only use the chemicals that have medical purposes. this means that every time my opponent links to marijuana having unhealthy effects he is comparing apples and oranges, and therefore his comparisons are invalid. For example a scientific study found that medial marijuana improved the mental abilities of people with Alzheimers. So basically a ban on medical marijuana would be an example of the government telling doctors how to treat patients. it would also be an example of the government telling millions of sick people that they cannot legally consume medicines that improve their medical condition.
Pick your own debate!

I have a list 96 peer reviewed double blind studies on medical effects of using Marijuana as medicine. I will go through every one that shows marijuana is effective in treating some kind of illness (I will go down the list as they list the studies so you can easily follow). 1)Marijuana medical treatments improved spasticity a disabling complication of multiple sclerosis. 2)Patients with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were given medical Marijuana the result was a decrease in pain, and an increase in proper sleep scheduling and restful sleep. 3)Medical marijuana was able to reduce pain for cancer patients who still felt pain even with opioids. 4)Patients using medical marijuana with neuropathic pain associated with HIV distal sensory polyneuropathy experienced reduce pain 100% more with medial marijuana. (ill be skipping studies that show medial marijuana helps with pain and instead just saying that another study shows it reduces pain). 5)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 6)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 7)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 8)Medical marijuana helped reduce intraocular pressure. 9)Medical marijuana helped increase the appetite of patients who appetites have been destroyed by medical procedures. 10)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 11)Another study shows medical marijuana reduces pain. 12)Medical marijuana was use to improve people's moods, sleep, and reduce fatigue, 13)MM (medical marijuana) used to reduce spasm and improve mobility in patients with spasticity. 14)MM was used and shown to decrease the spread of cancer cells in people with invasive cancer. 15)MM used to increase low weight HIV patients, and to improve their sleep, and mental functions. 16)MM was almost 100% more successful in treat HIV related peripheral osteopathy 17)MM was successful in limiting symptoms of Alzheimers. I'm going to stop there and say that medical marijuana is used to help alleviate many illness and should be allowed. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
Pick your own debate!

Oh ok I'm sorry I need to learn to read. Ok change of topic: Medical Marijuana. I'll take take con. The resolution is: resolved: Medical Marijuana cause more benefits Than harms to society. It's says you are pro med marijuana so I'll take con. For the record, I was trying to say it was a government organizations but of you want to say its Al Qaeda a 8 month CIA investigation Saying that there is no conclusive evidence to say that Al Qaeda did not do the attack on 9/11 and the clip of him saying he did wasn't actually translated properly. Plus, even if thy admitted to it, that doesn't mean they actually did it. This isn't important though switch to the newly proposed resolution...
Pick your own debate!

…. The resolution resolved: 9/11 is a conspiracy theory isn't even in the issues section (unless I'm blind)… But I'll take a crack at the pro side just for the hell of it. noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of agreeing to work together toward the same result or goal 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. http://dictionary.reference.com.... Considering that there were multiple terrorists who got together and developed a plan were 19 hijackers would go to America learn to fly and hijack 4 airplanes, and then crash those airplanes into buildings I'd say that it was a conspiracy. Bin Laden and his second in command and 19 terrorists got together and conspired to attack America. It would be absurd to say that those 19 hijackers all decided to hijack those plans on the same day, in the same way without first devising them plan amongst themselves.
Home Schooling

Thank you, con for providing your arguments. Since this is the final round of the debate, I will only be able to refute cons. My opponent states that homeschooled children are lucky to see other students their age once a week. But my opponent does list numerous other ways for homeschooled kids to be social, which include sporting events, field trips, family gatherings, and numerous other occasions. And they are able to experience new social "norms" at those events or gatherings. My opponent also says that parents are not the best teachers for students. But parents do understand the child more, and know what strategies need to be used in order for the student to succeed. Also, parents are able to research the information needed for classes, and can give the student extra work if he/she is struggling. My opponent also states that parents are able to pay extra money for a high school diploma, which shows that there are ways for the student to prove what they have learned. Thank you.
Home Schooling

Thank You Con. Argument one: Isolation. Instead of being surrounded by children their own age, many homeschooled children are lucky to see other students their age once a week, usually during sports or music practices, field trips, family gatherings, or religious events. It would be difficult for students to understand things like the new social "norms" and could potentially hinder their adult social lives. Argument two: Parents as teachers. Parents are not neccasarely the best teachers for a child. Often times, teachers must meet several different credentials before becoming a teacher. They must know their subject as well, so that they would qualify to teach it. Teachers, after teaching the same things for a long time, would be more knowledgable than a stay at home parent or guardian would be. Argument three: High School diplomas. Unless the parents pay the extra money for a home school program that offers a diploma the home schooled student will not have a high school diploma. Although the child may have a superior education they will not have the proper documentation to prove it. Thank you.
Home Schooling

Pro and I agreed to debate each other on this. If he has any rules he would like to add it would be best if he let me know this in the comments before we start off with our debate.1. First round is for acceptance. Then main arguments, rebuttals/arguments, and following is a conclusion. It should be known that neither Pro nor I shall make any new arguments in the last round. If anyone fails to meet point one, it is a loss of conduct. The voters will also disregard all arguments the offender had made during that round. (Example: Pro puts all of his points into round 5, and spends the rest of the debate trolling. I would win, because you would disregard his arguments in that round, and award me conduct.) 2. BoP is shared, as agreed upon by Pro. 3. Homeschooling definition shall be: "To teach your children at home instead of sending them to a school" [1] 4. In the unfortunate event of a FF, voters shall choose whether they would like to deduct points or not. Although two FF's by one person, that is automatically a full 7 points. If Pro has any rule changes, please let me know before you accept in a PM, on my profile, or in the comments. I wish good luck to Pro, and await his responses.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...