BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of marijuana

1. The government prohibiting drug use is not controlling ones life. What are the benefits to marijuana? My opponent said perscripted drugs are legal and they have side effects, so why isn't marijuana legal? The obvious answer is that there are benefits to PERSCRIPTED drugs such as healing you. Answer me another question even though I know that you can't. What significant benefits does marijuana provide? "your argument regarding "how do you expect for it to stop" has just been proved wrong because in your article http://www.drugabuse.gov...... it states that 42% of 12th graders have used marijuana in their lifetime, so obviously this law hasn't given much effect to these people." It has not been proved wrong. It was a question that you did not answer. If Marijuana was legalized even more people will be taking and therefore it would not be stopped and my argument has not in fact been proved wrong. 2. How? I don't understand what marijuana has to do with racism. 3. It also costs money to enforce many other crimes does that mean we should stop enforcing them? My opponent also mentioned that people wouldn't want marijuana if it was legal. What about alcohol if alcohol is worse and it's legal why a people so addicted to it? 4. It is scientifically proven that marijuana is bad for you. They are just so addicted, they don't want to admit they have a problem. 5. If you believe I am incorrect answer me this even though you obviously can't How can someone who can't stop taking drugs when it is illegal, how is it possible for him to stop all of sudden if it's legal. 6. Irrelevant "I wasn't comparing marijuana prohibition to slavery." "Do you remember the Civil War and the women's rights movement? The African Americans and women didn't sit back and let he government control them. They fought back.. Against slavery! Against discrimination!" Than can you explain to me what you were doing? I'd like to make clear that my opponent has disregarded number 8 and most of my argument after that. I apologize for not using sources I didn't feel they were needed. If my opponent feels I should've please tell me in the next round.
Legalization of marijuana

Good luckMy opponents main argument is that America is a democracy and a free country and therefore drugs should be legal. Now, I am not aware of any countrywide polls on drug legislation but on this site, it is 50-50. You need to realize that America is not completely free. Based on your logic, why should their be any laws? Why can't people steal and kill? The obvious answer is that it significantly harms people. And as we know, drugs have significantly harmed this country. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://learn.genetics.utah.edu..."All of these reasons may be true, but they are solely opinions, as well."The only one that is an opinion, is number 7. The rest strengthened my argument."You will sentence someone and take part of thier life away for drugs? In my opinion, that is ridiculous. The drugs will continue to be sold, used, and abused whether you fine and sentence the users and dealers or not."First of all they broke a widely accepted law. Second of all, answer this question even though I knoe that you can't: can you explain to me how is it physically possible for someone sell, use, or abuse drugs in prison where they are under surveillance? "American Medical Association argued against marijuana prohibition...." Medical marijuana is a separate topic. This is about overdosing and abusing drugs so that whole paragraph is irrelevant. "Typical people fighting against marijuana have never used the drug. Therefore, their opinion is irreleveant." Let me ask you a question: have you ever had marijuanna? I assume not. If so, then why isn't your opinion irrelevant? Once again, the obvious answer is, you do not need to use the drug in order to know its bad effects on society. "If people were walking around being cannibals, we'd have a problem. But guess what? They aren't." Try again http://www.mirror.co.uk... Even if there weren't you yourself admitted several times in the debate that drugs are a problem 1. It is perceived as an addictive. 2. It has "no accepted medical use". 3. It has been historically linked with narcotics, such as heroin. 4. It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles. 5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups. 6. Inertia is a powerful force in public policy. "All of these maybe true" You have contradicted yourself. Alcohol is legal because it is fine under moderation. Drinking and driving isn't. Cigarettes are legal because it only harms yourself and not others and definitely not as much as drugs. Sex is legal because otherwise the pro would not be debating right now. So these are not good examples because they are not related to drugs. Thank for starting the debate. I look forward to your response. Good luck.
Legalization of marijuana

Conclusion 1. My opponent should lose conduct for forfeiting and I urge a vote for con for convincing argument because my round 4 argument has not been rebutted. 2. My round one argument has not even been addressed, another factor for loss of conduct for my opponent and and her argument. 3. Do not be fooled by the fact that since my opponent used more sources she should win that part because I used sources when ever it was necessary. My opponent on the other hand, as I have pointed out, said something as a fact and did not provide sources. 4. Pro has forfeited that marijuana is bad. 5. Pro has forfeited that government has every right to enforce the law. 6. Pro has forfeited that her round 1 argument, her main argument, is flawed. 7. Pro has forfeited that marijuana harms other people and that it ruins lives. Pro basically dismantled her whole argument with no help needed from me. I just brought this to awareness.
The Fine Tuning of the Universe is best explained by a Designer

The burden of proof rests on Pro, as he is making a positive claim. Natural law: an observable law relating to natural phenomena (New Oxford American Dictionary)I will answer his arguments:"1. There is evidence of fine-tuning in the universe"I need Pro to specify said evidence and why it leads us to believe that the universe is fine-tuned as a result from design. I also need him to define what exactly he means by fine-tuning. "2. The fine-tuning data are the result of either (a) chance, (b) natural law, (c) the combination of chance and natural law, or (d) design 3. They are not the result of chance or natural law, or the combination of both, since the data are contingent, complex and specified. " Complex and specified things are not necessarily made by design, as laws of nature and physics can create complex things from non-intelligent processes. Examples of this are evolution, the development of trees, the forming of snowflakes, the formation of planets, and atoms that bond to create molecules. Other examples of apparently complex processes that are entirely non-intelligent are the laws of motion and gravity, which create complicated systems without the need of an intelligence behind them. "4. Therefore, (a) the data are the result of design. 5. Therefore, (b) there is a Designer"We do not need a designer or intelligence to create complex structures, as I have demonstrated above. That means we don't need to rely on design to explain the universe. Also, Pro is inferring this being's existence from assumptions and with no direct evidence to prove his existence. He needs to provide more proof in order for us to believe that a designer exists. Finally, I want to state that while Pro's definition of fine-tuning is ambiguous, I will say that the universe has no appearance of having been designed. Exploding galaxies and stars, colliding planets, death, droughts, floods, disease, space vacuum, and useless body parts are just some examples of why the universe doesn't seem to have been intelligently designed, with all of the useless and superfluous things in existence.
The Fine Tuning of the Universe is best explained by a Designer

The basic logical form of my argument is as follows: 1. There is evidence of fine-tuning in the universe 2. The fine-tuning data are the result of either (a) chance, (b) natural law, (c) the combination of chance and natural law, or (d) design 3. They are not the result of chance or natural law, or the combination of both, since the data are contingent, complex and specified. 4. Therefore, (a) the data are the result of design. 5. Therefore, (b) there is a Designer
Three equals zero

1 = 1 (Multiply by 2)2 = 2 (Add 5)7 = 7 (Multiply by 2)14 = 14The step prior has the equation applied. (This is really hard to explain in words, sorry).1 = 1 (Divide by 3)1/3 = 1/3 (Simplify the right side)1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three)3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side)1 = .99999... (Double values present)2(1) = 2(.99999) (Simplify)2 = 1.999...8 (Minus one)1 = .999...8 (Double values present)2 = 1.999...6 (Minus one)1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25)1 = .25 (Double these numbers)2 = .5 (Double again)4 = 1 (Add one)5 = 2 (Double numbers)10 = 4 (Subtract 4 on each side)6 = 0 (Divide by 2)3 = 0.In "1 = 1 (Divide by 3)," the number will result in an infinitely repeating value. unless you divide it by itself or multiply it by 0, it is impossible to convert it to a whole number.Thus, the following steps when you supposebly convert it to a whole number, are invalid.
Three equals zero

"A debater has accepted three different debates. He has not finished any nor are any of the debates inactive. How many debates does he still have?"Yeah, he has 3. So what? That doesn't dismiss the logic of my argument above, where it was proven mathematically that 3 can equal 0 under special circumstances.I can say that I have 3i (i is sqrt(-1)) debates, how many do I have?Well... I have 0. Not because the math for 3i doesn't exist, but just because it cannot be thought into the physical world."A girl has picked three apples from a tree. How many apples does she have?"AHA, trick question!Perhaps she had apples from before she picked the tree, which would result in a number higher than three."Thus, this 3=0 statement does not have any logic. "The statement has tons of logic. Mathematically, 3 can be equal to 0 in certain conditions, due to the nature of rational numbers and how they are added and whatnot.I already put the response of "I have 3i debates", which is basically that I can have debates in a number system that cannot be thought of into the physical world. That does not mean, however, that 3i does not exist or anything like that."Math is built upon logic and facts. If 3=0 cannot be supported by logic, then it is known as a False Statement"Math is built upon logic and facts, I totally agree.3 = 0 is based upon logic, just cannot be thought of in terms of the physical world.I did not make a false statement, I mathematically proved that 3 = 0. My opponent has made no real arguments that fulfill the BoP that I gave him, he just used physical examples that cannot be reliable enough to have an answer. I used mathematical proof that 3 = 0, whereas my opponent has made baseless claims in a world that cannot fathom true numbers. Vote pro.PS final round is this round. I look forward to your response.
Three equals zero

I would like to support my con argument with an example. A debater has accepted three different debates. He has not finished any nor are any of the debates inactive. How many debates does he still have? The answer is three and not zero. A girl has picked three apples from a tree. How many apples does she have? The answer again is three and not zero. Thus, this 3=0 statement does not have any logic. Math is built upon logic and facts. If 3=0 cannot be supported by logic, then it is known as a False Statement, or a solution that does not fulfill the requirements of an accurate answer.
Three equals zero

My opponent has not met his BoP, and thus automatically loses R2 for lack of any arguments, except for a rebuttal on mine.Now, my opponent does bring up a great point, which is that infinite means never ending. "Infinitely means never-ending. Thus, you can never conclude that you get 1=.25."However, I said that you must perform this step an INFINITE amount of times, or a never-ending amount of times, to get the final answer which is .25. Just because it will not happen in your lifetime, or the lifetime of the universe, does not mean that this possibility does not exist.The possibility is literally 1/∞, or one in an infinite chance.That is not to say, however, that the possibility is EVER 0. It is always existing and thus we must note its existence.
Three equals zero

1 = 1 (Divide by 3) 1/3 = 1/3 (Simplify the right side) 1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three) 3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side) 1 = .99999... (Double values present) 2(1) = 2(.99999) (Simplify) 2 = 1.999...8 (Minus one) 1 = .999...8 (Double values present) 2 = 1.999...6 (Minus one) 1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25) 1 = .25 (Double these numbers) 2 = .5 (Double again) 4 = 1 (Add one) 5 = 2 (Double numbers) 10 = 4 (Subtract 4 on each side) 6 = 0 (Divide by 2) 3 = 0. "1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25)" Infinitely means never-ending. Thus, you can never conclude that you get 1=.25.
Three equals zero

The following is mathematics, followed by the step applied to the number to achieve the next number. This is confusing so I will give you an explanation below.1 = 1 (Multiply by 2)2 = 2 (Add 5)7 = 7 (Multiply by 2)14 = 14The step prior has the equation applied. (This is really hard to explain in words, sorry).1 = 1 (Divide by 3)1/3 = 1/3 (Simplify the right side)1/3 = .33333... (Multiply by three)3/3 = .99999... (Simplify left side)1 = .99999... (Double values present)2(1) = 2(.99999) (Simplify)2 = 1.999...8 (Minus one)1 = .999...8 (Double values present)2 = 1.999...6 (Minus one)1 = .999...6 (Repeat these steps infinitely, where you will theoretically reach a point where 1 = .25)1 = .25 (Double these numbers)2 = .5 (Double again)4 = 1 (Add one)5 = 2 (Double numbers)10 = 4 (Subtract 4 on each side)6 = 0 (Divide by 2)3 = 0.Due to this mathematical proof, I have successfully shown that 3 = 0 in at least one instance.I look forward to my opponent's response.
I will not win this debate.

RE:"My opponent confuses "winning" with "win." My opponent ignores DDO's definition of win; any debate in which you have more votes than your opponent is a debate which you are considered as having won, as shown by each and every individual's profile. In my profile, I am not listed as winning 115 debates; it lists me as having won 115 debates. RE: "My opponent has cited no sources other than himself to prove that he will vote as he claims." I cite this testimonial evidence as my source: http://www.debate.org... PRO is free to cross examine each of those people who commented or cross examine me personally. Otherwise, we have reason to believe that I shall do as I've claimed and vote for my opponent (the comment made by Ragnar Rahl as well as the comment section of the debate which I cited in the first post are especially powerful). RE: "My opponent has shown that the scoring rules are incomprehensible." If my opponent is going to make a claim, he ought to provide a premise for said claim. Merely saying that I've shown that the scoring rules are incomprehensible without explaining why this is so is most unreasonable. Not to mention that I complied to PRO's request to explain the voting system of this website in the previous round. If anything, my opponent is simply holding this debate in contempt. I would suggest that you take this into consideration when deciding upon your conduct vote. RE: "They were not available in writing before the start of the competition." On the contrary; they were available long before either my opponent or I had registered for this website. As of now, my opponent is simply babbling incoherently as I'm rather certain that common law has nothing to do with the topic at hand and that his argument (if it can be called that) simply doesn't follow. Being too tired to put up with these shenanigans (it's 1:33 AM as of now), I'll leave it at that for now.
I will not win this debate.

My opponent confuses "winning" with "win." Even if I lead at some point and win a trip around the world I have still not won the debate. My opponent has cited no sources other than himself to prove that he will vote as he claims. Whether he actually does so or not is irrelevant because the argument must be established and proven before the debate is over. This has not been done. My opponent has shown that the scoring rules are incomprehensible. At least no one has comprehended them yet. They were not available in writing before the start of the competition. They still aren't because nobody knows how they work. They have to be available before the start of the competition or they do not apply. This applies to all competitions anywhere and is common law. It does not matter whether the site rules, if any, contradict this position, not because they were not available either but because the law supercedes them. Therefore this debate, and all debates on this site, and any rankings thereof, are invalid and illegal according to the law. Therefore I cannot possibly win. In fact noboby can.
I will not win this debate.

RE: "Note that my record of 2 - 5 - 25 (82.81 percentile) is "better" than my opponent's 2 - 0 (80.58 percentile) so He is fewer evil than I." This is indeed interesting. Spectacularly so. But just one question: Where is the relevance? Though if my opponent means what I think he means, lets not forget something: This website's administrator created the rules for winning and losing, thus what he says goes. It's like the game of chess: Just because you don't like the ideas of having lost when your king is placed in checkmate or being able to replace your pawn with a queen when it reaches the other side of the boards, it doesn't mean that these ruled don't count. RE: Note also that it says "based on completed debates." Precisely. http://www.debate.org... Lets note the above debate (which I screen shotted at the time of my viewing: http://img521.imageshack.us...). Let us also pay close attention to this user's profile: http://img389.imageshack.us... Now the above which I had just voted on in terms of conduct, spelling and argumentation has created the scenario which I've dictated will occur with my opponent. Her profile list that debate as being a completed debate which she is listed as having won just after I voted. Ergo, by these terms, if the same occurs with my opponent, he will win this completed debate and the resolution shall be upheld. RE:"Perhaps my opponent can explain how this scoring works." Gladly. Think of it like an academic course. Lets say on your very first assignment in the class, you make an A+. It will be at that point that you have an A+ in the class, thus if you had said something along the line of "I will have an A in this class", you'd be correct (as "will" only implies some point in the future . . . just as you claiming you will not always be a virgin . .. again, merely some point in the future). Now of course, if you said something like "I will have an A in this class BY THE END OF THE SEMESTER", it would most certainly be a different matter. Fortunately, my opponent only claimed that he would have an A in the class some time in the future, rather than a specific instance. The same works here and is precisely why this debate remains unwindable for my opponent. At best, he can keep refreshing this page as much as he can in hopes that he will beat me to voting on this debate, hence making it a tie before it can ever be established as a win, but I will not allow him the opportunity seeing as how I have PRECISE control over when this debate ends and that I shall naturally be at the voting screen once I end this debate. RE:"Not to mention everyone knows there can be only one winner in a debate." Based on voting rules of this website, not at all. Both debaters can be listed as having won the debate at different points in time. And I believe that'll do it for now: http://i153.photobucket.com...
I will not win this debate.

http://www.debate.org... "InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed." Note that my record of 2 - 5 - 25 (82.81 percentile) is "better" than my opponent's 2 - 0 (80.58 percentile) so He is fewer evil than I. Note also that it says "based on completed debates." Perhaps my opponent can explain how this scoring works. Not to mention everyone knows there can be only one winner in a debate. There can be more than one loser though.
I will not win this debate.

On the contrary. My opponent will in fact win this debate and I can prove it. After this debate concludes, I shall vote for him. When this occurs, his profile will list this debate as being a debate he has "won." Given that debate.com is set up to reflect individuals who have more votes as having "won", this would indicate that my opponent WILL win this debate. Now whether or not additional people vote for me is of no consequence as all I have to establish is that my opponent will win. It is irrelevant if the win is transformed into a loss, assuming I provide superior arguments. :D Your move, Ed.
DDO Should also Use My Voting Standards Guide

I wouldn't ask them to change it, and Mine is better than yours, therefor I assert that you are wrong. Mine: Did the participant present a clear thesis? Did the participant defend their claim in the first round? Did the participant address his opponents arguments? Did the participant correct his opponents fallacies? Did the participant acknowledge when he was proven wrong? Did the participant prove his opponents wrong at any given point. ~ 1-5 points Did the participant ignore his opponent at any point? -1 - -5 Did the participant troll, contribute nonsense, spam false info or lie in the debate? -1 - -10 (one point per occurrence) Did the Participant allow emotions and personal biases to cloud his judgement of the facts? -1 - -5 Did the participant allow his emotions to detour his arguments or debate? -1 - -5 Did the participant use reliable resources? 4 points Through reading this, we know how to judge the debate before reading it. If the debate was over. We know if we will learn anything and on what side of the debate. Now. I shall read your debate. (1 more: Did the opponent clearly not read the other's message... oh wait that is Trolling ** :P)