BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The prohibition of marijuana (cannabis) should end

Sorry for the format. Not enough characters!(#1) Regulating cannabis will make it more difficult for children to get [7]. In this study, they found that 40 percent of teens could get marijuana within a day; another quarter said they could get it within an hour. In another portion of the survey, teens between the ages of 12 and 17 say it’s easier to get marijuana than buy cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs. That number is up 37 percent from 2007.(#2) My opponent's chart shows that even though spending has increased, usage has remained the same, and that 1.5 trillion dollars has been wasted on the drug war.(#4) Public opinion is changing dramatically. A recent Gallup poll just this year in 2013 measured how people felt about cannabis. For the first time ever, 58% feel it should be legalized [8].In response to your argument #1, there are studies that have discovered that marijuana is much safer than alcohol [9]. And quite to the contrary, there are many reports coming from Israel and other nations about the positives of cannabis including inflammation [10], cancer [11], post traumatic stress disorder [12], epilepsy [13] and many others.Actually, public opinion is changing dramatically. A recent Gallup poll just this year in 2013 measured how people felt about cannabis. For the first time ever, 58% feel it should be legalized [8].Politicians will do whatever their constituents want them to do. Or the people will elect politicians do the will of the people.In response to argument #2, yes, I admit, addiction is horrible. But to make these drugs illegal just doesn’t work. Let’s regulate it and address the issues differently. Let’s create awareness campaigns that create awareness of their dangers. After all, the criminal records are ruining more lives more than the drugs themselves. http://www.nydailynews.com...http://www.hoover.org...http://www.businessinsider.com... http://www.forbes.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.hrw.org... http://www.parl.gc.ca... http://www.fas.org... http://blog.norml.org... http://www.gallup.com... http://phys.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The prohibition of marijuana (cannabis) should end

My opponent is right on some cases, but very wrong with others. 1. Prohibtion of alcohol: You are right. It was too difficult. But, alchohol is easier to get than cannabis, right? How do we know the SAME thing would happen to cannabis, if it's harder to get than alchohol. You see more speak-easies than drug dealers. [1] 2. Crime with alchohol and cannabis: Like I said before, it's harder to get cannabis than alchohol. I'm NOT saying it's not easy to get cannabis. It is fairly easy. Alchohol is very easy to get. You are right as well, crime rate has increased. I can't deny that. Actually, most people are quitting cannabis. The government is spending a ton of money to control it. Take a look at this chart. [3] 3. Drug Cartels (By the way, what about the eastern hemisphere?) Yes, that is right. Most of the drugs actually come from Mexico, not the US. [2] 4. Legalization of cannabis Actually, some people think otherwise... they don't want legalization.. "Don't legalize marijuana, it's a drug that's easily abused, it poses health risks, and the potential benefits of taxing and regulating it are overstated. Legalization almost certainly would bring with it additional substance abuse in the state, and the long-term public costs associated with that would vastly exceed the relatively modest amount of new revenue legal weed might bring in. Baby boomers who hazily recall their own experimentation with marijuana often are stunned to learn that the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol -- or THC, marijuana's primary psychoactive substance -- in domestic sinsemilla has quadrupled since the late 1970s" [4] Also, if the government puts a lot of money into stopping it, that means they don't want to legalize it. Right? Cites for defence: [1]-http://www.nhs.uk... [2]-http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]-http://www.nhs.uk... [4]-http://articles.latimes.com... Argument 1: Health Risks: Let's list the health risks for cannabis, shall we? 1. Cannabis affects your co-ordination. Which has the same side affects as alchohol. This can lead to drunk-driving, but in cannabis it's called "drug-driving." 2. It increases you heart-rate and blood pressure. 3. It can cause CANCER. Lung cancer especially. 4. Wheezing will take affect. Violent wheezing. 5. While pregnant, if smoked, the baby will become smaller than usually, posing health-risks for the baby. 6. It is hard to concentrate or learn. 7. It causes mental health problems. 8. Causes hunger pains. [1] Argument 2: Addiction: Most people say, when you use cannabis, you aren't getting off of it. Don't we want people not to get addicted to it? Doesn't that mean we should keep it illegal? Teenagers are usually the first ones to try it. Addiction is horrible. That's why we are fighting the "War against drugs." [2] I couldn't put anymore characters so. This is my arguments. Pro, you're up. [1]-http://www.nhs.uk... [2]-http://dailycaller.com...
The prohibition of marijuana (cannabis) should end

Prohibition of alcohol failed because it was too difficult to enforce [1]. Organized crime received a boost from alcohol prohibition [2]. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market profits from alcohol in most states, because of competition with legal liquor stores selling alcohol at lower prices. (States still retained the right to enforce their own state laws concerning alcohol consumption. Drug cartels today in the western hemisphere involve approximately 500 cities are directly engaged in drug trafficking and nearly 1,450,000 people are employed by drug cartels today [3]. Many advocate legalization of cannabis [4], believing that it will eliminate the illegal trade and associated crime, yield a valuable tax-source and reduce policing costs. [1] Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States. National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. Dated January 7th 1931 "Bad Features of the Present Situation and Difficulties in the Way of Enforcement [2] "Organized Crime - American Mafia". Law Library - American Law and Legal Information. Retrieved 2013-11-7. [3] http://lasa-2.univ.pitt.edu... [4] "Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana". Retrieved 2013-04-04.
Neither the Old nor New Testament address the LGBT issue

There are 2 sections in the Old Testament that are referred to by those who have been misled into believing that they teach against the lgbt community. The first is the Sodom/Gomorrah destruction of Genesis chapter 18. However, today we possess the knowledge that the area in question was destroyed over 1000 years before Abraham was born. It was destroyed by a disintegrating asteroid approx. 3400 B.C. The story may have been inspired by many of the resulting salt pillars in the basin that from a distance, resemble standing human statues. The 2nd section of the Old Testament that so many have been led to believe that address this issue is the book of Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. The way a number of key ancient Hebrew words have been mistranslated into the English language, has helped to create hostility against the lgbt community for many, many, years. The key words in Leviticus 18,20 will be opened in the 1st Affirmative. The New Testament scripture of 1st Corinthians 6:9 with the 2 key Koine Greek words , will be shown to have been deliberately mistranslated. Last, the section of Romans chapter 1 where many have been taught condemns the lgbt, will be shown to be addressing something else that all are capable of.
Gay Marriage

My opponent and I have agreed to the same definition via PM. "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." My opponent is arguing to legally redefine marriage to a different version, in which he must define later in the debate. As the current definition in which we agreed upon is on my side, it is his BOP on why it should be changed and what the new definition should be. In other words, he has the BOP. My opponent stated his view on the subject, so that is what I am going to do as well. My view is the conjugal definition of marriage. Marriage is a legal union in which one man and one woman commit to each other for the purpose creating children. To form a procreative type union that fulfills the states interest in propagating society. In other words, marriage is a union which helps facilitate and encourage procreation.[1] Good luck! [1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
Gay Marriage

I will be challenging 16kadams to a debate on Gay Marriage. I will be arguing for gay marriage, on the Pro side. I will be arguing that Marriage rights should be given to Homosexuals, but that parenthood should be defined as being between one Man and one Woman, one Father and one Mother, in line with nature. I will be arguing that Marriage is a concept thought up by humans, that marriage is both a religious act and a legal contract, but that it is not a natural act, as parenthood is. So my side is, legalize gay marriage as there is nothing "unnatural" about gay marriage, as marriage was invented by humans, but that parenthood be defined as being between one Man and one Woman, meaning gay people cannot adopt, because children need both a Mother and a Father for a stable environment to grow up in. I look forward to this debate with 16kadams. Good luck!
Gun Ban

Because this is round 3 i will not post arguements but instead will post rebuttals. The following two rebuttals will address all of my opponents claims in round 2Rebuttals:1.Correlation is not CausationClearly something is wrong here.Me and my opponent are citing sources but we have different conclusions. My opponent makes the claim that Gun Bans actually create scenarios where murder is higher. These arguements are the Murder Europe Rates and the Washington D.C murder rates. What my opponent isnt taking into consideration is the different factors involving murder rates other than guns.For example my opponent compares Poland and Russia for the gun ban comparison. This is heavily biased towards the gun rights arguement because of course Russia will have the higher murder rate. With corruption heavily present in the government and other terrible crimes like drug and human trafficing not to mention a heavy gang presence in most urban areas of the country its no wonder Russia has a higher murder rate (1). Now look at Poland. Poland is one of the safest countries in the world. It is also socialist. Does that mean that because Poland is socialist it is peaceful? No. If the Polish government were to ban guns death rates would lower as well.For the Washington D.C arguement my opponent makes the fatal error of showing a graph. Do you see anything wrong with the graph? Yes the murders are taking a very sharp decline well before the gun ban law was stricken down. Why is this? Gangs and the poverty started kicking in creating more crime. My opponenets graph wouldve made sense if the graph kept climbing and then started decreasing after the gun ban was imposed however this was not the case. This is another example of my opponent not taking other factors into conseideration other than guns (2).My final rebuttal is of his European Murder Arguement is made by my opponent himself. My opponent posts a graph showing the increase of murders in UK after a Gun Ban. However the graph also takes a sharp decline. My opponent tries to cover for this by saying they instituted more police. EXACTLY! Just because you ban Guns doesnt mean you cant use other solutions to also help with this ban.2. The Nirvana FallacyMy opponent finally brings up the use of illegal gun use. That citizens will get guns anyway through the black market. This is called the nirvana fallacy. The act of rejecting a partial solution because its not perfect. The majority of americans are law abiding citizens and even if some become criminals trying to get guns the vast majority will still be law abiding citizens who wont break the law to get guns. As the amount of guns fall the amount of shootings and gun related deaths will also decrease (3).Sources:(1): https://en.wikipedia.org...(2): https://en.wikipedia.org....(3): http://thinkprogress.org...
Gun Ban

I think a Gun Ban would be good for America.Rules-FF is an automatic loss-Round 1 is acceptance only-No semantics about rules or definitonsBoP is on both pro and con.Defintions:Gun Ban- A national ban on guns; owning a gun would be an illegal act.Ban- to officialy prohibit; to stop the use ofWe will not be arguing for the constiutionality of the Gun Ban rather would it be good for the public.Happy to debate taj
OmniGod

We'll have to actually argue this again I think it went too quick like a instant messanger, I'm new to this site too and it seems that debates on here are more elaborate than the site I'm used to. Want a do-over? Anyways, it IS meaningless to ask if a heavy stone can be too heavy to lift by omnipotence, it's simply not logical that a stone be unliftable and also a stone, for that would be a stump attached to the ground.
OmniGod

The divine paradox is this: Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being would not have been omnipotent to begin with in that he would have been incapable of creating a heavy enough stone; if he could not lift the stone, then it seems that the being either would never have been omnipotent to begin with or would have ceased to be omnipotent upon his creation of the stone. Answer me this and I'll become a Christian!
Evolution is true

I'm not debating the veracity of creationism or the existence of God,i'm debating the veracity of the theory of evolution. Also,i'm debating the theory of evolution like it is now,not from the book by Darwin "The Origin of Species". Good luck con. Definitions:Evolution:The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Theory:A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Evolution is true

I don't think i really understood what you meant by that,but i will try to debate it. Good luck.I don't think evolution and politicians should be contraries because i don't think a creationist politician would be capable of ruling things without his faith affecting his decisions. I have not against Christian politicians if they don't let their faith rule over their reasoning,but a creationist who denies the most well-substantiated scientific theory because a book tells them a different instead of thinking about it would probably do the same with their decisions,making them completely biased. Examples i can give of creationists that aren't in their "right mind" while taking decisions are Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. They deny every evidence they are given and keep following a book no matter what. It means they would probably to that with other bible parts too,and we know how the bible is contradicting and is not really applicable to this time. I really don't want someone with this mindset ruling my country.
Does god exist

I'm an atheist myself, but I'm going to debate you from the point of a deist. "God does not exist. And the fact that we are a part of evolution proves it." - Why? How do you define God? You're confusing God and creationism. Also how do you define God? The God of the Abrahamic religions? You've already committed a very subtle black-white fallacy, by indirectly claiming that creationism, and atheistic evolution via natural selection are a true dichotomy without any justification. Correct me if I wrong.
A gay couple is capable of being great parents, and should be able to adopt babies.

Gay men and women shouldn't only be labled with they're sexual orientation. A gay man or woman can be just as good of a parent as a heterosexual one. Sometimes it seems that people forget that not only are these people gay, they also love like we do, have careers like we do, and can show a baby love like we do! There's more to being gay than gay sex, which sometimes seems to me all that anti-gay protesters think about. Why would you want to deny a deserving child a wonderfull home, just because the parent's are married, or in a life long relationship with a same sex partner? Yes, you would have to explain to the child eventually why there are two mommy's, or daddy's. This doesn't mean they won't get the same type of attention and nurturing. Plus, no research has shown that a child raised by gay parents will have more of a chance turning out gay. They probably will be more comfortable with the idea, but that won't make them gay. There are wonderfull, nice, caring gay/lesbian individual's wanting babies to love. There is nothing wrong with this.
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

As this round seems to be confined to opening statements, I would like to summarize briefly: 1) My opponent is arguing Affirmative that "Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone" along with a supplementary proposition of the same being a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. I would like to offer some definitions: Same-Sex Marriage: "the practice of marriage between two males or two females. " . http://www.britannica.com... Marriage: "a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any). " . http://www.britannica.com... For the following, I am using the legal definitions, as found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Privilege: "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Right: "2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... and, just for formality, as found on the Cornell University Law school page, the Fourteenth Amendment: . http://www.law.cornell.edu... I shall be arguing the Converse to his contention, namely: 1)"Same-Sex Marriage should not be legalized in any state, because there is a good reason to not make it legal, as it hurts people;" and 2)"The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives no protection to supposed right. " I am unsure as to whether my opponent wishes his contentions to stand together, or separately; unless he clarifies this, I am assuming that I only have to cast doubt on one of his contentions. I shall try to avoid splitting semantic hairs, even though it is great fun in a casual argument, and give a serious answer to all of my opponent's arguments. I await his opening arguments with anticipation.
Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone. It is also a right given from the fourteenth amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Newspapers should be made online

Con has conceded, so I can take this debate to my win section. Now, I hope there's no strike back in round 3. Thank you for this fun debate. Trust me, there are much better debaters than me on this site, and I am but an amateur. I also had done this debate before (on this site only, of course) so I guess I had more time. This is my other debate which was similar to this, for all the source needers out there- http://www.debate.org... As for arguments for your side, I would have brought up the eyesight point and electricity consumption, but then they could have been rebutted by pointing out paper also reduces blink rate and that printers utilize electricity.
God doesn't exist

You want to do this? ?? Bring it on! !! universe- all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. All existing matter is the universe. "I say that nothing exists other than this debate, the platform on which we are debating (Debate. Org) and any other entities or variables involved with this. " Fine then the Earth and the Sun exist as it is required for us to live. You and I exist. Same goes for water, food, internet connection, laptops/mobiles. The laptops/mobiles manufacturers exist. Their workers exists. Our parents exist. Power plants exist. Their workers exist. Wire/cable manufacturers and their workers exist. Architects exist for these buildings to be constructed. Bricks, mud and metal exist. Building manufacturers and their workers exist. All of them need money, so the government and the money-printing office exist. Our sources exist. Their authors exist. We require food to live, so farmers and plants exist. Farmers live far away from us, so food transporters and shopkeepers exist. Shopkeeper needs plastic bags, so plastic manufacturers exist. Plastic manufacturers need chemicals, so scientists exist. Scientists need glass, so sand and glass manufacturers exist. Internet exists, so data exists. For data to exist, software developers exist. For software developers, coffee (ask any pro-dev) exists. I could go on and include far too many fields than needed for this debate.
God doesn't exist

I know that the word universe exists and that many dictionaries supply varying definitions of it but the same goes for Santa, tooth fairy and ghosts:Santa Claus/Klaus: a benevolent figure of legend, associated with Saint Nicholas, supposedto bring gifts to children on Christmas Eve.http://www.dictionary.com...Tooth Fairy: a fairy believed by children to leave money while they sleep in exchange for a tooth that has come out.http://www.merriam-webster.com...Ghost: the spirit of a dead person, sometimes representedas a pale, almost transparent image of that person that some people believe appears to people who are alive.https://dictionary.cambridge.org...Unless you are suggesting that the existence of a word in the dictionary proves that it exists in any physical, real sense, you have proven absolutely nothing. If you do suggest this then since the word 'nothing' is in the dictionary, nothing exists.Nothing: Not anything; no single thing.https://www.oxforddictionaries.com...It's a word in a the dictionary, so therefore it exists. Nothing exists, you agree to that along your own logic... Checkmate?Since the universe is yet to be proven to exist by Pro, P2 is still considered false by me and the audience as Pro holds burden of proof here and the entire cosmological argument fails as the very universe it requires to exist in order to be true doesn't exist.