BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of crim jus

However I will try. Addressing the Value point Twsurber made, when a human being chooses to throw away their life and future is it not our right to try to stop them? Drugs destroy people's lives; they are addictive and have serious physical repercussions. As a result they were made illegal to discourage use; sadly many are still either using or suffering the consequences of using too many drugs or non sanitary needles. Observations: While drugs do fall under the medical field, just having medical professionals deal with the problem of drug addiction would not solve the problem. The Justice department prosecutes drug users and tries to destroy drug cartels so that the supply would be cut off therefore making it harder to buy drugs, helping many people. While having no access to drugs is not the best situation to beat drug addiction it is better than having easy access to drugs and using them constantly. Addressing the issue of Prison or Rehab, while drug addicts should be put in rehab; how would you be able to tell which drug dealers are actually addicted to drugs? Rehab is a much shorter sentence then prison; therefore drug dealers could claim they are addicted to get a lesser sentence. While the real addicts are not getting the help they need, so I ask the judges this "would it be in the interest of the greater good if drug dealers were free to break the law with little consequence? " Now while the prison systems are not the best, no one can help addicts until they want help. If they don't want to get better then we would be wasting resources trying to save someone who essentially doesn't want to be saved and is more interested in their next dose of drugs then their own well-being. Until these people are ready to get better why should we waste resources, space, and time on them? We could be spending that time trying to help people who actually want help, there are programs and groups made especially for the purpose of helping people break the addiction of drugs. So while people who have broken drug addictions and set good examples for others, there are still a great number of people who need to be brought to justice. Some drugs are illegal if we give them the excuse they are looking for they will be back on the street within six months. Thank you.
The big lie of climate change

Can I prove they are wrong? The obvious response is can you prove they are right? Kind of like believing in god, no one can prove it. All I know is that in the 70's it was global cooling, in the 90's global warming, and now because those Notsradamus like predictions have failed, or been proven inaccurate, they have changed the name of the religion to climate change. That is an inarguable fact. I plead you to be open minded and examine all sides of the issue, not just blindly throw your belief behind whoever makes the scariest predictions in order to gain your servitude which they see as their salvation, borne by your back. You need to think about your response to this as you are falling into line with the New World Order, which is exactly what Al Gore, and the United Nations anti American fear mongers want. Watch this, if it is not too traumatic.
The big lie of climate change

OK, so those are some mighty scary factoids, but they are not facts at all in reality because they are only statements designed to strike fear in gullible people in order to dismantle industrial civilization in favor of a much smaller population controlled by the elite. Climate change is Nostradamus science and uses those kind of statements to indoctrinate people such as yourself with the belief that humans are destroying the planet, and the only way to save it is to give up control and become subservient to the globalist elites, and by the way you must pay more so they can tell you what your place is on this planet. I encourage you to research both sides of the issue and not to blindly believe the lies that Agenda 21 capitalists would have you believe. CO2 is a trace gas and the plan to create planetary fear around it was hatched in the late 70's by a man named Maurice Strong. Do your research kiddo. The hockey stick is a lie, the climate has changed before, it will continue to change, and there is nothing man can do about it, but adapt, or capitulate to the lies and be adapted for the purposes of the elite globalists that hold all the wealth, the .0001%er's.
The big lie of climate change

If the world rises by: (in F) 1.8 degrees; stronger hurricanes, flooding in Northern Europe. (around Netherlands) 3.6 degrees; Shanghai will be submerged, Heat waves across Europe, Glaciers feeding India's rivers melt causing flooding, Plants become heat stressed, emitting CO^2 rather than storing it causing the Global warming process to speed up, forest fires, drying riverbeds 5.4 degrees; The Amazon Rain Forest, Also called the lungs of the world since it produces 10% of the world's oxygen, is killed off by a combination of of drought and fire. It demise release huge amounts of CO^2 into the atmosphere. Elsewher, billions starve as crop yields dwindle. Swathes of Africa, India, and China are now wastelands. Around 80% of the Aric Sea ice has melted and would raise global sea levels up by 84 feet. Submerging many low land countries like Bangledesh. 7.2 degrees; sea levels rise 3 feet year causing Britain to be a bunch of small islands. Florida and many other parts of the U.S. is submerged under water. Dessertification causes people in the Mediterranean to abandoned. In northern latitudes, the melting of permafrost increases raises sea levels yet furthur. 9.0 degrees; All rain forests are all now deserts and all ice has been melted causing sea levels to be more than 197 ft than it is now. Migrant Populations spread across the world in search of food 10.8 degrees; As oceans get warmer they can't support marine life, Stagnant seas release hydrogen sulfide that poisons the land. If flammable methane is ignited (by like lightning), huge firballs sweep across the land, causing more loss of life. Source: Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013 DK
The big lie of climate change

The myth of climate change is nothing but a lie dreamed up by the elite politicians in order to strike fear into poorer, more gullible nations in order to reduce the capabilities and wealth of the western world and to transfer that wealth to their minions in the poorer countries. The climate has always changed on this planet, many times quite rapidly, and with no influence by humans. The ice age was only a blink in time ago, and man didn't cause it and man didn't fix it, just as now, although the globalist elites would have us believe otherwise. The fact is that hydrocarbon fuels are a finite resource and we do need to find better options, but CO2 is not a harmful gas, it is actually just plant food, which is good. If you watched An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al "King of UN Capitalists" Gore, and believed the lies about AGW then you are just a minion of the UN Agenda 21 machine, or you are looking to capitalize on the fear created by such a blatant propagandist production.
Universalism

I will be arguing that Universalism is fallacy in respect to the Doctrine of Hell, and that the “Western Christ[ian]” (assumed to be conservative Protestant) view on the subject is a correct interpretation of Scripture. Scriptures (Bible, Old and New Testaments, 66 books Genesis through Revelation) will be assumed infallible and inerrant. I couldn’t find an official statement of the “Doctrine of Hell” like the Nicene Creed, but I found a website that lays it out what is said about Hell in the Bible in a way that seems to be on the up and up from an orthodox standpoint, and seemed to be suitably opposed to what Pro is saying. [1] Second, I need some clarifications, which he may already have planned on giving. In the next round, I would ask Pro to explain what Scriptures have been so misunderstood or misconstrued, and also how that benefits people seeking power, and who these people are, even in a general sense. How does Sin, Judgement, and Hell damage the saving message of Christianity, and how can you show from the Scriptures these are not true? I also ask that he explain what the saving message of Christianity is, what it saves people from, and back it up with Scripture. 1) http://carm.org...
god is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate

I am aware of some computer mishap and that this topic may/may not be viewable and this whole thing, quite possibly, may have to be "done over again" to count towards the statistics. This is being used as a TEST to see which is the proper debate page we agreed to. Nevertheless I will pursue on! I Accept the Con in the topic: "God is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate. " After reading through and formatting my case I would like to take this initial opportunity for Round 1 to: Accept and define key words that will be critical to the result. Definitions will be directly taken from Merriam-Webster"s website (merriam-webster. com). If definitions are not accepted, please make a claim in the response with the amendments plus citations. *Definitions used are chosen by relevance to the context of the topic "God " 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as oa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe ob Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind "Evil - 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked an evil impulse ob : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct a person of evil reputation "Categorically " "1: absolute, unqualified a categorical denial o2a : of, relating to, or constituting a category ob : involving, according with, or considered with respect to specific categories "Unconditionally " "1: not conditional or limited : absolute, unqualified unconditional surrender unconditional love "Undeniable " " 1: plainly true : incontestable an undeniable fact o2: unquestionably excellent or genuine an applicant with undeniable references "Flawless " "1a : a defect in physical structure or form a diamond with a flaw ob : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness; vanity was the flaw in his character "Believe " "1a : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact Do you believe? "usually used with in believe in the Scriptures ob : to accept something as true, genuine, or real "Pure " "3a (1) : free from what vitiates, weakens, or pollutes (2) : containing nothing that does not properly belong" "Worship " "2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence o3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
Cannabis Legalization

The legalization of cannabis does not have a threat to people in society. All drugs that are used have damaging side effects like ibuprofen, alcohol, and cigarettes, in which are all legal. If you are saying because side effects of marijuana shouldn't be legal then what you are also saying is that ibuprofen, alcohol, cigarettes, and many other drugs should also be illegal. One of the side effects you mentioned, lung cancer, is not a side effect there is actually no correlation. Cannabis is used to treat cancer. Teenagers already have there hands on it, the difference if legalized is that they wont go to jail and safer if not bought from the local drug dealer. Restrictions are placed on all drugs, the difference is that cannabis is safer.
Cannabis Legalization

Although, the legalization of cannabis have benefited both Colorado and Washington, it should not be legalized. Cannabis poses as a threat to people in society. It causes more harm than good to users. Cannabis is known to have many damaging side effects such as hallucination, loss of brain cells and lung cancer. There is a high possibility that if legalized, it will end up in the hands of many teenagers. Moreover, Colorado and Washington have permitted the use of cannabis beyond medical purposes, but they have also placed restriction on its use. As such, this proves that it is harmful to society. All the states should come up with other beneficial way to boost the economy, instead of putting its people at risk .
Cannabis Legalization

The use of cannabis has been legalized in Washington and Colorado. Both Washington and Colorado are reaping the massive amounts of tax revenue that would be going into education and other state programs. The legalization of cannabis would prevent a tax hike and the crime rate would drop because its citizens will not be incarcerated in such a high rate for having cannabis on hand. The legalization of marijuana, both medical and recreational, has been economically and socially beneficial for two states without any complains besides for lack of supply. There is mass consensus for those in the medical field that cannabis is much safer than cigarettes and alcohol, both in which are legal. Therefore cannabis should be federally legalized.
Cannabis Legalization

Bringing the focus back to the argument. To expound on my previous arguments. If cannabis is legalized, people will grow their own for their own use. This will not benefit the entire society because no one will have control over it, that is, the government will not have control over it. This also means that the government will not have control over the amount of money that it will bring in, unless they do more to ensure that it is bringing in the revenue that they so desire. Therefore, we should keep the status quo, and not legalize cannabis.
Cannabis Legalization

Users of cannabis will always claim that it is beneficial to the entire public. Cannabis interferes with one's short term memory coordination of thought, concentration, cognition and perception of time. Many people over time can become addicts. This can lead to disruption in their social relationships or life. Cannabis have found to not only be dangerous to users, but it is harmful for non-users. Since, there is a high risk that users who are parents will neglect their children.
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time.

Since my opponent has failed to post his argument for round two, I will list more of Jordan's achievements. Michael: Led his team in scoring in 867 regular season games, and he led both teams in scoring in 700 of those. Scored 29% of his team's points in his career. Was the only rookie to lead his team in four different categories. (Scoring, rebounding, assists, and steals.) Had the highest career PER. (Player Efficiency Rating) Was the first player to win Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, and Most Valuable Player during his career. References: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time.

Michael Jordan was the most dominant player of his era. No other player was more dominant during there era than Michael was in his. Even NBA.com says Michael Jordan is the best player of all time. Some of Michael's achievements are: 6-6 in the NBA Finals with 6 Finals MVP Awards 5-time regular season MVP 10-time scoring leader Made the All-NBA team 11 times 14-time All-star Made All-Defensive team 9 times These are just a few of Michael's achievements. Michael was also a model of durability. From 1986-1991, he missed only one game, and didn't miss any games from 1995-1998. He even played through the flu in game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals. Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
the catholic church officially teaches nonbaptized infants go to hell

con says i have the burden of proof and need to provide referenences. in my opening post, i quoted the council, and the session, and the text, that says infants go to hell. they go because of original sin quote, and the 'dominion of the devil' quote. con says the pascal mystery teachings indicate salvation for infants is possible without baptism. thing is, they never mention the pascal mystery specifically including infants. con just assumes it. it is better to read quotesas if they are not contradictory, and ive shown quotes that say infants go to hell. generic langauge is not a good arguemnt to make universal claims. "John Paul II stated that infants, who were not baptized go to Heaven." con did not provide a quote for this. even if it was an encyclical, those are not necessarily considered infallible. they have to meet the defition i provide, that sys it's the pope, intentionoallly, teaching..... etc etc. "I asked, last round, about the prayers for the dead, and what was the purpose of doing so." "You have not provided enough evidence, other than YOUR OWN word, that invalidate my claim" "--August 7, 2014, Pope Francis, while in South Korea tells them to pray for the aborted babies. " "JESUS ENTERS TO HEAVEN TO INTERCEDE FOR SINNERS, FOR ALL ETERNITY." these are not authoritative official teachings. the second one doesn't even necessarily mean Jesus intercededs for infants, con is just assuming by extension that he does. "Pro opens this round by assuming that I have confused the actual and intended meaning," i provided contextual evidence in some instances that you were not correct in the meaning. i also provided my interpretation, which is just as good as yours. i also provided direct quotes that indicate infants go to hell. if there's any question about what a quote means, it's best to interpret the quotes as if they are not contradictory im not sure why con is asking for a direct link to teh florence quotes, given con just cited his own quotes without links. but here is a link where you can find the quotes in their context. https://www.ewtn.com...
the catholic church officially teaches nonbaptized infants go to hell

the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. the church might currently unoffically teach the issue is open to speculation, but officially they have already made a decision. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count. just some examples: Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."
A Gun Tax

Since taxes are basically theft, the voters should decide what they think about more of that. The main point that I am trying to argue is that a gun tax would likely be ineffective against criminals, but harmful to those who obey the law. I would like to keep my argument simple as I close. 1. Taxes are basically forcing people to pay money, or be punished. I doubt that the majority of the U.S population wants more of that. 2. It seems that you have failed to provide evidence that a gun tax will bring positive change. Thank you for allowing me to debate this topic with you.
A Gun Tax

My opponent is quick to point out the Seattle Gun Tax, using large excerpts from one Fox News article to support his idea. My opponent fails to acknowledge that there is no solid connections between the rise of crime and the gun tax. The very article that he cited for this point, additionally, explains that "Seattle police say the increase in shootings seems to be tied to the drug trade – and revenge," -not the gun tax. Allison Anderman with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have stated that calling the gun tax and gun violence study failures is way too premature. "The causes of gun violence are very complex," Anderson said.http://www.foxnews.com...My opponent adds that "New gun taxes also have the advantage of funding dry state coffers. The $25 tax in Chicago and surrounding Cook County is expected to bring in $600,000 a year, according to CBS Chicago. California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson told Politico that the proposed nickel tax could result in $50 million in annual revenue," which only seems to explain the added benefits of a gun tax.My opponent, for the second half of the debate, uses a Forbes article to describe the effect a $25 tax on every firearm and a 5 cent tax on every bullet would have. While the article specifically criticizes and opposes the idea of such a cheap tax on guns and bullets, the article vehemently defends that this idea of a "sin tax" on guns could be effective, comparing its potential to the success of taxes on cigarettes. http://theweek.com...
A Gun Tax

I think that a tax on guns would do little or nothing to decrease overall gun violence, and possibly increase it. Is an extra $25, $100, or $1,000 going to make a would-be mass shooter change their mind? I don"t think so. If they"re either going to die or go to jail afterward anyway, what use is the money to him or her? For average, law-abiding citizens, the case may be different. If those who follow the law can"t afford guns, and those who don"t couldn"t care less what they cost, the law-abiding will likely become prey to even more gun violence. "When the City of Seattle passed a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition, the measure was hailed as a way to defray the rising costs of gun violence. But since the tax took effect, those costs have only risen as gun violence in the city has surged. And the tax has apparently brought in much less than city leaders projected it would. "How much data do you need?" asked Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and member of the Second Amendment Foundation. "The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent." Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016. Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of shots fired are up 13 percent, the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent and gun deaths doubled, according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department." Source: https://www.google.com... "New gun taxes also have the advantage of funding dry state coffers. The $25 tax in Chicago and surrounding Cook County is expected to bring in $600,000 a year, according to CBS Chicago. California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson told Politico that the proposed nickel tax could result in $50 million in annual revenue. But would they actually prevent gun violence? The Los Angeles Times' editorial board doesn't think so: Guns cost a great deal more than cigarettes. A 5 percent tax on a $300 handgun amounts to an extra $15. A person bent on mass murder would hardly be discouraged by a low gun tax, and it would take many years for the higher retail costs to filter down to the criminal market in second-hand guns; moreover, a criminal who needs a gun as a primary tool of his trade would hardly be put off by a slightly higher price. [Los Angeles Times] Kelly Phillips of Forbes agrees, asking, "Is there a genuine thought process that goes on that makes a potential murderer think, 'Well, I would kill both of those folks but that extra five cents on the second victim would just be too much? I have to save up this month.'" http://theweek.com...
A Gun Tax

The shooting in Las Vegas left 59 dead and over 500 injured. It's been deemed one of the most devastating and deadly shootings in America. In response, many politicians have called for more gun control. This is a debate about what actions should be taken to reduce the amount of shooting deaths in America. I, pro, will be arguing for a tax on guns. My opponent, con, has the freedom to argue any other action to reduce shooting deaths, or advocate for the current laws being enough for gun control.