BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Should Be A Purge

Contention 1: Crime and unemployment. The Purge would actually be a good thing for crime. You see that the reasoning behind this is that there is large percentage of people who want to try a crime of some sort and when we apply the theory of Ying and Yang showing that not all good people are entirely good and it's that small amount of evil that good people would like to try that could satisfy the monster within. This would decrease crime after a Purge as many people would have tried their small crime expirement. The first reason that we have major violence according to Dr. Perry is that we have become decenistized to violence to almost worship it in video games and in the media, but after a purge this would shrink concidering the acceptance of violence on that one time and people would successfully be able to excersie her demons one day of the year and people would have all of that time to do as they please. (http://teacher.scholastic.com...) The purge will reduce unemployment down to 1% as it is the poor that will be the target of many of the purgers along with other middle classers with will open up more jobs and have less people. This will cause wages to rise in order to attracked more people due to the less demand and thus people will get richer. Many of the newer jobs will be insurance and construction as though the purge will destroy things, but the insurance industry will get a huge boom as well as a home defense system to protect the average joe from the Purge. Thus we will have more jobs then ever and the world can be a better place. Contention2: Populace The animals do this all the time known as natural selection and Social Darwinism. You see this is a simple survival of the fittest and will do the best to help the human race go further and survive as the idiocy will die out along with the homeless and we will be the greatest nation in the world again. In the graph bellow you can see that the human race is getting out of control and we need to do something about it as we are killing the plants of Earth. *Disclaimier- I in no way am advocating murder in this debate, but just a simple helping Earth.*
There Should Be A Purge

1. How can you be a moral person if you support a purge. By stating this, you believe that anyone can be tortured against their own will no matter how bad. By everyone, this also includes the elderly, the homeless, babies, children, and the disabled. 2. Certainly, this will not clear economy up at all; it will just become worse. With all the fires, damages, explosions and vandalism, things won't be replaced. The government will go further into debt. Almost everyone would be trying to leave the country as soon as possible, and the government won't be able to collect taxes. The airports will be overflown and there will be riots going on. 3. No, we can't check if people were murdered within the time of the purge. 4. You can't just tell someone to "hide" and they'll be fine. Just because they're hiding doesn't mean that nobody will say "Oh, that person doesn't want to die, I'll just leave them alone. " 5. What in the f*ck is wrong with you if you do think this. You might want to consider seeking immediate mental help. Killing people is not the way to solve your anger, especially kids who support the purge and are in 8th grade; "Oh my literacy gives us a bit too much homework, it would help me out if I could go out and kill a bunch of people. " 6. EVERYTHING will be f*cked up. I don't need to emphasize on that one. Use common sense. Good luck. ..
Recreational cannabis should be illegal.

Yes, cannabis can cause mental deficiencies among some parts of the population. This if the person has been regularly abusing marijuana since childhood, or to those who have a specific variant of the AKT 1 gene. [1] AKT 1 gene is a gene that controls the dopamine output. Dopamine is the chemical released during pleasuring activities (sex, eating chocolate, being in love...). If there is a defect in this gene, then yes, marijuana can cause depression, suicidial thoughts etc. There is also a special version of the gene for COMT which is a gene that produces the enzyme catechol-O-methyltransferase. This enzyme degrades the neurotransmiters, such as dopamine, in your brain and helps to control the level of certain hormones.[2] If you have a defect, you are screwed. No weed for you young man. So if your genes aren't retarded, you are okay. You can smoke weed if you aren't a weird mutant. And yes, use since childhood can cause IQ deficiencies. But you forgot one fact. Most liberals, like me (I think), also want the drug regulated. THC for example, the compound that causes the high, should be regulated. There are canaboids that do decrease the effects of THC [3], but I believe it is safer to just regulate the dosage. And many studies have proven as you have said that weed has a greater effect on teens than on adults. That is why we have regulations. We should set up a regulation to 21+ years, like with alcohol or porn. Now, you may say: "Well teens can buy alcohol and watch porn way below the age of 21." Yes they can. They can also buy illegal, enhanced weed from that shady guy that lies in the dumpster and makes airplane noises. This way, they will buy marijuana which is neither as addicting, nor as potent. Also Canada has legalized pot and there is nothing wrong with them and everyone likes them. Be like Canada my friend. [1]https://www.drugabuse.gov... [2]https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...# [3]""In some cases, reported side effects of THC include elation, anxiety, tachycardia, short-term memory recall issues, sedation, relaxation, pain-relief and many more," said A.J. Fabrizio, a marijuana chemistry expert at Terra Tech Corp, a California agricultural company focused on local farming and medical cannabis. However, he said, a study in the British Journal of Pharmacology found that other types of cannabinoids, as well as terpenes (compounds that produce flavor and fragrance in plants), can modulate and reduce negative effects." - http://www.livescience.com...
Recreational cannabis should be illegal.

In this debate, I will attempt to explain why recreational cannabis should be illegal, and I would like to begin my opening argument by touching on how cannabis affects the brain. It's no secret that cannabis, being the hallucinogen that it is, changes your brain chemistry. The question is, what does this change of brain chemistry mean? Cannabis affects adolescents in a more negative way, than it affects adults, as the brain of adolescents is still developing. In a society where cannabis is legal, it's undoubtedly going to be smoked by those that are under age. We should make cannabis illegal to protect our children if nothing else. http://www.muirwoodteen.com.... Cannabis affects everyone differently, some users will experience very little negative effects, but there are plenty of people who will experience very negative effects caused by weed, such as, -Acute psychosis -Depersonalization/de-realization symptoms -Anxiety -Chronic psychosis -Schizophrenia -Depressive disorder -Mania symptoms -Suicidal behaviour -Depression Source for mental illnesses caused by long term smoking. https://en.wikipedia.org... Another source supporting effects of long term smoking. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk... Source for link between cannabis and suicide. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk... It's clear that cannabis is not healthy for the brain. Other than some claim it makes them more confident, I fail to have found any positive affects for the brain caused by cannabis. With our brains being the most important organ in our entire body, why would we want to risk damaging it, and damaging the brains of our children? There are variables and differences between data and research done, such as the strain of cannabis they smoke, cannabis is a lot stronger now, than ever before and will continue to grow in strength, this renders past data for cannabis useless. Not enough research has been done on the long term affects of cannabis and the brain. With there being so little facts to suggest it is safe, why risk it? Don't let a drug that could cause life long brain dysfunction into our society. Instead campaign for more research. To conclude I would like you to read this link, where people who smoke weed have voiced their experiences about anxiety. Please read the comments, as it's proof that people are experiencing negative effects while and after smoking. http://www.socialanxietysupport.com... I don't really want to get into how it deteriorated you get up and go, and how it can affect your lungs...Because this should be MORE than enough for round one, at least.
Gays, Lesbians, and Bi's shoudlnt be treated different

Okay, I give up. From the start I believed that it shouldn't matter to us weather or not people are with who they want. Its not like we are choosing for them. They get who they wabt, we don't worry about it. Because we don't choose so why does it matter to us. Also you played a amazing couple points that I didn't see. Listen, the reason I wanted to talk this out is because people are saying that us Homosexuals need "special treat ment" like seriously it's not your buisness, you love who you love. I love who I love. That's all that matters. I believe that us Homosexuals shouldn't be treated any different than straight people. But my opponent has thankfully explained the other side of the story and has his sources to back it up. I thank him.
Gays, Lesbians, and Bi's shoudlnt be treated different

I understand what your saying, true maybe they would prefer that. By saying that your saying. 'well why not just stick them with whoever and hope that's what they like?' Homosexuals are attracted to whom they might be, true, but that doesn't mean its just some thing that "oh if we stick them together he will be attracted to women again" no. There is no "treatment" to Homosexuality. You choose who you want to be with and you shouldn't have to worry about being given a "treatment". I also see what you mean when you say, and this is quoted, "Why should we restrict a bisexual man with a female. What if he finds a male neighbor more attractive?" But if i get this correct, are you saying that possibly instead of just treating them like equals, that we treat them with different respect and make sure they are satisfied? That makes sense, but really we shouldn't just stick them anywhere, there people not "things" we throw around. Shouldn't they be able to choose what they want? I hope you find something to debate back on. This was hard i will tell you this, i like your points. (ps. Im a She)
Gays, Lesbians, and Bi's shoudlnt be treated different

Please note I don't mind Homosexual people in our world. I am merely choosing to debate as Con for this topic. Burden Analysis: Real quick, I think I'll confirm what Pro and Con should prove. Pro needs to prove that Homosexuals and Bisexuals should be treated the same as Heterosexuals. I, as Con, will be arguing that they need to be treated differently. Argument: I'll do my argument this round. Round 2, I will analyze Pro's argument. For now, let's start my argument. Point 1; Different tastes. Homosexuals are people who are attracted to the same gender (A man falls in love with a man). Here's where my kritik, I guess (Not sure if I'm right in calling it that) is played out. Most men would like to be in a room with a lady, here's the treatment. Now, a homosexual man would rather be in the same room with another (preferably homosexual) man. Bisexuals have no specific likes in terms of gender. They prefer men and women. Why should we restrict a biseual man with a female? What if he finds a male neighbor more attractive? This is my argument. I know it's a bit rough on Pro. I hope he finds something wrong with my argument, and keeps debating. Let's hope He comes up with a counter to my argument.
Gays, Lesbians, and Bi's shoudlnt be treated different

People hate being thought as different. It takes lots of courage to like who we like. We should be allowed to like boys, girls, anyone. Do you know how many people actually are so scared of society that they stay in the closet for practically their whole life. Heck, i should know, im Bi. You remember your first love? How you spent so much time, you invested so much, you enjoyed every second. Then the day after your dumped? Remember how you felt? I believe everyone should be able to experience that no matter who they like. Quit being Homophones!
Voter I.D. laws are constitutional and needed

I believe I have been refuting your arguments well enough. You claim a distaste for the "nation-state". I don't see it as a problem. By your logic then, there would be no citizens, no immigrants, people could come and leave this country as they pleased, which is something we certainly don't need. You are against nationality. I don't see why you would be. Without it, we wouldn't have any laws. The citizens wouldn't belong to this country, they wouldn't have to pay taxes, abide by any laws, so obviously, the idea of a nation-state is perfectly fine.The study I linked to is still a study, albeit the site it is on isn't necessarily the greatest source, but it's a study nonetheless. And, unlike you, I prefer to separate immigrants (the legal ones) from illegal immigrants. The reason being, that people who immigrate here legally are less likely to commit crimes. Why would you sign all the papers, and be put "on the grid" so to speak, when all you're going to do is commit a crime in this country? On the other hand, what does an illegal have to lose? See what I'm saying? So obviously, an illegal immigrant is far more likely to commit a crime, especially a violent one, than a legal immigrant. Summing up what I've said, I don't see this problem as complicated as you do. I see it as, we have citizens, immigrants, and illegal immigrants. We also have a problem, of who has the right to vote in the elections of our country. Obviously, it is only logical to allow the citizen the right to vote. Why should an illegal immigrant be allowed to vote? Or even a legal immigrant? The citizen is the only one who should be allowed to vote, because the right to vote was entitled by our country to its citizens, and to no one else. And without the nation-state, where we have a citizen or a non citizen, then we will have no laws because no one will be entitled to follow them. Definition of law-[1]-"A binding custom or practice of a community". Without the "community", (a community of citizens), then there is no law. So I argue that my opponents argument against the laws of voter I.D., because of the "nation-state", is unsound, and that voter I.D.'s are something that this country needs to implement, and should have long ago. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Voter I.D. laws are constitutional and needed

Yes, I am tired of identity wars. The racist wars (white vs black), the religious wars (Christian vs Muslim), and the political wars (Republican vs Democrat). But this so called war on illegal immigrants you claim to exist, doesn't. We are not arguing about whether Mexicans or Americans are better, we are arguing whether or not a foreigner can vote in our elections. I cannot name a country that allows this, so why should we? This is simple common sense. It is not mistreatment, it is not inhuman, it is simply making the right to vote exclusively the right of the legal citizens of this country, a simple, logical rule that every country that holds elections has. The study I referenced, once again, included just 55,000 illegals. Not even 1/20 of what we have now. But the fact is, that a good portion of the illegal immigrants in this country do commit violent crimes, a good portion also evade taxes and are taking our jobs. You say that they are working jobs Americans don't want. That is wrong, they don't want the jobs for $5 a day like the illegals will work for. Regardless of how much money this is saving businesses, illegal immigrants our not entitled a right to a job in America, and if businesses don't want to pay Americans enough, then no one will take the job. Eventually, both the business who needs the worker, and the worker who needs the job, will find a point of mutual agreement on a salary. Either way, illegal aliens are not entitled to a job here in America.So, I fail to see your logic on why voter I.D. laws shouldn't exist. You seem to think that it is a right of the illegals as humans to be allowed to vote in our elections, when that is far from the truth. The right to vote isn't a human right, and, as I mentioned in my previous argument and you failed to refute, is that no other country in the world allows illegal immigrants to vote in elections. Try this in Mexico and see what happens. You will be incarcerated (I don't know about you, but I have heard some bad stories about police corruption in Mexico. It certainly isn't someplace I'd wish to be arrested in). To live in a country is a privilege. To vote in the elections of a country (if elections are held) is the right of legal citizens, not illegals who broke our laws by entering here illegally. To say that immigrants, legal or otherwise, have the right to vote in the elections of a country to which they are foreign to, would be very wrong. It isn't racist, it isn't an act of an "identity war", it is simple common sense to deny the right to vote to foreign citizens.
Voter I.D. laws are constitutional and needed

For obvious reasons, voter I.D. laws are very much needed in America. We currently live in a country where at least 11,000,000 illegal immigrants live, committing atrocious crimes, and ruining the quality of life for those in the border states, and even all over the country. Now, we want to allow them the right to vote in Federal elections? This absolutely cannot be allowed. They are not citizens, and have no right to even be here, much less vote in our Federal elections, where the fate of nearly 310,000,000 Americans' is laying in the balance. Illegals do not pay taxes, do not pay into social security or welfare programs (some may, but most are paid in cash, and are not taxed). And as I said, most are criminals, running drugs across the border, as well as murdering and raping innocent American citizens. It is not difficult to become a citizen of the United States. There is no reason why 100+ years ago, Europeans sailed across the Atlantic to become a citizen, and yet Mexicans cannot simply file a few papers, and cross the border legally. Now, one of the most popular arguments against vote I.D laws is that it disenfranchises low income Blacks and Hispanics. This makes absolutely no sense. For starters, why Blacks? Are they not required to have a state issued I.D to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or receive welfare? Or drivers a license to drive? The same for Hispanic American citizens. If they are legal residents of the United States, then they should have a state issued I.D. or drivers license. Costs of a state issued I.D. range from $5 in Maine, to $29 in Oregon. There is no reason why, even a poor person, cannot afford an I.D. And as aforementioned, to receive welfare in the United States, an I.D. is required. So there is no logical reason why voter I.D. laws should not be enforced in all 50 states. It is becoming more and more obvious (if it wasn't already clear as day) that President Obama is going for the Illegal Immigrant vote. The 2008 Presidential elections was decided with a nearly 10,000,000 vote difference. This upcoming election will most definitely be closer than that, and he will do whatever necessary to win, even using the votes of illegal immigrants. And we cannot allow the fate of this Nation to be decided by a bunch of criminals who shouldn't even be in this country to begin with.
Disney Needs More POC in Ther Movies

My opponent's grossly misrepresenting my views aside, I'd like to wrap this up by revisiting the more important points of contention I've elicited in round 3:Points of contention:-My opponent tells us that Disney needs more POC to be 'better'. My opponent fails to define what this means. Better in what area? Better for what purpose?My opponent fails to respond to this point on contention. As I've argued, Disney is already doing well without POC. My opponent did not provide any evidence as to how or why more POC would be for the good of Disney as she earlier claimed in round 2.-My opponent argues that Disney is getting boring. Is this true? Is there a trend of Disney failing to live up to its ability to entertain and entertain well? Judging by Disney's unwavering growth and success, I can assuredly say: NO.This one is very similar to the one just above it. Again, my opponent's claim that having more POC would help Disney lacks empirical support.-How much is enough? Are the POC that are currently there not enough? Prove it.This is one point that my opponent keeps trying to put across on the table. It is also the point that remains the most blatantly nothing more than a claim. I've aked my opponent to show how much 'enough' is. In light of this question's having been evaded (as were several other points), this will be considered a concession.-Does having characters be white really spoil a film and make it 'boring'? Would having POC make it unboring? If skin color shouldn't define a thing's worth, wouldn't this anti-white criticism be discrimination on your part?Calling me blind and deaf doesn't resolve the fact that this point of contention holds. PRO: The reason I'm debating this is a few reason. Yes, I want Cultural awareness and equality along with notion against discrimination. But there is also one huge thing: it's getting boring.Response: First, upon compelling lack of real evidence showing that Disney's 4 POC are truly insufficient in sending a message of cultural awareness, it is evident that my opponent's list of assertions are just that: assertions. I argue that 4 POC is enough. Disney is doing well, as I've established in my previous rounds. There is nothing to say otherwise. Again, isn't the 'huge point' Disney's being boring according to your round 2? Isn't this discrimination on your part?I will end my round with this question to the audience: Has my opponent truly proven that the 4 currently there are not enough??
Disney Needs More POC in Ther Movies

You are so blind and you really are not listening at all. Okay, this is the last round. Disney needs more POC because there is way too much white. It's sad but true. Only 4 princess are of color. What sort of message are they sending to little girls? Kids are much smarter than we think they are. These things can influence kids, making them think that they aren't important enough because they aren't white. You are making it sound like it 's okay to exclude POC which it isn't. It's not fair to the people who are POC and it sends a message that you do not count as a human being unless your skin is white. It's depressing. I love Disney and I want to see them to try harder to add more POC in their movies.