BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug Legalization

So, you think that things are illegal by default, instead? Technically, a reason has to be made to make something illegal. I will argue against the FDA's plan. Something that has side effects should not be banned because of it. The discovery of a side effect in a drug is necessary to call it illegal, but until a harmful side effect can be found in a drug, it is, by default, legal. Additionally, there is no reason to ban something just because it harms the user. It's their own choice whether to harm themselves or not. That's why "dangerous side effects" is a poor argument against drug legalization. "1. Legalization of all drugs runs the risk of dangerous drugs that have not been tested...." Let's look at your specific argument, a cure for cancer that causes brain damage. After the drug is tested, and it is discovered that it causes brain damage, when it is sold, it would have a label that says, "Warning: Causes Brain Damage." If somebody feels that having cancer is worse than the brain damage, then he or she can use this new drug. There's no good reason to stop somebody from making that decision on their own. If a drug has not been tested, it would say, "Warning: Untested." So, any smart person would stay away, but if somebody wants to use it, who are we to stop them? So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal? "2. Legalization of drugs will only lead to more drug abusers...." Well, if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead. It's their choice. Plus, it only speeds up natural selection [1]. All of the people who have the will to mess up their lives would be eliminated, leaving only the people who don't abuse drugs to live on. Legalizing drugs allows us to discover even more people who have suicidal traits, allowing for their immediate elimination from the gene pool. We could just teach in science class that recreational drugs are bad, and the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die. "3. The effects of most drugs are long-lasting...." The owner of the workplace could easily forbid all of his workers from using drugs during work on the basis that it is dangerous to the workers and would probably injure somebody [2]. Sure, the example may be of Chinese governments, but the employers could easily be given the power to ban drug usage for his or her own employees when the effect of the drug will last through working hours. Just in case I lose the BoP battle, here is my argument for drug legalization. 1. It's their own choice. If a guy wants to damage his own body, why should government stop him? It's his choice, and he wants to harm himself. He obviously has decided that the fun outweighs the bodily damage, even after being told that the drugs are dangerous. Is he really doing anything bad? 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://chinadigitaltimes.net...
Drug Legalization

Thanks for my opponent for making this debate. As for the burden of Proof, I believe this is not the way society works. This is exactly why the FDA exists to test drugs before they enter into the general public(1). Therefore, the true burden of proof is upon the person who wants a drug legalized. Any drug has possible side-effects, and thus are banned, until someone can provide a sufficient reason or requirement for its useage. This has been the same for drug useage such as Medicinal Marijuana, which was banned first, until a convincing argument was made to make an exception for its ban. However, I am not completely void of arguments. Here are my arguments. 1. Legalization of all drugs runs the risk of dangerous drugs that have not been tested.(2) This makes the FDA a useless organization. If all drugs are legal, how could we possibly differentiate between the drugs that are lethal, and the drugs that are not? Illegal drugs exist for a reason, and committees to test if new drugs on the market do not contain such hazards, also exist for a reason. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, creating a new drug that would supposedly cure cancer. Except that this drug has a side-effect; Brain damage. Its a shame that if an organization that tested, and checked whether the product was completely safe, had existed, the drug which flooded the markets, wouldnt have made it to the pharmacies and hospitals. There are benefits to having specific bans on specific drugs that are harmful.(3) 2. Legalization of drugs will only lead to more drug abusers. Even in todays society, where there are already strict penalties and crack-down on drug depots, do we have drug abusers and junkies. Legalization will not only increase the amount, but also the frequency of these drug junkies. And drugs like cocaine isnt on the same level as alchohol in regards to addiction, and is much more dangerous than smoking in regards to health. 3. The effects of most drugs are long-lasting. The laws that currently exist, for, say smokers, is that someone cannot smoke on the premise of his/her workplace if the workplace strictly enforces a non-smoking policy. However, if this were in regards to Cannibis, or even Cocaine, even if the worker were to smoke or snort it OUTSIDE of the premise of the workplace, if he were to return from his lunchbreak, he would still be heavily under the effects of that drug, thus placing his workers and himself, at risk. And sorry, no. Hes not breaking any laws, because: a). He didnt smoke or snort the drug in question on the premise of the workplace, and the owner of the premise cannot say anything as to what his/her workers do on the sidewalk/in his own car. b). Drugs are legal, according to your twisted worldview! I have a few more arguments, but ill just leave it as is. :D Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.straightdope.com... 3. http://www.fda.gov...
Drug Legalization

By drug legalization, I mean the legalization (as in, it is made legal, and not illegal by law) of all drugs for all people at or above the age of responsibility that are mentally stable, have no felony record, and promise not to give drugs to minors. This assumes that people are still allowed to ban the use of recreational drugs on their own private property, and the government is allowed to ban the use of certain drugs on certain public property, such as schools. Naturally, an argument must first be made against the legalization of drugs, as all things are legal by default until they are made illegal. As such, my opponent will have the real Burden of Proof, and I await his or her arguments.
Madara Uchiha is too powerful

This got to be the most easiest one ever. Although this one is my first debate. SPOILER ALERT So you claim madara to be the strongest. Have u not watched the newest episode of the manga? Here's a little heads up, there's a new character called kaguya,which is the mother of chakra. Currently, she have the strongest abilities far more superior than madara, like have the third eye etc..... However, naruto raged at obitos death And just cut her hand off easily.which means naruto is close to beating her. If He can beat her And she is superior than madara,it just means naruto is getting better than anything. MAJOR SPOILOR ALERT. kakashi have Susano recently And no one know What He will do next.
The prophecy in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30 is a failed prophecy.

1. The wall, if part of what Jesus was talking about, actually would show that it was a failed prophecy. 2. Many have claimed to be the Messiah (or Christ), even many years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. 'Generation': "A single step or stage in the succession of natural descent; a rank or degree in genealogy, the members of a family from the same parents, considered as a single unit." http://en.wiktionary.org... 4. Yes, common sense says that those things haven't happened, therefore, it is a failed prophecy. Not only that, but how will Yahweh rule this old earth, if it will be destroyed? Surely it is speaking of the old earth, yet the day of Yahweh signals the destruction of the old earth. Psalms 102:25-26 "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:" Isaiah 51:6 "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail." Matthew 24:35/Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." 2 Peter 3:10-13 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
The prophecy in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30 is a failed prophecy.

1. If Christ said not one stone will be left on top of another. Please explain the wailing wall. There are still stones stacked on top of each other. . http://atheism.about.com...2. The signs are all around if you choose to look. . https://www.google.com...Christ said many will come in his name claiming to be sent by Christ. But read. Matthew 24:23-24Then if anyone says to you, Look there is the Christ! of There do not believe it. For false Christ's and false prophets will rise to show great signs and wonders, to deceive, if possible, even the elect.3. My opponent is wrong again because the generations of the jewish people and the disciples continue to this day. Can you say the holocaust failed to make the jews pass away? The bible is about one man (Christ, God, The Alpha of the bible=Adam=Christ in Eden not virgin born yet. The Omega), His Family the Nation of Israel, and their impact on the earth, past, present, and future. Now common sense say's Christ has not ruled this earth yet. Example of taking the bible out of context. When did Christ fight?1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh , and thy spoil shall be divided in the midstof thee. 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the cityshall be taken , and the houses rifled , and the women ravished ; and half of thecity shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut offfrom the city. 3 Then shall the LORD go forth , and fight against those nations, aswhen he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount ofOlives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of themountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah:and the LORD my God shall come , and all the saints with thee. 6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark : 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. Anyone who says this past history is just wrong. As the Mt. Olives are split, the wailing wall will come down. Simple. Yet future.
The prophecy in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30 is a failed prophecy.

The prophecy, that I consider failed, in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30, in summary, says: 1. Jesus said that not one of the temple's stones would be left on another. 2. Jesus said that there would be signs that show that it is going to happen. 3. Jesus said that all of these things would be done before Jesus' and His disciples' generation passed. Jesus' disciples asked when '1.' would happen and what the sign telling that it happened would be. Since their generation has passed, yet all of the signs did not happen, this a failed prophecy.
The prophecy in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30 is a failed prophecy.

So, aside from the other things, the main argument: The prophecy in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30 is a failed prophecy because of the following reasons: 1. The end did not happen. 2. The Son of man did not arrive in the clouds with power and great glory. 3. The elect were not gathered. 4. Jesus told His disciples that the signs and the other things would happen before "This generation" (the people that were alive when Jesus and His disciples were alive) passed away (died), but the generation died without the signs happening.
The prophecy in Luke 21:6-32, Matthew 24:2-34, and Mark 13:2-30 is a failed prophecy.

1. I never said that they have not prevailed over anyone. I only asked, "Has Yahweh helped them Himself?" Also, the odds were in Israel's favor. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. & 3. The writer, of the article that you linked to, asserted that it was present. You also didn't address Amos. Also, if you were implying that Bill Gates and Barack Obama are Jewish, they aren't. http://www.jewornotjew.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Man used irrigation systems to redirect water. Rain did not magically make everything grow. 5. They still don't send things to certain areas, and the verse says "fill all the world". 6. Obviously, it isn't the last day, but for some reason, it was included in that list of fulfilled prophecies. 7. That doesn't mean that it can't. 8., 9. & 10. Again, these were for some reason, included in the list of fulfilled prophecies. A. I never said that they died safe. I said, "Jesus said that all of these things would be done before Jesus' and His disciples' generation passed", and that all of those things didn't happen before they died. B. That is not why Christ is not here. As for Luke 9:62: If you are implying that I am like the one who puts his "hand to the plow and looks back", I'm not. I was a Christian since I could remember, so I always had my hand on the plow. I never knew what it was like to not be a Christian, so there was nothing to look back to.
Best Original Rap

I am so very sad you were too busy to post.I have lots of free time, though I don't mean to boast.What with being a nerd and having almost no friends.I just play video games so the fun never ends!Like I said last verse, I am so very sad.Hopefully after reading this verse you will be glad.Now I am off, I want to munch on an orange.And then I will... Forfeit this round.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------ORANGE: Nothing rhymes with it!
Best Original Rap

I won't stop the voters from decidingwho's rap is the best.After all, I deserve to win! Becauseof course, it's me! Better than the rest!Hope you don't think you can beat mein this silly little game.My rapping is what made me richand brought me all this fame.My name is Fizz and let me saythat even though this is fun.It's easy to see that before this beganI already had this battle won.=============================APRICOTS: I am not a real rapper either. Ha ha, good rap though and best of luck! (You'll need it) :D
Best Original Rap

Sorry im a little late with my response but as you should know im the boss every body in town and the people all around are afraid to hear me talk but im not gonna sit around and gawk we have some buisness to attend to so why dont you hop in my benz and go for a ride and we can let the voters decide? ============================ WARNING: I am not a rapper or prentend to be this is for fun and im sure ill lose ;)
IF a parents a drug addict likeliness the child will be one too

I affirm the statement that children of drug-addicted parents are more likely to become addicted to drugs than kids with parents whom aren't addicted to drugs. C1. Parents that smoke have a higher chance of raising kids that smoke. According to this particular source, children whose parents smoked are twice as likely to begin smoking between 13 and 21 [1]. As we all know, tobacco contains a powerful, addictive drug called nicotine. In fact, the following chart proposes it to be more addictive than the majority of illicit drugs [2]. I have shown in an evidential fashion the correlation between parents being addicted to nicotine and children being more likely to smoke and it is rationally deductible. C2. Drug addicts are poor parents and poor parenting is going to raise poorer kids. Referring back to my C1, you can see from the study if children were indeed influenced by their smoking parents. The conclusion we can draw from that is parents influence children in both bad and good ways. However, what good can a drug-addicted parent truly amount to in terms of parental competence? For one, they will likely be more worried about getting their fix than their kid. Secondly, they will be pouring tons of money into getting that fix. Finally yet importantly, their parental judgment is going to be seriously impaired while under the influence of drugs. They not only put themselves at risk when being under the influence but also the lives of their children. While the parent(s) is/are caught up in finding and doing their drug of choice, the child is presumably isolated and free to think and behave as they please. The child may pick up any mannerisms they wish or imitate whomever they choose due to no prior instilment of any fundamental values. C3. Parents are indisputably the most important role models to their children. To quote Karen Stephens, "So, a lot of people, those with folk wisdom and those with professional degrees, believe parents play a major role in how our children turn out," [3]. The same article further asserts correlations between parental habits and their children's habits. Conclusion: The resolution stands affirmed, kids under drug-addicted parents are more likely to become addicted to drugs. Vote pro. Sources 1. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... 2. http://www.udel.edu... 3. http://www.oh-pin.org...
resovled: pornography on the internet should be illegal

.. REBUTTALS"the public just wants to see naked people and some others don't therefore we should respect both sides. "This statement completely contradicts your resolution. I fail to see how banning porn respects both sides; in fact, it doesn't show any respect for the people who are Pro Porn at all. The best way to 'respect' both sides is to allow porn to be made and distributed to interested parties but restrict the avaliability soley to people who want to see it. .. much like we do now. ARGUMENTSABOLISH THE WHOLE INDUSTRY? There is little doubt that sex is an all-consuming industry. Despite the saturation of porn on the internet, it is not so easy to accidently stumble upon porn. Falsely leading people to porn sites isn't good for business and is really a pointless exercise for all but the sickest mind anyway. Look here: [1]. Why would the industry NEED to lead people who don't want to see porn to porn? There are hundreds of millions of people who actively seek porn. The industry wants people who are willing to pay on their sites, not children; not overly sensitive, misguided do-gooders. Does my opponent suggest we just disassemble the entire industry? How would he even begin to inforce such a law? Beastiality porn is illegal in Australia and I can assure you, it would take me about 20 seconds to Google up a site with a horse and a women engaging in some sort of dubious act. If you are worried about exploitation of women and exposure of porn to children, there are much better solutions. CONCLUSIONNot only has my opponent failed to make any actually arguments or provide evidence to support his vague assertions, but I've shown that his resolution is inviable and ridiculous anyway. I hope the last round brings something of substance. SOURCES[1] . http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com...
resovled: pornography on the internet should be illegal

inB4 newb sniping...My opponent's position to the resolution contradicts what he has said in his opening argument, but I think I understand. His position is the resolution and he is against(Con) internet porn.REBUTTALS"many people want to see women naked but it is wrong."My opponent has simply made an assertion."women are human beings to" Indeed; it would be rare to see anyone doing mainstream porn who doesn't completely choose to."do men just want to see every inappropriate body part of women."Yes. However, there is emphasise on the 'sexual' parts of the body, namely the breasts, vagina and butt."it is like saying "i want to look at a women's breasts"."What is?"we should treat women like humans and not sexy morons."With this statement, I'll begin my arguments...My opponent seems to suggest that pornography degrades women. I'm sure many women would find this suggestion degrading in itself. It implies that the women in this industry are in some way being taken advantage of. This is a significant burden of proof to bear.The question I pose to my opponent is this:If women want to do porn and men want to watch porn, what is the problem?CONCLUSIONMy opponent has not made a case for his resolution, so I am at odds to really argue against him. I will give him a chance to write some concise arguments before I make a real case for porn.
videogames

Video games may be fun, but there are issues with them in children. 1) Video games are made to be addicting, so that the creator gets more money, etc. This means that kids can get addicted to video games and miss out on things in life. 1a) School. If kids are addicted to video games it is found that they will often skip their homework, leading to worse grades. 2) Violent Video games = Violent Kids If kids play violent video games, it is proven that they can be more violent in nature. It also teaches them that war is "fun" and or "cool." 3) Side effects Kids that are addicted play long, and are found to lie about the time spent playing and sometimes are playing bad games without the parents knowing.
videogames

Hello. I will not be posting my argument right now as I just wanted to clarify anything. You may respond with the answers to these questions and with your argument directly after. What exactly are we debating on in video games? Do they promote creativity or are fun, or whether they are bad or good for you? Please narrow this down, and maybe the genre of video games as there are many, ie. Minecraft to Pacman (old), shooting games to racing games to other games. I look forward to a good debate after you clarify the outline points.