BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy Improves on the Book

Scale - The difference in scale between the movies and books can be summed up like this: When watching the movies, you watch a great story take place. When reading the books, you experience an epic story that takes place in a living world.Army of the Dead - There is no way to get around it. In the movies, the dead saved mankind as they were being overrun. In the books, the dead helped in a battle in the south, by putting fear into the enemy. Then, men came to their fellow-men's rescue, and together they fought back the enemy army. The human triumph comes from personal victory, and victory in the community. Society is based off of working together, and men worked together to save their kingdom. I assert that this is much more meaningful than having invincible dead guys save you at the last minute.Faramir - The Faramir of the books represents strength of human nature. Strong and wise. More importantly, it represents that humans don't have to falter immediately upon being faced with adversity. In the movies, Faramir never shows great strength. Even after sending away Frodo, he plays the part of an overlooked younger son, weak, and only seeking the approval of his father. He never portrays the strength that is so important to the story of the Ring. Contrasted with Boromir, in the book you have one brother who resists, and one who doesn't. It's not the nature of the Ring that matters, it is the nature of the person. Having Faramir succumb to the ring only pushes an agenda that there is no hope(which it contradicts shortly after). Unconditional Love - Pro misses the point of unconditional love. The point is exactly that it is predictable. I know 100% that I can count on my spouse at a time in need, just as Frodo and Sam knew they could count on each other. The movie pushes the thought that you can't count on anybody unconditionally, which is a dismal way to approach life. Tolkein's message in this regard is far more powerful than the movie adding drama for the sake of entertainment.Hobbits - Hobbits are cheerful, but not stupid. Merry and Pippen were given a 'dumb and dumber' portrayal, especially through the first half of the movies. Comedic relief can be entertaining, but it detracts from the real message behind growth, struggle, and triumph.One last thought I would address is 'streamlining'. If you were to take your life and make a documentary from the outside looking in, you would see a person who went to school, worked some jobs, had friends and family, etc... But, that's not you. You are the sum of your experiences, thoughts, and dreams. Someone watching you from the outside doesn't get to see your thought process, or see what you dream about. Sure, your dreams aren't vital to telling the tale of what you do in life, but they are vital in telling the tale of you. In this way, the books reign supreme. We get to know the characters, and experience the world from their eyes, in a way the movies never approach. I'll close as I opened, the books allow you to truly experience an epic tale, rather than watching a great one.
Marijuana and Some Serotonergic Hallucinogens Should Be Decriminalized, if not Legalized Outright.

Im sorry I thought the title explained what i was starting the debate on :3. New to the website. Anyway, I purpose that the previously listed chemicals be legalized for recreational use in the United States, or at the very least decriminalized, based on the information previously submitted. Much more harmful substances are legal right now, including alcohol, tobacco, and (for right now) research chemicals, including the NBOMe family of phenethylamines, chemicals which have caused death since they're discovery on the internet in 2010. If chemicals like LSD, DMT, and shrooms (considered to be gold standards in the Psychedelic culture because of their safety), then deaths like these would not be happening. Also, they could be easily taxable for a profit from the US government. If legalization is not possible, at least a move from Schedule one to something lower would be appropriate. There is no reason that something like LSD or Psilocin should be grouped with heroin, an addicting and body destroying chemical, and rated worse than things like Methamphetamines, almost every other opiate/opioid (including dihydroetorphine, which is hundreds times more potent than morphine), and barbiturates, all of which have killed hundreds of people. Sources: Round One Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(US) What are your arguments against legalization/decriminalization?
Marijuana and Some Serotonergic Hallucinogens Should Be Decriminalized, if not Legalized Outright.

Okay, so I'm starting this debate? Despite being con? Hmmmmm OK. I don't understand your method of debate, I would have otherwise used text from your round 1 debate and argued it, but because you just responded I don't know what to debate you on. I am going to use this round to say nothing. Seeing as nothing but some well researched back ground has been said yet. Go ahead. we'll use the last two rounds to really debate. Remember you are affirmative, I am here to counter you if you don't say anything I can't counter you. Here is a list of key jargon to use in round. http://www.umsl.edu...
Marijuana and Some Serotonergic Hallucinogens Should Be Decriminalized, if not Legalized Outright.

To clarify on Psychedelics I am referring to Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, Psilocin/Psilocybin, and Dimethyltryptamine. Marijuana: Marijuana is a plant that is well known for its effects of acting upon the cannabinoid receptors in the brain, causing euphoria, as well as a slew of other effects. It is much less harmful on your lungs than tobacco smoke, and does not cause cancer. There have been no known deaths from marijuana overdose, and significantly less outright deaths (car accidents and the likes) than with alcohol or other legal psychoactives. It is also nonaddictive, unlike alcohol or tobacco. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: LSD is a potent partial receptor agonist of the serotonin system. It has not been shown to cause any negative health impacts, and is safe at doses much higher than what is recommended (average dose: 300ug, LD50 in rabbits, the most sensitive to this chemical, is roughly 300ug per kilogram of body weight. In humans it has not been determined). Also, legalization would provide a safe way of obtaining the chemical, while "street LSD" is usually a totally different chemical, and now a days is almost always something of the nBOMe series, who's ld50 is although not yet determined, is most likely under 10mg (average nBOMe dose can range from 300ug to 800ug, depending on what chemical) as is shown by recent deaths. It is also non addictive, with tolerance subsiding in one to three weeks (which on a side note, prevents compulsive use, unlike tobacco, alcohol, opioids, stimulants, etc.) Psilocin/Psilocybin: These are the common chemicals found in psychedelic mushrooms. Psilocybin is a considered to be a prodrug of psilocin, which is a serotergenic agonist, acting basically as less potent lsd. It has the same safety profile as lsd, with the ld50 being quite high (although not as high as lsd, but still 80 or 90 times higher than the average dose). It may be unsafe to drive on, but so is alcohol. It causes no long term negative side effects physically. Dimethyltryptamine: Dimethyltryptamine, or DMT is another serotonin partial agonist. It is found in the human brain in trace amounts, and has been used for centuries by the native people of the Amazon. It is structurally analogous to serotonin, furthering its safety profile. This chemicals trip lasts for only 10-30 minutes, but is intense in nature. With this limited time period, someone cannot use it and then get into a car, nor is it a feasible date rape drug. It is non addictive, but does not have the tolerance build up of other chemicals of this class. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://researchlsd.blogspot.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.erowid.org... (using multiple references, trip reports, experiences, and statistics) Personal Experiences with Cannabis and LSD
It's acceptable to let animals go extinct

A. Acknowledgement I'm surprised that someone accepted the debate so soon and I look forward to debating this topic with you. B. Common ground To understand our planet and how all the various animals came to be, you must first understand Allopatric speciation, Sympatric speciation, the evolutionary arms race, and evolution. I will be explaining all of this to you in the following round C. Descendants New species that are better adapted to their environment are constantly made throughout the process of speciation. Allopatric speciation: species form from psychical separation (more common) [1] [2] Example: separated by glaciers, mountains, or rivers Sympatric speciation: species that are reproductively isolated. [3] [4] Example: mating occurs in different seasons D. Why evolution happens [5] [6] - their are many reason that evolution occurs the main is to keep the species ahead in the evolutionary arms race. E. Change is for the best Changing from a species not suited to its environment to one that is suited is mandatory in the evolutionary arms race for example, Giant Pandas are endangered for many reasons such as: 1. They are specialists and they only eat bamboo, and bamboo is currently being used by humans. (a superior species that can live in almost any land-based on earth.) currently 50,000 acres of bamboo forests are being cut down each year. 2. they are also a K selected species which means they use a lot of energy to grow and develop, they take a long time to reach sexual maturity, and they have few offspring with short mating seasons. [7] 3. Because of the lack of offspring they have less individuals, which decreases the chance of an evolutionary change from eating bamboo to another plant/animal. 4. If giant pandas become extinct no other species would be subsequently hurt and available human resources are increased. (bamboo and land)The only way a giant panda could really be useful is humans show it off at a zoo Example: San Diego Zoo (features a panda camera on the website.) [8] Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [7] http://www.bio.miami.edu... [8] http://www.sandiegozoo.org...
It's acceptable to let animals go extinct

Debate Criteria - debate time: 24 hours for each response. (This will be a swift debate.) - I will be arguing that it's acceptable to let animals go extinct. - Though it's acceptable to let animals go extinct, it's not acceptable if mankind caused their extinction. (failure to adapt to precipitation or climate changes, even if affected their by mankind will not be counted as mankind fault. however over hunting the species or over hunting and over gathering nearby plants and animals in the food chain would be counted as mankind's fault) - I will also be arguing that the Theory of Evolution is correct and Con may choose whether or not he/she accepts the theory.
there should be less violence in video games

First of all Gaming is a medium of art Games like COD show what war is like maybe it is not put in the right environment but is still about the CDP team conquering Black ops team. The game is about good over evil. Assassins creed shows what life like was in the past and you can learn from this. Also I know COD is not What it used to be but the new Battle field 1 gives a better representation of war and understanding. Battle field 1 is an art it shows a representation of war and art is a representation of something so your argument about games only having sex and violence is not i all games yes because this is a representation of war it is going to be violent but this shows that games still are not just about sex and violence. Violent video games do not ruin children. Parents ruin children. What i mean is that guns do not shoot people. People shoot guns. So what i am trying to say is that if a parent is allowing children to play violent games then it is their fault if a child is "ruined" however what do you mean by ruined. Play to many games because if you play to many games and no studying then that will ruin a child. Games like mine craft is violent and the mods can make mine craft more violent so your argument is technically incorrect mine craft has sword and killing small vulnerable animals and zombies and spiders and skeletons and creepers that explode which could be seen as a suicide bomber which could give children an affect of thinking creepers are cool i want to explode and then they bomb a building. Seems over exaggerated however this is possible but it still gives the ideas of issues relating to even games that seem innocent.
there should be less violence in video games

the more life like a game is the better understanding people get from playing video of real life scenario. Any way there is violence in the news about a murder or a extremist group and movies so that doesn't mean games have to suffer people find these games fun so why ruin it for them. All games have violence any way. Mario you kill a goomba but because there is no blood it does not count as violence put a little bit of blood in and it is bad. But it doesn't matter what game you play they all have violence in them If you think they are too violent do not play them you do not need to complain. Also games are meant to be fun and enjoyable so if people like me enjoy fps games then i enjoy them if you do not like them then play another game. people have opinons and you should allow them to make there own decisions not try and stop them playing there favorite game. Also games like the new battle field are educational they have a story mode about WW1 as the game is set in early 20th century. All forms of media whether it is a game, movie news all relate to violence in one way. The reason there is violence is because before there was violence and weren't games in the past and there were more wars.
The nature of nothingness is negative not neutral

Kindly, There is a lot wrong with that. (A) It's really too long. (B) You assume SO MUCH. You stand on a firm ground which assumes ontological fact (i.e. truth), but you are no God and you do not know. So many of the conceptions you assert can well be an illusion of this world, though I don't wish to get into showing you how. I can not fight preconceived notions of the world that you are seeking to hold and justify. Few ontological understandings are the same, even when we agree upon the words we use to describe them. Those who believe in this world will agree with you, and those who see this sight and sound as a passing journey will understand that 'negative' is a structure we impose upon a universe far greater and colder than we are; even in the places where it does not exist. Just smoke some Salvia and you'll get it.
The nature of nothingness is negative not neutral

To say that the nature of Nothingness is Negative assumes existence in the understanding of the world (to be clear and explicit - this is not given! Nothingness assumes nothing!). 1) Check out Heidegger-An Introduction To Metaphysics. There he makes a good argument (one I expect you know given you raise the question, but still I'll give reference) in rebuttal. I won't reiterate his argument. Mine is that; 2) If you simply consider a 'universe' in which nothing exists (literally no dimensionality, no time, no space, no objects, no ideas, no mathematical truths, nothing you or I could say to be a god or natural truth) then you immediately realize that this universe can not be negative for it has nothing to be compared to. It is nothingness that exists as nothing, neutrally. What can it be negative to? You assume existence in your question, which is fundamentally unsolvable if you'll hold to it and really sort of close-minded and predetermining the solution if you won't understand the meaning of nothingness. OK so you lose nothingness and you admit it's neutral, next you say you didn't mean nothingness nothingness, but nothingness as compared to what exists. What OBVIOUSLY DOES exist. Now I say, you can not assume "what exists" in questions of metaphysics because you must realize that all of your knowledge is given to you by your sensations, which are liable to lie to you (reference of course Descartes-Meditations 1). You can perhaps say that you exist, but then it's rather ego driven to say a world without you is negative, you are assuming that YOU are an inescapably existent truth. Perhaps in this life and indisputably from the first person, but if you hold onto this first person (which is the hill I'd best make the argument from) you run soon aground (ex. if I ask you to justify existence through time, or whether ideas exist). Is this your argument? Or will you show me what nothingness is made negative to? At the end of the day though, nothingness is obviously neutral if youre open-minded for it has nothing which exists else to be but. (Tell me then, what are you really trying to go after? Is this the old call all the existentialists pessimistic? Because it's much easier to point out how unsightly Schoppenhauer's face mole was and how sad that's liable to make a guy and call it a day.) Cheers, & for love of Philosophy!
God exists

Thank you for accepting, and for being quick to respond, I hope this will be enjoyable for both sides. I will do my best to support this without using the bible as proof, seeing as that probably means nothing in the way of evidence to you... I have a couple main points here 1. There is too much against theories like evolution and the big bang etc. for them to stand. The world must have been created by someone with immense power, namely God sub-point a. Darwin was skeptical of his own theories, in fact, if I didn't believe in God I would probably think of evolution as pretty viable however on the note of Darwin, he wrote: "I think" under many of his figures, and was in general just trying to figure things out. Evolution and others do not answer the question of how did matter get there in the first place. My question here is this: If the big bang theory was true, and thus no creator existent, where did the matter come from for it to take place, in other words, what is the origin of the universe. sub point b. How does evolution account for the ENORMOUS detail in the world, as well as how it would ever be possible for this enormously improbable thin g to happen... you believe that one the first try, the universe came up with earth, and sentient beings that are truly amazing in what they can do and create? how is that an accident... and is we come from monkeys, why do we see NO living "in-between species" true we have monkeys and apes, and then us, but where are living, or for that matter, dead, specimens proving this process, besides estimates and guesses of what it would have been like. there is more, and I fear I am somewhat in eloquent in illustrating this, but I think the general idea is there. that evolution and the big bang are JUST theories, and they do not stand. there has to be something else going on. In others words GOD EXISTS argument 2: how does science explain miracles, and occurrences that denying logical evaluation and natural laws. If you look throughout history you will find accounts of miracles, and if you look to sources from ancient times (besides the bible) you find affirmation for Christs existence and works. I have other things today, so for now that's it, thanks again for debating.
purpose

I assuming you are arguing about the purpose of life. The purpose of life simply isn't to "exist" as you put it. Evolution put us on this planet in order to reproduce and breed on the planet to make our species grow. If you look at animals or plants, most of their purpose is to reproduce, for example, the dandelion's most distinct feature is its seeds on it, which is for reproducing. Although, "existing" is a very vague point. We were put here for a much bigger reason rather than to just wander around the planet and "exist". We were here to reproduce in order to grow our species is the primary principle that many scientists believe. Although, religion will say we were put down here through God but we shall not debate that. The meaning of life or why we are living is a very philosophical topic, but we were simply not here to "exist". There would be no point of us being here if we were simply to "exist", it may sound a scary thought, but we are here for a reason.
Marijuana Leglization

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited. To summarise: Marijuana is toxic, and has seriously bad effects on people. Pro claims that the government could make lots of money through taxation, if marijuana is made legal. However, it neglects the chance that people could find the illegal marijuana better, for it is combined with other substances. Basically, they could feel a better 'high' through the illegal marijuana. Pro also supplied facts of how much money Colorado has made through the legalisation, yet provided no sources for it. Should we just believe what Pro said? I could say that Colorado loses 40,000,000 dollars a year through damages caused by marijuana, but without a source, there is nothing to prove the veracity of it. Anyway, thanks for the debate.
Marijuana Leglization

Marijuana has a negative effect on people.Marijuana is far worse than cigarettes. In comparison to cigarette smoke, (which is known to cause cancer), marijuana smoke contains " 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke." (1)Marijuana effects reproduction. "Marijuana changes the structure of sperm cells, deforming them. Thus even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility in men. Marijuana use can upset a woman’s menstrual cycle." (1)It is toxicResearchers have concluded that marijuana, is, in fact, toxic. "marijuana smoke contains significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds -- including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide", "The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke." (2)(1)[http://tinyurl.com...](2)[http://tinyurl.com...]1000 chars = 140 words.
Marijuana Leglization

Well before I begin I just want to say that I made our arguments shorter than 1,000 words because we should make our arguments short and sweet so voters don't have to skim over 10,000 word arguments. 1. Marijuana has NEVER killed a human being throughout all of recorded human history. Isn't that amazing? Tobacco kills 1/3 of it's users, and alcohol kills 80,000 Americans every year. Marijuana is much safer than many other legal drugs. 2. Although Marijuana is fairly safe, it could also be a great money maker for the government. In 8 months of collecting taxes from marijuana sales in Colorado, the state gather around $48,000,000. That is a ridiculous amount of money. Just to put that into perspective, if the entire nation was buying at the rates of Colorado the U.S. government could generate 2.8 billion dollars.
Marijuana Leglization

I accept. You shouldn't expect a strong argument from me, for this is the first time I have thought about this topic. I was just itching for an argument. Anyway, good luck. However I ask that round three can be used for a rebuttal, rather than another round of case. Marijuanna - "The dried flower clusters and leaves of this plant, smoked or ingested as an illicit drug to induce euphoria. " [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] Legalize - "Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law:" [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. I don't know if the instigator can do this now, but can he extend the amount of characters? If not, can I compose it somewhere else and link it here. Please start with your opening argument...