BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cannabis should be legalized

Ah, the rebuttal. Fun time! "Health" I am going to give two sides to my rebuttal. First of all. Just because Marijuana unhealthy does not mean that it should illegal. Is alcohol illegal? Is sugar illegal? Or Cigarettes? All of those things causes much damage to your body. I know that you are also against Alcohol and Cigarettes, but the debate is not about what we think but whether these things should be legal or not. Just because something is bad does not make it illegal. I don't doubt the affects, just that other things can also do a lot of damage to your body are legal and Marijuana is not. Also, if a person wants to hurt themselves, let them! It's their bodies, their mind. We are individuals and we have our own free to do what ever we want, even though somethings have consequences. But in the end if a person wants to harm their own body then that's their choice. Like I said before, if the people who smoked Marijuana committed a crime under the influence of Cannabis then there is no excuse but as long as they harming their own bodies then I am fine. "Business" This is how all Business works. At first it's small but once it grows people take notice and competition evolves. Does that make Marijuana any worse because it becomes just like other companies? No! Toyota has competition in the car industries yet it is somehow worse then what it would be if it was the only car company? Or is McDonald's worse then what it already is because Burger King mad a worse burger but even though it's worse it is still competition? Nope! I could ramble on and on, but I still have one more point to cover. "Gateway Drugs" "A habit-forming substance whose use may lead to the abuse of drugs that are more addictive or more dangerous. " You are correct on one thing. Cannabis can be a gateway drug. However it is not the only gateway drug. By the definition of the gateway drug theory the gateway drug is any less deleterious then hard drugs i. e cocaine, heroin etc. A gateway drug could be any light drug like alcohol or tobacco. Even caffeine in that energy drink of yours can serve as a gateway drug. Yet is caffeine illegal just because it can be a gateway drug? No! I thank you for debating me Jacobie1121, best of luck on your rebuttal! Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.mpp.org... . http://listdose.com... . http://listverse.com... . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cannabis should be legalized

Here we go again. FYI: I will later say both weed, marijuana and cannabis. They are all the same. Argument 2: Business Before I begin, do not let this argument think I am pro-marijuana, I am still against. This argument is about the legalization of it. Marijuana is a huge business right now, with the average street cost of a gram being, in Alberta, Canada, where weed is ILLEGAL: High Quality: $224.78 / oz. Medium Quality: $213.11 / oz. Low Quality: $284.02 / oz. Here is the price of weed in Washington State, where weed is fully legalized: High Quality: $233.55 / oz. (n=2666) Medium Quality: $190.45 / oz. (n=2725) Low Quality: $141.86 / oz. (n=123) As you can see, there is more of a business in the weed business when weed is illegal. If you legalize it, the risk factor of growing it and selling it goes down, and competition goes up, so the price goes down, and the maker makes far less money. And guess what. Illegal weed is selling in Nunavut, Canada for over 1000 dollars! What a business! Argument 3: "Gateway Drugs" Marijuana is known to be a "gateway drug". A gateway drug is a drug that is known to often lead to other drugs, because of several reasons: First of all, because the users might want to feel a bigger "high" than when they smoke marijuana. Secondly, because you get drugs from a dealer, this dealer could also be selling other, harder, drugs to you. Good luck, Jacobie1121 VOTE CON!!!!! :) Sources: THE BRAIN http://www.priceofweed.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cannabis should be legalized

Don't worry, I also think your first point is easy to refute Argument #2: Distraction to police force What is the worst crime in your opinion? Murder? Rape? Assault? Don't you want the man who just raped your girlfriend caught and jailed? Or the serial killer captured and contained? The people who catch these evil men and women are the police yet as long as marijuana is illegal the police have to waste money, resources and most importantly time on people who just want to smoke a drug. These things could be spent on people who have done much more damage to society. i.e violent crime. The second most common crime in the United States of America is drugs, just behind murder. And guess what the most popular drug of all? Not Heroin. Not Cocaine. It's Cannabis, AKA Marijuana AKA Pot. In fact an American citizen is arrested every 30 seconds for cannabis use! Marijuana is harmless as long as you take it in small doses. And yet if we get rid of the ban of Marijuana that will drop the illegal drug rate by a large percent. Marijuana offenders are a distraction to our police force and the ban needs to drop! Argument #3: The cost! Want some statistics to prove why marijuana should be legalized? Here: "Amount spent annually in the U.S. on the war on drugs: More than $51,000,000,000. Estimated annual revenue that California would raise if it taxed and regulated the sale of marijuana: $1,400,000,000. Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006: 70,000+. Tax revenue that drug legalization would yield annually, if currently-illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco: $46.7 billion." http://www.drugpolicy.org... Before you type "The costs do not matter!" I must correct that statement. The cost does indeed matter! We are not living in an ideal world were there is no war and only peace and there is equality amongst all human beings, no. We live in a world were costs matter, whether we like it or not. And by the way, I mean not only the financial costs but also the cost of human life. If you were to say the cost of human life does not matter then... well, I would not be the happiest person alive. Once more, thanks for debating me. DarthKirones
Cannabis should be legalized

Oh dear. If I had known that this point would have been so easy to write a rebuttal for, I would have NOT saved the rebuttals for last! The rules are the rules though... Point/Argument #1: Health Yes, this is a predictable point, but nonetheless a good one. I will split this argument into two parts: health effects and knowledge about these. Health effects: Marijuana affects your short term health because it gives you memory problems, balance problems, and this lasts for hours after use. But for the longer term health problems: Lung Cancer, depression and anxiety, respiratory difficulties, and psychosis. Now we know this, but let's see if other people do. "a study released last fall by CCSA revealed that our country"s young people are confused about cannabis and do not have the knowledge they need about the risks associated with this drug to make more informed decisions."- Times Colonist. What's more, some kids are under the FALSE BELIEF that pot/marijuana helps focus them at school and even helps cure cancer. We need to teach these kids how bad marijuana is for a persons health, and how it CAUSES CANCER, NOT CURES CANCER! Thank you for this interesting debate. I know this is early, but then again it is never too early to say: VOTE CON! Your turn! Jacobie1121
Cannabis should be legalized

Let's do this! Argument #1: Major people Fun fact: Barack Obama smoked pot when he was younger. "When I was a kid, I inhaled frequently. That was the point." Those are words from the current president of the United Sates of America. You know who else smoked Marijuana? Bill Clinton. "I experimented with marijuana a time or two." In fact to prove my point even more someone who is highly against Marijuana, George W Bush smoked cannabis. "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." There you have it. 3 Major US presidents smoked pot. Want more evidence? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Why should the most powerful people on the planet get away from smoking Marijuana but us ordinary folk have to suffer in prisons? I am a Libertarian and I believe that if you want to smoke cannabis, then you should be allowed to smoke pot. Now, if you are high on pot and you kill someone, that is a crime, if you steal marijuana, that is a crime. But just smoking pot is a crime? Ready for your arguments DarthKirones
Cannabis should be legalized

"Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, and by numerous other names is a preparation of the cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine." This is my definition of Cannabis, or what we will be calling it; Marijuana. I will be arguing Marijuana should not only be legalized medically but for recreation purposes as well. We are not talking about legalization in a specific country, just legalization period. The rules are as follows: 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: 1st argument (1 point only!) 3rd round: 2nd argument (2 points only!) 4th round: Rebuttal We will be only doing rebuttals in the fourth round. Good luck my friend DarthKirones
Marijuana use is detrimental to one's health

By my statement above, "marijuana is detrimental to one's health," I was trying to convey the notion that marijuana could be damaging to someone's physical health. Furthermore, by taking the "cons" side of the debate, all of my arguments are attempting to DISPROVE this statement. Your job, as the "pro" side, is to accumulate evidence and express such evidence in a reasonable and logical argument that marijuana does indeed pose a danger to one's health.
The internet is a waste of time

Though all of your points may be true, I have absolutely no idea what you are debating because you did not provide a definition of productive. Apparently it is okay to post a definition in the comments section and seeing as I did, and it was posted before your argument, my definition must be the definition used for this debate. Because of this, all of your points make absolutely no sense what so ever. The internet is an intangible thing. Because of this, it does not have the ability to synthesize anything tangible, let alone mucus. Two parties may be able to reach an agreement over the transfer of mucus on the internet using sites such as ebay, but the internet itself can not create said mucus. Also, it lacks bronchi, the parts necessary to make mucus per the definition. Because the internet is just a connection of computers, it cannot have tangible parts such as lungs containing said bronchi. Therefore the internet can not create mucus or sputum from its bronchi and is unproductive. The internet also lacks the capabilities to make users create said mucus. The internet can not transmit a bacteria or virus that can penetrate the body of a human user in order to make it create mucus. Once again, the internet has no tangible form and can not synthesize something that is tangible therefore it can not make the user productive. Because it can not make the user be productive, it must be the opposite, unproductive.
The internet is a waste of time

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro's sole contention is pretty much that because people spend time on social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, that people as a whole are unproductive with their time, and that the internet in general promotes unproductive things. I negate. First and foremost, not everyone uses the internet for social networking purposes. Ergo those who do not use social networking sites cannot fall under the generalization of Pro's argument. Second, studies show that workers are actually more productive when they are able to occasionally do non-work stuff online, say researchers at the University of Melbourne [1]. This pretty much negates Pro's entire argument. Quite obviously the internet is praised specifically because it has greatly increased the speed of innumerable things. For instance, we can now send mail across the globe faster than ever, which has vastly increased the productivity in the workplace as well as on a social and cultural level. Moreover learning is now faster, easier and more widely accessible (education and educational things) because of the internet and the information that can be accessed quickly and with precision thanks to tools like online encyclopedias, books and search engines. Another one of the internet's productive uses is being used as a platform to create a career in general, such as owning an online business, creating websites, online stock trading, blogging and other forms of journalism, going into web graphic design and programming, etc. The military is yet another huge force that uses the internet (in fact military intelligence designed the internet) for productive purposes. People communicate via the internet and use cyber space to conduct business from all kinds of places: home, the office, during travel, etc. One can use the internet to plan and coordinate various aspects of their life including their social agenda, work schedule, etc. It can also be used as a tool to keep in touch with people, reconnect with people, network, broadcast, advertise and discuss. In conclusion, corporations, politicians, business owners, students, teachers, artists, etc. all use the internet as a platform to further their work and career; some even make careers based on the internet alone. While it's true that some people like to "waste time" browsing social networking sites, as John Lennon would say "Any time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted." A few people's uses of the internet cannot negate the productivity and efficiency the internet gives us as a whole. The internet helps connect the world and is used as a medium that greatly increases productivity. Thank you. [1] http://arstechnica.com...
There are too many mutant and crime TV shows and not enough magic shows

My opponent attempts to addsOnce Upon A TimeVampire DiariesThe Originalsto the list of magic shows, but none of these shows fall into magic as per the scope defined in this debate:"For the purposes of this debate "magic" is something requires training/work to create an effect in the real world that multiple individuals can perform at different strengths. (all mages could potentially cast fireball per say)" I'll close in saying that, portraying power as "luck of the draw" rather than hard work is detrimental to our culture. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be innate powers in TV shows, but I am arguing that there should be a balance between media popularizing innate powers over powers that come through hard work. So until the numbers are even, there are too many mutant TV shows, and not enough magic.
There are too many mutant and crime TV shows and not enough magic shows

My opponents definition of magic is not a relevant or popular unlike the one I provided. So lets go with that one. Magic Shows: Magicians Once Upon A Time Vampire Diaries The Originals TV shows that fall into the "mutant" categor: Gifted Inhuman Agents of sheild Legion Iron Fist Luke Cage So I win. There are more than 3 existing magic shows.
There are too many mutant and crime TV shows and not enough magic shows

TV shows that fall into the "magic" category:MagiciansTV shows that fall into the "mutant" categor:GiftedInhumanAgents of sheildLegionIron FistLuke CageThe DefendersJessica JonesFlashLegends of tomorrowSupergirlThere are way to many shows that showcase mutants who don't have to train to use their powers, and not enough shows that reward individuals with powers for hard work. Also for the record - "magic" was defined as something that requires training/workThe use of "many" and "not enough" are used to reference the other postion. As in the above list 11 is too many, and 1 is not enough. There is a disportional higher number of mutant based TV shows than there are magic based TV shows.
There are too many mutant and crime TV shows and not enough magic shows

If you look up "magic", heres one of the definitions that appears: wonderful; exciting. Since Coveny didn't define magic, were just gonna stick with this definition. I believe that there are enough exciting shows available, including mutant and crime shows. Since my opponent didn't define "many" and "not enough" Ill do so too. Not enough means under 3. There are way more than 3 "exciting" shows running. Too many means so many that people don't watch the shows anymore. However, CW profits over a billion dollars on shows every year. So therefore, people do like watching them. Coveny has to prove that there is a show that NO ONE watches.,
There are too many mutant and crime TV shows and not enough magic shows

For the purposes of this debate "magic" is something requires training/work to create an effect in the real world that multiple individuals can perform at different strengths. (all mages could potentially cast fireball per say) Mutant referes to an individual specific ability, which may or may not get stronger with training. Meaning that shows that aren't listed as mutant like "Superman" still count as a mutant show in this debate because there requires no training to be able to cause his effects.Also this debate defines TV shows to those in English. (Even excluding animi dubbed from other languages)
Ultimate Debate #3 McDonalds (pro) VS Burger King (con)

Our Bacon is not fried in a fryer. It is placed on flat oven sheets and placed in an oven. Our ingredients are fresh as well. They are hand chopped by us. I did want to get those points out of the way. Other wise, because of my poor timing and conduct because of the timing, I guess I have little choice other than to concede this debate. However, I find it very uncalled for and very poor conduct to list the reasons why you have won. I seriously find that to be up to the voters, not the debaters.
Ultimate Debate #3 McDonalds (pro) VS Burger King (con)

I apologize for my breach of contract. Burger King recently did an ad supporting gay pride and LGBT rights, introducing for a short amount of time during gay pride week. They used the slogan "Be Your Way". People believe this was just a publicity stunt, however, in the upcoming months, this slogan is going to become permanent, as my managers were told via email. This shows the connection the company has with it's customers. They ran this ad, knowing it would lose customers, to show that they support their LGBT customers, and they took a way bigger risk than McDonalds would ever by pulling this. Burger King made a tougher choice by doing this. Being pressed for time again unfortunately limits my argument. I was unable to obtain pictures that I wanted to present. I doubt I will win this debate due to my poor organization of time. McDonalds maybe unique in their naming of products, I will never disagree with that, but Burger King has kept things simple. Simple is sometime's better. I really appreciate my opponent's patience and understanding. I thought I would have great chance to defend Burger King, as I am a Burger King employee. If I wasn't so pressed for because of said job, I'd probably have a stronger argument, but I do not. I do believe Burger King is better. They provide a friendly service when the employees are trained right. My store gets 10,000 cars through the drive thru a month and we have a rather small amount of complaints, becoming tied for first place out of 62 stores in our district. It's all about training. Thank you for this debate.
Ultimate Debate #3 McDonalds (pro) VS Burger King (con)

I have unfortunately limited myself on time here. With the little amount of time I have left to complete this round, I will try my best. Usually I do not include personal recollections in my debates, but being a burger king employee, I have to be a reliable source in some form. I also believe that my managers are a reliable source as well. I actually gathered some information from my managers solely for this debate. My opponent points out that one individual's comparison between the flagship sandwich of McDonalds and the Burger King version of the sandwich. The problem with these comparisons is that the way a sandwich looks relies on the employees and managers of the store. Both franchises have requirements on how to build the sandwich, but that doesn't mean that they always follow it. Of course, I properly make the big king every time. Burger King has also added innovations to the Big King. They have a Mushroom Big King and Chicken Big King. And again, with our "Have it Your Way" slogan, they can come in any way. Let's talk more about that slogan.It may seem like just a slogan with little meaning, but I assure you it has plenty of meaning. Sandwiches can come with no bun, they can come with ANY kind of sauces, you can replace certain types of meat with other meats, or go completely meatless. People can ask us to cook food fresh out of the fryer or fresh off the broiler. And yes, the patties are cooked on a flame broiler. The Burger King ads were not just blowing smoke when they said that. Unlike McDonalds, who uses fake grill marks and does who knows with their burgers, Burger King has stayed true to it's roots, and only grills them. [1] Why grill them? To stay true to it's customers. They reduce their profit margin to show they care for quality. People do do it wrong sometimes, but, when done right, these burgers are fresh and juicy and hot. This was not the exact argument that I wanted, but with the limited time, this is what I could dish out. I hope it's understandable. Thank you[1] http://fastfoodfasttimes.tumblr.com...
Ultimate Debate #3 McDonalds (pro) VS Burger King (con)

McDonalds is the template of what a franchised fast food eatery ought to be. But that is about it. Burger King is by far the more fresh choice. As long as employees are following company standards, Burger King's food is always fresh. Salads are made to order fresh. Plus, with the Burger King motto of "Have it Your Way", you can add or take a way as much as you would like. The meats are made fresh as well. The only things fried are the french fries and the breaded chicken and fish. The oils are also relatively low fat, being a canola oil. [1]Burger King is better in pure competition of food. It seems nowadays when McDonalds does something in the world of fast food burgers, Burger King one ups them. Look at how the Big Mac was copied by Burger King and sold for a fraction of the price. Same with the rib sandwiches. McDonalds had a McRib, and Burger King came out with the BBQ rib sandwich, selling for only a dollar. [2]Burger King just got a new CEO about a year ago [3], a very young, bright young man that is from the line, who has a new image for the future of Burger King [4]. While Burger King has been in some controversity, it may be safe to say that that is going away under the command of a new captain. Sources[1] Burger King employees (including myself) (I do not want to give a way private information) [2] http://www.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.businessweek.com...[4] Myself, being an employee of Burger King and needing to know what we are doing and why.