BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

Here's an excerpt from Jonbonbon' Abridged Encyclopedia of Botany "Cannabis Sativa, also known as Marijuana, is a plant commonly mistaken as a drug. While the scent of its burning creates a pleasurable reaction in the brain, the plant itself does not constitute as a drug... The rush of dopamine created when the smoke of marijuana is inhaled is often mistaken for the plant itself being a drug... The substance itself is not addictive, but as does any substance that creates any level of pleasure, the dopamine levels may become addictive when used to great and/or unusual extents..." This clearly states that marijuana is both not a drug and not addictive. Have a seat.
Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

Well, the first link is a dud (it goes to a page that says "page not found"), and the second says next to nothing my opponent said in the last post. I would like to say that my opponents last post was focused on the effects not whether it was addictive or a drug. -------------------------------------- Okay, as for sources, I'll provide some that agree that cannabis sativa is not addictive: United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. June 24 2005. Benson, John A. and Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, eds. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Institute of Medicine, Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Johnson, L.D., et al. "National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults." Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996. Kandel, D.B., et al. "Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29. Stephens, R.S., et al. "Adult marijuana users seeking treatment." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104. Fromberg, E. "The Case of the Netherlands: Contradictions and Values in Questioning Prohibition." 1994 International Report on Drugs, Brussels: International Antiprohibitionist League, 1994. 113-124. Sandwijk, J.P., et al. Licit and Illicit Drug Use in Amsterdam II. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1995. Gunning, K.F. Crime Rate and Drug Use in Holland. Rotterdam: Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention. 1993. ElSohly, et al., "Potency Trends of Delta9-THC and Other Cannabinoids in Confiscated Marijuana from 1980-1997," Journal of Forensic Sciences 45 (2000): 24-30. Heishman SJ, Stitzer ML, Yingling JE, 1989. "Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol content on marijuana smoking behavior, subjective reports, and performance." Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. "Cannabis potency in Europe." Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6 Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But It"s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18. Brown, Lee. "Interview with Lee Brown," Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995. Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993. Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29. Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990. -------------------------------------- Does that just about do it for sources? I would say so. In the last speech, my opponent didn't actually say marijuana was addictive, except for the baseless assertion, and I have provided a buttload of sources that say otherwise. My opponent doesn't win this debate at this point. This debate is not about the effects.
Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

Could you out some links? I'm not quite sure what's going with what and where exactly I can find these sources, as I'm sure the judges are wanting as well. In the meantime, here's some counter-evidence: "It is perfectly legal to abuse to any desirable degree - even to the point of death - the drugs Marlboro, Jack Daniels, and McDonald's, as well as base jumping, cave diving, and bull riding. It should come as no surprise that almost all of these highs are more addictive than marijuana, and cause more deaths per year (yes, even bull riding). What's more? Many of them do cause harm to innocent bystanders." [1] I would recommend reading the whole article, but this is the part most relevant to the debate. Keep in mind you have to support it is a drug and addictive. If you lose one of those you lose the debate, as you have no upheld the entire resolution. By accident, I actually found your "drugfacts" article which actually comes from drugpolicy.org Interestingly enough, this website is actually for the legalization of marijuana. Upon opening the site, is was taken to a page to sign a petition for legalizing marijuana. That being said, let's take a look at what they say about it: Fact #1: Most marijuana users never use any other illicit drug. Fact #2: Most people who use marijuana do so occasionally. Increasing admissions for treatment do not reflect increasing rates of clinical dependence. Fact #3: Claims about increases in marijuana potency are vastly overstated. In addition, potency is not related to risk of dependence or health impacts. Fact #4: Marijuana has not been shown to cause mental illness. Fact #5: Marijuana use has not been shown to increase risk of cancer. Fact #6: Marijuana has been proven helpful for treating the symptoms of a variety of medical conditions. Fact #7: Marijuana use rates in the Netherlands are similar to those in the U.S. despite very different policies. Fact #8: Marijuana has not been shown to cause long-term cognitive impairment. Fact #9: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. Fact #10: Roughly three quarters of a million people are arrested for marijuana each year, the vast majority of them for simple possession. I know some of these aren't relevant, but I wanted to show their stance on marijuana. What's most significant is that they claim marijuana doesn't create dependency. My opponent obviously thinks this is a reliable source, as he himself used it, and his contention for addiction was dependency. That means he must agree that marijuana is not addictive, and based on that, he must lose the debate. I believe that sums up everything I need to say quite nicely. ----------------------- Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.drug... policy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana
Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.- Wikipedia Marijuana is "intoxicating". Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, which contains the psychoactive (mind-altering) chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other related compounds. This plant material can also be concentrated in a resin called hashish or a sticky black liquid called hash oil. Marijuana is the most common illicit drug used in the United States. -Drugfacts Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it.10 The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users.11,12 Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.13-National Institute of Drug abuse "take a seat"
Philippians 2:6a proves Jesus-is-God christology versus Christadelphian christology

Kind Sir... I am confused as to the point of this debate. I believed it to be one arguing over the trinity theory, me being against it. I do not understand if you believe God and Jesus to be on being or two, for I believe them to be two separate beings, and I do believe they are alike in nature except for the fact that Jesus, after his journey to Earth, will never again be entirely equal with God. If you agree with that then our debate is pointless.
Philippians 2:6a proves Jesus-is-God christology versus Christadelphian christology

:) I may agree that there only two persons in there. The one speaking speaks to another. Nonetheless, it doesn't ruled out the possibility that God talks with more than one person in Genesis 1:26 for the text is not explicit per se about the exact number of the referent persons. Point a) is that whoever this person/these persons are they must be 1) fellows of God 2) equal to God in nature because Genesis 1:26-27 itself explicitly said: verse 26 God said , Let us create man in OUR IMAGE after our likeness verse 27 and God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE Point b) ONE BEING "How, even in our physical sense can father and"the Son one in being? The Son is the Wisdom per se of the Father that is why they are truly one being. If the Son is not the Wisdom per se of the Father then they are two beings. -- 1 Cor. 1:24-25; Hebrews 1:3, Proverbs 8:22-31 The SENDER and the SENT one. God sent his only begotten Son ( John 3:16). Who is this God who sent his only begotten Son? The only true God is THE FATHER ( John 17:3). The one God is THE FATHER ( 1 Cor. 8:6) When did God became a Father? A Father necessiWho is this only begotten Son? It is Wisdom. The Lord created me the first of his work before his works of old ( Proverbs 8:22 LXX). tates Before the hills, he begets me ( Proverbs 8:25 LXX). Premise 1: The Lord is eternal Premise 2: The Lord begets Wisdom. Conclusion: Wisdom is eternally begotten because the begetter is eternal. He is the radiance of the light and the exact imprint of his being ( Hebrews 1:3). All of this means that the only begotten Son is equal to God in nature.
Philippians 2:6a proves Jesus-is-God christology versus Christadelphian christology

Thank you for this debate. You state in you opening sentence this: Who, existing in God's form, and esteemed to be equal with God not something to took by force I will address (a) first. We can read in Genesis about the creation of man. In the first chapter It is said "Let us create man in our own image." By this we can not only judge that there are two beings that decided this, as one was speaking to the other, but also that the two beings shared the same physical likeness. If, these two beings were God and Jesus then the definition of point (a) is that the shared the same form, but are not the same being. Now I will address point (b). You state that Jesus in this verse is equal to God, and we can assume the second half states that he one could not have taken the powers granted to God/Jesus by force. However, we read in the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that God sent his only begotten son two live and die for us. I ask of you then how, even in our physical sense can father and son be one being? We can also read in those same few verses before and after the ones you mention about Jesus giving up his throne in heaven to come to Earth. It mentions that he was equal to God yes, but does not say he was God. It says Jesus came to Earth, not God. So I ask you again how can they possibly be one being? You also mention many things about language, but I say this: somewhere in the Bible, I believe it is Acts 2:4-8 that it mentions every man heard the word of God spoken in his own tongue (language). I say this then: the literal translation of any language concerning morphe, form or any other words is meaningless. God does not speak an any language to his subjects unless needed he only talks directly to the soul with ways impossible for the human mind to understand. Concerning the appearance argument I must first ask where doe sit say that only God has divine appearance? Although I am sure God looks much more divine than us, as I mentioned before it says in Genesis that he created us to look like them. I also must say that Jesus did indeed become a servant. Near his death he went around and washed his disciples feet. How much more servitude can you do than to wash your own followers feet? Also I must say that when Jesus came to Earth he resembled us because he became a man, like us. Although he obviously did not look like us when he was on Earth, before he left, and when he returned after death, it says in Revelations that he was clothed in heavenly raiment and the like, but it still defines him and God as two different beings.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion: In 1974 court ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston's public schools. Neighborhoods were segregated by the race and children went to neighborhood schools. Even though Boston built new schools they were still segregated. Everything just got worst in Boston and even after the law said schools had to be. Affirmative assertion: To create a desegregated school system; a judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. If students go to school closer to home, school might be re segregated. The judge's planed was to create schools that included children from several neighborhoods. The new plan would make kids go to bad schools in their neighborhoods. Affirmative assertion: Courts have the power to reduce the effects of racial discrimination. Schools were run by the court and eventually desegregated. The police were used to reinforce Garrity"s decision. Judge Garrity told Boston students they would have to be bused and it had to be OBEY.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Assertion #1: Busing students away is not the only solution to desegregate schools. The courts brought havoc and protesting on school territories which brought injuries to many people especially in south Boston. An example of a good plan which the new plan promotes is to expand school choice and give people options of schools rather than force placement. Desegregation can spread without problems cause families can have options to choose from. Assertion#2: When you say, "The new plan would make kids go to bad schools in their neighborhoods. The new plan would make kids go to bad schools in their neighborhoods," your going against what the new plan states. 6 schools to choose from and 4 out of 6 schools are good quality schools that don"t have to be in their neighborhood so ya wrong at that point. Assertion#3: The courts are not the ones that reduce segregation, they can make as many laws as wanted but it is the people that make the decisions. The parents are the ones that reduce segregation by implementing what"s right and wrong in their Childs heads. Boston forcing students to be bussed away from families and home is corrupt and during that time the plan obviously wasn"t working because out of 100000 students only 40000 were attending school which brings a standstill in academic succession.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Response Assertion #1: You are wrong about in assertion 1 because I think mixing school will guarantee a better test score. Also you have no evidence otherwise. "Middle- school students are more likely to feel safer, less bullied and less lonely when they are in ethnically diverse schools, says a new study by UC Davis and UCLA psychologist." "We know that when students have positive social and psychological experiences at school, they do better academically". Response Assertion #2: You are right about feelings can"t be changed by laws, but by a change of heart, but you are also wrong because by the help of the court and their discipline students will notice the violence is not necessary and if they make a well community out of themselves everything would be much better. Response Assertion #3: You are wrong about this "The court is fueling young people"s minds with violence and disrespect toward different races. In reality most of the youth don't care about segregation, they just want to be young, free and be in a place that can better their future, so what the judges should have did instead of creating havoc is to just find ways and support all communities instead of putting all into one". The reason you are wrong is because the court was not trying to put the students together they were trying to desegregate the students.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer 1: The percentages of races in school can vary from year to year but there was a significant drop of kids going to school during the 1974 busing incident. In Boston schools a few years back tests sown results of 78%black/Hispanic and 14%white which lead me to think about the racial imbalance of social classes. Answer 2: My evidence to having significant proof that having mixed schools don"t always have the best test score is look at inner city schools and for our diverse school. Our test scores aren"t higher than the suburban counties with one race of dominance. Answer 3: Laws are debated upon every single day and when there are multiple options people have their own opinions in which Boston"s first plan doesn"t allow parents and families to make being in a free country, but in the new plan options are given and feeling toward school choice can be satisfactory.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Question1: If you was a parent, and your child was sent to a school that you didn"t approve how would you feel as a parent being uncomfortable on your child leaving the place you want him to be? Question 2: Can you be more descriptive on whom the new schools were being built for? Question 3: What is your intake on the riots going on school grounds and how does the court plan to maintain order because this plan is the reason for harm and confusion.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Assertion #1: Courts should not be able to create racially balanced schools. -The court needs to stop thinking about race and look toward bettering the education of the entire city. They look only at blacks and Hispanics but if you look at what supplies and support the city gives these kids can you wonder why there grades are so low? -Race does not affect learning because even in today"s society even if you mix schools up that doesn"t guarantee high test scores because kids naturally role with whom they look like. -Segregating schools is not the issues, it is only the cover-up. The real issue is the quality of schools kids in certain neighborhoods go to and how the courts want to move kids around like a bunch of Legos like they want to be moved around. 6 choices are better than 1 and having six choices is much more fare than not having a choice at all. Overtime it is the people that make a difference not the courtroom. Assertion # 2: Courts are powerless to prejudice. -Courts are powerless to prejudice because people have feelings and whether you like it or not, they can"t be changed by laws, but by a change of heart. -Segregation to schools is not going to change the way people feel toward each other. The courts can segregate all they want but students that are prejudice are just going chill with their own kind. -The courts can"t change the prejudice because they just don"t want to be change and by sending kids across town to unfamiliar areas without safety can cause parents to feel certain ways toward different races. Prejudice or not, the court needs to look in other directions because in the long run parents just wants what"s best for their kids and the new plan gives multiple choices not just one. Assertion # 3: Schools should not be used as battlegrounds to address inequality and discrimination. -The court fails to realize that disturbing the learning environment of the youth by turning a peaceful place into a madhouse is not a good thing. -The court is fueling young people"s minds with violence and disrespect toward different races. In reality most of the youth don"t care about segregation, they just want to be young, free and be in a place that can better there future, so what the judges should of did instead of creating havoc is to just find ways and support all communities instead of putting all into one. -The court needs to realize that blowing this up, and not keeping it into the court room is corrupting the students simply because students look up to elders and leaders, but if the leaders of our education and the court bring the fight to us nothing will get done. Fighting, riots and beating around the bush and not getting to the real facts is only getting the young ones to join the madness which is no good.
The Bible should be the only source of Christian life.

Lutherans have different beliefs than Catholics. Martin Luther said that we could understand scripture by God's grace, and you agreed, quote for quote, "Every Christian has the ability to understand Scripture by God's Grace" . This means that we need God's grace to understand the scripture. We can get God's grace only by sacred tradition, therefore, you contradicted yourself. Also, you said to try to stay away from sin, but we need to have tradition to tell us what is good and bad. Sure, the bible tells us all what we should do, but God also gave us things to do through the saints, who are not part of the Bible. St. Joan was prudent when she was burnt, and we have to be prudent, or careful to get to Heaven. Without prudence, we could not be careful around other people, such as if they were going to kill you if you didn't sin, you don't sin because prudence tells you not to. Prudence is not described in the bible as what we think of it today. It says that prudence keeps us with God, which it does, don't get me wrong, but it is not clear about how it keeps us with God.
The Bible should be the only source of Christian life.

Christians, Catholics especially, believe that the bible is one main source of our Catholic life. However it is part of a two step part of our Christian, and most other religions life. We, the Catholic people, believe in sacred tradition and scripture, tradition is our everyday life, and scripture is the Bible. The Bible is a source in which we can follow, however, Jesus wanted us to have free will, which makes us allowed to sin, even though we should try to avoid sin. The Muslims have the Koran, which tells them that they have to visit the Kaaba stone once a life time. The Koran does not say to go to the Kaaba, the Muslims do it by TRADITION, that's all to say for now.
Emryonic stem cell research

Unlike adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells are more viable and usable by the scientific community. According to explorestemcells.co.uk adult stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic stem cells therefore they do not have the same potential and are difficult to culture. Adult stem cells are also confined to their organ or tissue of origin because they have already been differentiated. Also the national institute of health said that adult stem cells have a much shorter life span than embryonic ones, and though some may argue that embryonic stem cells are prone to rejection, scientific studies on humans have only been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. More research into the use of embryonic stem cells could potentially help 1/3 of the population.Also because adult stem cells are harder to culture and grow their is a far less amount available, however embryonic stem cells are relatively easy to grow and therefore are more abundant.