BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana Should be Legalized

First of all, why alien abductions? There is no way you can prove that and don't have any credible sources for it. Marijuana should not have been made illegal Contrary to popular belief, marijuana was not made illegal in the US because it was considered a dangerous drug. Marijuana was made illegal in the United States for population control of Mexican and Black minorities in the 1930. With a mix of racism, irrational fear and ignorance, legislators between the decades of 1910's-1930's sought ways to control minorities, afraid that they would one day overthrow the white government. According to Harry J. Asslinger, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, marijuana should be outlawed because of "...its effect on the degenerate races." and because "[marijuana] makes darkies think they're as good as white men." Finally, after a series of congressional hearings in the 1930's, irrational fear won over science and marijuana was made illegal in 1937. Fast forward to 2007, and marijuana is still very much illegal. Scientific evidence is mounting showing marijuana is not only harmless, but even beneficial. However, the US government is still going strong with its expensive "War on Drugs". Putting that aside, I have more reasons. Dealing illegal drugs is very lucrative. Drug dealers form empires around illegal drugs, and they will stop at nothing to keep their money making empires. Legalize the drugs, prices drop, and drug empires hurt. Medical studies of THC and Cannabinol (here's a good example) show marijuana can be used from nausea prevention and pain relief in chemotherapy patients to glaucoma. Legalization would most certainly lead to further scientific investigation. http://thinkthick.blogspot.com... Alcohol is proven to be more dangerous than marijuana. You can drink yourself to death but no one has ever died because of smoking marijuana.
Marijuana Should be Legalized

Let me begin by thanking my opponent for posting this debate. This is an interesting and somewhat contentious topic. I would like to point out at this early stage that I have taken this position because this was the only position that was being offered and not because it's a personal view that I hold. This is a debate. In a debate, unless an agreement or stipulation is made to the contrary, the instigator bears the burden of proof. That means that I don't have to prove anything at all. Rather, it's my opponent who has to prove the resolution. Before making up your mind who to vote for, I urge you to read our closing arguments. Whatever you do, do not make up your mind at this early stage. You have to read the entire debate first. My case: Marijuana is deadly. It's responsible for 100,000 deaths per year in Europe alone. Using marijuana leads to use of hardcore drugs. One in every 10 marijuana users ends up using heroin within 5 months. One in every 2 heroin users ends up dead within 3 years. One in 25 heroin users is convicted of a felony within 3 months of beginning to use heroin. Marijuana use leads to schizophernia. 13.3 percent of the time, schizophrenia is contracted after the first or second use of marijuana. Last, but not least, the use of marijuana increases the incidence of UFO abductions. It has been found that a marijuana user is 30% more likely to be abducted and tortured by aliens than a person who does not use marijuana. I now pass the batton to my opponent.
a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens

The definition of blind is being unable to see visually. But there are numerous people who can see without any sort of visual stimuli, not just the one I mentioned. The man I previously mentioned actually teaches classes on using basic echolocation to see the world around you without eyes. This is a more complex example of this. Another is when a blind man is able to see various contours in a face with his hands. All of these are examples of sight, albeit without the aid of the eyes and optic nerve.
a blind man seeing aliens is a blind man not seeing aliens

I accept your challenge on a simple premise: to see something does not always require sight. Operating under the assumption that aliens exist, and are visible entities, does not mean that they can't be seen by the blind. From a neurological perspective, sight is subjective, as when a blind man reads braille, or touches something to get a sense of his surroundings. Take, for example, the case of Daniel Kish, a blind man who has trained himself to see in detail using echolocation, and in fact, the optic cortex lights up in response to his self-learned echolocation (http://edition.cnn.com...). There is nothing to say that a blind man cannot touch an alien, or echolocate an alien, and be able to see it.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

I see where you are coming at. However the points you made are flawed. First of all, if I was walking down the street and saw a man with no money, I have a small thought that runs through my head saying I MUST help him. I also have a thought that says you shouldn't. Both thoughts are there, its just the ladder is stronger than the former. Just because the ladder is stronger than the former, does not mean the former isn't still there. Sure he may be too lazy to get a job, but we still have a tiny impulse to help him. This is unarguable. It is the same with countries. The United States sees France in a bind, and yes, they do have a moral obligation to help him, even if France did waste their money, its just that our moral obligation to not do it is stronger than our moral obligation to take action. Again, just because the ladder is stronger than the former, does not mean that the former is not present. I would like to clarify also that having that impulse to help someone and having an "obligation" to help them are the same thing. If we feel like me must help someone, we feel like we should, otherwise known as an obligation. Now that we are in rebuttals you can not bring up the new argument of " a country and a person are not the same thing" so that should be disregarded. The U.S. does have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

I understand completely. I am not debating weather we should go and mitigate international conflicts, this is a rather interesting topic to have to debate against. but what i am saying as individuals we all have our own mind set, like the example with Jack and Jason, their mothers did not agree on what they thought was right. it is the same with the United states. Everyone has their own idea on what they think is right and wrong. Not everyone believes that there is a God who created the universe, so the people who believe that we were created by random chance have their own opinion on what is right. Some people have a blank continence. which means that even if they see someone who needs help, they feel like they have no obligation to help them. for example; you are driving down the road and you see a man on the side of the street with a sign that says he needs money to buy food, you have two main options, to believe he really does need help, or he is just lazy and doesn't want to get a job ( not with all cases, this is just an example), so assuming that the person was lazy and just didn't want to get a job, you feel you have no obligation to help them because they don't try to help themselves. When you do that you have a clear continence, you have nothing inside of you that says you should give him money. The United States could be thought of in the same way. Say that Italy was totally bankrupt they had no money what so ever because they spent it all on useless things. The U.S doesn't feel like they need to help Italy, because they were unwise about the decisions they made. they have no voice in their head saying they need to help. This could be said about any other country. ( I'm sure that some people would disagree and say that we need to help Italy, but this is a majority based decision) So to sum it up. The United States does Not have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts! We are not the big brother that tries to butt into the arguments of our siblings, because for one the big brother might get into trouble as well if he tries to solve the problems of his siblings, so by him staying out of the argument he has a clear continence. So the U.S does Not have a moral obligation to help.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

So what you are saying, is, we have a moral obligation to mitigate some conflicts, while others we need to be thinking about our people more. I understand your point. However, whether we should, or should not mitigate international conflicts is irrelevant to this resolution. The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate conflicts, it is just sometimes the moral obligation of the United States to protect their own people is stronger than the moral obligation to mitigate the conflict. That does not all of a sudden erase the moral obligation the United States has to mitigate in the international conflict. Lets say I was going to Disney Land, but I was too sick and couldn't go, does that stop me from wanting to go to Disney Land? No it simply means I can't go. Its the same with this resolution. No matter what, the United States, even if it be a small one, has a moral obligation to mitigate conflicts. Its just that sometimes the moral obligation to protect their people is stronger. Your random example of France, lets say we wanted to help them with their Syrian engagement. If they are in trouble, just like a person, the United States has an instinct or obligation to help. If we decide that our moral obligation to keep our people safe is stronger than the obligation to mitigate, than we would obviously refrain from attacking. However, that does not stop the US from having a moral obligation to help.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

Yes. A person does have a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. but individuals and a whole country are to completely different things. As individuals we can decide weather or not to help someone in need of aid, but as a country we all have separate minds, and separate ideas of what is right and what is wrong. What is right to one person might not be considered right to some one else, for example: Jack: Mom can i go to a party at Marks house, even though i have school tomorrow? Mom: sure Jack. Jacks mom didn't have any problem with him staying out late on a school night. Jason: hey mom, Jack is going to Marks party tonight, may i go with him even though it is a school night? Jason's mom: No Jason. That would not be a very smart thing to do, you have school tomorrow and if you stay out late you wont be able to wake up in the morning. Jason's mother didn't agree with Jacks mother about what was right. This is the same with countries. Not every one would agree that we need to go and help out France. (Just a random example) The United States (depending on the situation) has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid, but it is not our responsibility to go out and try to solve every problem that happens between two other countries (or more). We need to think about our own obligations to our own people. If you were walking down the street, and one of your children walked out into the middle of the road and a car was coming, and a few yards away a different kid was being abused, which would you choose? to save your own child? Or rescue a kid that was not yours and let your own child die? This is the same with our country now. the United States does not have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. For example if Russia wanted to go to war with Iraq that doesn't mean we have to help them, but it doesn't mean that have to help Iraq either. I think most of us would have a clear continence about that. In world War I we didn't join in the war until we were attacked, we were simply helping ourselves, we didn't join the war to help out anybody else. Instead of worrying about every other countries problems, why don't we try to mitigated our own? There are a lot of things that we could fix right here in our own back yard. The United States has a moral obligation to help its self before it helps any other country. Thank You!
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

Does the United States of America have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts? My opinion is yes. I would like to look at this through three main issues, or contentions. Contention 1 A person has a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. If I was walking down the street, and I saw a small child getting abused on the side of the street, I have an impulse, a little voice in my head, telling me I need to help. Let us say that I was too weak to help the kid, so I decided to refrain from helping him. Does that all of a sudden stop the impulse in my head shouting at me to help? of course not. this is very simple. Lets say I wanted to go to Disneyland, but I didn't have enough money to go. does that stop me from wanting to go to disneyland? no it does not. it is simply not arguable that there is a voice shouting at me to help the kid getting abused on the street. Contention 2. The united states has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid. The same thing can be applied to countries. Multiple philosophers have said, a country is of one mind, one body. Because we are a completely unified body, the same argument can be applied to countries as well as people. So the United States has a moral obligation, an impulse that urges the United States to take action. it is for this reason that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international affairs. Contention 3. This is the side for you Whether you believe that the United States should or shouldn't get involved in international affairs, this is the side for you. Again, the resolution doesn't state what the US should do, it just says the United States has a moral obligation. The key is this, the united states has a moral obligation to help any country. that is not deniable. however, the us also has a moral obligation to keep its people safe. No matter which obligation outweighs the other. both are there in summary, the united states, just like a person, has a moral obligation to help countries. it doesn't matter whether the US should, or how big the obligation is, it just matters that they do. Thanks!
In fact there is not one real contradiction in scripture.

I think part of your problem with this debate has always been not really understanding either the meaning of contradiction, or what the debate really is. I have never stated that there were not apparent contradictions in scripture, simply that anything that appears to be a contradiction does so simply because it is misunderstood, misinterpreted or either a deliberate or unintentional error. Nothing you have produced has contradicted that fact. Neither have I said that all but one Denomination which claims to be Christian is a contradiction, though it is true that what they teach contradicts some aspect of scripture or other. To be false teachers rather than Christian (Matthew 7:21-23) they only need to be teaching one error, and to be unwiling to change it when sufficient scriptural evidence is produced. So my summing up is really as simple as that. You have demonstrated that there are passages in some translations of scripture, or parts of scripture that appear to contradict others, however you have not been able to prove that they truly are contradictions when properly understood, therefore you have not proved that they are real contradictions. I never truly belonged to any denomination in that I was never Confirmed. I was brought up in a CoE family and for a while attended a Baptist Sunday School, and yes the confusion and contradiction is what deterred me from looking closer than I did. I have also studied many denominations, but as soon as I found a dogmatically false view of scripture I looked no further. However I have no problem in understanding what is a contradiction and what is not, and to be a contradiction it has to be real. Many of the teachings are contradictory, I agree, but it is their understanding, or mistranslation of the relevant scripture which is contradictory, not the scripture itself. As to your final comment, there is no contradiction there. God created man with free will and all he needed to use that free will wisely, however Adam failed to do so. All God begs for is for us to use our free will wisely, something He, however briefly, had but does not have at present and, for our sakes, wants again.
In fact there is not one real contradiction in scripture.

My argument is simple. There are no real contradictions in scripture. There are reporting differences. There are errors of translation Most of all there are incorrect understandings of the scriptures involved. I have been shown hundreds of so called contradictions by those who have tried to prove that scripture contradicts itself, but so far none have truly been contradictions, even if, on the surface they may have seemed to be. That si where getting a true understanding of scripture comes not it's own, and is in fact one of the main ways that you kow that you do have the correct understanding.
In fact there is not one real contradiction in scripture.

Pro's position is simply this: In fact there is not one real contradiction in scripture. I have been shown hundreds of so-called contradictions and it has always bee easy to show how they are not in fact such. Con's position is that this is complete nonsense and sounds like an unsupported fabrication. Rules: (A) Pro uses first round to accept and supports his claim. (B) This is a formal debate and sources are suspect until proven otherwise. (C) Final round is for closing arguments only. (D) Anything magic based is supported by evidence or it is invalid. (E) All modifications to rules are determined and agreed upon before acceptance. (F) Cambridge dictionary rules.
famer is gay as hell

Pro has forfeited the last and possibly the most important round of this debate. Clearly he loses conduct points and points for convincing arguments because he failed to stick ot the topic. Pro also loses points for spelling and grammar because he spelt some words wrong and did not use perfect grammar in his debate. I have proven to our readers that I am indeed not a homosexual. Please vote CON for obvious reasons. Thank you for your time in reading this debate.
famer is gay as hell

Thank you funkymuppets for putting forth your 4th and also most ridiculous argument in the history of my lifetime on DDO. He has accepted my definition of all the terms I have put forth in the first round. I have defined the slang phrase "as hell" just to repeat myself, as the definition as follows: " something along the lines of towards the extremes of anything of that sort. " He has willingly accepted my definition as from what I have seen in the first three arguments. Now he has unsportsmanshiply decided to change the definition in his favour. Unfortunately, I don't think this can happen because it was already agreed upon much earlier in the debate. He claims he has unleashed his "secret weapon", although it was just a lame attempt to win this debate in a cheap manner. Please vote con as I have successfully proven that I am not gay. Good Luck to pro for R5. I would suggest it to be a concluding round.
famer is gay as hell

And now I release my secret weapon The debate topic is famer is gay as hell hell is not gay is it? thus, i rest my case, saying famer is not gay, as he was saying above. He in fact had to prove that he was not as gay as hell, which is to say he is gay. So there fore I win as he debated for me by saying he was straight fvck yeah vote for me for bacon and sex
famer is gay as hell

To all the ladies and gentlemen who are reading this debate, you must realise that pro is becoming unclear as to what he is actually attempting to point out. The point that he has initiated and will be debated on is: "famer is gay as hell". We must not delve on unrelated points such as whether I support gay marriage or am ashamed of the gay society as it is not relevant. Pro must prove to us that I, famer is indeed a homosexual while I am must continue proving that I am indeed NOT a homosexual (either bi-sexual of straight as an example). Although pro has given out arguments that are based on mere assumptions that I like "man willy" and that I shouldn't be ashamed of "my homosexuality", he has not used any evidence to backup his arguments and I have successfully refuted to his stale arguments. I, on the other hand, as con have proven to every that I am indeed not only not a homosexual, I have also proven my opponent completely wrong by claiming that I am straight, which is antonym of gay. I have backed up my claim with evidence that points back to my profile details. I would also like to point out, nowhere on my profile does it contain any information that has any hint as to the fact that I could possibly be gay (except for the support for gay marriage I guess). Just like to wish pro good luck for the rest of the debate. It'll be difficult to any signs that I could possibly be "gay as hell".
famer is gay as hell

My opponent funkymuppets has just created an assumption that I like "man willy" and has wrongly read my profile sad saying that I am homosexual. He has also mentioned that I am "homosapian". Pro has also spelt the word wrong as it is correctly spelt as "homosapien", which refers to modernised man, which is entirely true, but also not related to the topic. Pro has also wrongly assumed that I thought there was something wrong with being gay. However, this is not true. I support gay rights as has been shown in my profile. In the "big issues", I am pro with Gay Marriage. My profile has been last updated "2 months ago" so it is proof that I did not change it specially for this debate. Pro has also stated that I have somehow been "racist against us French Jews". This is a completely ridiculous statement that is unrelated to the topic. I will now prove that I am not gay. In my profile, it shows: Interested in: "Not saying" The above statement proves the point that I am not interested in men. I would also like to prove that I am indeed, "straight" as most people may call it. On my profile it says that I am interested and highly respect two female Korean pop singers by the names of Jessica and Tiffany. I would also like to point out that I find the two of them high attractive, for those who are willing to believe my statement. On to pro, your turn to prove me wrong and that I am indeed, a homosexual.
famer is gay as hell

It has been a pleasure to see that my friend funkymuppet is "enjoying" himself on DDO with some debates based on ridiculous topics. I haven't started any new debates on DDO since a month ago, until I saw his challenge based on the following and most ridiculous claim "famer is gay as hell". I will firstly provide some definitions before we start this debate: famer: I am quite sure he is referring to the user famer on DDO, which happens to be me. gay: In my opinion he is referring to gay as the slang for homosexual. The defintion of homosexuality from the trusted site dictionary.com states the following defintion: "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex." ..as hell: I'd assume my opponent means the slang phrase "as hell" means something along the lines of towards the extremes of anything of that sort. Therefore, a more refined statement we will be arguing on can go as follows: "The username famer displays high levels of homosexuality". My opponent has kindly given me the con position and I will be arguing that I do not display homosexuality. I await my opponent's first argument to support his given claim. Good Luck!