BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of Marijuana

I thank you for accepting, and good luck to you also! Many people say that marijuana has little to no effect on the lungs. But that is very wrong, according to lung.org smoking marijuana has 33 cancer-causing chemicals (50-70% more than cigarettes), and it releases 4 times as much tar into your lungs than a regular cigarette(because blunts are unfiltered). Smoking marijuana also has devastating effects on the brain. "It impairs short-term memory and motor coordination; slows reaction time; alters mood, judgment and decision-making; and in some people can cause severe anxiety or loss of touch with reality. Because of these effects, marijuana use more than doubles a driver"s risk of being in an accident." Lung.org Many people say that marijuana is not addicting and not a gateway drug. According to drugfreeworld.org the vast majority (99.9%) of cocaine users say that they started with a gateway drug such as marijuana, and cigarettes. "I was given my first joint in the playground of my school. I"m a heroin addict now, and I"ve just finished my eighth treatment for drug addiction." "Christian Again for drugfreeworld.org the long term effects of marijuana are also devistating -Reduced resistance to common illnesses (colds, bronchitis, etc.) -Suppression of the immune system -Growth disorders -Increase of abnormally structured cells in the body -Reduction of male sex hormones -Rapid destruction of lung fibers and lesions (injuries) to the brain could be permanent -Reduced sexual capacity -Study difficulties: reduced ability to learn and retain information -Apathy, drowsiness, lack of motivation -Personality and mood changes -Inability to understand things clearly
Playing guitar fast does not make you a good guitarist.

Thank you, for the deabte. I would like to point out that "YouTube" is not a valid source. Therefore, all information in the video should be discredited. I personally haven't even watched them. =REBUTTALS= 1. " You're link showed an autistic child being able to play piano and sing merely by memory and without much knowledge. He has perfect pitch and plays beautifully without the guidance of a teacher or an expert. These flaws would mostly likely show the characteristics of a musical prodigy." a) My link is a valid source (ABC News). The principal that I'm proving is not so much the ability to read sheet music, but to prove that being able to read sheet music and retaining that knowledge does not define you as a good player. Also, the source did not say "from memory", but by ear. Also, you said he has "perfect pitch and plays beautifully", but state he is flawed. b) "You are stating that this boy does not need knowledge, which is most likely true. But it didn't give any edge as to why you do need to be able to play fast in order to be a good guitarist." Then you agree with my point. You stated in your 2nd round that knowledge allows you to play fast and with more power. So, being talented at playing an instrument (which you said he was), playing it without "knowledge", and being able to keep tempo does not qualify for being good? It does. c) You also said that he had the characteristics of a musical prodigy, but also said earlier "Most people can play fast songs very well and fluently." That is a falicy by generalization. His being able to play well and fluently is a skill, and he is just one of many that retains that talent. 2) You "rebutted" with a question. This does not prove a point, and my arguement therefore stands. 3) "It [Being able to play fast] shows very little potential. If you one day decide to start a band, you're not going to be able to walk in and make songs (relating to the above songs, or any type of song) knowing just how to play fast. There are many other factors you would have to consider in order to actually make a song. " a. Being able to have that kind of muscle control IS talent, and it's not something that everyone can do. That kind of talent is inate. Anyone (within reason), can learn to read music, and you did not refute my point "those who can't teach" and the example of the gymnast {we learn through similies and metaphors, everyone =)} b. And, yes, there are many other factors to make you a good guitarist. This resolution is impossible to operate under the premise, because it does not include those other factors, which is why I debated listening by ear over your "knowledge" (reading sheet music) c. "Many guitarists have made slow paced guitar songs in which were major hits, such as Stairway To Heaven (minus the solo)." You can't provide an example and then edit out parts that aren't appurtenant to your case. I also find this irrelevant to the topic "Playing fast doesn't make you a good guitarist.". That song is popular because it's a good song, not because it's a slow song. Thank you for the debate. =VOTE CON=
Playing guitar fast does not make you a good guitarist.

1. You're link showed an autistic child being able to play piano and sing merely by memory and without much knowledge. He has perfect pitch and plays beautifully without the guidance of a teacher or an expert. These flaws would mostly likely show the characteristics of a musical prodigy. A. You are stating that this boy does not need knowledge, which is most likely true. But it didn't give any edge as to why you do need to be able to play fast in order to be a good guitarist. I don't know about anyone else, but my opponents link seemed completely irrelevant to the debate topic. 2. http://www.youtube.com... "You can recognize every guitar rift and chord and be able to play them, but how fluently? Odds are, yes, that you'll be able to play them fluently if you can read guitar notes, or at least well enough." Do you really think these guitarists just picked up the guitar and just started to "...play them (the songs) fluently...or at least well enough"? This is going to be my final point, so I will try to make it my best. 3. You made a point saying that being able to play fast shows potential. It shows very little potential. If you one day decide to start a band, you're not going to be able to walk in and make songs (relating to the above songs, or any type of song) knowing just how to play fast. There are many other factors you would have to consider in order to actually make a song. Many guitarists have made slow paced guitar songs in which were major hits, such as Stairway To Heaven (minus the solo). =VOTE PRO= [ ;) ]
Playing guitar fast does not make you a good guitarist.

Thank you again for the debate. "But with knowledge you learn and gain the skills necessary to be able to play fast and with more power." I. There are different types of knowledge in music, some of them that are unteachable, but inate. a. For example, the ability and knowledge to tell which key is being played merely by ear. More often than not, those who lack theoretical knowledge deal better with practical. This is merely one example of this autistic child who plays piano (who's musical notes and ways are similar to guitar) his parents are deaf. http://abcnews.go.com... <---- Also a cited source. So, an impractical abstract approach to music can work, which is what I am a defending with my standing in the resolution. b. That's not always true. Knowledge doesn't always garuntee success. For example, I could know how to do a backflip. Keep your knees bent, jump back and tuck, etc. but I may not be able to do it. The same principal applies with guitar, with different muscle movements (even if it's just fingers, it must be precise). 2. You can play a slow song, but it doesn't mean that your fingers can move at as quick a pace as fast songs. 3. "Just being able to play fast does not show much potential." No, that's not true. If you can play fast, you can play notes with speed and percision, and be taught how to read later, though reading doesn't nessicarily make you great either. It all comes down to the skills with the fingers, and being able to play fast is most definately an asset in this case. Such an asset, that I believe it should win this debate. =VOTE CON=
Playing guitar fast does not make you a good guitarist.

Thank you CON, and good luck to you too. This will be an interesting debate. First, "Knowledge is not power." This is true for the most part. Knowledge is knowledge. But with knowledge you learn and gain the skills necessary to be able to play fast and with more power (pick grip, hand placement, strum control, ect.). Most people can play fast songs very well and fluently, but actually have no idea what they are playing. For example, if you play a riff, 12 bar blues progression, or even a full song, and play fluently through the whole riff, progression or song, you may have no idea what key it is in or what notes are included in the song. My main point is with knowledge of the guitar, or in any musical case, a lot of topics come to mind. Posture, speed, keeping a beat, or knowing the key of a song and notes within it (which I stated before). Ultimately leading to the point where you don't need to play fast to be a good guitarist. Second, "The person who can play guitar fast has the muscle movement down pat." Not true. Many people can gain finger and hand strength, along with percision, by playing slow pace riffs with bends, slides, and hammer-ons. Third, "However, being able to have such muscle control and percision definately shows potential, and that potential can be used to grow to make you a "good" guitar player. In this, if you just had "knowledge", it wouldn't garuntee your success." This I can disprove. Just being able to play fast does not show much potential. Many famous guitarists start out on the basics. Learing the parts of the guitar, what is unique about their guitar, notes, reading notes, learning keys, all leading up to being able to play those fast riffs, in which you can make up on your own easily off the top of your head.
Playing guitar fast does not make you a good guitarist.

Thank you for the debate. REBUTTAL(S): 1. My opponent's only contention is that knowledge always rises above "speed". However, this is not true. I will "rebutt" this in my contentions subsequent to this. CONTENTION(S): 1. Knowledge is not power. a. You can recognize every guitar rift and chord and be able to play them, but how fluently? Odds are, yes, that you'll be able to play them fluently if you can read guitar notes, or at least well enough. However, my opponents case and standing is in support in all cases, which I can disprove. There are some guitarist, unequivically, that have arthritis. some songs they know how to play, but just cannot due to their disability. b. The person who can play guitar fast has the muscle movement down pat. If they do not know how to read, then they can learn. More often than not, practicing and being able to control your movements with ease and percision is key to guitar playing, as opposed to reading. If I could play a song as fast as I could, I could play more uptempo songs. c. This singular fact of being able to play (a) song(s) quickly, in itself, is not suffiecent enough to garuntee that all cases you will be profiecent enough to be a "good" guitar player. However, being able to have such muscle control and percision definately shows potential, and that potential can be used to grow to make you a "good" guitar player. In this, if you just had "knowledge", it wouldn't garuntee your success. Albiet, neither does speed, but if you can play quickly, then the person will have the potential to be come good ALWAYS. With knowledge, you might not ALWAYS be able to play quickly/good (i.e. the example listed above) This is my case, and I hope my opponent does his/her best to crack it, but I have full measures of confidence that this will be an interesting and well-fought debate. Good luck, PRO. =VOTE CON=
Oranges do more good in the world than apples

My opponent says that apples are easier to play catch with, however, even though oranges are less firm, they are much more aerodynamic.Also, there is no evidence that if New York was called "The Big Orange" it wouldn't be as popular. Names are silly things.Also, my opponent points out an expensive object that takes off apple peels. Well, you know they have that for oranges and it is called YOUR THUMB.I have showed much more good done by oranges than he does. He basically gave up on nutritional values.Vote pro and vote for america and jesus. Con is for satan.
Oranges do more good in the world than apples

Hah! Playing catch with an orange, when an apple is far more firm?I don't think so. Apples are hard enough to be caught at most velocities thrown by a human without them falling apart. Would you want to throw a squishy ball back and forth?Having the nickname "the Big Apple" is not beneficial? Have you ever stopped to think about classic movies such as Annie Hall or Breakfast at Tiffany's that wouldn't have been quite as good if they didn't take place in "The Big Apple"? The Big Apple's name is what gives it fame. It makes people want to visit. What if New York was called "The Big Orange"? Would you think of over-the-top theater productions, Central Park, or the Empire State Building? NO. You would think of a really big orange.My opponent also mentioned that if you don't like an apple's skin, you can't do anything about it.http://ctrlv.in...
Oranges do more good in the world than apples

RefutationsMy opponent discusses the apple product and how apples are sleek and smooth. He discusses the ergonomics of apples, however apples lack in that they are not perfectly circle. What would be easier to play catch with, an apple or an orange? Obviously an orange. So, orange wins in sports playing. My opponent discusses how apples were eaten by Adam and Eve, however he forgets that SATAN CONVINCED THEM TO EAT THE APPLES. SATAN LOVES APPLES. Apples are the tool of satan. God doesn't want us to eat apples. My opponent then discusses "the big apple", however there is no reason that having this nickname does any good in the world. He also says that do not require any sort of climate, however they do need to be in cold areas for maximum juiciness and tastiness. My opponent now discusses how he thinks apples taste good. Bias source much! !? >11! >! >!11>>!1one! !>>? ? He provides no source for his health statistics, and also says that the core is easily disposable. Hey, do you know what doesn't have a core? ORANGES. Oranges also have removable skins that you don't have to eat if you think they are yucky. If you don't like apple skins, you are screwed. Good evening.
Oranges do more good in the world than apples

6 words have started a war: I like apples better than oranges The battle of apples vs. oranges is a complex and multi-layered one. Lets dive in, shall we? 1) Apples Represented in Modern Day One obvious example of apples having a tremendous amount of influence is with the electronics company that goes simply by the name of the delectable fruit itself, Apple. Apple’s products are well known for their sleek form, that feels good in your hand. This applies to the fruit as well. Think about an orange, a round shape that doesn’t quite naturally fit in your hand. It pushes out more, and is uncomfortable. Now think of an Apple product. The iPhone. Its curved edges slide into your hand, and using it feels cool and uncomplicated. Now think of an apple. Its indented shape fits in your hand perfectly. Don’t worry about having to take off a peel and break it apart, simply bite in. Apple, one of the most world renowned electronic companies, named itself after the most sleek, delicious fruit in the world. Besides, do you see any companies named “Orange”? And we cannot forget the truly inspired song, "I Like to Eat Apples (and Bannanas)" for honorable mention. 2) Religion I am not one to argue about religion. But when it comes to an argument this significant, I do what I must. The apple hangs from that tree, seducing to come near it. You have been told not to eat it, but you’re too cool to follow directions. You reach for it, pick it, and take a bite into its cool, sweet skin, revealing the white fruit beneath. You regret absolutely nothing. This, of course, is the story of Adam and Eve, who ate one of the coolest fruits in the world, even when told they would be kicked out of the garden of Eden. 3) Geography The Big Apple! The pinacle of nicknamed cities! Given the nickname with the fruit itself. New York isn’t even worthy to have The Big Apple as its real name, because nothing beats an apple. On terms of actual geographical growth of apples, they are grown all over the wold, because they don’t require any sort of climate. They’re a universal fruit, making it easy to grow and enjoy. 4) Deliciousness While many healthy foods don’t taste all that great (eg: any vegetable you present to any over privileged child), apples are deliciously sweet, while providing plenty of vitamins and very low fat. Plus, there is a mix of flavors, with the advantage of having the ability to eat the skin. You get the lightly flavored skin paired with the powerfully sweet inside. On top of that, the core is easily disposable. Simply throw it into the dirt and it will quickly decompose and become soil, good for the environment. 5) Conclusion The apple truly has inspired people around the world. Wether it be producing electronics, changing the path of various religious groups, making locations famous, or just tasting great, the apple is the fruit for you. I would also like to applaud my opponent on providing sources that I could not acquire. Bravo and good luck.
Oranges do more good in the world than apples

Arguments1. The Health Impact of OrangesOranges are a tremendous source of Vitamin C. One orange provides one hundred percent of our daily Vitamin C value [1]. Vitamin C, commonly found in citrus fruits, helps us do amazing things like not getting scurvy and keeping our sperm healthy. Go figure![2] Also, the white stuff that everybody hates (in oranges not testicles!) contains anti-cancer cells [1]. In addition, oranges lower cholesterol, blood pressure, treat arthritis, prevent ulcers, relieve constipation, prevent kidney stones, strengthen immune system, and of course they have a very low amount of calories [3]. Oranges have 62 calories[4] and apples have 116 [5].2. The Cultural Impact of OrangesThe Annoying Orange, the popular web series, features the protagonist as an orange and the villain is an apple. That's right. Apples are the villain. The series has 108 million views on youtube [7], and has provided lots of joy and well-being to those who watch it. Also, the color of orange was named after the fruit [8]. I'm not saying that the color orange wouldn't have existed without the fruit, but it would have had a different one. Perhaps one not as satisfactory and awesome as "orange".3. General Tastiness and goodnessIn China, oranges are considered a symbol of good luck and well-being [6]. Originally, oranges were used in Eurpope for their medicinal values [9]. Also, it is worth noting that since oranges are so high in vitamin C, which is good for preventing scurvy, oranges saved hundreds of sailor's lives on ships.ORANGES ARE THE BOMB DOT COMYOU KNOW WHO EATS APPLES? SATAN. GOD HATES APPLES AND HE DEOESN'T WANT HUMANS TO EAT THEM AT ALL.Vote Pro Sources[1]http://www.juicing-for-health.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.healthonlinezine.info...;[4]http://caloriecount.about.com...[5]http://caloriecount.about.com...[6]http://wiki.answers.com...;[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;[9]http://www.hort.purdue.edu...;
Oranges do more good in the world than apples

Hello Sawybean! Per what I said in the last debate, we will now debate the cultural and medicinal impact of oranges and apples. You will be siding for apples, and I will be siding for oranges. Here are the formalities:Round 1: Acceptance only. No argumentsRound 2: Post arguments with no refutationsRound 3: ClashRound 4: Clash and conclusionPlease accept! A note on the topic. We will be debating which one does more good. Any place that oranges or apples have affected society, in regards to eating or anything is relevant to this debate.
Workaholism can't make society happy

Framed in the way of workaholism being a disability and an impedance on ones quality of life, then we are in complete agreement. I can't debate workaholism in this framework. All I can argue is, hope. I know in the professionalism of debate I can't justify this with hardened facts but I can support it with experience. I maybe 23 years old, but I was brought up from very poor family. I did amazing in school, but when it came to college, there simply wasn't enough money. I put myself into debt just to gain a higher education. I would spend significantly more than 70 hours a week studying and being involved (Physics and Mathematics). I did it and dealt with the stress simply because of the hope that things will pay off. Now, I work over 90 hours a week just to pay off the debt I'm in. The only things I currently use my free time on is to workout and mess around on the internet. Maybe for someone who has gained a degree of a decent quality of life, being a workaholic is a bad thing. For people without, working and being a workaholic is sometimes the only means in which we have to maintain hope. Having hope gives me a certain degree of happiness. Do I often find myself questioning is it worth it, sure. At the same rate, I know if I stop, this delicate house of cards I have built would come crashing down and then I wouldn't even have hope. I am forfeiting this debate, based upon the above framework. In the above framing, we are in full agreement.
Workaholism can't make society happy

Thank you for such a detailed responce. Firstly, I agree with what you've stated, there can't be defined the exact meaning of happiness as it's a very abstract concept and each person understands it in his or her own way. But the issue whether overworking leads to happiness or not still remains. I think you didn't understand what I mean. According to Melissa Campeau(2011), the term "workaholic" was coined by Wayne Oates in 1968. A workaholic person was described as one whose "work has become so excessive that it disturbs or interferes with his bodily health, personal happiness, interpersonal relations, and social functioning". Secondly, I don't see clear arguments that would prove your position. You said that happiness is something individual and its impossible to what would drive each person. I partly agree, but still, I'm sure most of people would answer family, people whom they love and finally health. People who work for about 14 hours a day, almost 70 hours a week can't feel well. The term overworking can also be assumed as an actual addiction. The word workaholic itself has a negative meaning, actually the same as alcoholics. People who married with work, think only about their work as alcoholics who also can't help drinking alcohol, in the end both of them finish not only with alienation of close people, but also with troubles connected with health. Is that really good for gaining happiness? Finally, if workaholics tend to report psychological health complaints, lower psychological well-being, lower self-acceptance than those who are not workaholics, their level of happiness is obviously in jeopardy, as well as the happiness of people around them.