BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana.

If you wish to accept, please apply in the comments section. 4 rounds, 10k characters and open voting with a minimum ELO of 1,500. Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Definitions: [1] Medical Marijuana- Marijuana used to relieve pain and treat disease. [2] Legal/ Legalize- actions or conditions that are permitted or authorized by law. Structure: Round 1: Con's rules and TOU while Pro accepts. Round 2: Opening Arguments, NO Rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion. No Semantics No trolling No profanity Sources 1. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) 2. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)
Obama as President

I'm going to just argue her case seeing as it would be abusive to create a case that she can not argue A lot of those poor people that have houses payed for by the government aren't there by choice they are their because of the bad economy we have....and do you think Obama made it any better? No. My evidence of this can be found here. http://otrans.3cdn.net... https://sheet.zoho.com... http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com... And I am pretty sure some of those "hard workers" who live in these nice houses not payed for by the government can give up a little money for these poor people who don't have a job nor home. Thank you that is all.
Obama as President

There are many reasons why Obama is a bad president here is a list . Pulling out of Iraq but sending more troops to Afghanistan. This move is so purely political advancement that it's just sad. 2. Hiking up taxes in a recession, which affects the way people can spend money, which harms the economy.. 3. Focusing more on obesity (Not that it's not a important thing to try to fix) than spending less (RECESSION!), or at least on something that harms people more, such as mental health. 4. Spending money and wasting time on health care. 5. Letting the Census Bureau waste money on their cruddy commercials. 6. Not hardly any progress on the Recession, giving bailouts to corporations that got us here, but NOT to small business owners... 7. Obamacare will actually increase the amount Americans spend on health care more than if absolutely nothing was done. 8. It will increase budget deficits by hundreds of billions per year. 9. It will make health care LESS affordable for the average American family. 10. And it erodes our ability to make decisions about our health on our own.
Obama as President

I think Obama doesn't make a good president.. I think John McCain should have won the election, for goodness sake he was a veteran! also he would bring Sarah Palin one of the most brilliant women i have researched. But asides the election, Obama is raising our taxes and giving hard worker's money to people who are too lazy to work and live in the projects aka living off the goverment.. WOW. AND on top of that he has raised our debt to a trillion dollars.. like we will ever stand a chance to pay that off.
Euthanasia

The prospect of euthanasia is not that when a patient is confirmed to be terminally ill the government automatically stops of the machine, but the patient can decide their future whether it be to live or to end their constant suffering. If the government were to fund trips around the world for all those in this condition a different case would be on our hands and people as I am would not be fighting for euthanasia to be legalised. However in the currant predicament where the government refuses to do so or to create a specialised clinic for the patient we are here to see that when the patient feels their life is complete they can say their good byes, make surer all messages are made and go from the world at an expected time, in peace and letting their families or friends down easily. Of course it still stands that they may fight the illness and many will - say a young mother was ill she would fight till her last breath and legalising euthanasia does not stop her from fighting it just lets those who have lost their families and friends and feel every atom weighing down on them pushing them down even though the feelings of their whole body have gone, those who cannot move because of both their illness and heartbreak and those who wish with all their might, not to go to places, not to stay alive another restless day but for the suffering to finally come to an end. Euthanasia is only there for people who want it and if someone who has the will to fight and support behind them chooses to ignore it, it does not affect any other aspect of the world. Furthermore why waste energy, a bed, the doctors and staff on someone who wishes themselves dead, rather a person who wants so much another chance at life.
Euthanasia

I too respect your points which are well made. However, are they living or just not dying is exactly the crux of the argument. This is exactly why death should never be allowed as an option and all should be done to keep the person alive: WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HARDSHIP DUE TO HEALTH PROBLEMS ALL SHOULD BE DONE TO ENSURE THEIR LIFE IS FANTASTIC. We are allowing money to be the root of all evil by thinking lets just allow them out of their misery-its our government responsibility to ensure that the end of life is the best of life. Terminal illnesses should mean free holidays abroad paid by the state, those unable to speak should have everything available to them to help them communicate. Yes this won't work with all cases but it sure as heck would stop most people in such predicaments to want to end their lives earlier than their body wants. Give such people the best not the worst which is what they get currently.
Euthanasia

Assisting death in no way precludes giving the best care possible but instead integrates compassionate care and respect for the patients' autonomy and ultimately makes dignified death an option. Although you make a valid point which I respect, we have to face the facts a quote I always remember (really as it is the only phrase in Latin I know) is momento mori - remember you will die and in truth it is true and we have to learn to accept that. However in our age of advanced medical supplies and knowledge we can prolong the inevitable, even for a short amount of time. And the question becomes rather are they living or are they not- dying? And I believe this question should be left to the victim and not to our governments, judges and legislaters more interested in highway funding.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia should not be made legal. Without pain, without tragedy, without loss, without a yearning for something better, we lose what we are. The main reason as to why we can't though goes further than this. When we see people overcoming hideous amounts of hardships to do something amazing, we celebrate them. By allowing euthanasia we are saying as a world-give up if you like. We should never allow people to give up-it's what keeps us together as people always striving for better.
Euthanasia

I believe that euthanasia should be made legal. And although there may be flaws if we are to legalise it, I believe that a lot of good will come from it. Take my grandma for instance: she lived a long thirty years Before she became ill, after this the illnesses kept pilling on and on till the point that she spent twenty years unable to move, in the same house and in constant agonising pain. Twenty years of torture, sure she may spend a brief amount of time with her love. But still she begged and the doctors could not supply. Many other people experience this and euthanasia will allow them, at their own will to decide whether they die and release themselves from their undying pain!
(MIG Tournament) Conservative Showdown #2: Gold Standard

Resolved: The U.S. should implement the gold standard for its monetary system. DefinitionsGold Standard: The system by which the value of a currency was defined in terms of gold, for which it could be exchanged. Rules1. No new arguments or evidence in the last round2. Drops are not concessions, but can be evaluated as independent voters3. FF = lossGood luck to my friend Roy!
my truck sucks compare to my opponent truck.

Oh, sorry about your engine being stolen. That must suck? Anyways your truck may not be in operating condition and your tires could be worn down and your truck is an ugly color, but mine has holes in my gas tank, the manual stick is broken in half, my breaks don't work, my bumper has been stolen when my truck broke down, my windshield is full of deer blood. My speedometer doesn't work, The belt on my truck is torn, there is a hole in my floor, last night someone threw a rock through my back windshield, my wiper blades are bent, I'm missing the gas pedal, and I have bird sh1t covering my truck from top to bottom. (this is my first truck, my second truck is in a way better condition).
my truck sucks compare to my opponent truck.

You truck sounds horrible and I feel bad for you, but you see mine is much worse. My truck is brown like poop. My tuck also has orange on it. Brown and orange look horrible toghether. Also the tires on my truck are so bald and underinflated that they look super deformed. My truck has no engine because I was robbed and all they took was my trucks engine. Also my truck has no seatbelt's let alone a braking system. Here is a picture of my truck. See how horrible it looks. I wish I had your truck.
my truck sucks compare to my opponent truck.

My Truck sucks compare to my opponents; 1. It is all rusty. 2. It's full of mud. 3. It has torn seats. 4. The windshield is cracked. 5. My headlights are out. 6. It's a manual. 7. It's black with red stripes. 8. It has a horrible tires. 9. It makes to much noise. 10. The truck stalls on me every 100 feet. This truck is a terrible mess. It runs over every deer that jumps in front of it. It's unstoppable. The brakes once stopped working while driving on ice. My steering wheel constantly locks. The treads on my tires wear out quickly. Once got shot by bullets. Missing hub caps. My truck hasn't had the oil checked in 2 years. Mu truck hates cars, it likes to tail gate other cars even though i try not to. It never exceeds the speed limit of 60MPG. It takes Gas instead of diesel.
my truck sucks compare to my opponent truck.

Hopefully your second truck isn't as bad as your first. But the problem with Pro's argument is that she is lying. As you can see from Round 2 is that she listed the problems with her truck, and then in round 3 she tried to gain sympathy by making stuff up.But anyways she is lucky to have a truck in such nice condition mainly beacuse she dosen't realize that my truck is an 2 dimensional truck. You know how hard it is to drive a 2 Dimensionnal truck? It's so complicated because it's 2D and when you drive in 2D you have no interior all you have is a steering wheel; if you saw my picture of what my trucklooked like than you would see what a 2D car is like. Having a 2 dimensional car is so horrible.VOTE CON!!!!!!! XD
Batman a superhero

I do not know where have gotten this information that batman has a higher sense of hearing in earlier versions. I searched it and couldn't find anything on the subject. Now he does have gadgets that increase his senses but those don't classify as super powers. And of course he is above average, he knows over 150 types of martial arts. The average human doesn't. But would you say the Usane Bolt is a superhero? He runs a lot faster than the "average" human being. And what about those guys in the strongest man competition? Are they superheroes? And you say that his strength is above avery? Because I believe that it is in fact Bane that has the "above avery" strength here. Your arguments have way too many holes my friend. Unless you have REEEAAALLLLY low standards for a superhero, Batman fails in this category.
Batman a superhero

You left this argument very open. You see, in some versions of Batman Bruce Wayne actually has heightened ear strength and is able to use sound waves, very much like a bat, in order to have a better perception of his surroundings. If you are you referring to the ore recent Christian Bale movies i would still have to say that Batman is a super hero. His above avery strength and stamina place him above his opponents and the average human being. He may not be a "Super" Hero. But in my book he is still at least a "Above Average" Hero.
Batman a superhero

In this debate, we will be discussing the reason why batman is in fact, not a superhero. I would like to start out this debate by saying that in order for you to be a superhero, you must first have super powers. Which he has none of. He is only a human. He has been trained in over 150 different types of martial arts and has trained his body to be in top physical condition. He also has many gadgets and tools that help him appear he has super powers, but lets be honest, he's a wanna be.
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

It would seem Pro has started a debate without intending to actually make any arguments or points, so I am at a loss as to what to argue. I would point out that the reason I highlighted EXISTENT CREATOR is that pro continually uses the term EXISTENCE CREATOR as his use is incorrect grammar. He highlights this but does not seem to understand it is he making the error. Aside from this, I have no idea what he is trying to convey as it is basically unintelligible. I will, however, refute his rhetoric regarding science versus religion. Pro has indicated elsewhere that he rejects some of the most basic, well evidenced scientific theories, such as evolution, and when faced with the conflict between the obvious scientific fact that the flood never happened versus the silly religious belief that it did, at best equivocates. This is a very real example of how religious beliefs interfere with science, they do not facilitate or help it.
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

a non-BELIEVER of an EXISTENCE creator. Would you still consider this as what you wrote is incomprehensible as well? This is your own text "non-BELIEVER of an EXISTANT creator" as I see flaws in your own grammar and descriptives. With; believer and existant. non-believer lacks the necessary information to come to a conclusion or the ability to comprehend. (necessary or necessity) Not let us not quibble within the idiocentricities of what is at hand of the topic header Atheists as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator. yes, I have flaws in my own approach putting forward this debate. Yes, I can admit this. As I don't really care too much about winning or losing in competition because war is not about who is right it's all about who is left. This war is going on in every abled body's mind every day of every week drawing the line in the sand between being humane or being inhumane. I draw a line in the sand and adjust it as best I can between sociology and philosophy as all science must or must not stay flawed without the pearls of wisdom's fundamental principals that create the foundations of our own existence creators intelligent design. The poetry of science is a bad joke because the wisdom of philosophies poetry creates poetry. For our own juvenile understandings of the known and unknown universe or universes as we comprehend it to be, is no more then scientists try to "yes try" to dissect any structure under a magnifying glass and do no more than burning ants. All I am saying is; ignorance feeds arrogance and arrogance feed ignorance while atheists are no more than religion without science is blind but science without religion is inhumane. While an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

I agree with the definitions of Atheists, with perhaps the quibble that an actual statement of believing there is no god is beyond it's normal definition. "Strong Atheism" is perhaps a useful descriptor for people holding this belief. I also agree that spelling and grammar are not necessarily indicators of intelligence, however they are useful tools, and it is churlish for Pro to be upset if it is simply impossible at time to understand what he is trying top say given his poor ability at written communication. I am more than happy to attempt to counter arguments pro might make in support of the contention "Atheists as of late prove there is no such thing as a true non-BELIEVER of an EXISTANT creator." But, to do so, Pro will have to post some. He has yet to do so.
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

You all are as comical as a cabbage patch dolls. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists. Have either of you the wisdom to understand what the about statement explain or is your own intelligence narrowing your overall perception that cripples your own ability to reason, in "other words" arrogance is not an excuse for ignorance. The first sign of intelligence is the ability to adapt. As it is not being able to spell or to even to use correct grammar and pronunciation. For all that believe it is, as it is no more than, Rote learning learning Rote learning is a learning technique which avoids understanding the inner complexities and inferences of the subject that is being learned and instead focuses on memorizing the material so that it can be recalled by the learner exactly the way it was read or heard., in other words, a forced memory. All written human language is without social gesture and lacks expression, movement, and motion, unlike the music as a manner of speaking as in person does, unless of course you one of those torture to the ear and of the mind monotone flatliners. I have even considered that you pair don't get out and about the social sector and converse directly so you both put so much importance on being able to dictate So when I ask to say what you mean and mean what you say. Is it impossible to even contemplate how impossible it actually is in a black and white text? But at least I try. I have easily come to the assumption that debating in person is why the Greek philosophy had so much success as here on all online debate or forum sites it is a joke to even consider it possible. So I really don't bother, but for you both, I thought that just this once I'll consider dictation and grammar. But I do prefer to use past present and future tense as a first preference when I have to be descriptive within explanation.
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

Latest news head lines right here; There is no such thing as a true non believer of an existance creator of inteligant design in existance at all anymore. As I can not find a true disbelieving athiests anywhere they must be extinct or an endangered species. Maybe we could clone a few of the hard core athiests from an era, when they used Charles Darwins evolutionary discoveries as factural evidance to attack any belivers in any religion or beliefs. For now all they have to use is some kind of slinging match apon the tree of monkeys. Where the hell in Richard Dawkins and his hard core followers? With the God delution published over 10 years ago. What happened have they evolved at last, into something that the majority of the human race could call humane?
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

Atheists as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non-believer of an existence creator. There you just did it. Their con just verified the header of this debate. "I cannot claim this as a fact, but I have little doubt, and a very strong belief that all evidence claimed in relation to a creator is not real" Atheists are fence sitters I have not and I dought that I will find one that isn't. Let us just see if it's another kangaroo court outcome on this debate, shall we?
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

Right. After four rounds I have a rough idea what pro is on about. Firstly, it is EXISTANT creator. EXISTENCE creator makes no sense. My position is that I very much doubt there is any form of creator. There is no reason to believe there is one, and the fact that there are so many contradictory claims, all obviously the product of human imagination, that it seems very unlikely there is a creator. I cannot claim this as a fact, but I have little doubt, and a very strong belief that all evidence claimed in relation to a creator is not real.
Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

And you still won't say what you mean and mean what you say. Have you been educated by a politician? Stand up and say it as it is; Are you atheist that says out loud an existence creator of intelligent design does not exist at all? Or are you an atheist that lacks the scientific evidence as to fully comprehend the concept of an existence creator of intelligent design? If I need to spell it out for you anymore then I have obviously been wasting my time with this debate as you must lack the ability to be able to comprehend. Or is there a break down in communication here or something. Put your spell check option on Australian English and leave American English to the dumb a#ses that created it and choose to stay ignorant.
right and wrong is absolute, as logic is the measurement of reasonable

orange colour is atleast 1, like a drop of water is atleast 1, or the sea is atleast 1 reality is objective.. everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist i am one is true reality is logic, logic is not subjective in the way you think. there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive reason+intent=morality if you have no choice it balances out intent, and your actions are not immoral. self preservation is moral reality determines perspective.. without a doubt... ok lets see, i know that the difference between these 2 different kinds of mushrooms in on the ground, one is deadly poisonous, and one is very healthy, but perception determines that its okay sometimes to give my child the deadly poisonous mushrooms... nothing wrong with that child wants to live.. father dosnt want child to die.. and hitting him is not the right word.. that wouldnt actually accelerate the boy anyehere from the car.. just smack! lol
right and wrong is absolute, as logic is the measurement of reasonable

Orange behind mirror = 0. Orange in front of mirror =2 (perseption subjective) Orange skin absorbs all colours except reflects orange. Perception orange/ reality not. Everything faulty perception. Reality faulty perception. Logic based on faulty subjective reality. Child runs in road. Father hits child. Father perspective good thing. Don't want child hit by car. Childs perspective bad thing. Don't like being hit by father. Perspective determines reality
right and wrong is absolute, as logic is the measurement of reasonable

1=1, never 0, and never 2 if reality is a perception, how come i can change my perception, but i cant change reality? right and wrong are subjective, guided by object. it is completly irrelveant that it is subjective as long as its determined by reality like, if you eat a poisonous mushroom, and you dont get sick in any way, was it then poisonous? and if you didnt get sick in any way, is it then right to say you got poisoned by a poisonous mushroom?