BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana is Disgusting and Ought to Not Be Legalized, For Various Reasons Other Than The One Stated

Yes, you're absolutely right that the reason not enough is known about it is mostly the fact that it's not legal and thus no conclusive, acceptable, long-term studies have been conducted yet. And speaking of risky behaviors, I ask you, which is more risky? Complete legalization, or maybe just a large, but regulated study? What about those states, Colorado and Washington, where it's legal? Why not do studies there, and combine the results? What I'm saying is, as we know that the plant part smoked contains a high level of carcinogens, and well as, to an extent, harms the brain, there is a big risk in legalizing it completely, without, as you tell me that I keep insisting, conclusive health risk information. Why exactly is it illogical to not legalize it completely based on known health risks and the absence of good information? If you ask me, it's necessary to be more informed, unless you'd have it be completely legalized and thus possessing more potential, if significantly harmful, to create brand-new social and health problems? So, as you can tell, I've adjusted my viewpoint, but not critically. I feel that it is necessary to conduct the proper studies in the aforementioned states. If nobody's willing to accept that more information is needed, and they push unfazed by this for complete legalization, well, to me this denotes clear bias and plainly disregarding the fact they are making an uninformed, and thus extremely risky, decision. I believe you mentioned some medicinal benefits. True, medicinal herbs have been used for centuries (and sometimes for less-than-medicinal purposes). I'm not opposed to a new form of medicine, as long as it is used in a way that cures diseases or other ailments, rather than adding to them. Surprisingly, there are some documented health benefits of this drug. However, smoking any plant, as science has shown, causes lung damage, so in some respects, that use of the drug is comparable to cigarettes, with some aspects worse and some aspects better than the latter plant. Eating the plant seems to have less risks. Apparently, however, it's not possible to get high that way without wasting the plant, and perhaps that's a good thing. And, as I said, as long as there is conclusive proof that the benefits outweigh the risks by a good margin, then I'm all for it (but definitely not using it). Some new risks I discovered: Hair Loss Increased Testosterone, Leading to Acne
Marijuana is Disgusting and Ought to Not Be Legalized, For Various Reasons Other Than The One Stated

This is going to be a long, tired debate if we continue to go round and round about your main, and seemingly only point. Nevertheless... Lack of research: There are two arguments to be made in response to this. One, to illegalize a product or behavior because of a lack of knowledge on the subject makes no logical sense. That prevents a society from ever experimenting and discover more. Even from the evidence you have provided, humans have been used as test subjects. To suggest illegalizing the product, would mean punishment for any who would use it for other purposes other than recreation as well. Unless, you would agree that it should be legalized for the purposes of science or health studies, in which the broad term you have used as a debate subject would be counter to your stance. And two, there is plenty of information already provided on the subject to suggest great medical purposes for it as well as possible negative side effects. The information however is all relative to what direction you would lean toward and baised on all accounts. This crusade against the legalization of what is widely known as a relatively harmless plant, is an incredible waste of time and resources. To which I will provide more insight later in the debate. If you truly believe for yourself that there is not enough research on this product, then why on earth would you want to ban something you have limited information on? That kind of closed minded thinking is what prevents progress as a society. I refer you to the following article.
Marijuana is Disgusting and Ought to Not Be Legalized, For Various Reasons Other Than The One Stated

The argument my opponent has provided has failed to render any reasonability as to why a plant should remain illegalized. Despite the facts presented. The argument is laced from a moral compass of a personal opinion. Using the argument that because something is disgusting, or "bad for you", and there for should be illegalized, opens a Pandora's box for what other products or behaviors should be illegalized for "the greater good". I happen to enjoy cheesecake. Could not the same argument be made as to why it should be illegal for me to enjoy such an "instant pleasure". I realize the "short - term satisfaction" may not be worth the cholesterol filled bite I would soon devour. Furthermore, I accept that there are many who would not approve of my lifestyle choices. It's not hard to understand why a person who devotes their lives work toward staying fit, and being healthy would want to ban all food products that would add no nutritional value. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the sweet treat in moderation. But even if I choose to abuse that treat, it should be a personal decision, not a society's decision. There is no law forcing anyone to abuse alcohol, act reckless, use marijuana, or enjoy sex. Although, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to live in any society where having sex for pleasure would be forbidden. The point is that although you are welcome to your personal opinion that something is disgusting or unhealthy, it is immoral to deny someone else from determining that for themselves. There is nothing wrong with informing a general public about the negative side effects from abusing drugs and alcohol. There is something seriously wrong with removing choice from decisions both bad and good. The legalization of marijuana does not force a person to ingest it, it only creates an environment where it can be easily obtained and used without fear of punishment. People who are interested in the guilty pleasure would no longer need to hide in shadows, deal with less than desirable dealers, or be incarcerated for years at a time for simply being in possession of it. Because to be in support in it's illegalization would mean a willingness to punish anyone who would be found in violation of the law. Their rights being taken away from them for the crime of "instant pleasure seeking". Although it is possible to link marijuana with the variety of health concerns you have listed. It is not dangerous for anyone other than the person using it's properties. And for that reason alone, it should be legal for anyone who would choose to seek it.
public display of affection sould be allowed in middle school

PDA should be allowed in middle school because it let's us experience it before we enter the real world. If we don't we will be unprepared for what life will throw at us and might sink into self-pity and destruction. We need to know how to handle relationships and not be taught to be distant. Now I can understand how kissing or overly-sexual acts should not be allowed in middle school but holding hands, linking arms, and hugging is not going to harm anyone. PDA is only natural in life whether talking about friendly forms or relationship type forms and is what makes life worth living. We need to show affection in life or grow up distant and unprepared.
public display of affection sould be allowed in middle school

I will be arguing that PDA should not be allowed in school.Pro says "PDA should be allowed in middle school because it let's us experience it before we enter the real world. If we don't we will be unprepared for what life will throw at us and might sink into self-pity and destruction. " Self Pity: a feeling of pity for yourself because you believe you have suffered more than is fair or reasonable http://www.merriam-webster.com...You will not "Sink into self-pity and destruction" if you are not able to display your affection to your girlfriend/boyfriend in middleschool. There is also no need to make-out in school http://chsarrow.com...;
Music Challenge #2

I managed to get this one on my phone. Finally got it figured it out. Yay me! :D Alas this is it. The last piece for this debate. I may not have been able to play the piece in its entirety nor was I able to play it without making one or two little mistakes every time (yeah frustrating), but here it is anyway: a short segment of Liszt's Grande Etude no. 3, La Campanella. Thank you everyone for listening, and thank you again, Opsianos, for setting up this debate. It's a shame that you didn't have a better audio device. You are a fantastic pianist, and I'm a bit miffed that you didn't get to share your talent to its full extent. Let's do another one of these in the future! :) http://www.youtube.com...
Music Challenge #2

My second selection will be Animenz's piano arrangement of Swordland, from the anime Sword Art Online's soundtrack. Regardless of your views on the anime, the song itself is definitely a challenge to learn, but also very fun to play. Warning to viewers: This may be the worst audio quality you will ever experience, and I apologize for it. I really need a camera and not a phone that's entirely cracked with three layers of tape over the mic...so in other words, it is definitely not pleasant to listen to, regardless of the pianist's ability. I hope you'll listen to it anyway, though. Anyway, that's it for this challenge, unless something goes awry in Beginner's round. Despite technological issues from both of us, it was still fun to do, and I hope to make another one of these soon! Thank you for being a great opponent, Beginner, and thank you all for listening! http://www.youtube.com...
Music Challenge #2

http://www.youtube.com... I had to use my laptop since my phone sucks. So the audio is even worse, but you get more of it. Yay. Anyway, I'll spare you the gory details of the hours of pointless labor and the state I was in by the time I gave up. Here's one of wayyy too many recordings that I'm not going to bother spending a few hours filing through. I'm sure I have a better one somewhere in the middle of the footage, but I'm no longer in the mood to even hear this piece anymore. With that said, here it is. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata Mv. 3. Or part of it. I'm too much of a pleb to learn the whole piece. Enjoy. On to you Ospianos! :D
Music Challenge #2

Thanks, Beginner. My first piece is Liszt's piano adaptation of Verdi's Rigoletto opera (originally intended for a vocal quartet), called the Rigoletto Paraphrase in English. The piece itself is highly progressive and rather technically demanding, with rapid chromatic scales and chord sequences spread throughout. Maintaining expression and balancing the harmonies was also pretty difficult--although I'm not sure how well my phone was able to capture that with its poor audio quality. As for my performance, it definitely wasn't the best--the recording here was most likely around my tenth take in a row (I've been playing this non stop for an hour by then) due to mostly technical difficulties or me screwing up too badly a couple of times, so I was pretty tired by then and sweating in the hot weather. Also, I'm not sure if you can hear it, but my home phone started ringing in the middle as well, which was extremely annoying. I wish I could make a better one, but I won't be able to record again for the time remaining this round. Anyway, despite its flaws, I hope you enjoy it! Back to you, Beginner. GLHF! http://www.youtube.com...
Music Challenge #2

Right...so, the last one that was 7 months ago (wow, time flies) pretty much flopped due to me being unable to submit recordings. So, here goes another one! Rules and Conditions 1. Each person must provide ONE original performance of any music per round IN ROUNDS 2 AND 3; round 1 being simply for acceptance, and round 4 being a backup round in case if anything goes wrong (taking a page out of Smithereens' book). Only you (yes, you) are to be playing or singing (exception being instrumental accompaniment). Your submission must be in the form of a video or a recording; preferably uploaded to a video-sharing website such as YouTube or Vimeo. 2. There is no limit to the type or duration of music that you select (do try to be reasonable, though). 3. Your performances will be all that are judged; all written content of any sort will not be taken into account when deciding the winner. -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- That's it! Each person will submit a total of two videos/recordings; one for each of the second and third rounds. As for voting, simply pick whose music you enjoyed the most; no explanation is needed (but appreciated). The point of this debate (if you can call it that) is not necessarily to win, but to share your music with the DDO community. You cannot automatically accept this debate, so if you would like to, please say that you would in the comments. Good luck to my opponent, Beginner, and I eagerly await his acceptance. Hope you enjoy the music!
School Uniform Should Be Banned

Thanks for responding so quickly. During this round I'm going to be refuting your R1 points, and in the next round I'm going to be defending my own case from attacks that you've made, if you made any. -----Rebuttals:"First of all, pupils should be able and should be encouraged to express themselves and be creative with what they wear" First, what is more important: having the ability to wear a t-shirt, or having the ability to deter crime massively? Second, you will still have the ability to decorate your clothes in moderation. Obviously you cannot scorch weed leaves into your outfit, but if you want to tuck up your sleeves or wear your hair a certain way, or have a certain bow, then that should be okay. School uniforms do not diminish the outlet for creativity. "Own clothes are more comfortable and in the cold, school uniforms aren't warm enough"The definition of school uniforms isn't cold, miserable clothing, it's just a strict set of guidelines for someone to wear at school. Wear your own clothes in the cold! Nobody is keeping you from doing that! But once you are in school, you should just wear the uniforms, since they have so many advantages. "Surely we can wear badges to say which school we are from, especially on school trips! "wat. png"If we are comfortable wearing our own clothes in class we should be able to focus better in class. "I don't really like being that guy, but what's your source for this? I have a card in my case that says that uniforms actually INCREASE productivity and attentiveness during class, so we must render your argument invalid. "School uniform can be very expensive as compared to our own clothes as well as if not washed quick enough it can pose a real problem. "Not if the school pays for them, which I suggest to every single school that is considering having uniforms. "No matter what you dress students who bully others will always find a reason to do so"Look at my third contention, then get back to me with this argument. But seriously,60% less bullying occurs as a direct result of implementing uniforms. Tell me that isn't good. .. "Making everyone wear the same clothes is not going to make the problem magically disappear. "We can do more than just implementing uniforms, sure, but uniforms are a HUGE step in reducing peer pressure and bullying in schools.
School Uniform Should Be Banned

I disagree that school uniforms cost little. A survey commissioned by YouGov shows us clear evidence that it is expensive. ï¿½110 is spent on school uniform and "20 on school shoes each year on average in the UK, whereas if pupils were to wear their own clothes, parents would not have to waste money. Education is supposed to be free, and yet we have to pay for uniforms. In the event of a crime, everyone is wearing the same so it will be difficult to identify the culprit. Teachers often have to spend time telling pupils to tuck their shirts in, or tie their tie properly, etc. Isn't education more important than that?
School Uniform Should Be Banned

School uniform should definitely be banned for many reasons. First of all, pupils should be able and should be encouraged to express themselves and be creative with what they wear. Everyone wearing the same uniform takes away their individuality and the right to be able to wear whatever they want. Own clothes are more comfortable and in the cold, school uniforms aren't warm enough. Surely we can wear badges to say which school we are from, especially on school trips! If we are comfortable wearing our own clothes in class we should be able to focus better in class. School uniform can be very expensive as compared to our own clothes as well as if not washed quick enough it can pose a real problem. No matter what you dress students who bully others will always find a reason to do so. Making everyone wear the same clothes is not going to make the problem magically disappear. To conclude, students wearing their own clothes will be able to express themselves, show individuality and spend less money.
Mirza did not engage in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

Mirza is correct.Because he won't have a chance to respond to any of my arguments, it wouldn't be fair for me to write them.I apologise to him for wasting his time.His defense was quite good and I concede all points, despite being sure that he did in fact vote for innomen at the last moment with the intent of ensuring his victory.Never mind.
Mirza did not engage in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

Full resolution: In the following debate, Mirza did not systematically vote for Innomen's favor.In a particular thread, [1] several people made accusations against me that I find highly offensive. The allegations are not supported by evidence, and I will prove that I did not vote for Innomen systematically. The debate in question is: http://www.debate.org...I will primarily explain the following points:1: Why I gave 7 points to Bluesteel at first.2: Why I could not vote before the last moment.3: Why I voted honestly.My position is very clear. I did not vote for Innomen systematically, and I had the intention to vote for whomever won. What's more, I had full knowledge that I would give a determining vote. However, the knowledge came when I started reading the debate not long before it ended. I ask the readers not to be biased, and I do not care whom you vote for as long as you vote with good intentions and honesty. I also ask you to look carefully at the evidence presented in this debate, and take the sources as being just as important as the arguments.The first round is for acceptance, and the rest are for arguments. The last round should be used for rebuttals, and any intentional new arguments will be disregarded as irrelevant or invalid.Reference(s):[1] http://www.debate.org...;
anger can be a good moral motivation

If we were to follow your model and allow anger into the decision making process, and according to your standards your anger level should fall perfectly between "deficient" and "in excess", then it indeed does not influence your decision in either direction. The absolute zero level of having no anger influencing your decision either direction would fit perfectly between "Deficient" and "In excess", and would not motivate you in either direction, which would actually help my arguement.
anger can be a good moral motivation

If you do not have anger, you are, according to aristotle, "deficient" and you will fear everything and become a coward. However, if you are in "excess" of anger, you become reckless and are not afraid of anything. The good tempered person is in between these two and they do not give into their temptations. The anger in a person can meet in the middle and make one motivated to become a good-tempered person.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Anger itself is an emotion, and an emotion defined by aristotle's standards is any feeling that can effect one's judgement, attended by pain or pleasure. By aristotle's statement in itself, Anger is an emotion and therfore effects your decision by deffinition. If it effects your decision making capability then it is therefore out of your control. Your arguement is invalid because if you use something such as "anger", which is an emotion and out of your control, then the conclusion of the decision you make in any given situation is effected by anger, which means in some degree you are not making an unbiased decision, and anger is gravitating you in either direction.
anger can be a good moral motivation

(1.) You shouldnt attempt to control something that can so easily consume you entirely, some things are not meant to be used as tools.(100.1.1) (2.) You only have control over yourself as long as you can shut off negative emotions that could influence your decision making ability.(101.1.2) (3.) It is in your best interest to avoid the very kindling of anger,, to beat back your negative emotions so that they do not plant the seed that will grow inside until it makes the decisions for you.(101.2.1) Therefore, you cannot use anger as a tool to accomplish things. It is not something that is within your control, and by trying to control it, it will only further control you.
JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was plagiarized from Willy the Wizard

First I like to debunk my opponent's statements. My opponent's statement says, "I say Rowling did not plagiarism because Rowling said that she did not read Willy the Wizard". Of course she will stay that to defend herself so she won't lose part of her business. With your Joseph Campbell and Star Wars: Revealed You Tube theories, Joseph Campbell is wrong and nothing what he says that it claims to be (1). All of my opponent's "Star Wars: Revealed" You tube videos that my opponent's has is wrong, according to my first source. My second opponent's statement is that "the Goblet of Fire" are the common uses of literature and other fiction throughout paragraphs 4-7, his ‘second reason' he calls it. It might be true but it is how it is written in both books that defines the copyright (2). There are at least 44 parts of copyright between Willy the Wizard and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (3). Is having 44 points of the same material between Willy the Wizard and the Goblet of Fire would be a coincidence? The truth is NO. Willy the Wizard was issued at 1987 (4) and Goblet of Fire was issued at 2000 (5). A law firm Andrews Kurth says that JK Rowling illegally copied from Willy the Wizard (6). How can a dozen of smart and successful lawyers can be so wrong? There are more a dozen of lawyers in the firm (7). Paul Gregory Allen (the head of the Adrian Jacobs Estate who is suing Rowling, Bloomsbury and Scholastic) was agreed by Thomas Kline, Joseph A Patella and Michele Schwartz who are great and smart lawyers and with a good education (8)(9)(10). Explain to me how they can be wrong? One lawyer can be wrong but a dozen can not. Lawyers are smart (11) and there are three lawyers backing up Allen's statements that Adrian Jacobs' "Willy the Wizard" was illegally copied by "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". May I ask the wonderful viewers to not let their personal feelings get in the way of this voting and vote only base on our logical arguments. (1). http://www.ventrice.com... (2). http://www.copyright.gov... (3). http://www.scribd.com... (4). http://www.thebookseller.com... (5). http://en.wikipedia.org... (6). http://www.lexisnexis.com... (7). http://www.andrewskurth.com... (8). http://pview.findlaw.com... (9). http://pview.findlaw.com... (10). http://pview.findlaw.com...