BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does light have color

Thanks Pro for accepting and thanks for outlining so accurately how most people with a basic knowledge of light understand color. Unfortunately they are all wrong. I agree with the first part of Pro's definition concerning the wavelength of visible light but the second part is inaccurate. Science is purposefully vague on the subject as it deals mainly with the physical aspects of light and not with the physiological and psychological factors and this is what causes the confusion. Color is in fact a sensation we experience only in our minds and does not occur in reality. In his book Optics 1704, Newton clearly states that light itself is not coloured. He goes on to say that light merely has properties which when perceived by the eye, it causes us to see something as this or that color. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk... This sentiment is followed by numerous physicists such as Galileo, Boyle, Descartes, Young, Maxwell and Helmholtz. The following passage taken from the Stanford encyclopedia of psychology elaborates this point even further. "Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color. There is, to illustrate, the celebrated remark by David Hume: Sounds, colors, heat and cold, according to modern philosophy are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind. (Hume 1738/1911, Bk III, part I, Sect. 1, p. 177; Bk I, IV, IV, p. 216)" http://plato.stanford.edu... Newton also says the following concerning colored light, "The homogeneal light and rays which appear red, or rather make Objects appear so, I call rubrifick or red-making; those which make Objects appear yellow, green, blue, and violet, I call yellow-making, green-making, blue-making, violet-making, and so of the rest. And if at any time I speak of light and rays as coloured or endued with Colours, I would be understood to speak not philosophically and properly, but grossly, and accordingly to such conceptions as vulgar People in seeing all these Experiments would be apt to frame. " So light itself has no color but merely has the ability to make us see things as different colors. Colors are the bodies way of letting us know what wavelength of light is present. Pro?
Dihydrogen Monoxide can be harmful.

Hehehe, smart debater. Alright I will take your challenge. So let us begin first off we need to clear up the misconception you are giving our voters: Dihydrogen monoxide which literally means 2 hydrogens 1 oxygen. A chemical compound often abbreviated as H(2)0 or in laymen terms water. Yes Dihydrogen monoxide is common everyday water. Which the human body is compromised of so yes in every situation he stated there will be water found. However this does not make water dangerous. My opponent supposes that because water is present during all of these events that water has caused them all. This is fallacy. It would be like saying the rooster crows when the sun comes up thus the sun comes up because the rooster crows. Obviously not true. Thus my contention. In every single example that my opponent gave, if water had anything to do with the damage, it was not the water doing the damage but rather human application of the water. Water in itself cannot be dangerous, humans must always manipulate water in some way to make it dangerous. Under my opponents idea of what is dangerous we can assume everything to be dangerous. This destroys the idea of the word dangerous, as if everything is potentially dangerous, there is no point labeling anything dangerous. For example a pencil can be used to stab someone however it was not the pencil that was dangerous in said situation but rather the person stabbing people with it. I challenge my opponent to offer one example where water is actually being dangerous in itself.
Dihydrogen Monoxide can be harmful.

>>Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Here are three examples that I gave in my first argument. They are all things that DMHO can do, and they are not because of "human application." Is it the humans fault that DMHO can cause soil erosion? Is it the fault of the humans if solid DMHO is put on exposed tissue for a long time, it will cause severe tissue damage? Is it man kinds fault that DMHO can corrode and oxidate many metals? My opponent has said that all of my examples was because of the human application. I have just shown that not to be true. >>Which the human body is compromised I would just like to point out that if people were made of water and water only, then we would be water. Not people. We are not made out of only water. >>Yes Dihydrogen monoxide is common everyday water. Which the human body is compromised of so yes in every situation he stated there will be water found. However this does not make water dangerous. My opponent supposes that because water is present during all of these events that water has caused them all. I am not saying that water is causing KKK marches. I am not saying that water is the cause of the Church of Scientology. Those examples that I am assuming you are reffering to are only examples of ways people use DMHO. >>Water in itself cannot be dangerous, humans must always manipulate water in some way to make it dangerous. Here is where you are wrong. Water CAN be dangerous. If you drink too much of it, you can vomit. If you inhale even a small amount of water, you can die. DMHO in a gaseous form can cause severe burns. I think that a severe burn can count as an instance where DMHO can be harmful!!! In case you misunderstood this topic, this topic is about whether or not DMHO (or water, as some like to call it) CAN be harmful. Keyword being "can." I would like to give a definition of "can" from Merriam Webster: to be able to do, make, or accomplish My opponent has challenged my to show one way that DMHO is harmful by itself. Keep reading for the reasons: As I have shown, DMHO able to cause harm, it can accomplish harm, and it can be harmful. DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL!!! SEVERE BURNS, DEATH DUE TO ACCIDENTAL INHALATION, SEVERE TISSUE DAMAGE, THERE ARE ONLY SOME WAYS WHERE DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL. THANK YOU P.S. I don't know if you knew this, but on January 12, 2007, a woman died from drinking too much water. She had taken part in a water drinking contest hosted by a local radio station, and she drank about 2 gallons of water. Too much water can dilute your blood stream , and lower your electrolyte levels in your blood. This excess water can seep into your cells, causing them to bulge. If this happens in your brain, you can experience headaches and impaired breathing. Also, your kidneys can gat damaged from trying to flush out all the water. For more information go to http://drbenkim.com...
Marijuana should be legalized

Imagine yourself coming into someone house taking away their favourite food or item. That would be kill their life or desires so I here by say we should legalize marijuana for the following reason; 1.marijuana can be taxed which would produce billions of dollars annually in profit which in turn would help our nation get out of debt. 2.Does not lead to or cause lung cancer 3.It is not addictive 4.Some people love it
Marijuana should be legalized

Let me rebut on you 1. You said it would increase voilence rates high but put a certain amount on the market it will work and that won't happen at all 2. The brain abnormalities happen to amateur who smoke 3. It's a proved fact only 9% of all the people get personally addicted not because of the drug. 4. Look at in reality who drives when they are high on marijuana take a cab and you will be dropped home safe and sound. 5.If you take a reasonable amount it won't have any effect 6. Marijuana contains more tar but the more tar the less effective but tobbacco has less
Marijuana should be legalized

1. Legalizing marijuana would cause the violence rate to go up 2. Marijuana causes throat cancer (read a book) 3. Marijuana causes brain abnormalities 4. Marijuana is addictive, while it does not contain addictive chemicals in it, but because the user likes it, they are going to get more, and more, and more, until they get into other drugs 5. Marijuana is a gateway drug for other drugs 6.It decreases sex drive and sperm count in men 7. Driving while high is extremely dangerous 8.Kids use it, which will probably ruin their lives 9.It could ruin your job future 10. Marijuana contains 10-20 times more tar than cigarettes
Marijuana should be legalized

Marijuana is good in the following ways 1. Weight loss most people who smoke it are skinnier. The researchers at the University of Nebraska, the Harvard School of Public Health, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center analyzed data to find that current pot smokers had a smaller waist circumference than those who had never used marijuana. 2.Diabetes. One of the most common risk factors for diabetes is insulin resistance and the researchers found that the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), may help the body take in insulin. 3.Low levels of depression. those who consume marijuana occasionally or even daily have lower levels of depressive symptoms than those who have never tried marijuana. 4.Consuming marijuana can limit neurological damage after a stroke or trauma. 5.The THC in marijuana binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to relieve pain. Marijuana's pain relieving ability makes it beneficial to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, as the THC binds to receptors in the nerves and muscles to alleviate pain. 6.It's not news that marijuana helps cancer patients when they undergo chemotherapy, but a 2012 study found that marijuana can play a role in curing aggressive cancer.
Gun laws need to be more strict rather than banning them

I agree with you on one term - no matter your age, you should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. In fact, civilians should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. I'd like to start off by refuting my opponent's points - "1. TEST- People should have to get a test before they buy or use firearms. Think of it as an unlicensed driver behind the weel of a car. You are not shure they know all of the rules and regulations of the road, and they could kill or injure someone. People should be tested on gun safety, how to hold a gun correctly and have there eyes checked. Then a person should have to take a test to insure they are aware of how to be safe and safely operate the weapon. "2. BACKGROUND CHECKS- Background checks should be performed every time an individual buys a weapon. This will ensure the person is always allowed to buy and carry a firearm. This would reduce the around of criminals receiving firearms. "3. STORE CHECKS-The gun shops that buy and sell guns will be routinely checked so that we can ensure that they are following all procedures that are listed above "4. GUN LICENS- Every individual must obtain a gun license so that we can ensure they have past the test stated above just like a drivers license. The license must be renewed and a test given to assure the person can be safe and safely operate a firearm. " I'd like to supply a hypothetical situation in which a person could easily bypass all four of these. The test does not test the person's intentions - merely teaches him safety precautions and how to use the gun. If a criminal were to buy the gun, you would actually be enhancing his ability to use the gun. Is that what you want? If guns were not distributed in the first place, there would be no need to have a gun. If a person was intending to use the gun badly and had not yet done so, they would STILL be able to buy a gun. In addition, there are ways to forge your background. Even "STORE CHECKS" and "GUN LICENS" would not affect the probability of a person getting through this faulty system. I'm not sure where you are located, but in most places people DO need gun licenses to own a gun, and they do go through these tests. Basically, what you are proposing is to keep the system the same. Guys, if we keep this system, the same amount of people will be murdered every year. WE NEED TO BAN GUNS. Now onto my own point. I'd like to remind everyone that THE_OPINIONATOR has not yet refuted any of my arguments. Let's look at this from a psychological point of view. Shooting a person – what does that mean for the victim? For the murderer? Especially if it was by accident, the emotional stress can be extreme. They may get PTSD – Post traumatic stress disorder. This comes from being exposed to loud, sudden noises, emotional stress from having killed someone, brushing against death, having a loved one killed, and survivor guilt. Do you want people to experience these disorders? Guns in general are accident prone in many ways. How to prevent accidents? BAN GUNS. Thank you, and please vote for the Opposition.
Gun laws need to be more strict rather than banning them

Thanks for accepting the terms of this debate and may the best argument win. I would first like to start off by saying that no matter your age you should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. Guns do not kill people rather people kill with guns. 1. TEST- People should have to get a test before they buy or use firearms. Think of it as an unlicensed driver behind the weel of a car. You are not shure they know all of the rules and regulations of the road, and they could kill or injure someone. People should be tested on gun safety, how to hold a gun correctly and have there eyes checked. Then a person should have to take a test to insure they are aware of how to be safe and safely operate the weapon. 2. BACKGROUND CHECKS- Background checks should be performed every time an individual buys a weapon. This will ensure the person is always allowed to buy and carry a firearm. This would reduce the around of criminals receiving firearms. 3.STORE CHECKS-The gun shops that buy and sell guns will be routinely checked so that we can ensure that they are following all procedures that are listed above 4. GUN LICENS- Every individual must obtain a gun license so that we can ensure they have past the test stated above just like a drivers license. The license must be renewed and a test given to assure the person can be safe and safely operate a firearm.
Playing phone games is good

I believe that playing phone games is good. People think that games are violent and cruel, but most of them are computer games or video games. Phone games are usually composed of breeding games or games which are helpful for increasing the knowledge and training the brain. Taking a research "Monthly Top 20 Mobile Games-iOS" done by Wybe Schutte as an example, the list includes games such as "Candy Crush Saga", "Hay Day" or "Farm Heroes". They don't seem that violent.
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

Final FocusPro's CaseCon attempts to rebut my point regarding the crime rate, but misses the point of my contention entirely. His rebuttal is off the mark and doesn't really prove how legalizing marijuana would actually increase the crime rate. His second rebuttal concedes that marijuana has practical uses. Both rebuttals are unbased and lacking in sources. My point regarding freedom of choice is left unrebutted. I forward this point. Con's case"Thesis: Why do we need drugs anyways, and why use it if it can cause harm to others as well as users? "No one said we needed them, but people do want them. My opponent contends that because one can have fun without marijuana that marijuana should be made illegal. Cross examine this "thesis" with my entire argument.
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

INTRODUCTION Thank you, and I apologize in advance for spelling/grammar mistakes, and missing my last appointment, as I had a few distractions recently. I am operating from my ipod, and that will also cause more consequences for me down the road. Honestly I do not even support the legalization of alcohol or tobacco. both have been scientifically proven to distort ones mind and body over a period of time, and marijuana has been proven worse than both of them. no one would want a person driving at them going 60 mph, and that person is high and hallucinating. REBUTTALS "Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates." I disagree. A drug related crime is (paraphrased) defined as "an infraction of local, state, or federal law involving the use, production, possession, or manufacture of any illegal drug or abused drugs of any kind" this would increase the number of drug related crimes because most would use marijuana until they became high, meaning hallucinogenic and of a distorted mind. The "line of abuse" would likely be drawn at that point, because it is when the user becomes dangerous and isn't really fully "there"(just like alcohol gets you drunk, and that is where the limit is for alcoholic beverages). people would do things without thinking, leading to mass havoc in the streets. and definitely raising the DRC level."Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses"This is true, however the dangers far outweigh the relief marijuana brings. For one thing, there is no debating, marijuana is addictive. For another thing, marijuana decays brain activity during use by blocking connections between neurons. THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana has been found to interact with segments and chemicals in the brain that control dreams, which is what causes hallucinations, according to many scientists. And conclusively, inhaling smoke or powder damages the lungs. Powders turn to thick paste that can clog ducts when coming in contact with mucous on the surface of the lungs. Smoke does just what you would thing it would do, it smokes the inside of your lung, like barbeque. There are more reasons, but I am stretched for time.NEW ARGUMENTSThesis: Why do we need drugs anyways, and why use it if it can cause harm to others as well as users?I understand that smoking marijuana gives a desirable effect that is enjoyable, however there are many other ways to enjoy yourself, more safely, cheaply, and legally. I enjoy life as it is and I have never touched marijuana or any illegal drug for that matter. Marijuana distorts normal function and leaves the user severed from the outside world, and logical thinking. This is EXTREMELY dangerous. I can not stress this point enough. Marijuana users are unpredictable, and do not evaluate most of their actions while high. SOURCES http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

PROS CASEContention 1:It is the personal choice of each individual american as to whether or not they smoke marijuana, regardless of the harms (assuming that the persons are informed on the potential harms). Just as is the case with tobacco and alcohol, each US citizen should be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use marijuana. As long as the citizen is informed by the manufacturer of the potential harms (as is the case with alcohol and especially tobacco products), it should be the choice of theirs, not the governments, as to whether or not they choose to use marijuana. Each adult citizen is responsible for making these decisions for themselves. Contention 2:Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses. Another reason marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US is that marijuana has useful medical employments. Marijuana is used to treat symptoms of cancer and chemotherapy. Marijuana is also used to treat glaucoma. Marijuana ought to be legalized to help treat those afflicted with diseases that can be treated with medicinal marijuana. Contention 3:Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates. With Marijuana legalized, the government would no longer need to arrest all marijuana dealers, only the unlicensed ones. Also governments would not have to arrest users of marijuana. Non-violent drug offenders now account for 1/4 of the prison population (1)"The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following:The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000. The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs. " (2). I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and await his response eagerly.1. . http://www.cepr.net......2.http://druglibrary.org......
Ban Obamacare

Three key points:1. Obama took 6 billion dollars away from Medicare to pay for obamacare, therefore you are taking away from the elderly and disabled. Medicare already pays 50% less than private insurance, doctors are starting to not take patients on Medicare.2. You are taking away from the right to freedom, we should be able to choose whether or not we want health insurance.3. There are a lot of people who do not have jobs to be able to pay for insurance, so why not start there first with jobs , instead of making people pay a fine they cannot afford because there job they had been working at for 60+ years laid them off trust me I wish everyone could have healthcare too but its not realistic , you at messing with a hesitate system that's had been successful for centuries. Bottom line work on getting American jobs before charging a fine because they simply can't afford it. If someone doesn't want healthcare they should not be forced to do so. I thought we lived in a free country.And my opponent said 'pursuit of happiness' no its not when your force to have health care people have a right to choose not to have healthcare or not.
Ban Obamacare

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Three basic, unalienable human rights, guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America. Not coincidentally, the inaccessibility to healthcare infringes upon all three of these rights. Without health, one cannot have life, achieve liberty, or pursue happiness to its fullest extent. Thus, healthcare should be treated as a public utility, available to all at affordable rates. The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has begun to do just that, rendering it not only Constitutional, but also proving it upholds basic human rights. Let's look at the numbers: 16.4 million people have gained coverage under Obamacare, a 35% chunk out of the uninsured. This means that 16.4 MILLION people are now able to receive affordable healthcare. Contrary to the fears of the GOP, Obamacare has actually provided consumers with MORE choices, as 25 percent more issuers have joined the Marketplace since its introduction, providing citizens with more choices. Americans are saving money on prescription drugs, as $15 billion has been saved since 2010, about $1,598 per beneficiary. Taxpayers are benefiting, as healthcare spending grew at its slowest rate in 50 years. But let's not stop there. The countries that top both lists of PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and GDP (Gross Domestic Product) have some form of socialized healthcare, and are in much better financial standing. This includes countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Along with their free education, those countries are miles ahead of the US. This is no coincidence. If you don't like Obamcare, you can opt for a more expensive, more inclusive plan. One is not limited. Obamacare simply sets a standard for a quality of living, ensuring all should have access to healthcare, that would be otherwise unaffordable. Not only is Obamacare Constitutional- it works. It works so well, and has worked so well in other countries, it's time we take it a step further, We are long overdue for some form of socialized healthcare.