BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical cannabis

You really don't understand what i'm getting at. The dose levels are different and more established. Though addiction is present in pain relievers it's not present in all of them. If you take them responsibly there will be no negative outcomes both economic and personal (addictions). The amount of people who take painkillers against those who are addicted are ridiculously low. Statistics don't lie, if the person who takes painkillers is responsible and cares about their well being they will not take these drugs in excess or lie about their illnesses. Though painkillers are addictive they have no visual or mental alteration where as marijuana you see things and you have a blast, painkillers the only effect you get is dulling out the pain and even then the effects aren't what makes you come back.
Medical cannabis

You say for painkillers, the amount can be changed according to person. Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you take enough of that certain amount you get the same result. Painkillers can be just as addictive as marijuana or other recreational drugs. You're argument seems quite repetitive, but I will try to argue with what I have. Recreational drugs, the one we're debating marijuana, can kill just as painkillers do. Yes, if you get hooked to medical marijuana you will need more and more for each high, same goes for painkillers. Everything in this world can be misused. The intentional purpose of medical marijuana is proven to help, and why keep something off the market that helps? If medicine was so effective why do they keep making more? My point exactly. Medical marijuana can be helpful when used correctly, and medical marijuana is now being grown in a special way to lower the "high" chemicals one wants.
Medical cannabis

I never said that it was easy to get hooked in. I said that people will ask for more, either to sell it or just to have more because they liked it and want to experience the same feeling again. When marijuana is being used it takes more and more each time to experience the same effects that you did the first time using a said number. Say it only took you x amount to feel the effects the second time it might take 2x or 3x you need more to experience the high, and seeing as peoples bodies are the same and they react differently to the drug, there has not yet been enough research to understand the amount needed for people to experience pain relief that they search for with this drug. Where as pain killers the effects are understood perfectly and the amount of drugs given can be changed depending on the patient and the pain that they are experiencing.
Should we be aloud to protest military funirals

I see no reason why these people should not be allowed to protest. Everyone should have a right to have let their opinion be known. If we selectively choose what people can say, then how is there really any free speech. And while I understand that you want the debate to about morals, it's hard to talk about what is clearly a free speech issue without bringing the government in. But I will try my best. I think that the crux of the matter is your definition of morals. You have decided that it is immoral for these to people to picket the funeral. Why? What basis do you have for this claim? The people who protest often feel that it is their moral obligation to do so. The members of the Westboro Baptist Church are trying to draw attention to what they perceive to be the moral deficiencies of the rest of the nation. Thus, they feel that they are morally justified in what they are doing. And who exactly made you the decider of what is moral and what is not? Morals are all relative to the individual; what you perceive as morally wrong they perceive as morally correct. Think of it this way: would it be right for me (a Jew) to proclaim that all Christians are immoral because they believe that Jesus was the son of God? I think that an unbiased observer would say that it isn't right. Just because I disagree with their morals doesn't make them immoral. In conclusion, although we can use our own morals to judge others, we have no right to objectively and definitively say that we are right and someone else is wrong. No one has given us this power. Furthermore, the idea of freedom of speech and expression is worthless if we decide that only some people have a right to it.
Should we be aloud to protest military funirals

As far my use of words you are right. But when I say hateful words it is because that is all I have seen people gathered around funerals with posters say "God i glad you died" and so on. Yes I am also referring to the Westboro Baptist Church. I want this debate to not be about the laws of the government but instead to morals of the people. And just to be clear I did mean protest in the mean of picket signs and people yelling.
Should we be aloud to protest military funirals

This is my first debate, so I apologize if I get the formalities wrong. I will be taking the pro side, that people should be allowed to protest military funerals. Con said, "I want to hear a good argument about why people should be able to protest funerals with such hateful words." I feel that this is not exactly fair. The con side has effectively made the claim that any protest must involve hateful words, probably with the Westboro Baptist Church in mind. I dispute this assertion; protests need not be offensive. Although the con side did not define the term "protest," I would think that my opponent would be hard-pressed to find a definition of the word that fit his claim. i have more arguments but I will save them for the later rounds, as I'm not sure I was even supposed to make them here.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

If you were my brother and there was someone else to pick on, I'd pick on them. int he mean time I'd pick on you. Killing you would be stupid as I'd have you as a loyal brother by my side in times of need to help me pass out family genes on. This is, indeed Darwinism. It is how monopolies turn into cartels, how a 'thug' turns into a 'gangster' and how a nerd becomes one of the geeks. It is about the need to fight in groups that is inevitably increasing one's chances in surviving this round *meaning generation) of natural selection. Bullying needs to hurt losers, it helps them toughen up. I am a living example of a bullied kid who grew up to be as awesome as I am now. It toughens you up, that's what life is all about. I hated it, yes, but now I'm immensely tougher than I ever before it. Never give up, never back down and you will eventually find that you can survive. It is people who think they can't win that consistently prove themselves right. All I'm doing is toughening you up so you're more debate-hardy for your next debate and therefore you represent the demographic that DDO wants to present itself as having rather than the lousy type you once were. I'm your obstacle to survival, you're the naturally selected weed that's about to be plucked. You can either grow some roots and backbone and try to stand your ground or die like the rest of your kind. The choice is yours, it was always a choice and it was always possible for you to win. I have no unfair advantage over you, we both have the same facilities to debate, I do not have any more chance of winning than you do by any handicaps whatsoever. You are suffering form paranoia, and that's going to ruin you unless you get psychiatric help so that you are cured in time to survive this round of natural selection.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

One thing I forgot to point out in the last round is this: Your logic was faulty in point concerning older siblings and infants. You originally said that Darwinism teaches that you should beat me up in order to assert your dominance over me (something you've clearly done). So in order for you to be consistent in your argument, you should admit that it would be moral for older siblings to do the same to their infant sister. As for the alleged evidence you offered to claim Darwinism claims to be moral, I would assert you have misread it. In that article, Darwin says that animals don't have a "moral sense", and yet, certainly you would agree that animals engage in survival of the fittest. Finally, just because you haven't violated the terms of this debate doesn't mean you haven't cheated. Dictionary.com has as one of its definitions of cheating as attempting to "gain an unfair advantage". Certainly noob sniping is done to "gain an unfair advantage". This is defined as cheating, and is therefore immoral.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

In this debate, I have not violated a single ToS of DDO, thus I am not cheating: http://www.debate.org... Darwinism states that we evolved 'morality' as a result of natural selection and that, despite this, natural selection will inevitably be required for our species to prosper and survive. [http://www1.umn.edu...] You have full burden of proof in this debate and have not met it. You have to prove why me being a better debater than you confirms that (resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis. You have not remotely begun to do so.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

Your answer about social Darwinism existing does not refute my claim that Darwinism makes no claim concerning morality. I challenge you to show me anywhere where Darwin made the claim that his theory was a moral one. The existence of Darwinism does not even entertain the question "is it moral?" You are mistaken to say that the fact that I accepted the debate means I have a chance of winning. It's possible that I only accepted your challenge so that I could eventually get enough debates under my belt so that I could vote on debates in the future. You chose to debate a noob like me because you knew that I would have no chance of winning. Everyone can clearly see that you have thoroughly beat me. This debate was fixed so that you were guaranteed victory. That is cheating, which is immoral.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

"Darwinism makes no claim of morality"False; social Darwinism exists. (http://global.britannica.com...) You have the burden fo proof to disprove the validity of it, not to deny its very existence."Based on your logic older siblings should beat up their infant sister until she is able to defend herself or she dies."Not necessarily at all. I would encourage them to play fight eith one another but never go as far as to kill one another. Instead, I'd encourage them to gang up on only children in the neighbourhood to ensure that their family's genes become the most gene to pass on."I retract the word "hopelessly" and go simply with "we are mismatched"."This is now rendered moot and irrelevant to the debate. It's a matter of subjective opinion."I retract the word "virtually" and go simply with "I have no chance of winning"."False; if you had no chance of winning, you wouldn't hav eposted that round of debate and instead woudl have forfeited it."You are clearly superior to me when it comes to debates."This has no moral implication whatsoever."Therefore, debating a noob like me is clearly immoral."Based on what single piece of evidence?
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

Darwinism makes no claim of morality, so I am confused as to why you would inject it into our discussion. Based on your logic older siblings should beat up their infant sister until she is able to defend herself or she dies. I retract the word "hopelessly" and go simply with "we are mismatched". I retract the word "virtually" and go simply with "I have no chance of winning". You are clearly superior to me when it comes to debates. Therefore, debating a noob like me is clearly immoral.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

According to Darwinism, it would only be right of me to pick on, and bully, you into submission as many times as I please ot ensure my dominance over you remains absolute until you either adapt to the environment and surpass me as the new alpha male or inevitably die off for not having ht desirable traits of a DDO debater. Additionally, even if Darwinism were rendered as an invalid basis for morality, your actual claim itself is false. Hope is an emotion derived in your brain. It is your fault that you are hopeless and it's certainly not mine. You state that you have 'virtually' no chance of winning. That indicates that a chance of you winning exists. Thus, I do not see any moral violation of this debate's occurrence.
(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

Resolution sniping: Attacking a debate's resolution as the contender in order to leave the opponent defenseless and render their intended arguments within he resolution's framework futile. Noob sniping: Intentionally preying on newer members of the site as debating partners knowing that it will be easier to win and thus improve one's win-loss ratio. The definition of immoral is open to discussion and will not be concrete as that would ruin the entire purpose of having this debate. This must be purely based on the general concept, not on the hypocrisy of the debate instigator. Good luck to my opponent. I have set the character limit to 4k for the sake of briefness as this debate could go on far longer than it needs to if the character limit were the typical 8k. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Round one is the opening case, not simply acceptance. Failure to do this will result in a 7-point forfeit.
Animal testing

Animal testing is not alway about drugs there are also unnecessary animal testing when they test cosmetics on the animal. For example according to Peta there are experiment around the world where they test makeup such as mascara on bunnies, Mascara has many chemicals in it that irritates the eyes of the bunnies in the experiment causing the eye to redden and even make the bunnies completely blind. Also when it comes to drug testing 92% later fail human trials. in other words 9 out of 10 drugs do NOT pass the FDA. Furthermore animals have many differences to us for example the animals that are mostly used in experiment are rats mice birds dogs and cats. Did you know that the pill Tylenol actually can kill cats while it helps humans every day and is used daily. Many scientist say that we will go back to the "dark days" if we do not use animals. However this is not entirely true there is new technology we can use instead of animals. For example we have the technology to actually create human tissue animals don"t have to be used consistently in experiments at all but scientist don"t always seem to realize that and just continue to use animals in experiments that can be painful.
Animal testing

Animal testing has also led to substantial medical benefits to animals. "Over 80 medicines originally developed for humans are now used to treat pets, farm animals and wildlife, including anesthetics, tranquilizers and painkillers" (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). Treatment for parasites; prevention of heart worm; vaccines for rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, tetanus, parvo virus and infectious hepatitis; anthrax skin grafts for wounds, and surgery for traumatic injuries are just a few benefits that would not be available to animals without animal testing. It is undeniably true that a large number of medical advances could never have been made without research performed on live animals. These advances include treatments for anthrax, rabies, rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, whooping cough and leprosy; the prevention of polio, diphtheria, measles, tetanus and rubella; the discovery of insulin and Rh factor; the development of antibiotics, anticoagulants, modern anaesthesia and open heart surgery; advances in organ transplantation; and the sequencing of the human genome (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). For instance, studies involving the use of "approximately 9,000 monkeys, 150 chimpanzees and 133 human volunteers ... were necessary to solve many problems before an oral polio-virus vaccine could become a reality", according to its developer, Dr. Sabin (cited by Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). Animal research also lays the foundation for treatment of other diseases. While it is true that HIV causes AIDS only in human beings, it is also true that "we would be in absolute, utter darkness in AIDS if we hadn't done decades of basic research into animal retroviruses" (C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General, cited by Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). Additionally, medicines taken by AIDS patients would not have been developed without animal testing (cited by Americans for Medical Progress, 2002). Arguably, human mortality rates would be much higher if animal research had never taken place. Smallpox and other epidemics would continue to kill large numbers of people worldwide; tens of millions would die prematurely death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure due to lack of medication to control their high blood pressure; most people with insulin-dependent diabetes would die; children with acute lymphocytic leukemia would die in the absence of chemotherapy (Americans for Medical Progress, 2002)
Animal testing

I accept. Animals may not have the capability to have judgment but it does not mean that they do not feel like any human does. You state that if we gave animals rights "all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed" just because you are to give a animal a right it does not mean that you have to stop hunting and cutting out a main source of food it just means animals should have some rights and not just be seen that you can do whatever you want to them and treat them like dirt.
The U.S. should invade Iran.

The real "idiot" here is Kim Jon Un. He has OPENLY declared he WILL strike against the U.S. The military is supposed to protect Americans, not Oil interests. I truly believe that it is wrong and sick for American men to risk their lives for oil when there are plenty of alternative energy sources in the world that for some reason, America refuses to turn to. Iran is more powerful than you think. I have no doubt we would win that war, but to be honest with you, I'd rather not spend trillions of dollars again fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought just to protect the interests of small interest groups. That is not what the U.S. Military was supposed to be for. It was supposed to be used to protect America when need be, and to protect lives, not interests. If Iran has openly said they would attack us, then yes I agree we should invade before they can let off a nuclear device. But really? Have we invaded North Korea yet? No. I just don't understand it. I don't want Good American men and women dying to protect a black liquid that powers my car, ESPECIALLY when I don't need it and there are plenty of alternatives. It's madness. And Kim Jon Un is HELL BENT on proving himself to the world by any means. Do you really think that he cares if he wins or not in the war? No he just wants to cause problems because that's what children like him do. But Iran? They haven't threatened us one time yet, we have no evidence that they are even planning on weaponizing their nuclear program, so why is it that we should invade them? It will be another Iraq war all over again, except instead of a q, there will be an n. Only difference at all.
The U.S. should invade Iran.

Yes we should invade Iran. We should protect oil interests as well as defend against nuclear strike. North Korea may be able to but I believe North Korea is not dumb enough to nuke America because it knows that we will blow them up. Iran is not that smart. Iran would attack us and not care what we do to them. We should invade them to control them. Then we invade Korea but that is beside the point. I am not willing to risk being nuked by the idiot in Iran.
The U.S. should invade Iran.

To put it simply, it seems odd that North Korea has been openly and directly threatening to send a nuclear device our way, and we have been discussing almost NONE at all compared to how much the government is pushing for tensions in Iran. Personally I think this is just a way for the government to try and invade Iran to protect oil interests. I believe the nuclear program in Iran is really being used as an energy source to become energy independent. If there was actual evidence of Iran trying to weaponize nuclear devices, I would be for more of an offensive stance against Iran. But the evidence just doesn't show that.
The U.S. should invade Iran.

First, I would like to agree with you. 1. We should invade North Korea 2. We should find an alternative energy source. Now, onto my part of the debate 1. First, the US needs money to develop alternative energy programs. Without the oil from the middle east because Iran is blocking it off, America would fall into extreme economic collapse. 2. Iran may not have directly threatened us, but it has threatened our ally, Israel. We have an obligation to protect them. If they start bombing Israel, they might as well be bombing us. 3. We do not know if Iran is weaponizing their nuclear energy. But, I would not put it past them and neither does the US government, and I am not willing to risk waking up to a nuke flying into my backyard, from Iran or Korea. Invade them and end them both. Do not even put a troop on the ground in Iran, it is desert, just carpet bomb it and kill everyone. Korea should definitely be dealt with more carefully, but still be dealt with.