BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
4 Ways the Feds are attacking the medical marijuana industry

You will have to read this article to connect the dots to what I'm saying. http://www.alternet.org... This came straight from my blog, http://teejayflow.blogspot.com... The feds are so insolent. How can you even compare Marijuana to heroin, ecstasy, and LSD? 1. That land belongs to the States in which where they are doing it is legal. So stop wasting our tax dollars on gigantic stacks of paperwork just because you have nothing better to do but dedicate yourself to making this economy fail even more. 2. Who cares if it's against the law? It's not the big deal that they make it out to be. Marijuana is not addicting, and if someone becomes addicted to it, it is their lack of willpower to which the addiction is attached, not the plant itself. Or maybe people just like being happy and carefree more than they do dealing with bullcrap, government included. They used to do ads almost ALL the time about cigarettes. If marijuana gets more ads than cigarettes do then I am all for it. Marijuana is healthier and even beneficial whereas cigarettes are cancerous and have more carcinogens than your cars exhaust pipe. The same goes for alcohol, I'd rather someone be addicted to marijuana than to alcohol ANYDAY. 3. Money laundering? No way? REALLY? Of course it's a "high risk area" for money laundering you imbecilic feds. They're medical cannabis retailers and your ignorant and superficial DEA doesn't recognize it for what it is. In pure form, cannabis DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE TO VOUCH FOR AND PROVE THAT AS A FACT. In idiocentric form(feds) it has "no medical value and is highly addictive". If that's the case than why are alcohol and cigarettes legal? Because a lot of the tax money comes from taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. That's why. 4. This one speaks for itself. Do you know how many "criminals" they couldn't prove were "criminals" until they charged them with "tax evasion" and sentenced them to life for it, to cover for the crimes they couldn't prove? A large amount. Moral of the story: The Federal government is a joke and thinks the people of the United States are majoritarily stupid. They aren't stupid, but a lot of them are very ignorant. The government can't even keep its own workers from being corrupt, so why go after citizens when you have your own problems to work out? Your "highly addictive drug with no medicinal value whatsoever" makes people happy with their lives and encourages them to get out and be productive in their life. How about instead of going after the nonexistent number of people who have problems with cannabis, you go after people who have problems with tobacco and alcohol addiction. How many people need to die to "legal" drugs for you to go after them? How many people need to tell you that their lives have benefited from "illegal" drugs for you to understand their hardships they've overcome through something "illegal" has been far more beneficial compared to that of alcoholism or nicotine addiction? It's all about the money you CAN get from things that kill people, and the money you CAN'T get from things that help people.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

I do think other events pertain to this like the JFK assassination so I could include that in an argument. So when LBJ took office you think the first meeting would be about the assassination that took place. I would think he would plan to launch an official investigation on the assassination. JFK didn't want to go to war in Vietnam or Cuba which ticked off a lot of people like the military industrial complex. So when LBJ took over his first actions were to go to war and was Vietnam a major threat to us at the time? No, it's not like if LBJ didn't address Vietnam right away it would result in major danger for our country. You can't compare 9/11 to Vietnam either they are different things and you know I have my doubts about 9/11 too. So then we lied about GoT to get us into the Vietnam War. Then in 2004 the secretary of defense at the time of the incident said it never happened. So how could you even say the incident was legitimate if the secretary of defense said it never happened.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

I ask however that everyone know that we are not debating wether or not JFK was assassinated by the US government/associates and that incident, regardless of wether or not it is true or false, has no impact on wether or not the Gulf of Tonkin (GoT from here on out) was a false flag attack. As long as my opponent accepts this and we both refrain from making any such arguments related to the JFK assassination (or any other conspiracies unrelated to this specific event such as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) in this debate then we are 100% go. However. Since my opponent has already made some comment to this issue I feel inclined to briefly counter what he has already said somewhat. Yes it is true that when LBJ took office one of the first things he started working on was the issue of Vietnam. Regardless of wether or not the whole JFK thing is true or not, at the time LBJ took office Vietnam was one of the nations most important if not THE most important issue the nation currently had. Is it really so surprising that when he took office one of the first things he worked on was the most important issue going on at the time? That would be like saying that had George W. Bush been killed during the September 11th attacks and the first thing Dick Cheney did was have a meeting about 9/11 that there must have been some government conspiracy to kill Bush so that Cheney could rule and invade Iraq. Sounds ridicules right. Could it have simply been a coincidence. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The reader can decide. Anyway good luck to my opponent and let's have a goodn.
Gay Marriage

A few cases of animals having gay intercourse is not a strong argument. If anything the very few times it's been documented only strengthens the argument it is not natural. Far more animals have natural male female intercourse. There is no proof of a gay gene or that people are born that way. Gay propaganda has tried to prove it but it's never happened. You can say that the times are changing as many times as you please but that doesn't make gay lifestyle right. We live in a different time and societies views have changed but God's will has not necessarily changed with it. In fact I would go so far as to say it hasn't.
Gay Marriage

First of all, "unnatural" and "wrong" are not synonyms; they are two different words with different meanings. Over 1000 species have been confirmed in engaging in same-sex sexual intercourse. The bible was written to keep people safe and the human race thriving in that period. For example, the bible banned certain foods because people didn't know how to cook them correctly back then and they caused illness among the people. The mortality rate was so high that people would have many children and often they wouldn't all even survive. So having heterosexuals be together made more sense in saving the human race from dying out. However, I said it before and I'll say it again, times are changing. In fact, in some parts of the world there is the issue of over population. In addition, Pope Francis has even made it possible for homosexuals to be in civil unions, which appears to me as the first step to legalizing gay marriage as the Church grows more modern.
Gay Marriage

Yes God loves all people I will not deny that. Yes God wants all people to come to him. But God is perfectly Holy, always has been, always will be. Biblical text can be twisted and turned to come to many varied conclusions but there are some things it is perfectly clear about. Homosexually is one of those things. Times have changed, society has changed, God has not and will not change. Just because society has become more accepting of gay people does not make it right. There are many instances in the bible where a society comes to God and have lived in harmony with God but it goes in cycles and society always gets too comfortable and begins to turn and move away from God's will. I believe we are in one of those times and there will be a reckoning. But I digress.. God is very clear about the gay lifestyle and I can not be accepting of that lifestyle purely based on what society thinks. I also think it goes against the natural order of life.
Gay Marriage

I am a straight Catholic and I believe that homosexuals should be treated as our equals. Why do you believe that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you? If they wish to be Catholic and get married under that, then why push them away from God when he wants us to bring people together under his Church? These are modern times; things have changed. The bible states that it is okay to beat your slave. If you ask me, slavery and beating is certainly not okay. It also says that women should never preach the word of God. I have had many theology teachers; all female. No one seems to have an issue with that though, so there shouldn't be a problem with being homosexual. The bible not meant to be taken literally. Being homosexual is not unnatural; it was scientifically proven that being gay is not a choice. God does not make mistakes and God says we should be accepting of all people. If a homosexual person wishes to get married in a Catholic church, then who are we to stop them?
April PFD Topic

As my opponent said, in pf, we both hold the burdon of proof. And he is right, although I would consider the first two rounds constructive, and the last round the "final focus" I'll start with my case and then move to my opponents 1: a. even permiting financial incentives, is an encouraging of capatalism b. my impacts are poverty and dehumanization and war c. Capatalism causes poverty, because it is very easy for the rich to get richer in a capatalist society, but to do so, they must push other people down. This causes people to be pushed to the bottom rung and denied needs to justify the free market. financial incentives for anything, capatalize said thing 2: an organ is something that is a part of you and often defines you a. like i said, the current organ donation is a good one in that it does not treat it like it is a market, but then you are basically encouraging people to literally sell their bodies b. but the specific donations people need like your first contention states is that people are looking for hearts, kidneys, lungs etc. c. Why would we encourage financial incentives to dead people. Isn't that just literally throwing money into a hole 3: a. I don't have to make a link I'm asking you a simple question, and through said burdon, it will devolp an argument b. There are statistics of organ black market dealings. You have to do the research to c: people do not want money when they are dead Now onto his case 1: extend my point 3. If he cannot prove that people are willing to donate with financial incentives. He states: "Now if we where to give out financial incentives for donation whether it be from an individual, charity, or hospital; this number would most assuredly go up. The impact here, is that there would not be nearly as many deaths because of something so avoidable."- He still has the burdon of proof that this will solve 2: I never claimed it to be taboo, why can't we encourage it without financial incentives. If point three will be extended across, they will solve equally 3: once again I ask, how willl financial incentive coerxe dead people into buying organs. I await the final focus
April PFD Topic

Alright, let's start off with my case I negate the resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. Contention 1: capatalism Capatalism is the root of all evil. Capatalism is a destructive tool used to justify poverty, war, and the advance in elitism. In fact, all problems in the world can be traced to capatlism. We can link this, because the federal government encouraging the use of financial incentives is the federal government encouraging capatalism. Because we encourage people to donate organs, through money, we are encouraging an ultimatley evil concept. contention 2: Organs are not property Although financial incentives do not necessarily mean that a direct cash exchange will take place, they are still assigned a monetary value in some regard by the use of financial incentives. If everyone accepts that organs are items like anything else that could be bought or sold, then organs and indeed the people who posses them. could be treated like other things of value that we barter. In such a system, it would be logical that creditors might have a say about what happens to your assets. Opening the doorway to financial incentives for organ donation places organs in a new, exchangeable light. Although human gametes are commonly sold, they are to an extent renewable tissue and not vital organs. The uniqueness of vital internal organs demands different ethical standards. Even at that Contention 3: This is less of a contention, but because I wanted to put specific emphasis on this one point. I would like for the pro to prove to me that financial incentives actually are an effective way to encourage donation. If he can prove that financial incentives specifically have helped organ donation. If he cannot, why should they promote it, if there is no way to help. I reserve the right to extend these points as the debate goes on.
There Should Be a Fine if You Are Not Recently Up To Date With Your Vaccines

Bruh vaccines do not cause autism. https://www. Cdc. Gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism. Html https://www. Autismspeaks. Org/what-causes-autism https://www. Webmd. Com/brain/autism/do-vaccines-cause-autism https://www. Healthychildren. Org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Studies-Examine-the-Evidence. Aspx https://www. Publichealth. Org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/ btw if you have an allergen or many in a vaccine, You can ask your doctor to get you a vaccine excluding your allergen(s).
Floyd Mayweather is avoiding a fight with Manny Pacquiao

First I'd like to summarize my opponent's case and my rebuttals to it. There were many contentions made, so I've organized it into three main points: 1. Floyd is asking for testing to avoid fight While certainly his actions are not consistent across fights, there are simply too many variables to adequately determine the reason why Floyd is more aggressively seeking testing in this one. I believe it is for the reasons Floyd says it is, unless Pro can prove otherwise (and he hasn't). 2. Floyd's past actions Floyd has certainly had dubious actions and words. Maybe he's doped before maybe not; Floyd is unpredictable. 3. Floyd using PEDs Neither WADA or the USADA test for xylocaine. Apparently, they aren't concerned it's being used as a PED. So I think this point is irrelevant. But passion aside, this debate really boils down to whether Pro can prove that "Floyd Mayweather is avoiding a fight with Manny Pacquiao"; I contend he hasn't. Sure, Floyd who has certainly done and said many contradictory things. But if Floyd's actions and words are inconsistent then how can we possibly determine what his intentions are. And whether Floyd is avoiding the fight or not really comes down to Floyd's intentions which are ultimately unknowable. I contend if know one knows Floyd's intentions then the resolution cannot be proven.
Floyd Mayweather is avoiding a fight with Manny Pacquiao

A my opponent said; We both do not really know what is on Floyd's mind, so in essence we are both speculating or in my case, extrapolating based on Floyd's past actions. My arguments weren't rebutted by my opponent, he just said it was all speculations. Meanwhile, his whole argument was based on Floyd's words, just because Floyd said so. Yet when I destroyed Floyd's credibility, my opponent did not rebut or challenge it. So, for the voters, it all comes down to words versus actions. Bottom line, Floyd says contradicting things, but does another.
Floyd Mayweather is avoiding a fight with Manny Pacquiao

To clarify, as mentioned by Zuko in the comments, “Con should argue that floyd is NOT avoiding and or ducking a fight with manny pacquiao. ” This will be the position I will take. As per the defined structure in R1, I will make my arguments here and make my rebuttals to Pro’s R2 arguments in R3. I agree with my opponent that neither of us are mind readers and so cannot know what Mayweather’s true intentions are. Either Mayweather wants to fight Manny or he doesn’t. If he does then he is not avoiding the fight. I’d say the following points lead one to believe he wants to fight Manny: 1. As my opponent states, “… two of the reasons Floyd wants RBT to be done in all of his fights is for 1. To have an even playing field, and 2. To clean up the sport. “ Floyd wants a clean fight. Even if Floyd’s past has been colorful there’s nothing wrong with wanting a clean fight even if it seems over the top to others. The fact that he has put such effort into assuring it’s clean leads me to believe that he really does want a fight. 2. Mr. Mayweather says it best himself, “"I don't duck or dodge anyone. This is for the fans. This is for the Pacquiao fans too. Do I want the Pacquiao fight? Absolutely, if that is what the fans want. I want to give the fans what they want, but I have to take it one step at a time. I cannot overlook Victor Ortiz. [2]" 3. Floyd has a no loss record and so has nothing much to worry about from Manny. The bull doesn’t give flies buzzing around his undivided. No, he swats them away. Thank you. I look forward to your reply. Sources:[1] . http://www.boxingnews24.com...[2] . http://www.ballerstatus.com...
Floyd Mayweather is avoiding a fight with Manny Pacquiao

Good day to every one. This is y first time here, so please bear with me. I will try to do best. The debate in question is; that Floyd Mayweather does not want to fight, is avoiding a fight, with Manny Pacquiao. I will argue for this position, while Con will argue that Mayweather is avoiding a fight with/ is ducking Manny Pacquiao. Please keep it interesting, logical and we may stray a bit from the tic but as long as it is somewhat connected or supports our argument then why not. 1st rd is for acceptance, 2nd is for arguments, 3rd rebuttal, 4th rd is conclusions. Hoping for a great debate. Also, as much as possible lets avoid semantics and provide logical or rational arguments. Thanks a lot
Eating cats should be legal

I don't think that eating cats should be legal because cats are used as domesticated animals and not food to eat. Your arguement is exactly like the Yu lin Dog festival in china, where they catch and steals dogs for meat which leads to animal abuse, your arguement relates exactly to that but only with cats not dogs. I have 2 cats and they are the best pets in the world and I would rather die than eat precious cats. cats and other animals should be treated as animals and not food.
Eating cats should be legal

Looking to debate someone who already accepts the legality of eating other forms of meat. Debate format: Round 1- Acceptance and state stances Round 2- Opening arguments (No rebuttals) Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Final rebuttals and conclusions Stance: I believe that the US government should allow the consumption and retail of cat flesh as food. POI 1: I do not believe the federal government should mandate that states allow this but I would argue that all state governments should provide legislation protecting this practice or at least overturn legislation that bars it. POI 2: My last clarification is that by cat I am referring to the species commonly referred to as house cats otherwise known as felis catus. Thank you, I look forward to debating this with someone.
LGBT People Should Have Equal Rights

Pro: "However, I know of the violence and brutality that is happening to people who live in true inequality." Really? Which non-Western country are you from? I was born in Somalia. * Pro: "it is nothing short of blasphemy to deny a gay man the same rights as a straight man." Don't think so. Blasphemy: "an act of cursing or reviling God." www.dictionary.com/browse/blasphemy * Pro: "It is unethical and immoral." Define unethical and immoral. * Pro: "Is your argument against equality?" What equality? They can get married, adopt children, and even get tax breaks as such. What else? Ability to give birth vaginally as a man? Gonna have to wait on science... * Pro: "My argument is if a man has a right all men should have the same right and if a woman has a right all women should have the same right." Which right do the LGBT community lack that heterosexuals have again?
LGBT People Should Have Equal Rights

Right: appropriate, condign, conscientious, deserved, due, equitable, ethical, fitting, good, honest, honorable, justifiable, lawful, legal, legitimate, merited, moral, proper, requisite, righteous, rightful, scrupulous, stand-up, suitable, true, upright, virtuous www.thesaurus.com/browse/right * There is no feasable way to give every person of the LGBT community "equal rights". Example? There is no way to give a "born male" LGBT the right to give vaginal birth to a baby because there is no such available proccess. * There is no way to give a short LGBT person the right to be 7'6" tall because no known proccess exists to fulfill this concept yet. * Pro: "Sexual orientation should have no bearing on a person's rights." Not true. If a "born male" LGBT has the surgery to become female, do they have the right to play female sports? Do they have the right to break women's world records at the Olympics? If they do, why can I not participate? * Does an LGBT person have equal rights with monkeys to climb up a tree like a chimp and swing from branch to branch while eating bananas and throwing poop? No. Only monkeys have those rights. * Does a "born female" LGBT have the right to get someone pregnant penis to vagina? No. It's not possible yet. * If a "born male" who claims to be a female trapped in a male body can go in a female restroom, why can't a straight man? The straight man could lie and declare himself "sexually confused" for whatever motive he might have defying the proccess. That's not equal rights anyways. It's giving the transgender person more rights, giving them rights to either bathroom when one has a longer line, etc. * Rights: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * An LGBT does not have equal rights with law enforcement in enforcement situations unless that individual is a part of law enforcement. An LGBT does not have equal rights with military personel in combat situations unless they themselves are a part of the military. An LGBT does not have equal rights with a teacher in his/or her class to teach the kids unless they themselves are the teacher. An LGBT does not have equal rights with the President to execute Executive orders unless they themselves are the President. An LGBT does not have equal rights with Olympians to run in the Olympics unless they are fast enough to make the team.
The Planned Parenthood sale of Fetal Organs is unethical

My rebuttal to contention 1 and 2 is that regardless of the sale of fetal organs the abortion was going to occur anyways. The sale of fetal organs has no impact on the occurrence of abortions. The only difference is without the sale of the fetal organs the aborted fetuses would not be able to be put to good use. Whether or not the abortion itself is ethical or unethical is a separate debate. I also argue that the sale of fetal organs is not exploitation which is defined as to utilize, to use selfishly for one's own ends. as planned parenthood is not using it selfishly as it a non profit organization and the fetuses go to being used for knowledge and to save lives which may even be a child's life which would protect someone of the future generation.