BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal

I would like to split this last argument into two parts. The first will be factual reasons for why pot shouldn't be legalized and the second will be my personal opinion as to why marijuana shouldn't be legal. According to the CNBC article : . http://www.cnbc.com... "Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in the U. S. " So clearly the gateway theory does apply. .. And to refute your point of marijuana use decreasing if we legalize pot "If the U. S. were to legalize marijuana, the number of marijuana users would increase. Today there are 15.2 million current marijuana users in comparison to 129 million alcohol users and 70.9 million tobacco users. Though the number of marijuana users might not quickly climb to the current numbers for alcohol and tobacco, if marijuana was legalized, the increase in users would be both large and rapid with subsequent increases in addiction. " Even though marijuana isn't as addictive as crack/cocaine/heroine it still creates a sense of dependence. Also, let's not forget about car accidents: "Drug-impaired driving will also increase if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is already a significant causal factor in highway crashes, injuries and deaths. In a recent national roadside survey of weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL (2.2 percent). " Here is my moral reasoning for why we should not legalize pot: *please note: I feel the same way about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs however this debate is solely focusing on marijuana Marijuana creates a distraction from the problems that people have in their lives. It's another escape route that people can use in order to avoid fixing their problems. I understand experimentation. Everyone's curious. But, if your were really happy with your life you wouldn't need to turn to marijuana. If we legalize marijuana which is already abused, we as a society are saying that this is an OK escape. Let's look at alcohol. Most people start drinking for fun but others do it because they don't like something about themselves/what's going on in their lives. Most people become addicted because they don't want to face their problems. I've never tried weed and don't plan on it. I've never had alcohol before. I'm happy with who I am and we should encourage others to be happy with themselves and to not turn to addictive substances.
Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal

The message will be that even though we don't want you to do something stupid, we'll allow you to do so.I"ll give you an exapmle from the bible, even though I am an atheist, and this is not a religious discussion, I think it will help you to understand my point: "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn't he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders. ell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. " - Luke 15.4 -15.7Now, let's fill this in. Even though we don't want anyone to use marijuana, alcohol, or any harmful substance. We let them do it, we let them live their own life. And when they quit, we will be happy. Why? Because the goverment shouldn't have the right to forbid things that are bad for you. If they had, they would have the right to forbid every team sport, for many people get hurt.And by the way, when alcohol was legalized, use of it declined. Amsterdam didn't get destroyed by pot. And in Portugal after decriminalizing marijuana, drug use declined!Last but not least, you seem to be believing that we can somehow ban marijuana. The truth is, we can not. Pot is there. But if we legalzie it, we can make regulation laws, we can check the quality of the shops that sell it, and we can require licences for people to start a shop (compare: The drug laws and the coffeeshops in Holland).http://www.albany.edu...; http://www.spiegel.de...
Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal

Sorry it took me so long to post this. I'm going to take a little bit of a different spin on this argument. It is true that tobacco and alcohol are just as bad as marijuana and yet they are legal. However, if we legalize marijuana what kind of message are we sending as a society? That's its ok to do all of those things? Tobacco, alcohol, weed, everything should be illegal. Addictive substances hinder progress. If weed was made illegal people would just want to sit in their houses and smoke pot all day instead of going to work.
Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal

Ok phew as Con I have a lot to argue against. Let's get rolling. #1) Using Using marijuana can increase your risks of getting cancer. While research is still being done as to what the exact effects marijuana can have on the body current research suggests that marijuana has similar effects of tobacco. Tobacco leads to lung cancer. Why would you want to increase your chances of getting lung cancer? http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... Also, many are aware of the fact that marijuana is a "Gateway" drug which can lead to the use of many other much more addictive drugs such as Crack/ Cocaine, Heroine , etc. No bueno. #2) Growing So as crazy as it sounds growing marijuana is actually bad for the environment. You learn something knew every day right? It has something to do with the fact that its grown inside according to this article "the nation's indoor marijuana crop has the same annual carbon footprint as 3 million cars." Ew.... The article goes on to explain how this might push the government to legalize pot so it can be grown outside however that would probably just increase crime rate (people would probably start trespassing into people's backyards in attempt to get free pot.) http://blogs.laweekly.com... #3) Selling So, I know this argument isn't supposed to go into too much detail in terms of constitutions and stuff but in most States its still illegal to sell pot so why even risk it ? Ask yourself this question: do you really wanted to be arrested? Here are some other questions to ask yourself about selling and you'll soon find that it simply ain't worth it. http://dahustla2.tripod.com... Also, going back to pot being the "gateway drug" its sort of the same for selling. Start selling weed first and it can lead to selling other drugs which leads to addiction/ getting you into WAY more trouble. #4) Possessing So, its kind of hard to get into this one without bringing up the constitution. Since weed is still illegal in many places it does create a reason to arrest someone. Violent acts of resistance have been linked to people who posses pot. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Round 2!!!
Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal

Greetings! So, as you can see, this debate will be about the legalization of marijuana. Pro will argue that it should be legal, con will argue that it should be illegal. The rules: - The debate will not be about the US, the UK, Belgium or any other particular country. So please don't quote your constitution. - First round is for acceptance. - No new arguments in the last round The definitions (according to the Oxford dictionary): Use= take or consume (an amount) from a limited supply Sell=give or hand over (something) in exchange for money Grow = cause (plants) to germinate and develop Possess = have as belonging to one; own Marijuana = cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettes: Should = used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone"s actions Be= having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified Legal= permitted by law I 'm looking forward to the debate.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning

What do you mean? So are you supporting e-learning or class learning? For me class learning is far more fun than e-learning. You can call me old-fashion or traditional minded but i feel class learning we can communicate better and way more focus than doing it online, because during e-learning we can also watch youtube, chat with other or even facebooking. Class learning we can ask questions and get immediate answer from tutor and also know their reaction it is more real and interesting.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning

Before we need a real society learning environment, why dont we make the students have more self-confidence and responsible. Those shyness students that already lack of social skills and confident and you even make them quickly mix around with people and share information. Why dont you make them feel more comfortable and confident to themselves first. Successfully completing online or computer-based courses build self-knowledge and self-confidence and encourages students to take responsibility for their learning. And we can still communication flexibility by joining the discussions in the bulletin board threaded discussion areas at any hour, or visit with classmates and instructors remotely in chat rooms and even Skype, if you need face to face communication. They will be more interaction among students and instructors than in large lecture courses.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning

Yes but they will lack of social skills, like talking to people face to face, mixed around with different type of people and share informations with each other with manners and politeness. E-learning is convenient but there is lack of real society learning. For example how to communicate with people, as the real world have many different kind of people with different characters, in class-learning we will have to work with different kind of people and learn how to collaborate or cooperate with them. That will prepare us for the real world and the working society out there.
Dogs are better than cats

I will start by addressing my opponent's argument. My opponent states that the quotes I provided could be easily changed to favor cats. While that might seem like a valid argument, it is merely just a what if situation. These cat statements never actually happened, while the statements said about dogs are completely true. My opponent challenges the credibility and realness of these statements. I can tell you from personal experience that each of these statements are true. Your dog is like your family member and you feel very attached to it. My adversary says that dogs are in a lower social position than cats, and cats don't work because they are royal. I disagree with this statement. Where is the source for all this information? What is the proof? Dogs work to contribute to the society, unlike cats who sit around thinking they are higher than other people. They are not compassionate enough to actually help someone. The reason we get pets are to have companions, who assist us and make us feel valued and happy. We do not get pets to be their servants and constantly take care of them. My opponent's first contention says there are more cats owned than dogs in the U.S. The Washington Post says, "Here in the U.S., slightly more households own dogs than own cats. But numbers show that in terms of raw population, cats outnumber dogs to the tune of 2 million (the number is closer to 4 million, by the American Veterinary Medical Association's estimate). Why? One simple explanation is that cats are more compact. You can fit more cats in a house than you can, say, golden retrievers." This means that though more cats are owned, the dogs are more in demand. My opponent's 2nd contention states that cats have more personal hygiene. Cats spend so much time grooming themselves because they are self involved and have nothing better to do. Dogs, on the other hand, like to have some fun in their lives. They might jump in mud puddles, but they are definitely not spending their lives strictly staying in line. Dogs convince people to be fun loving and not spend their lives being plain boring. Also, Whiskas is a biased source. They are a cat food producer, of course they favor cats. Cats are the ones using their products. Contention 3 Dogs are more loving. Today, the news channel on NBC, says "They have more personality. They are loyal," he said. "Cats are all about cats but dogs are interested in pleasing their owners. Cats don't care if they please you or not." Dogs try to read your emotions and help you and make you feel happy in anyway they can. Another example of a dogs love is when you come home. A dog will be so happy when you come home from work or school, because a few hours with out you is an eternity without their best friend for the dog. Cats will only love you when you are giving them food.
Dogs are better than cats

My first contention is that dogs keep you healthy. Laughter is the best medicine. A study done by the Animals and Society Institute states that dog owners laugh significantly more than cat owners. In fact, people without any pets laugh more than cat owners. This suggests that cats can drag you down. Dogs also encourage you to exercise more. Dogs need walks, which causes the owner to walk with them. A study by the National Institute of Health states that out of the people people they surveyed, who were all elderly people over 70, most of them said they go on about 3 walks a day. The people with large backyards said to walk about 100 min. per day. People without backyards said the walked about 140 min. per day. These people also said some meaningful things about their dogs. For example: "My dog notices if I'm doing well or not. I talk to him; there is always someone in the apartment, and I'm not alone." "He watches over me; he gives me a purpose." "I have to go outside with him and exercise: this is also good for me." "When I'm outside with my dog, I always meet new people and chat with them." "My dog means everything to me - even more than my relatives do." "I wouldn't want to be without my dog!" Dogs obviously keep people's mental and physical health intact. My second contention is that dogs are life saving. Dogs are recognized for their amazing noses, which can be used to find bombs, missing persons, and criminals. Dogs are four-legged life saviors. That's why we have police dogs, not cats. According to National Geographic, seizure-alert dogs can save a human from having a seizure without any medical help. The dog will get the person's attention by performing some attention grabbing actions such as whining, pawing, or anxious barking anywhere between 15 to 12 hours before the attack. The dogs can be trained to stay by the person's side or even dial 911 on a phone. Try training your cat to speed dial.
.9 repeated is equal to 1.

I would like to offer my understanding for Pro's case, but remember that this is a debate. Keep in mind it certainly helps an argument if one side were to bring much more evidence than their opponent to help insure victory in the debate. Now you did mention that you were a beginner, but I would like to remind you that even beginners to the website can be excellent debaters on their first debate, as there is no way I could have known if you were an experienced debater or not. (Then again, it also depends on your definition of 'experienced') As a side note: (It may have helped if Pro spent more time on his responses, and try to extend his arguments a bit further. )
.9 repeated is equal to 1.

Thank you. .3 repeated is a third. Please prove that it is not. Without any logical fallacies. 1-.9 is not .01. That would equal a number larger than 1. I don't have to round, this reasoning is only true once you have proven that .9 is not 1. Otherwise, this argument is completely null due to the fact that it is based upon a false piece of logic.
.9 repeated is equal to 1.

Thanks for the response Pro. I shall first dissect your responses, and then show some of my own as support for my view in respect to my position taken on this topic. You say, ".9 is equal to 1 because .3 (repeated) is mathematically equal to a third. therefore 3 (repeated) times .3 is three thirds, and also .9." .3 (repeated) isn't actually equal to one third or a third. It is the closest number that can reach one third, and it even becomes ever more increasingly accurate to reaching one third, with the more 3's it has, but it will technically never reach it. The reason for this is the fact that you can't simply show a third using only decimals. The same applies to showing two thirds with decimals or three thirds. You mention, "Also, one cannot identify a space between .9 and 1, as there is no number that comes between them, therefore they are the same." This argument is incorrect due to one simple reason. 1-.9 repeated equals, 0.01 repeated. Another reason is that one can't simply round .9 to equal 1, since rounding is antithesis and isn't correct anyways. .9 can only equal 1 if it is rounded. And since rounding isn't accurate, that can't be a reason since you specifically stated that it is EQUAL to the number "1". Thank you.
.9 repeated is equal to 1.

I agree with Pro's clarification that we shall call .9 repeated, simply .9 as for the sake of the argument. I shall argue as Con, and support the notion that .9 isn't equal to 1. I await Pro's argument(s) following the conclusion of this round, since it was specifically clarified that the debate will start in the second round. Over to you Pro. (This is also only my 6th debate)
Windows Os is better than Mac Os

Many of the anti-virus software a for windows come with a price. Yes, many are free, but the good ones come with a price. Take Norton for example, their anti-virus is 55$/yr. When the anti-Virus comes with the OS it is free. Also, since Mac OS can only be on Apple certified computers, all of the computers with Mac OS have great specs. In conclusion, Mac OS is better because of the better security and the fact that all the computer specs do not vary as much as computers with windows OS.
Windows Os is better than Mac Os

Though true, built in isn't always better. For some people, finding your own protection is the way to go because: 1) You don't have to pick a computer based on it's anti-virus software 2) When you pick a software, you also have the choice to remove it and/or replace it, wheras if the software come pre-installed, you might no be allowed to romove and/or replace it 3) If you get your own protection, the computer's price drops because the software is not included, making it more affordable Another windows advantage would be that you can put the OS on almost any computer, unlike apple. This allows DIYers to make their own computers, which can be chaper and more customisable allowing them to get the most out of thier computer. In conclution, I truly belive that Windows is better than Mac for many reasons apart from the few that i named in this debate. So, I gave my best and hope that you vote for me, along with the many other Windows preferers. Thank you for reading my side :) .
Windows Os is better than Mac Os

Even if you say that Mac OS X Mavericks is overprotected, overprotected is better than not. Apple also has a great feature called Sandbox in there OS X Mavericks computers. This feature blocks applications from accessing data there not supposed to. Also, Mac OS X Mavericks also has Firewall and a virus scanner for every file downloaded from the Internet. With iCloud, you can locate your Mac OS X Mavericks computer, remote wipe it, put a message on the screen so the person who found it will know where to return it to and set a passcode lock remotely. If the Mac computer is offline, you can chose to get an email when it returns to the Internet.
Windows Os is better than Mac Os

As useful as that may be, Mac Os computers have too strong of security sometimes. Mostly, if the publisher of a program is unknown, it will become difficult to use the program, even if you trust it. [There is also the Microsoft security essentials, which include the following features in the newest version including: "Windows Firewall integration. You can turn Windows Firewall on or off using Microsoft Security Essentials. "Network inspection system. This feature enhances real-time protection by inspecting network traffic to help block exploitation of known network-based vulnerabilities. "New and improved protection engine. The updated engine offers enhanced detection and cleanup capabilities with better performance.](1) (1) http://windows.microsoft.com...
The Vikings should not be celebrated

OK, here's the thing. The Vikings were merciless without compassion. There are things about them that make them worse than the Normans, Nazis or Romans. The pattern in which English colonists pretty much stole most of North America was similar to that of the Vikings. You can say being that the English themselves are the very Vikings that stole and displaced the Native Americans (and I've checked on Houseofnames.com [which is agood site, by the way], and some of the English surnames were actually found first in Saxony, giving evidence to possible Anglo-Saxon blood in the English; Tupper is a good example]). "The Vikings showed no special respect for Christian churches and monasteries. In fact, those were generally their first targets, since the Church owned so much of the wealth in Western Europe at the time." (http://www.flowofhistory.com...). Catholics were viciously persecuted by the Vikings. Whom does that sound like some 1100 years later, after the 800s? Let's see. Oh yes, the Ku Klux Klan, who during their time as rulers of America, lynched, raided and killed people at random who disagreed with them. Plus, can we really name any good thing that the Vikings even contributed? They, not the Catholic Church, are to blame for the Middle Ages if you ask me. After, many of the cultures of the Mediterranean did many great things, such as the Romans. And the Renaissance, a time of thought, came from a Catholic country. However in the places where the Vikings viciously conquered, they pretty much went downhill from there. "Viking society was extremely unequal. Slavery was a fundamental contributor to the wealth of the upper class. Vikings participated actively in the lucrative slave trade abroad. The slaves had no rights and were owned like cattle." http://www.youtube.com... "It is no wonder that the Vikings have a reputation for mindless savagery. Since the Vikings were unable to write, much of their history was recorded by British and French clergy"the very people who fell victim to the Viking raids." Mind you, while much of the history was recorded by the French and British, it's because they were the very victims of the Viking raids. Shame on them for doing such horrible things. To me that's worse than Hitler, because all the things the Vikings did have had a lasting legacy. I wouldn't be suprised if there's a Scot or French person who harbors hatred towards the Vikings for what they did to them 1000s and 1000s of years ago. The legacy of the Vikings is completely negative, almost. No it should not be celebrated