BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Marijuana should be legal.

This has other effects as well as responses. Marijuana has effects also on the mood of the personm who takes it. The side effects cause the incapability of the person to judge correctly, incredible mood swings (Take PMS mood swings and multiply by ten), and irrational anger. The effects also hit the heart much harder than traditional pain killers. Marijuana, unlike Vicodin and other opiates, is like a massive bomb drop from WW2 era on the brain. It effects nearly all parts of the body. These extensive studies you have also show that marijuana users are 4 times more likely to develop cardio-pulmonary health problems, including, but not limited to: Heart attack, pulmonary or cardio-pulmonary edema, cancer around the heart and veins leading to the lungs. In addition to this, marijuana causes a drop in the production of T-cells, which are the first line of defense in the body's immune system. This leads to increased risk of infection. Infections can lead to numerous problems, which need not be listed here. If someone wants to kill themselves with marijuana, they can go ahead, but don't put the blood of marijuana users on the doctor's hands. The FDA is strict enough that if 10% of people who use a drug develop life-threatening complications from a drug, they will not let it out on the market. Edemas on the heart and lungs pass as life-threatening complications, as they increase in pressure and basically crush the vital organs. As to your responses. A. I simply said they contain 60-70% more carcinogens that tobacco, not that it was more likely to cause cancer. However, if a guy makes a habit of shoving cancer into his body, the chances are that he will get cancer. B. I didn't note this in my profile, but I am diagnosed with Chronic Migranosis and deal with pain all day, every day. I have had oxycotton (and it's cousin, oxycodone) for pain, as well as topomax, Maxalt, and I don't know what else to deal with the pain. I know my abilities, but I am not eager to have a drug I have seen kill people let out legal on the streets. You might as well put Sudafed back on the counter if you make marijuana legal. Bottom line, it is hypocritical to limit the use of a safe and useful drug like Sudafed and yet legalize the use of an unsafe drug when there are safer drugs that are more effective available by prescription. If you have a pain problem, go get a pain killer, not a complication-ridden, more addictive than vicodin dose of marijuana.
Medical Marijuana should be legal.

"A. Marijuana contains 60-70% more carcinogens than tobacco has. It increases the risk of cancer in people drastically"- dthmstr254 Ok first i would like to point out that there is countless studies that prove tobacco more cancer causing than marijuana. but i would also like you to be more specific. Are you trying to say that marijuana is more likely to give you foot cancer or lung cancer? On another note, medical marijuana does not have to be smoked which ultimately takes away any "risks" with lungs. "B. Marijuana is a known hallucinogen. It causes people to believe that they are actually in a different situation. However, unlike some drugs that can cause hallucinations (such as Kedamine, which is used in chronic pain sufferers to induce a coma, essentially rebooting the brain to relieve the pain), Marijuana's medical use is on an outpatient basis. Despite the warnings that show up for the FDA, people use the drug while driving or doing other things in life. This would mean that people are hallucinating while driving a car. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have a second go at avoiding a person w ho slams on reverse on a 40 MPH road (it turned out he was high on, guess what. .. Marijuana). " -dthmstr254 These claims are rare and eroneous. Yes marijuana is a hallucinogen, but thats exactly why some people use it for chronic pain. As an example: Vicodin, Oxycotten, Hydrocodone, and Percoset are all legal drugs used to reduce pain. These also to an extent are bad to drive with. People drive under the influence of them as well also ignoring the FDA. These people are just as likely to "slam on reverse on a 40 MPH road". So you are saying that medical marijuana should stay illegal because theres a chance someone will get behind the wheel when they cant handle it? If that is the case we should most certainly ban all prescription pain-killers. I obviously dont believe that but i think i got my point across. I would like to review my main points before i close up: A. Any cancer causing effects can be avoided because you dont have to smoke marijuana as it can be vaporized, eaten or simpily taken in a pill. B. The "risks" of safe driving is equal to or even less than that of a prescription pain-killer. Im awaiting your rebuttle with eager. Websites to refer to: . http://www.freerepublic.com... . http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Medical Marijuana should be legal.

Ok, here are my reasons: A. Marijuana contains 60-70% more carcinogens than tobacco has. It increases the risk of cancer in people drastically. B. Marijuana is a known hallucinogen. It causes people to believe that they are actually in a different situation. However, unlike some drugs that can cause hallucinations (such as Kedamine, which is used in chronic pain sufferers to induce a coma, essentially rebooting the brain to relieve the pain), Marijuana's medical use is on an outpatient basis. Despite the warnings that show up for the FDA, people use the drug while driving or doing other things in life. This would mean that people are hallucinating while driving a car. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have a second go at avoiding a person who slams on reverse on a 40 MPH road (it turned out he was high on, guess what... Marijuana). There are other reasons, but I want this to be concise, since I am moving at the time.
The Bible contradicts itself.

I've noticed that my counterpart hasn't managed to bring up a "Contradiction" yet that I couldn't deal with. He doesn't realize that the little list at the bottom of his post makes him sound like a tattle tale and a whiner. My counterparts idea of a contradiction is confusing. If he means any discrepancy whatsoever but he realizes that the Bible is indeed an historical document then his whole criticism is entirely academic. If he means any discrepancy whatsoever invalidates the entire document then he's being willfully ignorant about it. I accept discrepancies as normal to real historical documents. What's important is the central point. I guess you guys can decide this one. One thing I do know; is that many of these so called contradictions can be either cleared up or at least understood by careful reading. Why is it that my counterpart and the atheists he got allot of his information from are unwilling to do that? Is it that the Bible is contradictory? Or is it that they simply don't want to be held accountable to the God who it teaches us about. I'm sorry I didn't provide links. I could have for the Hebrew words in the first post. I'm not sure I would have needed to anywhere else. Of course I didn't follow my counterparts definition because it was a pathetic and transparent attempt to trap me. Go back and read what I said to my counterpart and see if any of it can really be called "Bashing" someone. If not, then I think you should vote against him for the misconduct section because he tried to get you to falsely to that to me.
The Bible contradicts itself.

"We believe that God inspires the message in a human being and superintends it. But he allows the uniqueness of the person and their historical time and setting to be reflected in the document."I really don't get how that is supposed to help your argument in any way. Even if God allows them to write in in unique ways, it is still a contradiction. It doesn't matter. The Bible may or may not be the word of the Lord, but it doesn't matter. As I said earlier, a contradiction is a contradiction. " I saw Gene at 2 and I the other says I saw him at 1 is not error, it's a part of being human." You have missed the whole point of what I have been saying. I completely understand that humans make errors in writing. I just don't get how the heck it crosses out the definition of contradiction. I showed you the definition of contradiction earlier. The statement you just made above is actually a contradiction, based on the definition. And we follow definitions in debates, not opinions."It's silly, nit picky, and no reasonable and intelligent person would set such a standard."Okay, you have no right to bash me like that. A contradiction can be microscopic or big. Maybe I'm not intelligent by your standards, but don't you dare judge me before you know me. I call a personal hit on that one. "A contradiction is a problem if it renders the main point of the passage half or greatly obscured by said contradiction."I set the 'contradiction' definition, and you obviously have not read it. Also, I have pointed out those big ones that follow your rules. You are focusing on the small ones that I have mentioned, but not the big ones. Did you know that there are actually 60,000 contradictions in the Bible? [1]. But I actually have been focusing on the big ones. " The main point is Gene isn't home right now. He left by his own choice."I'm going to show you ONE. LAST. TIME. This is the definition of contradiction:Contradiction: a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.Where does it EVER say how big it has to be or if it is the main idea?! Seriously, you are starting to irritate me at this point. That goes for every single point you made that it says "does nothing to lessen the passage" or "not the main point." It doesn't have to be."When Jacob says he saw the face of God he was stating his personal impression, not necessarily what he really saw."The wording begs to differ. Also, how do you know? Were you there when the Bible was written? Maybe at once, he actually did see the face of God. We can't truthfully know, so it stays a contradiction due to its wording."FINALLY, DON'T ARGUE BY LINK. IT'S REALLY BAD MANNERS TO TELL SOMEONE TO CLICK A LINK AND DEAL WITH WHAT EVER IS THERE."It's bad manners to make someone read in all caps. I don't see what's wrong with giving you a link. Countless people have done that here. Why should I be any different?I would like to point out that:My opponent bashed meHe didn't include any linksDidn't follow the definition.Thank you for reading![1] http://www.patheos.com...
The Bible contradicts itself.

I'd like to start out by setting few guidelines that will be helpful. I assume that Pro means that the contradictions are meaningful. That they render the text meaningless. I must point out that the Bible is not a philosophical document. It is not a series of syllogisms. It is an historical document. When a police officer takes witness statements to an accident; the witnesses will almost certainly diverge from one another. One might say they saw a green car and another might say they saw a blue car. But which car hit which first is something they will probably agree on. The secondary details, in this case color, isn't really important. No court in the world would exclude their testimony as contradictory because of this divergence. As a matter of fact, if they had perfect agreement on every detail they would likely be accused of being coached by one of the attorneys. What is important is agreement on the primary details. This is the focus for the historian. The Bible should be allowed to use figurative language and round numbers just like any other document. The Bible should be given the same benefit of the doubt that any historical document would be given. Now, as for Genesis. First, I do not interpret Genesis as a literal account of the creation of heaven and earth. I subscribe more or less to what's called a Framework hypothesis. One way of looking at this issue that my counterpart has brought up, even from a more literal view is that we can straiten out allot of problems by just reading it carefully. Notice: The first creation account mentions crawling things and fish. The second telling leaves them out all together. This may be because it is referring specifically to animals Adam will interact with. Beings like pets and agricultural animals. The references to plants isn't so much the issue as to where they are growing. In the first account it says Earth which in Hebrew is erets. But in the second account the word is sadeh which means field. Adam was set in charge of caring for the Garden of Eden not the whole of earth. God may have simply recreated the plants and animals in the Garden. The reference to Adam and Eve together in the first and separate in the second is explained because the first was making a general statement about humanity the second was making a detailed description of the creation of man and woman. Jesus statement about "The Father and I are One" is a reference to His essence. Jesus is God. When He says the Father is greater than I He is talking about His own willful submission to the Father. The issue about 500,000 and 470,000 is something you see even today in modern history books. One historian rounds up and the other historian is precise. Neither is inaccurate nor would we accuse them of contradicting each other. Unbelievers in the Bible refuse to grant it the same latitude they grant any other historical document or even a daily newspaper. I would like my counterpart to rewrite his last part I'm not sure what to make of it.
The Bible contradicts itself.

http://www.youtube.com...Pleasure to be debating with you.Please note that I can't use arguments like "God doesn't exist" (He does) and you can't use "God exists."I will name specific contradictions right now. Later on, I will provide rebuttals only (maybe a few more contradictions) in hopes that you will do the same. No more rules, it's debating time! :)Contradiction: A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. [5]That is the definition that we will be following. If there are two ideas (and one can't be true if the other is true) than I have posted a contradiction.Argument 1: [1]Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came afterr Adam.As we all know, one of the same can not come both before and after. There are also three others that mimic this: Adam and Eve were made at the same time (1:26)Adam was created first, Eve was created later (2:7 and 2:21-22)I looked further into this contradiction. I have found more contradictions of the order of creations during chapter one and two, such as plants [2]. It states that humans came before plants, while another reader says that the plants wore in a 'dormant' state. Why would someone write something that awkward? Instead of to say, "plants came before man."Argument 2: [3] JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.This is another Bible contradiction. One can not be the same and lesser at the same time. Jesus is either equal or lesser than, but the Bible does not state which one he really is. It just contradicts itself.Argument 3: [4]Samuel 24:9: Five hundred thousand men fighting in Judah.Chronicles 21:5: Four hundred and seventy thousand men fighting in Judah.This is not the only numbers contradiction. Perhaps we should view a more well-known one with a 300,000 person difference:1,100,000 men found fighting in Israel.800,000 men found fighting in Israel. Both are found in the same parts as the top ones (Samuel 24:9, Chronicles 21:5.)This time, Samuel 24:9 states that there were less people fighting in Israel, but states that there were more people fighting in Judah.Those are three contradictions in the bible. Out of a ton. To show you just how many, here you go:http://www.patheos.com...Go to the part where it shows the graph. Each one of those curvy red lines is a Bible contradiction, a big one a big contradiction and a small one a small contradiction.I will post some more Bible contradictions in the later rounds. [1] http://www.thethinkingatheist.com... [2] http://errancy.org...[3] http://www.infidels.org...[4] http://sunnahonline.com...[5] https://www.google.com...
Teenagers and voting

thank you Con, On the subject of the unintentional injuries of teens you cite 51.67% as the percentage of teens who die of unintentional injuries, you consider these to be avoidable injuries that result from negligence. I will regard this as fact for the sake of the argument, but bear in mind the fact that adults consist of people ages 18-65 lets say, and teenagers only account for 13-18 years of age,this would cause a very vast percentile difference. Con further questions why I choose the age of 15 instead of 14, or even right out of the wombs, the reason for this is simple, most teenagers enter high school at this age, where they are taught civics and American/world history. these classes help develop the teens openness to government function and help them understand the importance of there vote, something you say they lack. Con often talks about actions and there consequences, he often relates them in a regard that suggests one side of the vote is wrong and the other is right, this would be completely up to the individual voter to determine what he thought was right or wrong, there often is no right or wrong choice when it comes to a vote As this is the last round I thank Con for his arguments, and leave the voters(some who are teens) to deciding who won
Teenagers and voting

First off, I hope to remedy the confusion over the issue of the teen deaths. Pro states that the number one cause of teen deaths is car accidents. While this is true according to my citation, car accidents happen to fall under the larger category of unintentional injury, which includes the following: Drowning, Falling, Burning, Asphyxiation, Firearm, and others. (1) I make the casual assumption that these injuries could have been avoided, ergo, they were caused by behavior that was risky. However, to further prove my case, I offer hard evidence. As I have already proved, teenagers are less responsible than adults. (2) They also have trouble understanding and comprehending consequences to their actions. Now, the percentage of teenagers who die of unintentional injury each year is 51.67%. (1) The number of adults who die of unintentional injury annually is 5.8%, in males. (3) Unless Pro can prove otherwise, I believe that it is safe to assume that the variable that caused this change between teens and adults is amount of mental development. While I agree with Pro that a teen does not automatically develop on his eighteenth birthday, the majority of teens will have developed by this age. (2) Like Pro has suggested, some teens have already developed emotionally and socially, and have astute political analysis skills that some adults may lack. However, because the majority of teens will have not developed until adulthood, we can not allow them to vote. A fifteen year old simply does not have the ability to rationalize the consequences to their actions. How is it in the best interests of the country to allow a new demographic to vote who can not comprehend cause and effect? If Pro wishes to allow someone to vote even if they can not understand what the power of the vote truly is, I challenge him to answer why those under 15 shouldn't be able to vote? Why the age 15? Why not 14 year olds? Or 7 year olds? Or those fresh out of their mothers wombs? (1) http://www.statisticstop10.com... (2) http://www.pbs.org... (3) http://www.statisticstop10.com...
Teenagers and voting

I do not wish to argue with this statement as it is a well known medical fact, what I will contend with is the results of letting this demographic vote. Con says teenagers are prone to "risky" behavior and points out that the leading cause of teen death is "risky" behavior, this is not true, the leading cause of teen death is vehicle crashes, and if driving a car is "risky" behavior then adults are just as guilty as teenagers. He also stated that heart disease was the leading cause of death in adults, this is unfortunately true although im uncertain as to how a person dies has any determination on there cognitive ability to vote, are we to say AID's victims are less responsible then heart disease patients because they had unprotected sex with the wrong partner, something I would consider "risky" or "emotionally immature" behavior. Con has also stated that teenagers are prone to "imprinting" from there parents and peer group, this is true, but then again most decisions anyone makes are heavily influenced by there upbringing(parents) and what other people think(peer group) regardless of age. Are we really saying that a 16 and 17 year old is just a mindless cog of the group but an 18 year old is free from this bias? .. .. I do not believe so. And finally con has stated that the intellectual free thinking teens who have the the want and ability to vote properly are in the minority, should we say that just because we are a minority we don't deserve the right, just because the majority will use it negligently? . once again I say the answer is no, we wouldn't think of doing that to any other group in society, so why should we do it to teenagers
Teenagers and voting

While Pro is correct in saying there are teenagers under the legal voting age that behave in a manner that shows emotional and social maturity, and engage in activities that illustrate their good citizenship and political competence, that does not necessarily mean they should be given voting rights. Pro states that teenagers are "socially" adults, and are mature as adults. While there are exceptions, this is not necessarily true. Assuming that a teenager is a person between the ages of 13-18, Pro's argument is invalid. Teenagers have not finished developing socially or mentally, and their brains are not finished growing either. (1)(2)(3)(4) Because of this, teenagers tend to engage in what is described as "risky" or "emotionally immature" behavior.(2)(4) This explains why the number one cause of death in teens is accidental death caused by engaging in risky behavior, compared to the number one cause of adult deaths, heart disease. (5)(6) Teens also have trouble understanding and comprehending the consequences of their actions due to brain function. Is it ethical to allow a new demographic of socially and emotional retarded persons to vote? Can we really let those who biologically have trouble understanding cause and effect change our nation? Teenagers are also still prone to imprinting, from both their parents and their peers. (2)(7)(8) As it turns out, teenagers political ideologies have strong correlations with those they associate with, such as their peers or their parents. (7)(8)(4) However, in adults, these correlations are far weaker. (7)(8) This means that teenagers who are freethinkers and can decide for themselves if a law matches the moral compass or is in their best interest are in the minority, as opposed to adults, who tend to be more independent in their politics. Can we truly allow those who force their ideologies to match those of who they socialize with to vote? While I agree with Pro in the respect that education should not determine who gets to vote, and that mentally disabled adults are less suitable to be voters than teenagers, it does not justify that allowing teenagers to vote would lead to mob behavior and a mass of votes based solely on what others believe, and not what is their best interest at heart. Simply put, teens are at a biological disadvantage. Once that is overcome in adulthood, voting rights should be restored. (1) http://www.jstor.org... (2) http://www.questia.com... (3) http://www.jstor.org... (4) http://www.pbs.org... (5) http://www.statisticstop10.com... (6) http://www.statisticstop10.com... (7) http://www.jstor.org... (8) http://www.jstor.org...