BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plans to introduce car-sharing lanes on motorways should be abandoned.

Hello Wierdkp326, thanks for taking up the debate! You are right - I did miss some beneficiaries of MOL's off my list. You wrote: "Groups of college guys trying to pick up the cute housewives…(and)…Hippies in volkswagons driving to their next rave " Sorry, I forgot about sex-starved students pursuing married women and partying Goths in their arse-engined Nazi staff cars! You also mentioned "Contractors carrying the illegal immigrants they found at home depot to their next construction job" Isn't Home Depot great? You can get everything there. My local branch in Florida sells loads of cool stuff, even garden tractors! I had no idea, however, that they could provide a migrant worker to drive it for you as well! Still, I'm not convinced their interests outweigh those of the sufferers. You went on to write: "Your grandmother, who is too old to drive but doesnt want to fork over her license. She goes on a 65MPH highway (I dont know the conversion to Kilometers, my apologies) and drives 40MPH, wasting my time and everyone else's by backing up a lane of traffic." At the risk of sounding pedantic, although the rest of Europe uses kph, the UK uses mph like the US. Oh, and the speed limit is 70mph! (Rule of thumb conversion, by the way, is 8 km = 5 miles so the old biddy driving at 40 mph will be doing about 65kph). You make a very good point, though. There are too many coffin-dodgers crawling along the highways, peering out of the bi-focal windscreens of their Honda Civics, totally oblivious of the mayhem they are causing behind them. Luckily however, the adverse effects of these perambulating pensioners' protracted progress is mitigated by them having to drive in the slow lane thus allowing normal traffic to get past relatively unhindered. "Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. [Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9 & 16(1)(a), MT(S)R regs 4, 8 & 14(1)(a), and RTA 1988, sects 35 & 186, as amended by TMA 2004 sect 6]" - Excerpt from The Highway Code Imagine though, that you got stuck behind one of these dawldling old duffers and the lane to the right (remember you overtake on the right in the UK) is a MOL. That's it, you would just have to sit there and watch all the cars full of housewife-stalking students and sandal-wearing peace freaks whizz by. You continued: "The guy with a midlife crisis who bought a car too young… should be driving slower so people can see how desperate he has become and mock him for it." Is this advice? If I was having a mid-life crisis I think I should ignore it! To conclude you wrote: "…people driving alone suck. All…of them need to…get a friend!" Wierdkp326, there are some people on debate.org whose only friends are online debaters with convoluted monikers and wacky avatars. Are they to be punished for being lonely by being forced to trundle along the motorways behind old crones in motorised bath chairs? Do you think they are going to vote for you now that you've insulted them like that?!
Plans to introduce car-sharing lanes on motorways should be abandoned.

oh brian, you must understand that MOL's are wonderful tools! Your list was a little light on who benefits from these wonderful MOL's, so allow me to add to it. *Groups of college guys trying to pick up the cute housewives *Hippies in volkswagons driving to their next rave *Jack Bauer and whoever he has kidnapped in the upcoming season of 24 *The grey bomb squad vans trying to stop jihadi bombers *Contractors carrying the illegal immigrants they found at home depot to their next construction job *The detectives in every cop movie you'll ever see *Families on a vacation Without these MOL's, crime will take longer to both start AND stop, and hippies will spend an extra 5 minutes on the road before parking their butts on someone's couch! Let's talk about who really suffers from the MOL's *Your grandmother, who is too old to drive but doesnt want to fork over her license. She goes on a 65MPH highway (I dont know the conversion to Kilometers, my apologies) and drives 40MPH, wasting my time and everyone else's by backing up a lane of traffic. *The guy with a midlife crisis who bought a car too young for his age and has a new haircut to show. He should be driving slower so people can see how desperate he has become and mock him for it. In the end, the choice is clear, people driving alone suck. All they do is take up precious square footage on the road and create potential accidents. We live in a society that needs to move faster, and with more people getting together and carpooling, everything get's better. The doctor, the businessman, the grieving family, all of them need to learn to either leave earlier, or get a friend!
Plans to introduce car-sharing lanes on motorways should be abandoned.

Plans are afoot in Britain to introduce dedicated lanes on motorways (freeways) that would be for the sole use of vehicles conveying more than one person, known in the US, where they already exist, as Multi-Occupancy Lanes (MOL's). Here is a list of people who would benefit from MOL's. * Housewives sharing a car to drive to an out-of-town shopping centre to kill some time browsing around the shops * Mega-toffs, ultra-orthodox snobs and other particularly posh people travelling in chauffeur-driven limousines * Blow-up doll salesmen with inflated product samples in the passenger seat * Cells of Jihadi suicide bombers on their way to commit terrorist atrocities * Pimps transporting their cargos of prostitutes * Gangsters with their molls * Snakeheads people-trafficking illegal migrant workers * Paedophiles driving abducted children to secluded locations * Colleagues sharing a car to go to work Here is a list of people that would suffer from MOL's * Business people on their way to important meetings that could secure valuable jobs * Doctors on their way to non-emergency appointments * People visiting dying relatives * Radio and television presenters running late for live shows I would suggest that the latter group of road users are at least equally deserving as the former and therefore the proposed priority lanes on motorways are ill conceived.
Plans to introduce car-sharing lanes on motorways should be abandoned.

Thank you, Brian, for informing me about that. I didn't know UK used MPH. Very cool. I sort of attributed driving on the wrong side of the road (From an American's perspective) and KPH as kind of a universal standard in Europe (including UK). Yeah, it's not uncommon for migrant workers to get day labor outside of our big box retailers, maybe it's an America thing. Also, in CT, the highways have tighter lanes and more turns, so the speed limit is only 65MPH for highways, in other states, there are better roads that often have about 70MPH for a speed limit, particularly out west. I digress. In the end, the choice seems pretty clear. Forget the environmental benefits to creating carpooling incentives, let's go straight for the practical. More people travel the same roads faster. less worrying that when new lanes will be built, or the traffic caused as a result of it, simply a change in function. This change encourages people to do what is inherently a good thing, carpool. In time, I'm sure you and I will be able to encounter new groups of drivers that we love or hate who will enjoy these carpooling lanes, but this is simply a sign of the government making changes that improve nearly everyone's lives. For those who drive alone, their days are numbered as more and more lanes demand multiple passengers. If this is what it takes to encourage people to get friends, then an MOL is just what this society needs. We need to encourage a society with people communicating frequently and wanted to stick together. MOL's create a sense of cohesion (the kind that can only be separated when someone leaves the car, or farts with the windows rolled up). As for your assertion that many debate.org viewers don't have friends, I think that our fellow readers would be offended at your gesture that they are lonely. If they feel like they are being "forced" to make friends, then I shall gladly be one to them. But don't vote for me just because you want to be my friend, that's creepy. Vote for whoever you believe is truly being compelling (me), and I shall respect your choice...and be your friend!
does US government lie about marijuana

your'e talking about marijuana. But your describeing heroin and alcohol. there still in reality or they wouldint be able to operate. and there still able to recall what they did and feel good about their choses. get your'e facts right. the government says it has no medical use horse crap. scientist in universitys all over(nongovernment controled) Are saying marijuana can solve almost every sickness.http://norml.org... the reason marijuana is illegal because it poses a threat to the illuminati who secretly run this country(i ask if do your own research) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr7FJohm68o. part of what they control is media, transportation companies, oil. Anyone can agree tv is a powerful socological tool its what you see and hear.http://www.blacklistednews.com.... you can make whole vehicles out of hemp. and it can be used to make cleaner oil. it offers peace thats not killing us for cheaper compared to what there offering that kills us. legal drugs can kill us easier and make us retarded, and still make feel good. hemp doesn't kill anyone make you feel more open, like if you walk into class high you feel like you got it know all that your told before a test. they got perfect reason to lie to us to achieve new world order. and aim going to stop because i don't want to die.
does US government lie about marijuana

What do you mean by open while on it? Yes they just let it go while on their 'high' moment but it is proven that their problems get worse. Wouldnt you like to forgive someone when your mind is sane and sober than when you're fake happy? They're just overlapping their reality problems with even more. And no it is not a myth, it was tested and proven as if you have read it says a long-term study. I got it from a website called National Institute on Drug Abuse where they find real facts about the effects of drugs. What do you mean by drugs have to be man-made? All the resources come from nature. And only depends on how a person uses it. Momentary happiness means 'feeling good for a while'. You only repeated what I said. But being 'high' means sooner or later they're bound to crash back to the painful side of reality. This is why people get addicted as they dont want to accept or face their problems. They go into chain-smoking which is is also Drug Abuse. Marijuana contains THC which is a psychoactive chemical. It is a drug that has effects on the brain. It overactivates the brain and for a moment a person can maybe be smarter but it will affect the memory and thinking on the long run. This is permanent damage for life. If you want to argue if alcohol is worse than drugs, I say they equally should be avoided. You say smoker but are you even referring to the people who smoke Marijuana? or the normal cigarette? I think it all depends on how much a person assimilated the substance. For example a person who drank 2 bottles of strong liquor can be more affected than a person who inhaled Marijuana once. Thus causing more accidents.
does US government lie about marijuana

i said almost all the chemicals people know THC is not in the body. your perception is not changed your more open while on it. interesting fact THC has been proven to protect brain cells and reduce alcohol induced brain damage. most things you can be on still lets you see things realistically and logically (except alcohol). anybody that been around anyone that smokes weed you can tell that what ever problems they have they just let it go and, forgive who ever there angry at. ask them for a dollar they'll give it to you and say buy something nice. i don't recognize what your talking about emotional possessive angry (sounds like booze). IQ dropped 8 points is a myth are you supposed to record these peoples iq before they have smoked. have them illegally smoke weed then record there iq again. I also like how you put a government lied facts link when this debate is about the government lying to us. anyone that's smart enough can argue weed is not a drug because its a plant that grows, and drugs have to be man made (like heroin meth booze). i personally think anything can be counted as a drug even newspaper because if you light it it will have effects. it does int give you a momentary happiness it makes you feel good for awhile otherwise whats the point. again it does not kill brain cells THC proven to help protect brain. if it could kill brain cells people can overdose and die. don't bother with the monkey video that monkey was int given oxygen and that killed its brain cells when given pure weed. http://www.youtube.com... that youtube video proves drunks are only good for looking sober and stoners are smarter the government controls the media so there going to keep putting things up showing smokers are loosers. but remember the tv is not real. in reality celebrity's smoke and therapist do and some of the smartest scientist in real life (i ask if you do your own research) even presidents have. the government still says its more dangerous to operate anything stoned and put up fake results from fake test in reality driving stoned dosint make you drive sloppy like a drunk real studys put on by people show smokers drive safer and get into less accidents then when someones drunk.
does US government lie about marijuana

There are tons of chemicals inside us but there is no proof that chemicals in smoking already exists in our bodies? THC only looks similar to a chemical in our brain but our body does not make THC. \ Yes there are some drugs that make our brains more 'powerful' but that is just for a moment. And perceiving the world differently means you dont see things in a realistical sense nor a logical way. You start to become emotional or possessive or very angry and you start losing control of your own feelings. Yes it's not a myth because it's true, you do lose focus and concentration. It says here, "in New Zealand showed that people who began smoking marijuana heavily in their teens lost an average of 8 points in IQ between age 13 and age 38." So Marijuana, a drug, obviously does have an effect on the minds of young adults. And by having low tolerance for first time user's, are you actually implying that they must take in even more to attain a higher tolerance for a drug? Would you really like to live a life full of momentary happiness? Everything should be taken in moderation and the rest shouold let the nature do its course. And what are you talking about? The brain is responsible for all our Nervous System. Anything going wrong there, can kill us and ultimately itself at the end. It's just a cycle of self-distruction. Marijuana is a drug. It is an illicit drug. And shouold only be used for recreational purposes.[1] http://www.drugabuse.gov...
does US government lie about marijuana

what i meant was no matter how much you smoke. almost all the chemicals in marijuana can be found naturally in your body/brain. So in a sense your becoming smarter brain power on brain. So you do perceive the world differently lets you notice things easier. Its not a complete myth you loose concentration when stoned. first time users are always caught up in the moment of there thinking because they don't have a great tolerance. but after a few times people smoke to concentrate easier, like in math class because math is easier to understand when high. Nobody gets addicted to marijuana it has no withdraws. the government can say its highly addictive because,in the last decade most arrest were simply for possession of marijuana. And are given a chose to go to rehab or jail witch would you choose, and say its addictive. thats more than the population of a couple of states combined. again does not kill brain cells if it did people would be able to die off it. like i said earlier the chemicals in marijuana are found in the brain. can your brain kill itself.
does US government lie about marijuana

Marijuana is not called hallucinogenic because it makes people see other imaginary people XD It's called hallucinogenic because it alters your mind and ways of perceiving things. So it can cause people to hallucinate as another side-effect. And what do you mean by 'nomatter how heavy the user it does not effect iq.'? Are you talking about the weight of a person? or the heaviness of a drug? Either way, it might not affect IQ directly but it can cause the person to do things that lowers their intelligence capacity like losing focus and concentration. How are the natives related to this? I say if cavemen smoked tobacco let them. Yes it led to further advancements because people use it and it developed over time as all things develop when used commonly. I'd like to believe that everyone is dying. You are dying right now and I am too. It's just that some people live longer than others before they die. People smoke to relieve stress and 'let it out' so yeah they do it to want to feel good. But for the same reason, people use drugs. For example, Cocaine or Ecstasy, they as drugs serve as a form of 'escape' from reality to people. Drug isnt bad. It just depends on how someone uses it, like drug abuse and misuse.
does US government lie about marijuana

well no marijuana is not a halucegenic. nobody see's imagineary people when smokeing weed. ive found studys showing that nomatter how heavy the user it does not effect iq. when columbus came to america the native were stil in a caveman state smoking tabacco. in europe and asia weve ben smokeing hemp and thats what led to rope paper and futher advancements in math/ science. and being peacefull because there dieing doesint make sence. people usually smoke because there dieing and whant to feel good.
does US government lie about marijuana

Marijuana is a hallucinogenic drug. It is a type of drug. All drugs cause a physical and psychological effect on a person which is why they are illegal. So yes, it may kill brain cells resulting to a person to have low concentration and focus and leading them to fail in academics (lowering IQ). And yes the brain is able to secrete chemicals causing the 'high' effects of a drug since it affects the sensory and perception part of the brain. But the reason why Marijuana seems to be an exception is because people are considering the benefits of Marijuana (such as being able to cure cancer). However, if Marijuana does become legal, it would mean many other 'normal' people (who dont have cancer let's say) would have access to the drug that they dont need. There are also more ways than one in which a person can take in Marijuana. For example, literally making brownies (then it becomes even more potent) out of the resin, or smoking, or through 'bong'. This is definitely going to kill you because it is not prescribed by the professionals and no one really knows how strong it can be in comparison to the 'legal' Marijuana where doctors have full control of the drug through pills and injections.Everyone 'seems' peaceful but they're actually dying inside. It's the drug that is giving them the side effect of temporary happiness :) (which is why people get addicted).If you're ever thinking of trying drugs, dont. Because after the side effect, they say that the feeling of crashing back to reality is excruciatingly painful. P.S. is this a debate? or a discussion?
does US government lie about marijuana

recently i found out no one has ever died on marijuana, and in the 1930's we were told its the most cancerous causing substance .but we use it to fight cancer today. i also learned it can help secrete chemicals in the brain. then were also told it kills brain cells and lowers iq. but if it did we would die from it, and everyone i know that does smoke seems very insightful creative also good with puzzles. and in the 40's or 50's propaganda in shows makes us have a murderous crave and causes violence. but then every one seems peaceful. and does int alcohol cause rape violence and ignorance. i hope to be proved wrong in some way iam not seeing. and hope my government is not retarded
Atheism is not a religion

"You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason." Bill Maher "The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god." Matt Dillahunty http://www.youtube.com... - New Rule: Atheism is not a religion! Unbaptizes Mitt Romney's Dead Father-In-Law! http://www.youtube.com... - Reasons for accepting atheism http://www.youtube.com... - Atheism a religion? Prove that atheism is a religion. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Fact: 2+2=4

This is all under the assumption that "a" and "b" are equal, which they clearly cannot be as they are different variables. x cannot equal y, they are different variables. Each variable denotes a specific number. Why then would there be "a" and "b"? Why not just "a" as there is no difference between "a" and "b"? This is like saying 4 = 5, clearly incorrect.
Fact: 2+2=4

Let a & b each be equal to 1. Since a ^ b are equal, b^2 = ab ...(eq.1) Since a equals itself, it is obvious that a^2 = a^2 ...(eq.2) Subtract equation 1 from equation 2. This yeilds (a^2) - (b^2) = (a^2)-ab ...(eq. 3) We can factor both sides of the equation; (a^2)-ab equals a(a-b). Likewise, (a^2)-(b^2) equals (a + b)(a - b) (Nothing fishy is going on here. Ths statement is perfectly true. Plug in numbers and see for yourself!) Substituting into the equation 3 , we get (a+b)(a-b) = a (a-b) ...(eq.5) So far, so good. Now divide both sides of the equation by (a-b) and we get a + b = a ...(eq.5) b = 0 ...(eq.6) But we set b to 1 at the very beginning of this proof, so this means that 1 = 0 ...(eq.7) ...Anyways, getting that far gives us the jist of the proof, later in the proof, Charles Seife goes on to prove that Winston Churchill was a carrot! if you want to know how that is possible, I recommend you read the book. From equation 7, add a number to either side and get it equal to any other number, one greater than itself. Multiplying equation 7 after adding to it, and one can get: any number is equal to any other number. Therefore 2+2 is 5.
There is a god

I look forward to discussing this with you. It should be worth noting that whilst I have taken the 'Con' side of this debate, I do in fact, on a religious level, believe in God. However. believing in God and proving God's existence are two very different things. To convince an agnostic or atheist of God's existence requires hard evidence. People who are driven by facts and logic will look to scientific explanations of observed phenomena and such observations are possible on a great many things that would at one point have been explained as 'God did it'. It was once believed in ancient Greek societies that thunder and lightening were the result of Zeus and the patheon of Greek Gods, when in fact now we know what drives weather patterns. Whilst what you say is true- a house cannot appear on it's own- a house is the result of construction, by human beings, not the result of an other-worldly or higher power. The universe's beginning is one of the greatest mysteries of our time, but the fact it is unexplained now does not mean it never will be. It would be logical to assume 'God did it', as quite simply, we have no data one way or the other, and no other direct evidence God exists.
There is a god

Most people who tend to believe god does not exist usually think they are just simply logical people. If you truly do believe in logic then let me ask you this i god did not exist who created the universe. Even if the big bang is proven true something must have triggered it to happen. A house cannot appear on its own nor does car or even a book. Alot of people say its "the force of nature" really seriously is that just basically another term for god. IF you people truly are logical please explain how having a god is much more logical then believing everything exist magically.