BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking marijuana is not a sin.

Sorry I made a grave mistake about the three hours time. Look Marijuana causes no health effects or issues. It reduces anxiety, lowers blood pressure, helps heart rate problems over time. Marijuana also helps fight cancer, glaucoma, and several other diseases like casual colds or spinal issues. You say lets look at the mental aspect of marijuana. It is said it kills brain cells this also false. With Reagan and Nancy just say no campaign they did exclusive studies on chimps. Strapping masks on them and pumping not ounces but pounds of pot smoke into them. You cannot train an animal to smoke a J or like any way humans do so they lacked oxygen and died resulting in loss of brain cells via air supply stoppage. In many religions including christian sects marijuana is used in daily life to cope with stress and also communicate or get closer to our lord and savior. Rastas do the same for the same reasons. Marijuana is the oldest medicine and now I get to the part about pot and God. God created every herb that yields seed and saw that it was good. He does say for food but if he knew that people would smoke it to get high he would of never created it. Also eating marijuana is more potent and actually can damage your stomach and kidneys because it is so potent and hard to digest. So marijuana is safer to smoke then what God says to us to do it with. You talk of temple but marijuana is not like any other drug. Other drugs cause dependence and create physical withdraws. Also other man made drugs cause long term health problems. Tobacco doesn't yield seed just letting you know. There is also drawing of Jesus relating back to the 2nd century A.D. depicting him holding a brown object to his mouth in the forest where he was captured. The word underneath him translate into cannabis. Also cannabis is used in Leviticus to show Moses how to make holy anointing oil. Sorry I feel asleep and did not carry through with this properly but thanks. Sources: The Holy Bible Google.com Common Sense and past knowledge
Smoking marijuana is not a sin.

I do understand that if someone is in need of it for medical purposes, it is perfectly alright, but usually that is not the case. Most teens and some adults consume cannabis for their own stimulation. If you were to "get high" you would not be able to think clearly as I have pointed out in my opening statement, so you could easily hurt yourself simply because you cant understand the situation. I am keeping my arguments short for the debates sake.
There Is Probably An Afterlife

My opponent seems to be trying to clear up with me that he is only arguing the probability for it, and that evidence is not really needed to show that it's possible, only to show that it is true. However, with zero evidence to back up any claim, the probability sits at zero. The idea of an afterlife in the sense that most understand is unlikely. The only "afterlife" isn't what we call "afterlife". It's only the return of the energy to the earth. The energy in our body that most associate with a soul goes no where else but in to the soul. However, we are no longer conscious. I find that there are way too many questions left unanswered that makes afterlife remotely possible. For one thing, where is the setting of an afterlife? Is it the place of rest? Is it a universe unseen by any living being? If so, how does one get there? If consciousness and memory aren't always directly related, do memories carry over in to the afterlife? If so, how can they carry over and live on? What's the state that the afterlife member? Is it similar to a ghost, or is it like a living being in another dimension? My opponent's last sentence is actually what I already brought up when I opened up this 4th round. We are "absorbed" back in to the universe. We are decomposed by, well organisms that decompose. We are then put in to the soil, or rather, become a part of the soil. Then, seeds are dropped around us while we are in our soil state. Our energy is then absorbed by the organism that was planted inside of us. When that plant is eaten, or the fruit of the plant is eaten, we are absorbed by the organism that eats us... you get where I'm going with this. So, if our energy is brought back to the earth, the functioning of our brain is gone and have no where to go, where does the after life come in to play? I understand my opponent proposed that it is possible, not necessarily likely. However, there are far too many questions that have been left unanswered to accept that it's possible.
There Is Probably An Afterlife

One thing my opponent said in his opening arguments that stood out to be was having one life is extremely improbable. Having one life does not seem improbable at all, and in fact, we only have been able to obtain evidence that suggests that we only have one life to live, which personally, I am okay with. Another argument my opponent brought up is What makes us conscious is located in the front of the brain, and scientists have explained what conscientiousness is. They have also discovered an "on-off" switch in the region of the brain and have been able to use the on off switch to make someone conscience or not. (http://www.newscientist.com...) I have to ask though, if souls are needed, which I reject as real things, why can we not see or hear when we have been knocked out? If a soul was present, then consciousnesses would not be of the brain, only the soul. I also have to ask if there is an afterlife, life after death, than at what point does the soul go from the human to another life? Many of people have been declared dead only to return to life. Many of these victims also claim they never saw a heaven or a hell and they don't remember consciousness or seeing anything. Many victims also have claim to have seen after life as well, but have been discredited for countless reasons, mainly, lack of supporting evidence. Also, the idea of souls with "out of body" experiences have been debunked many times. Doctors would induce what would cause out of body experiences on to patience. They would place a number on top of high thing in the room and ask the patient to read the number. All failed to do so. The idea of an afterlife lacks evidence. If there is zero evidence for a claim, it is ideal to accept that it is improbable. I won't see it is impossible, but until evidence states otherwise, evidence that has been written and peer reviewed, it is simply unacceptable.
There Is Probably An Afterlife

Con has pointed out that there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of an afterlife. He has also pointed out that although belief in an afterlife may be pleasant, this is not a good reason to believe in it.The resolution I am arguing for is that through reasoning we can determine that the existence of the afterlife is probable. Con seems to take an evidentialist position, that if there is no solid evidence of something then we should not accept its existence.But I argue that we can accept the existence of something by demonstrating it to hold to rational argument, even if we cannot be certain of its truth through evidence. Also, I would argue that for some people, it may be preferable to believe in something that is pleasant if it is possible, and there are rational reasons to believe in it. I think this is the case with the afterlife. While some people might be fine with accepting death, others might find the idea so depressing that they cannot function. They may have no motivation to do anything. Others may be motivated by the idea of death, to live life to the fullest. It is a matter of personal opinion, but to say that no one should believe in the afterlife without evidence, when there might be good logical reasons to believe it, would be unnecessary and insensitive to many people.I extend my arguments from Round 1, and eagerly await Con's rebuttals.[Also, I would like to correct an error I made in Round 1 when I said that 10^2,658,000 is a number so large that the paper required to write it down would not fit in the known universe. This is false, and was a result of making reference to the wrong portion of the cited source, as well as rushing my post.]
There Is Probably An Afterlife

The idea of an afterlife seems very unlikely to me. There is a big lack of evidence for the possibility. Although there are stories of people dying and coming back to life claiming they have seen heaven or hell, there is no reason to accept these stories as true, just like there is no reason to accept alien abduction stories: they have no real backing up. Many of people claim that there is an afterlife because of things like having no afterlife would be horrible: losing all consciousness would be a scary end for everybody. In fact, lots of reasons people claim for afterlife are reasons tied in to why there should be one, not how there could be one. However, a reason for something to be real does not make it so. The idea of an afterlife often relies on souls or spirits, which is where a lot of these arguments for the existence of an afterlife falls apart. There is no evidence supporting that we have souls. People see souls as the things that give us consciousness, but this has no evidence to back it up. Of course, if any of the claims for things had any evidence backing it up, the person who made this discovery would be rewarded by the scientific community. However, no one has been rewarded due to the lack of evidence that would show the existence of what one would be claiming. Scientists are not against the idea or possibility of a god or afterlife, but they have rejected most claims because they lacked the evidence, the trial and error, the experiments, etc. Many claim ghosts exist and that they support the idea of human souls. People claim that evidence for ghosts is that they give off high levels of electromagnetic energy. However, since ghosts haven't been proven to exist, how do we know they give off electromagnetic energy? Ghosts are an idea based around afterlife, so although it may seem like it, I did not stray off the original context of this debate. I have kept my arguments brief as I have nothing to debunk. I have debunked the common arguments, but not my opponents, as this is not the rebuttal round. So I will wait until then to really tackle my opponent's arguments
There Is Probably An Afterlife

IntroductionIn this debate I will be arguing that it is more likely that there is an afterlife, and that the common materialist/physicalist notion that when our brains stop working, we cease to exist, is simply mistaken, convincing though it may be for reasons I will address.Con will take the opposite position: that there is most likely no afterlife.Round 1: Acceptance only. Please do not present any arguments in this round.Round 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: First rebuttalsRound 4: Second rebuttalsRound 5: ConclusionsDefinitionsprobable = most likely; more likely than not; favored by reasonafterlife = continued existence of the mind after physical death. This can include transcendence into another realm or reincarnation.
Homosexuality is not natural

I'm confused on the point you're making here. We went from the subject of homosexuality to throwing in monkeys and evolution. With that being said, the theory of evolution prescribes "survival of the fittest". Due to our continued existence as human beings, I would say it is somewhat insulting to justify certain behaviors based upon the actions of a clearly more primitive species, as we are more highly evolved. Also, to say that we are not as far as removed from our "ancestors"... First of all, I'm assuming you're referring to the Bonobo as ancestors when you say ancestors - If so, this idea is preposterous considering the fact that Bonobos still exist as a species in and of themselves, and we have yet to receive any historical or present data showing humans being born to Bonobos monkeys, much less evolving from them. So I fail to see any ancestoral link to them. Secondly, even if you were right about the ancestoral point, since you're comparing behavior of Bonobo monkeys with that of homosexuals, I'd say this: Given the fact that the homosexual population in the world is notably lower - (3.7% of the population in America alone), I'd say that we're possibly very far removed from our ancestors than you would care to believe.
Homosexuality is not natural

I will argue that genetic diversity explains homosexuality on a spectrum from completely gay to completely straight and all levels of cross over in the middle. This diversity explains bisexual tendencies with a leaning to one or the other gender or a equal balance of both. I am going to focus on evolutionary traits that have been favoured because they are beneficial to group dynamics. Fornication between all members of several species of monkies is evident in nature, this is a form of social bonding and bout maintaining a pecking order. Take for example:(1)The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is non reproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Not only this but there are also numerous other pay offs for the group, certainly enough to provide the protection needed for traits to be sustained by evolution, as Bonobos are very close to humans genetically I will reference (2) traits that maintain homosexual,bisexual & heterosexual traits within the group. The closer the group, the more protected it is and this, as with the Bonobo applies to humans. Or it did until recently in our evolution, now the group is more fragmented and there are no predators and a method of policing society we no longer tolerate this behaviour so much. We are however learning to reason and understand to as to once again integrate people with these genes into there rightful place in society. It should be no surprise that gay people are some of the warmest an most sociable people in society. They, if my theory stands, are genetically predisposed to seek human contact. This would also explain higher rates of sexual partners. Given the high rate of sexual activity within the group it is understandable that genes would be well mixed and this accounts for a spectrum of sexuality with balanced bisexuality in the center and gay/straight at each end. It seems we are possibly not so far removed from our ancestors as we care to believe. (1). http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...(2) . http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Social Welfare Is Immoral

This is not easy to write for me, but Con's last post is so absurd, I don't seem to be able to fathom enough motivation to form any longer response. It is astonishing to me how unwilling Con is in actually thinking through my arguments.Would Con have actually thought through my arguments, we would have moved onto The Social Contract argument a long time ago. Here we are, still discussing in which uncommon ways social welfare could theoretically be provided without taxation by the government, solely because Con is trying so hard to "Win the game" instead of actually considering the moral foundation of what we are talking about.It does not matter if there is some way in which government provided social welfare could not be funded through taxation - ignoring the fact, for a moment, that the government officials would still be payed through taxes.What matters is that the government is a violent institution based on the initiation of force against peaceful individuals. People have never signed a contract to be forced to comply to laws. The government itself is an immoral institution, therefore, government provided social welfare is immoral. That's what this debate is really about.Instead, this debate has gotten lost in detail - and I take partial responsibility for it.If I have to point out that Tariffs are just another way of taxing people because they violate Free Trade and are therefore not voluntary, then there is nothing in it for me. It is an utter waste of time.Therefore, I will yield the last round.
Social Welfare Is Immoral

I will use this to frame the debate rather than introduce arguments. Since the burden of proof is on pro, Con anaysis can'treally begin until we have already seen the Pro analysis. The resolution is framed by Pro as a truth statement, meaning that the topic is a resolution of fact, with the burden of proof resting sqaurely on Pro. Pro's burden is to offer contructive analysis and compelling examples showing us the resolutiois true in all cases. This is a very tall order.The burden of Con is not to show that social welfare is "moral" or morally superior to whatever world view offered by pro, but to btter show that social welfare is not immoral. If Con can show that social welfare is not immoral Con wins. If Pro fails to prove the resolution is true in all cases, Con wins.
Joe Montana is better than Tom Brady

Joe Montana is still the greatest quarterback of the Super Bowl era. Just remember how much we forget. Everybody knows the basics. Montana played in four Super Bowls, won three MVPs and threw 11 TDs with no interceptions. If the Seahawks beat the Patriots, then we"re talking about Brady"s two costly interceptions in Super Bowl XLIX. The Patriots are still the last team to repeat, and Brady was impressive in the playoffs during that two-year stretch (10 TDs, two INTs) from 2003-04. From 1988-89, however, Montana threw 19 TDs and one interception in leading the 49ers to back-to-back Super Bowl championships. It"s the most dominant two-year stretch by a quarterback in postseason history. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, Donovan McNabb and Russell Wilson in his four Super Bowls. Warner is still waiting for his turn to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, and Wilson has a ways to go. Montana beat John Elway and Dan Marino, two guys who are always hitting from the fringe in the greatest quarterback discussion, by a combined score of 93-26 in two Super Bowls.
Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

In this speech, I will be doing a series of counter refutations and then proceeding to summarize this debate. To refute my opponents refutation to first contention, my opponent states how there is no issue with the black market for guns happening. The main problem here however, is that if we ban guns, we will only be taking firearms away from the law abiding citizens of America. The problem is that those who are looking to harm our nation will buy their guns in a black market and commit criminal acts. Those who abide the law will be the only ones to suffer from completely banning guns because they will be the ones who will not be able to defend themselves during a possible attack. She refuted my second contention by stating that gun restricting have never worked in other places. Those include San Bernadino. However, in San Bernadino, guns were banned. There was a flat ban instead of the counterplan that the opposition is supporting. This counterplan however, has worked in so many other nations. That includes Germany, Finland, and France. She refutes my point about the Constitution by saying how Oedipus and patriarchy are much more significant. However, in my speeches I have already shown how these two are not closely related to this topic at all. I have also established how the two issues do not even exist. Dictatorship however, is a possible issue that relates to every US citizen directly. The only way to protest to a dictatorship if we have one, is by allowing people to own guns, but with certain restrctions. Lexus repudiates my last point by saying how just because guns are not a significant cause of death, we should still ban them. She asks, if they are not so significant, why do we consider a counterplan? Because a ban will not solve the issues with gun death overall. On the other hand, proper restrictions and educating the citizens will. To summarize, my opponent has never abrogated by counter plan and cons case was much stronger.
Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

Hello, I hope to have a great debate on this subject. Fair warning, my arguments may be of psychanalytic origins, so I'd suggest reading some introductory Lacanian literature (if you have access, Zizek's book on how to read Lacan is a great one, otherwise you can check out this source: http://web.uvic.ca...).Thank you for the opportunity to talk about something so significant as the right to have a gun, something I heavily criticise in the modern world.
Spanking/Smacking children is more beneficial than harmful.

-Furthermore, it is certainly not beneficial to spank mentally disabled children for doing something wrong because they would likely not be able to comprehend that they are being hurt for doing something wrong. ========================================================================-When a child is hurt for disciplinary reason, it is true that they may start to have more discipline, but also at the cost of being physically hurt. That is why most of the time spanking a child for disciplinary reasons is equally beneficial than it is harmful. To achieve something, there must be a cost that is usually equal to the achievement. If you have a choice as to whether you should work out at the gym or go eat at your favorite fast food franchise, there are equal benefits and costs for both choices. If you choose the gym, your physical fitness is improved, but you lose the pleasure of your favorite food. If you choose the fast food, you get the pleasure of eating your favorite food, but your physical fitness degrades. The child may have learned discipline, but at the cost of having endured physical pain, which balances out the benefit and the harm. -Furthermore, hitting a person, no matter if they are children or not, is a violation of a person's bodily integrity and autonomy, which is arguably a basic human right.========================================================================-Pro has conceded, there is no need to go on.
Spanking/Smacking children is more beneficial than harmful.

Thank you Con, I appreciate your use of semantics to try and win over the debate.Cons resolution: it is either equally beneficial than it is harmful or that it is less beneficial to them than it is harmful.So hence con's usage of the word is, he will have to argue that it is ALWAYS equally harmful, Or is ALWAYS more harmful.According to Con and his usage of the word is, Smacking/Spanking children is NEVER more beneficial, So by presenting an argument in which one case of spanking a child was more beneficial. I have successfully countered Con's resolution. ==================================================================================== Argument #1 - Children learn behavioral correction like dogs. They both chew on things, they both Sh!t in the house, they both squeak, they're both cute. How do we discipline our animals I ask you? We do so by smacking/spanking them and telling them off for what they have done wrong in a deep scary voice. Then we give them a smoochie and tell them it's okay. Doesn't this damage the child though you might ask? No not at all. Let me show you the outcome of the children/dogs who get this specific form of discipline. ================================================================Argument #2 - The Bible Tells us to hit our childrenThe holy bible of our lord god, Jesus christ the savior of all. Tells us the following in Provers 13:24Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.The bible also states that those who follow it go to heaven.I'll ask you something now, what looks more beneficial? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion - Because I have used mans best friend(Dog) and the word of the absolute god(Bible) as two foundations for my argument. It is clear to see that yes. It is always more beneficial to spank your children.Good luck Con, although you don't stand a chance.